June 2001 posts

May 2001  

More June 2001

whats special about buffy vampires? -- cee, 17:39:51 06/01/01 Fri

Why don't the vampires in Buffy ever fly, they do everything else according to legend, is it because the Slayer couldn't possibly kill an escapee if he took off?


[> Re: whats special about buffy vampires? -- Andy, 07:10:41 06/02/01 Sat

I think it has more to do with budget limitations. I know the writers have said they want to do flying demons and such, but they just can't afford it.


[> [> Re: whats special about buffy vampires? -- Dark Phoenix, 14:28:17 06/02/01 Sat



[> Re: whats special...a reasonable answer I hope -- Aelith, 16:49:49 06/02/01 Sat

Yes the medium does affect the message. Certain historical conventions about Vampires had to be realigned to make them viable for the special logic that is a television story board.

The Medievil Vampire came to be protrayed as Evil incarnate with overwelming powers who was never entirely defeated. It's another way of saying Death is always with us and some times humans can be seduced into evil by the false promisis of a living death. That's then.

Now. The story board premis is teenager different and strong enough to kill vampires.(plural - no caps) If it was Dracula she was trying to kill each week Buffy and her viewers would get mighty frustrated. But the premis is girl can and DOES kill vampies thus the necessity to create a generic type that can be dusted each week. And then to balance the easy kills there is one or more really powerful villians to supply challenge so that the story can have a focus, crisis, and resolution at the end of the season. With enough left unsolved to supply a thread for the next season. (and boy are we scrounging for that thread this time!) I hope that answeres your question Cee. aelith


[> Re: whats special about buffy vampires? -- purplegrrl, 08:35:47 06/04/01 Mon

Part of the non-flying vampire thing is budget limitations. Part of it is convincing storytelling. Also, Joss picked the parts of the vampire myth that suited the story he wanted to tell - as have other writers before and since.

That said, I believe it was Bram Stoker who first allowed vampires to fly and shape-shift. These abilities were not part of the original vampire folklore. And even then only Dracula could fly and shape-shift (mist, wolf, bat), not the other vampires in the story (Lucy, Dracula's three "brides"). This shape-shifting may have had more to do with Victorian morales than the vampire in legend up to Stoker's time. Much of what we think of as the "traditional vampire" comes from "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. In particular, the whole thing of vampires not being able to see their reflection in a mirror is Stoker's invention. Again, probably pointing up some aspect of the Victorian psyche.

IMO, flying and shape-shifting is just be something that only certain powerful vampires can do. In "Buffy vs. Dracula" we saw him turn into mist to avoid being staked. No other vampire in the Buffyverse has been shown to have that ability. Granted, I think BvsD was Joss's homage to the Dracula myth, so Dracula had to do at least one shape-shift to be in keeping with the legend.

I hope this answers your question and I haven't confused you further.

Musings/Ramblings about Spike -- LadyStarlight, 18:26:03 06/01/01 Fri

A while back, I was cruising one of the many Buffy boards (I think it was ScoopMe.com) and found an article about Spike's behavior towards Buffy. This was right after "Crush", and the author was explaining how horrible his behavior was and how it was another example of the "rape fantasy". (I'm condensing this and working from memory, so I might be slightly wrong).

However, after much (lustful ;)) thought, I realized that Spike was working off of an old, established pattern of behaving with women. After all, he WAS with Dru for 100+ years. Dru (apparantly) liked to be tied up & tortured. Also, she probably would have been flattered by the shrine and the mannequin. Ask anyone who is trying to change their life, patterns are hard to break.

After the barrier spell however, he stopped the "icky" behavior (stalking, breaking into houses); thereby (for me anyways) confirming that on his part, it is love. A true stalker wouldn't have stopped.

Anyways, thanks for listening! No-one else wants to discuss this stuff with me. Sorry if this has been discussed to death already.

ps Is the FX network Fox? Or an American cable station we don't get in Canada? (this refers to possible BTVS syndication)


[> Re: Musings/Ramblings about Spike -- Rufus, 19:46:07 06/01/01 Fri

Another Canadian.....we don't get FX here on the west coast...unless you have satellite. As for Spikes behavior...I wasn't thrilled at the treatment of stalking on the show. It's a serious problem that can be confusing to understand. The clear thing that happened was that Spike stopped and kept his distance until Buffy initated further contact. So he was a stalker that ceased stalking. Your point about him acting on what he knows a woman likes in his society is well made, Dru would have thought his attentions great. But Buffy was unaware of his interest. She also ignored some of the things he was doing, so he took that to be encouragement. Spike has had to relearn how to interact with people. His actions before were based upon demon habits and accepted behavior. We now have to stand aside and watch what happens next year.

Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- OnM, 23:19:57 06/01/01 Fri

Evil Clone: Do I have to do this?

OnM: Please, stop whining. There isn't anyone else here and my fans are waiting.

EC: Fans? All 3 or 4 of them?

OnM: Hey, that's my line. Don't steal my line!

EC: Yeah, right, like you invented irony.

OnM (frustrated): Just do the interview, OK? It's already after 10:00 PM. If I don't get to post on time, they'll wander off to the Cross & Stake and then who knows where else afterward. Cyberspace is a dangerous place!

EC: Only 'cos you're there, dude. Do I get paid for this?

OnM: Paid? Oh, please! The voice of the cinema needs to be heard!

EC: Roger Ebert's the voice of the cinema. You're just his groupie.

OnM (sighs): Oh, all right. You can play on the swing set tomorrow, and if you behave, you can have an ice cream cone. Interview now?

EC (grinning evil grin): Hello, ATPoBtVS campers! Tonight we are speaking, and fortunately all too briefly, with the one and only quasi-voice of the cinema, OnM. Ah, hold your applause for the end, please, which should be very shortly.

Now, Mr. OnM, how did you first get started in recommending films for ATPo?

OnM: Ahem... (gives evil eye to Evil Clone). Well, as other ATPoBtVS boarders know, I have been a regular visitor to Ms. Masquerade's Most Excellent Website for over a year now, and a contributor to her discussion board from a time shortly after she started it. I found that in a number of discussion situations, I was giving answers to posts that involved invoking a movie I had seen as a reference point.

EC: Uh, yeah, so?

OnM: Well, there is a 'language of cinema', a set of conventions that moviemakers use to express ideas with visual images and sounds. Also, movies are such a universal experience for most inhabitants of Western culture, that it seemed like a useful sort of shorthand for getting my point across. From there, I got the idea to do a weekly column where I would reference a movie to some theme or idea that was taking place in the current weeks' Buffy or Angel episode, or was linked to some aspect of the overall story arc this season.

EC: 'Most inhabitants of Western culture?' Psychobabble much? Why don't you speak like a normal person? You are you know. You think they can't figure that out?

OnM (getting agitated): Hey!

EC: Oh, all right. Not my delusion. If Masquerade puts up with you, who am I to say? So, how did it go, did the fans on the board enjoy your little monotribes?

OnM: Well, they seemed to. I got a few responses, and they seemed mostly positive. So I did another one the next week, and the next, and now here it is, the beginning of June, and it's turned into an overwhelming success! I'm just so pleased!

EC: Yeah, well, low entertainment threshold, what can I say?

OnM: Hey, these are the finest, smartest Buffy Philosophiles on the Net, I'll have you know!!

EC: That's true. Why they listen to you, I'll never know. Must be some misplaced sense of charity. Be that as it may... What are your plans for the summer, O great E. Pluribus one?

OnM (very peeved now): Don't pun with my tag line! I put a lot of thought into that, and it speaks deeply of my desire to unify all persons under the realm of the cinematic!

EC: That's it, I'm outa here.. this isn't worth even *two* ice cream cones. 'Realm of the cinematic', holy s**t, what a schmuck...

OnM: Hey! HEY!!! You work for me, remember? HEY!!!!! Come back here!

(...waits several minutes, but Evil Clone has gone back into the basement. Sounds of clicking keyboard emerge...)


OK, hi there folks. Had a little interview thing planned, tell you something about myself and my column here at ATPo, but, well, few little technical problems. You know how computers are! Heh, yeah...

This week I thought I'd take a break from a new Classic Movie recommendation, and instead present a listing of the films that I've suggested so far since I started this way back in February. That way, newer visitors to the board who have missed them can get a chance to scan over things without having to dig back through the board archives. What I'll do is list the flicks in date order, with a very short little summary of each, and why I chose it. If it calls out to you, you can then locate the original post in the archives and read up for yourself.

I have been very pleased to perform this little service, I hope it has been pleasurably entertaining for you all. Please feel free to post your comments and let me know if it was good for you too! Now, on to the goodies!


020201 -- Brazil --- Terry Gilliam

Genius at work-- Orwell's '1984' on acid. Be sure to get the version with the unhappy ending, not the studio remake that gutted the director's original intentions. Like Darren Aronofsky's *Pi* further down this list, this film is a truly unique experience, as are most of Gilliam's cinematic visions.

020901 -- The Conversation --- Francis Ford Coppola

The finest film ever made on the subject of paranoia. This followed up on last week's recommendation, which was about the evils of unchecked bureaucracies. They often go hand in glove, of course, but in Francis Ford Coppola's vision, the paranoia is all within, not without. A better film than The Godfather, which is saying something. I'll leave you to debate what.

021601 -- They Live --- John Carpenter

Carpenter takes a B-Movie concept, and makes it into high art. Well, maybe low art. Well, who the hell's to say, anyway?? Well, me actually, but I liked it, so there. Stars none other than wrestler Roddy 'Rowdy' Piper-- surprise, he's actually pretty good as an actor. In this film we learn that the world is run by evil aliens. But then, we knew that, didn't we?

022301 -- L.A. Story --- Mick Jackson

"Why is it we don't always recognize the moment that love begins, but we always know when it ends?"

This story takes place in L.A., but otherwise is not related to Angel. In it, the weather will change your life, and if this film doesn't make you wanna sing do-wah-diddy, you have no business going to movies at all. Contains a four minute sequence that is a truly transcendent movie experience, and one of the best uses ever of an Enya tune. Also stars another talented three-name actress, before she became well known-- Sarah Jessica Parker. One of my top ten all time favorite flicks

030201 -- The Seventh Seal --- Ingmar Bergman

The original chess game with death. Death wins, as always, but somehow it's still OK.

030901 -- McCabe and Mrs. Miller --- Robert Altman

Robert Altman's finest film. Warren Beatty's finest work. Stunning, moody photography. Love and death and destiny. Leonard Cohen songs. 'Nuff said.

031601 -- Shadowlands --- Richard Attenborough

Death and loss and C. S. Lewis. Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. Richard Attenborough. Again, 'Nuff said.

032301 -- The Last Temptation of Christ --- Martin Scorsese

Jesus as the reluctant saviour. This film really ticked off a lot of people. You probably either love it or you don't, but being either an atheist or deeply devout has little to do with whether or not you do. This recommendation brought more responses than any other film I spoke about. Consider watching this film one afternoon as part of a trilogy with *The Road Warrior* and *The Gift*. Great stories never die.

033001 -- The Road Warrior --- George Miller

Mad Max as the reluctant saviour. One of the most perfect movies ever made, a classic multi-layered hero's journey tale disguised as an action-adventure flick. Hummmm... now that can't possibly work....

040601 -- A Perfect World --- Clint Eastwood

Kevin Costner is Spike. T.J. Lowther is Dawn. Clint Eastwood is Buffy. "It's gonna take a time machine with a loud radio to take me where I'm goin..."

041301 -- Defending Your Life --- Albert Brooks

Took a break from all the pain here, with a very lighthearted and slyly insightful comedy from the very witty Albert Brooks. Meryl Streep steals the show, as she usually does. Are we all just 'Listening to fear?' Streep isn't, Brooks is. They work it out.

042001 -- Georgia --- Ulu Grosbard

My sister is the Chosen One, and I'm... not. The age old musical question, is passion enough when there's no actual talent to back it up? This film asks and answers... blood ties, indeed.

042701 -- Altered States --- Ken Russell

The ultimate questions of existance-- who are we, where did we come from, why are we here? More importantly, suppose we actually find out? That's the truly scary part... Love, give, forgive, and it will lead you to your Gift, as William Hurt and Blair Brown discover at the end of that inward journey.

050501 -- Fearless --- Peter Weir

*Tough Love* of a very unusual variety. How does your life change when you survive the unsurvivable? Do you collapse into despair and grief, or does death no longer hold any fear for you? And how do you deal with those around you who, while well meaning, cannot ever truly understand your experience?

051101 -- Sorcerer --- William Friedkin

*Spiral* as the Wages of Fear. This film did very poor box office because it followed *The Exorcist*, and moviegoers apparently expected another supernatural thriller. This is extremely unfortunate, for this is a much better film than in almost every regard, and pays great and honest tribute to it's predecessor.

051801 -- Pi --- Darren Aronofsky

*Weight of the World* was about what happens when a person, no matter how heroically motivated, gets pushed to far and finds their brain 'in the sink'. Interesting socio-political, religious and moral themes abound in Aronofsky's mind-poking high-contrast think piece. Looks like no other film you've ever seen.

052501 -- Until the End of the World --- Wim Wenders

*The Gift*, of course, was about the 'end of the world', and about how love triumphs over despair, despite the pain of endless setbacks. Wenders' film uses the theme of apocalypse, but not the apocalypse itself, (which turns out to be nearly irrelevant) to show how in the end it's people that count. A masterful example of how to use negative space to outline the subject at hand.


And so it goes... long, strange trip and all. This is going to be the latest I've ever posted this column, but you'll note it's also the longest one I've done so far, so I guess that adds up. Hey, more value for your net surfing dollar, right? Don't worry, I'll restrain myself in future. (Uh-huh...)

Next week, back to the recommendations as per usual, same ol' format, except during the summer here I won't necessarily be tying the choice of film into BtVS or Angel, that'll have to wait for the series to resume in the fall. Summertime is movie time for lots of folks, but if nothing is playing at your local multiplex that floats your boat, you always have me to help give your mind a spin. (Don't worry, not like Linda Blair in *The Exorcist* or anything...)

Time for me to say g'nite, now nearly 2:00 AM here where my keyboard clicks for you. I'll leave you with a couple questions that, if you wish to post, it can help me do my best in future:

1 > Do you enjoy this column? 2 > Do you want it to continue? 3 > Are there any ways I can make it better?

There, short and sweet. See? I can do it!

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



[> Like you had to ask........:):):):) -- Rufus, 00:09:16 06/02/01 Sat

I sit and wait for the Friday night movie to see if I've first, seen said movie, second, if I've seen said movie can I can remember it. So, that means I'm either a bugger for punishment, or I like the post, I choose the latter. So don't change a thing....I'm happy....


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Rendyl, 00:24:10 06/02/01 Sat

***1 > Do you enjoy this column?***


***2 > Do you want it to continue?***


***3 > Are there any ways I can make it better?***

Ye..er..ack..got carried away. I like it fine just the way it is. Like Rufus I read first to see if I have watched it and then to see if I can remember it.

(Sorcerer comes to mind as a movie I know I saw but was ..cough..cuddling with a bf while watching so I don't remember much more than some big trucks. Did it have big trucks? Or a bridge?)

I don't always comment on your films (or other threads) because many times other posters say my thoughts and me chiming in would be redundant but I do always read and enjoy them. Thanks. And Yep.


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Nina, 09:52:14 06/02/01 Sat

Loved the Evild Clone!!!!! :) :) :)

1 > Do you enjoy this column?

Very much!

2 > Do you want it to continue?

Do you really have to ask? Okay I don't comment much, because I would look like a total ignorant (which I am!). I have seen just a few movies in all the selection you gave us and I don't think it would be appropriate to jump in each week to say: "I love your column but I don't know what the hell you're talking about!" :)

It opens my mind. It makes me more curious. So as long as you want to share your thoughts, be sure I read and enjoy them each week!

3 > Are there any ways I can make it better?

Just be OnM!!!!!!!!! :)


[> [> [> You clever girl...you used Spikes line........:):):):) -- Rufus, 14:09:06 06/02/01 Sat

So does that mean OnM is a robot?


[> [> [> [> Re: You clever girl...you used Spikes line........:):):):) -- Nina, 18:16:15 06/02/01 Sat

Not at all.....;) (Spike, really???) I just think that OnM has to remain himself! And as long as he does the column for himself first (because he needs to do it) then we are all sure to get the better end of the deal! :) :) (and we always do anyway!)


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Aquitaine, 10:56:44 06/02/01 Sat

OnM, you are such a unique storyteller! I loved your schizoid dia-monologue;p I really think you need to try your hand at fanfic. LOL. What I love about 'Classic Movie of the Week' is that I can always count on the fact that I won't have seen the movie in question but that I will enjoy the review nonetheless. I love reading your thoughts and your analysis because your brain seems to be wired in completely opposition to mine. This makes your reviews a bracing, informative and stimulating experience for me. I will admit that I still haven't rented many of the movies you reviewed because... gasp... I know they will unsettle me profoundly and I don't know if I am strong enough emotionally to put myself through that pleasure/pain. I think that when disturbing or profound concepts are translated into visuals, my senses go on overload. For example, I watched 'The Gift' through half-closed eyes. Out of all the movies you have reviewed, I've only seen 'The Seventh Seal' and that movie still haunts my nightmares.

I am always surprised that so few posters respond to your reviews... I wonder if you could remedy this by ending your review with a forum question. Just a suggestion. Other than this, I love the format of your reviews. Don't change a thing. I particularly relish the fact that you don't tell us the title of the film in question until the end of the review. You are such a tease! But I love it! LOL.

- Aquitaine


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Jen C., 12:55:38 06/02/01 Sat


1. Yes 2. Yes! 3. Nope

Love the Column!


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Brian, 13:37:33 06/02/01 Sat

Just "Keep on Trucking!"


[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Alien Visitor, 22:43:49 06/02/01 Sat

Applause to OnM!! I loved your posting..off to the video store any second to check them out.

Have you seen the movie "Withnail And I"? English cult film. The character of Withnail is very Early Spike :ie completely self-indulgent, full of addictive behaviors, has a plan but "I got bored". He also gets all the good one-liners. I haven't seen it for ages,so can't tie it in to a specific episode. Well worth a look.

I'm new here, so if you already discussed this, please excuse me.


[> [> [> [> Previous message was for OnM. Sorry! -- Alien Visitor, 22:56:55 06/02/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> Movie of the week -- AK-UK, 05:37:13 06/03/01 Sun

Now I feel guilty for never posting on your previous movie threads OnM. Yes, I love them, yes keep posting them and yes, you could improve them by following (Aquitaine's?) suggestion of putting a question at the end to help spark a debate.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 13:28:37 06/03/01 Sun

OnM, you and your Evil Clone are seriously warped, and I love that in a person (or a demon, for that matter :o)).

In fact, if I recall I think the first time I posted to this list was in response to your review of Fearless. Thanks so much for going over the movies I missed. They're equally divided between ones I've seen and loved, and ones I'd love to see.

Something caught my eye though...I'm sure a saw a film called "Shadowlands" several years ago that starred Joss Ackland (South African actor?) and, I think, Claire Bloom? It was about C.S. Lewis, and it was wonderful. Am I losing my mind, or were there really TWO versions of this movie, a few years apart? I know you'll know!

Yes, I love the column, yes, keep writing it, no, don't change a thing unless you feel like throwing out a question or statement to get a discussion started.

Cheers, Wisewoman


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Anthony8, 20:21:58 06/03/01 Sun

I might as well join the OnM validation bandwagon.;)

Keep up the good work--it gives everyone an opportunity to see the bigger picture with regards to BtVS. Particularly since JW frequently pays homage to the works of other directors.

BTW, you might be interested in the current issue of a publication called 'Cinefex.' It has an extensive article on the planning and production of '2001.'

Also, I was curious about your take on some less well known films of the esteemed directors you cited in your summary. My personal faves are 'The Rain People' and 'The Rumblefish' (Coppola), 'After Hours' (Scorcese) and 'The Last Wave' (Weir). I suppose they have nothing to do with BtVS (well, maybe 'The Last Wave' has some parallels), but they're worth a rental. What do you think?


Magicians: Who can use magic in the Buffyverse? -- Jarrod Harmier, 02:20:14 06/02/01 Sat

I had trouble posting this to another thread about magic in the Buffyverse, so I'm starting an entirely new thread. This thread is going to be about the nature of magic and the magician. It has been said that only certain people can do magic in the Buffyverse and there are others who say that the only magic that is limited to certain individuals is only certain types of high level magic.

This particular post refers to Xander and his ability to use magic. This is portion of something I posted to another website devoted to "Big Wolf on Campus", a horror sitcom that is only connected to "Buffy" and "Angel" because it sometimes references "Buffy" and "Angel" and fans of BWOC tend to be fans of "Buffy" and "Angel". I have posted the full version (along with some additions to the BWOC website post) to other threads on this message board.

I was wondering about Xander's destiny. Even though he does fall into the category of the Everyman, there are some instances in the series that suggest that he is slated for so much more than that. Not to suggest being an Everyman is a bad thing.

In "Superstar" the group is looking over spell books and Riley asks if the spells really work and Willow said that the spells take concentration and being tuned in with the universe. Then Xander says, "Right you can't just go 'librum incendere' and expect..." The book bursts into flames. He closes it to extinguish the flame and Giles replies, "Xander, don't speak Latin in front of the books." Now Xander at that point is not really a concentrated individiual and he certainly isn't tuned in with the universe. Or is he? Even a relatively small spell like that needs more than a little skill which Xander doesn't seem to have because he hasn't done the proper research. He has done research for the group but he hasn't done as much as Willow. So how can a person relatively unskilled in magic say two words and make a book burst to into flames? I think the Powers That Be (PTB) have instilled in Xander some inherent magical ability or something like that. I think the reason we haven't seen it before is do to his self image. It's obvious that Xander's parents abused in some fashion. Based on information provided by Xander in the series, I can conclude that it was probably a mixture of physical abuse (hitting), emotional abuse ("What good are you?), and neglect (showing outright indifference). This created problems because the relationship with his parents was not just abusive, but inconsistent. He had no way of knowing at any one point what kind of abuse was going to be used. If you he had know exactly which type of abuse was going to be used at any one time, he could have learned to avoid it. This created a sense of learned helplessness which, until recently, consumed him. Now that he is out in the real world and feeling better about himself, his abilities will begin to surface.

Any comments?


[> Xander as magician? Or just different theories? -- SingedCat, 08:05:13 06/02/01 Sat


Magic is a hard one to research-- there are so many theories as to how it works, and it's hard to know if the creators are reading the same books you are. For the most pert it seems to be Hermetic magic-- that is, the classic Western method of incantations, components and gestures, though there is Shamanic magic as well-- magic that runs off the intuition rather than the intellect. For the Hermetic magic my theory goes thus:

You need lots of mental focus (ie somebody really smart) to control the force.

For the Shamanic magic, a little different:

Either it drops on you or it doesn't.

So: How did Xander make the book bust into flames?

Well, uh...

OK, let's take this fromm the other end first. From the writing standpoint it was a sight gag. Not meant to convey secret Xander powers (that's my theory and I'm sticking by it). Part of Xander's role in the series is that he's a regular guy-- like Joyce, a symbol of normal humanity, unlike her, living an abnormal life-- living proof that you can always do what you can to overcome evil, whoever you are. So no secret powers.

So, by the non-liner thinking that is my brain, it was what it looked like-- the book itself responded to the Latin. Which makes a bunch of sense (even if my logic doesn't). Books are capable of containing power in the Buffyverse (anyone need a reminder of "I, Robot"?), including the releasing of that magic by reading it. Xander said "Libris incendere" (sp?), probably having seen it in the book. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say, like Oz, he didn't take Latin).

But it does give a valuable clue as to how magic in the Buffyverse works



[> [> Re: Xander as magician? nice catch singedcat -- Aelith, 17:15:46 06/02/01 Sat


[> [> Re: Xander as magician? Or just different theories? -- Jarrod Harmier, 03:28:54 06/03/01 Sun

This is a partial copy/revamp of a post that I originally posted to another thread. I revamped it due to your response.

You said that Xander had no powers. However, I still think he does, just in a different way. Your reply made me think in a different way. Your post did negate Xander's ability to use magic, it just changed what kind of magic he can use. Part of this response is straight out of my original post. I'm just including it because I feel leaving it out makes it sound weird.

In "Superstar" the group is looking over spell books and Riley asks if the spells really work and Willow said that the spells take concentration and being tuned in with the universe. Then Xander says, "Right you can't just go 'librum incendere' and expect..." The book bursts into flames. He closes it to extinguish the flame and Giles replies, "Xander, don't speak Latin in front of the books." I believed that the power to make the book burst into flames came from Xander. However, you reminded me that that there are books that are capable of containing power in the Buffyverse, including releasing that magic when read. The example given was the book used to trap Moloch the Corruptor in "I Robot, You Jane". The problem with this example is that even though it contained magical power itself, the book had certain restrictions on its use. The book could only trap Moloch when a ritual was performed. If the book Xander read from contained magical power, it is probable that it had similar restrictions to its use. So, what type of magic was Xander using when he unleashed the magic from the book? Your theory is that ere are two kinds of magic in the Buffyverse: Hermetic magic and Shamanic magic. The first possibility is that he was using a type of Hermetic magic. This is a possibility that it could be Hermetic magic because the ritual used to trap Moloch unleashes the power of the book. However, it is doubtful that Xander used this form because Hermetic magic requires both concentraion and preparation and, when he read the Latin, he had neither. The second possibility is that he was using Shamanic magic. This is very different from Heremetic magic because, as you say, "Either it drops on you or it doesn't." This is a more reasonable explanation than Heremtic magic. This leads to several objections and two questions. The first objection is that Xander is not in tune with the universe because he would be aware of it. Not necessarily. I believe that Hermetic magic requires a more explicit understanding of the universe, while Shamanic magic requires an implicit understanding since Shamanic magic utilizes intuition more than intellect. Xander would not not need to be aware of being in tune with the universe to utilize his abilities. I'll get to another reason why he might not be aware of his abilites later. The second objection is: If most magical books require Heremtic rituals to unleash their power, then Xander could not have unleashed the power from the book using Shamanic magic. This is incorrect. Because Shamanic magic is intuitive rather than intellectual, Xander would have an implicit understanding of magical "shortcuts" that others do not know. That is not to say that he is the only one who knows them. Most of the characters on "Buffy" who have constantly studied with a focus on the occult (Giles) or with a focus on the magical arts (Amy, Tara, and Willow seem to know these shortcuts on an explicit level because of their constant study. The question is: If he has access to Shamanic magic, where did he get this power from? One is that the constant research for the Scoobies has caused Xander to remember some of this information on an unconscious level. When he read the book, he accessed some of it on an implicit level, thus allowing him to perform the spell with ease. This might be part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think the Powers That Be (PTB) instilled in Xander some an implicit understanding of the magical shorcuts that others must read about. This, in combination with the research he has done, allowed him to pull off the magical feat in "Superstar". The second question is: You said that there is another reason why Xander might not be aware of his abilites. What is it? The reason Xander may not be aware of his abilities is his self image. [Information about abuse deleted because it's on my original post.]

Somethin I'm adding because it just occured to me: Using Shamanic magic, Xander releases the power inherent in the book. What other kind of power can he unleash? I'm not talking about the power to level mountains or anything. I'm talking about the power to affect situations so the results favor the Scoobies, maybe in a coming apocalypse. In fact, he as already done so. When the Judge needed to be defeated in "Innocence", Xander was the one who gained access to the army base. Sure, he knew the codes and procedures because be became a soldier because of the cursed costume (or costume part) that he bought from the costume shop that was being run by Ethan Rayne, but he out just the right weapon to destroy the Judge. In part 2 of "Becoming", Willow asks Xander to tell Buffy that she is trying to restore Angel's soul. When he has a moment alone with Buffy, Xander looks like he;s about to tell her when he says, "Kick his ass." Some people saw this as a moment of moral weakness, but I see it as a moment when Xander implicitly knew that Buffy's reaction would to try to keep from killing Angel, this lead to explicit knowledge that she needed to focus on the fate of thwe world rather than the fate of her boyfriend. In this way he is very much like the like Giles in "The Gift" because he knew what had to be done and he did what had to be done. According to Lovely Poet on a post way nack when (last year), in "Doomed" it was Xander, not Giles, Buffy, or Willow that figured out that the demon's themselves were the sacrifice. This may be incorrect, though. I'm not quite sure if this is an example. Xander's implicit knowledge helped in an even more direct manner in "Primeval". In "Primeval", it wasn't Giles or Willow that came up with the basic premise of the plan to defeat Adam, it was Xander. Xander was the one who mentioned to Giles that what the Scoobies needed to defeat Adam was a super Buffy. I'm kind of stretching it here, but what if his abilities in Shamanic magic allowed him to know on an implicit, very general level what was needed (more likely) or what if his Shamanic magic allowed him to have implicit, specific knowledge of the general existence of the joining spell (much less likely)? His almost flippant response could be his reaction to knowing what was needed without knowing how he knew. Remember, Xander's jokes are his defense mechanism against the pressures of world--even if those pressures come from the inside. I know if I knew something and didn't know how, I might freak and get anxious and joke around.


[> [> [> Re: Xander as magician? Or just different theories? -- purplegrrl, 09:00:50 06/04/01 Mon

Hmmm. Interesting theory, good arguments.

I'm still not sure I believe that Xander is anything more than Everyman (i.e., a magic user or summoner), but your arguments give me something to chew on.

Of course if Xander is intuitive (predicting it would take a super Buffy to defeat Adam, etc.), that doesn't necessarily mean the source of his intuition is magical. Since we're still not sure how the brain works, it could just be some electo-chemical function of Xander's brain.


[> [> [> [> Re: Xander as magician? Or just different theories? -- Jarrod Harmier, 12:14:37 06/04/01 Mon

I was thinking about what your reply. What if his destiny is like one of the two possiible interpretations of "The Matrix"? The possible interpretation that I prefer is that Neo doesn't have a destiny in the strictest sense of the word. First, when he went to the Oracle, she told him that being the One is like being in love because you just are and that Morphesus would sacrifice himself. This may lead people to think Neo does have a destiny in the strict sense of the word. However, in ancient times the oracles used vague language to cause the people they consulted to find the answers they sought in themselves. Also, who wouldn't think that Morpheus would sacrifice himself for the person he bellieved to be the One? Second, the resistance had access to several possible candidates. It's just that Neo was the one of Morpheus believe to be the One. And think that's the catch. Morpheus believed in Neo and made it clear in both his words and his actions. This would lead to Neo believing in himself. Also, when Neo went to free Morpheus, he did so because of who he is as a person. He created a destiny because he "walked the path."

What does this have to do with Xander? (Some of this is a much shorter version of something I put in another about Xander's destiny). Well, let's say he does have an implicit knowledge of magical shortcuts. Let's say he's feeling better about himself after balancing his strongest and weakest qualities. What kind of destiny would he have? The kind of destiny Neo had. The kind of destiny that's not strictly out of his control. Since we're saying that he does have some magical ability for the purposes of this discussion, let's also say that he learns about it in the future. What would he do with it? He would help his friends, of course. He would have to because of who he is. Maybe that's what destinies in the Buffyverse really are: Individual journeys being on coaxed by the Powers That Be, but dependent on personal choice.

This also holds if we talk about Doyle from "Angel", Angel, and Buffy. Doyle fullfilled his destiny in "Hero". No one forced him to take the action he took. He decided on that course of action by himself. Angel hasn't fulfilled his destiny yet. His actions were headed away from that, but now they are headed back to that. There have been many times when Buffy wanted to give up, but because of who she is she still fights the vampires, the demons, and the forces of darkness.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oops -- Jarrod Harmier, 14:28:04 06/04/01 Mon

One correction and one addition:

Correction: It's just that Neo was the one that Morpheus believed to be the One.

Addition to the end, right after "...forces of darkness": Also, because there is personal choice involved it holds for individuals who did turn their back on the forces of good such as Faith. She was destined to be a Slayer. However, she made personal choices that altered what she did with her abilities. She is on her way to redemption, but she had help.

730 -- Paulo, 05:32:30 06/02/01 Sat

Hi, I'm a huge buffy fan and so i was hopeing 4 a refaracne to 730 in the gift as it was a season ender and i think it explaned 730 compleatly.

i paused my video when 'doc' looked at this watch and the time on it was 7.30(am) (well i think it was, it could have been 6.25 i surpose)

but this makes sence as all the other 730 refs have been about dawn (little miss muffet)

and then the dawn came up as buffy died.

that is 730 over and done with. (plus it was 2years (730 days) since 730 first appered in graduationday part 2)


[> Re: 730 -- SingedCat, 06:45:27 06/02/01 Sat

Cool! I was just wondering about that the other day-- thanks, Paulo!


[> Re: 730 -- Cactus Watcher, 06:51:18 06/02/01 Sat

The sun was just beginning to rise when Buffy died. Given the time of year, it couldn't be anywhere near 7:30. I think the revelation about what 7-3-0 means will be obvious and will be sometime yet in the future.


[> [> Re: 730 Cynthia ur dumb -- Dark Phoenix, 14:26:12 06/02/01 Sat




[> [> [> Re: 730 Cynthia ur dumb -- Cactus Watcher, 21:17:20 06/02/01 Sat

Sorry Phoenix, but 2000 was a leap year. That makes 731 days. I think Joss gotcha.


[> [> [> Re: 730 Cynthia ur dumb -- Vickie, 11:27:40 06/04/01 Mon

Um, perhaps tapering off the caffeine is indicated?


[> Re: 730 -- Cynthia, 06:52:09 06/02/01 Sat

If the watch 7:30 a.m. and it was California time, and I'm assuming that it's June is Sunnydale, the sun would have been up for over nearly two hours.

Now doc's watch could be wrong or keeping the time in another time zone or time dimension, but of all the events and items that make this number relevant I find this one to be the weakest.


[> [> Re: 730 Help! -- Aelith, 17:01:39 06/02/01 Sat

Oh dear, oh dear, someone please give me a refference to this thread. I've never had anyone to talk to about Buffy before and this is all new to me.!!!



[> [> [> Re: 730 Help! -- Boxdman, 18:00:42 06/02/01 Sat

Check out the psychic dream from Graduation Day. I hope that helps. =)


[> 730 revealed! -- darrenK, 22:16:46 06/02/01 Sat

In Intervention, Buffy tells Giles that she's becoming hard, unable to love, that slaying and killing are making her inhuman.

Giles asks her how serious she is. She says "10. Serious to the power of 10."

This sparks Giles to suggest the vision quest where Buffy discovers that "death is her gift."

The numbers 7, 3, and 0 add up to 10. Buffy is dead to the power of 10.

Of course, 730 is also roughly the number of days between the dream and Buffy's death.

The whole thing is a numeric game, dreamlogic thrown in to screw with our heads. It gives the plot a pattern and a chaotic coherence while not contributing much to the actual meaning of the event, except-of course-to shroud it in the glow of mystic prophecy. 730 is a coincedence, meaningful because Buffy is so central to the very survival of her universe, but not actually a great revelation.


[> [> Making things more confusing -- darrenK, 22:52:44 06/02/01 Sat

Just to show the depth of the patterning in the show, I thought I'd point out that 7 Scoobies battle Glory.

Buffy Giles Xander Anya Willow Spike Tara

There are also 3 Buffy's present at the battle

The "real" Buffy The BuffyBot and Dawn, who is revealed to be part of Buffy at the beginning of the show

As far as the zeros go, well, the most notable one I found is death, the big Zero. Zero could also represent Glory at the end of the show. She keeps shouting, "that witch made a hole!" What else is a hole than a zero?

Yes, I know, 730 is two years--hey, did anyone notice that Glory is really two people?



[> [> [> Re: Making things less confusing -- AK-UK, 04:53:11 06/03/01 Sun

730= days in two years. Yes, 2000 was a leap year, but when we talk about years, 365 days is the standard measurement (and no-one is suggesting that the battle with Glory happened two years to the day of the Faith dream). Joss has CONFIRMED the two year = 730 theory in an interview (i'll try and find a link, can anyone else help?) but feel free to post more weird 730 points.

Oh, and Cynthia, you are not dumb. Hope we have been of help :)


[> [> [> [> Re: Making things less confusing -- Cynthia, 06:21:45 06/03/01 Sun

Thank you for acknowledging that a prior post may have hurt my feelings.

I must admit I don't know why it was directed at me to begin with since the only post I have made to this thread was in regard to a prior post about the time on doc's watch.

Anyway, on to the next discussion.


[> [> [> [> [> Cynthia's OK -- Cactus Watcher, 08:14:00 06/03/01 Sun

Cynthia - Sorry for not changing the message subject when I replied to Dark Phoenix. AK-UK - Thanks for a level-headed rehash. There is a school of serious literary criticism that insists that the work must stand on its own. In graduate school, we worked on the assumption that if we have to go running back to the author, the work wasn't clear enough in the first place. But, of course, that's not the only way to approach literature.


[> [> [> 7 scoobies, 3 buffys and glory the big 0 -- Paulo, 12:14:47 06/03/01 Sun

errm i really love big epic depth in stories (and especally buffy) but don't u think that is pure conicidence?

and i relly don't see how buffy made the connection that meant her death would be as good as dawns at stopping the portal

and r u saying that glory was some how linked to ben?


[> [> [> [> Re: a far stretch -- Sam Raimond, 14:49:26 06/03/01 Sun

I completely agree with you, they went pretty far on the edge to prove that Buffy's blood could sub for Dawn's. I guess the monk worked a kind of cloning mojo to bond the blood. now that I think about it does this mean Joyce(if she was alive ) or Hank could have sub'd for Dawn too?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: a far stretch -- Cynthia, 15:33:29 06/03/01 Sun

Well being that Joyce and Hank are each only half of that is Buffy, I would doubt they could be a substitute.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: a far stretch -- Sam Raimond, 17:58:23 06/03/01 Sun

Doc said that Dawn had strong genes, is that because she is the key or because she is the slayer's "sister"?


[> Re: 730 -- vampire hunter D, 13:55:55 06/04/01 Mon

I thought 7-3-0 was the day Dawn arrived. Remember, on Buffy's birthday (which is either late January or early February) Buffy told Dawn that the monks created her "about six months ago). That would put Dawn's creation late July or early August. Late July. July 30. 7/30. Get it?

But the one thing it can't be is the number of days between the dream and Buffy's death. Even if the were two years apart, remember that 2000 was a leap year, which would make it 731.


[> [> Argh, vampire hunter D :) -- AK-UK, 15:48:03 06/04/01 Mon

Yes it can be the number of days between the dream and Buffy's death because;

a) the fact that 2000 was a leap year makes NO difference. 730 days later is still 730 days later, whether the 730 days happen to equal two calender years or one calender year and 365 days. As long as Buffy's death occured 730 days after the dream, 730 makes sense.

and more importantly

b) Joss Whedon SAID that that was the meaning of 730. Honest.

That doesn't mean to say that 730 can only have one meaning.....in fact, I like all the different instances of 730 being spotted in BtVS (yours is another good one), but the 730 days between dream and death is the one that Joss had in mind.


[> [> [> Re: Argh, vampire hunter D :) -- darrenK, 08:00:48 06/06/01 Wed

What AK-UK said and...

730, or ?) if you accidently hold down the shift button while you're typing, is dream logic. It's part of a pattern that gives cohesion to the story, so every instance of its appearance is both valid as a true coincedence in Buffy's life and a bit of an illusion in that it doesn't necessarily signal anything other than Buffy's acute sensitivity to the forces of the universe.

It also gives Buffy's life the type of mysterious wholeness that we experience in our own lives. We dream portentious dreams of things that seem to come to pass. Patterns emerge. Coincedences seem to point the way to destiny, then don't. And as we try and make sense of it all, life happens.

If you read over this whole thread it turns out that Joss stuck us with 7's, 3's and 0's that appeared all through the season. It's nice to see a tv writer so concerned with detail. dK
Season 5 Disillusionment -- Virgill Reality, 12:15:57 06/02/01 Sat

I have to say that I was very disappointed with the way season 5 ended, especially seeing as it coincided with the 100th episode.

Joss has said on occasion the reason he doesn't do end-of-series cliffhangers is because he likes to wrap up everything he includes in the season so that he can start afresh, and yet so many intriguing questions were left unanswered.

Who exactly were the knights of Byzantium and the monks who gave the scooby gang their memories of Dawn? What did their respective religions entail?

For what purpose was the key ("even older than the Beast itself")created, and by Whom?

Who were the other two hellgods?

The Knights served God... did He have a hand in the fight against Glory?

I don't know if the rest of you were satisfied, but I certainly wasn't. I would like to think that now Dawn has a place as a regular character for S6 that some of these questions might be answered, but I still think Joss could have wrapped the season up better.



[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- DARK PHOENIX, 14:33:07 06/02/01 Sat




[> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Virgill Reality, 07:24:24 06/03/01 Sun

I wonder in awe at the extent of your mentality given that you wish to type in nothing but capital letters, you are either a very juvenile or very neurotic individiual.




because you obviously haven't beeen paying attention. Also, it's spelt JUDEO-Christian, genius. Get it right, my life already, or get some tuition before you reply to my postings. I haven't really got the time to indulge uneducated idiots.

As for the rest of you peeps who replied to my original post (apart from that sarcastic guy whose response was also cynical, albeit to a more sophisticated standard), thanks for the comments. I'm sure you agree with me in that there are still quite a few gnawing mysteries that need solving.



[> [> [> Re: That was a little harsh ... -- Dedalus, 09:27:46 06/03/01 Sun

I personally think it's funny when people type in all caps, but that's just me.

And yes, many questions are left unanswered, but none that were crucial to the fast-paced final episodes.

Also, the Key is not older than the Beast. "Well, it's not as old as me, but yeah, it's just this side of forever," Glory said in Blood Ties.


[> [> [> [> Re: That was a little harsh ... -- Sam Raimond, 14:44:30 06/03/01 Sun

Despite the harsh way Phoenix attempted to get its point across I do sorta agree. The plot points that were left out weren't really plot points because they would only have slowed the speed of the last group of episodes in Season 5


[> [> [> [> [> Re: That was a little harsh ... -- Dedalus, 10:57:27 06/04/01 Mon

I meant that Virgil whoever was being a bit harsh. Not Phoenix.


[> [> [> [> Re: "I personally think it's funny... -- Lazarus, 13:04:46 06/04/01 Mon

...when people type in all caps, but that's just me"

They always remind me of the character in the Dilbert cartoon (his name escapes me) who always yells everything... lol...


[> [> [> Disillusionment of rude posters -- Liquidram, 23:50:24 06/04/01 Mon

Vent time ....

"I haven't really got the time to indulge uneducated idiots."

As compared to who, Virgill? A polite and considerate - you?

Regardless of if we agree with you or not, this board is for discussion of everyone's opinion - not an English lesson or hand-slapping.

Lighten up and let everyone feel free to express their opinions, which may or may not agree with you without getting insulted.

What a boring bunch we'd be without the diversity of our ideas.


[> [> [> [> You go, girl! Couldn't have said it better... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:41:04 06/18/01 Mon


[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- LoriAnn, 15:19:08 06/02/01 Sat

Right, and Joss also didn't tell us Dawn's middle name, the name of the jewelery store where Xander bought the ring, and whether Joyce went to heaven or hell. Besides all that, who put the stuffed bunny in the Magic Box's basement? I expect to lose many hours of sleep over that one. But then again, this is only a TV show, if a thing doesn't move the plot along, what difference does it make? The Knights did what they had to do. They complicated the plot, kept Buffy from running, provided some action while Glory was busy trying on new pumps, and in their dying, provided a way to demonstrate Glory's viciousness. They served their purposes well, but were otherwise disposable.


[> [> Intentionally left blank -- darrenK, 21:58:55 06/02/01 Sat

Just because Glory is dead doesn't mean that Dawn now becomes any young girl. She's still the KEY and there are other baddies--including the hard to kill Doc--who might want to use it's power.

Dawn herself might want to know more about her mysterious origins. Or it might be that bringing Buffy back requires some use of of the KEY.

The Buffy storyline never starts from scratch and any of these likely scenarios might require that we learn more about the Knights, Monks and anyone else possibly associated with Glory's world.


[> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- cknight, 22:07:03 06/02/01 Sat

Hey take it easy on the guy. I think this season wasn't exactly on also. I felt as few others on this board, that even though it was a good season there seemed to be something missing. There could have been better attention to details this season. I really felt the contract war with the WB did effect the show.


[> [> [> Agreed -- AK-UK, 04:37:47 06/03/01 Sun

Yeah, season 5 has been dissappointing, and the plotholes in the season finale really are too big to ignore. ah well, fingers crossed for season 6.


[> [> [> [> Re: Agreed -- Dedalus, 09:30:57 06/03/01 Sun

What plot holes would those be? People seem to be having a tendency to make The Gift more complicated than it really is. It worked fine from what I could tell, and was perfectly consistent with what came before. Like Joss said, it's been set up for at least thirteen episodes now.


[> [> [> [> [> Plotholes -- Cactus Watcher, 09:55:11 06/03/01 Sun

If you can't see the plotholes without help, you can classify yourself as a fan not a critic. Nothing wrong with that. But, many of us hoped for more on other levels than you did. Most TV is garbage. We look to Buffy as something better. Maybe we're asking too much. But, there is a difference between doing something OK and doing it right. I really like grape juice, but fine wine is better.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plotholes -- Dedalus, 10:22:48 06/04/01 Mon

Uh, I expect an awful lot from TV. Buffy is one of the few shows I do like. What I like about it is that you always know you're in good hands. And yes, I know all about criticism. But to be honest, a lot of critics out there can't even grasp the most rudimentary of plot points or understand anything about symbolism or foreshadowing or irony or anything else. That most of them like Buffy is a miracle.

Some of you look for more on more levels than I do?

God, I actually thought this was a nice forum.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- AK-UK, 11:12:44 06/03/01 Sun

Plotholes like:

1) No matter what way you cut it, Buffy wasn't the key. Her blood, no matter how "genetically" similiar it was to Dawn's, shouldn't have been able to close the portal. The only reason Dawn's blood was special was because it was the KEY'S blood.

2) The point was made repeatedly that Glory would bleed Dawn slowly because she would need plenty of time to get through the portal. Yet, at the same time, it appears that once the portal is open the only way to shut it is to stop the blood flowing. Huh? Either the portal needs to be constantly supplied with blood to stay open or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Those are my major beefs with the finale, minor ones are:

3) The sphere of.....errrr, forgotten what it was called. The sphere which repelled Glory. Made sort of a late appearance, didn't it? All this time the SG had a magical weapon which repelled Glory and they didn't use it? They didn't bring it with them when they fled Sunnydale? What the hell was up with that?

4) After making such a HUGE song and dance about how Glory was different, and how just beating her up was not an option, Buffy.......beats her up. Not sure if that is a plothole or just a source of disapointment.

5) I saw Xander get hit with that Troll God's hammer......twice. If this hammer is such a powerful weapon that it hurts Glory, shouldn't it have, like, killed Xander?

6) Lets face it, the whole "the blood must stop flowing" to close the portal is shaky. In what sense does Dawn's blood stop flowing? Must it stop flowing through her veins, or flowing from her wounds. Could they have just bandaged her up?

7) So, how come this key, with near limitless power, can only open the door between dimensions so infrequently ( apparently Glory would have to wait aeons for the next oppurtunity to use it ), and following on from that.......

8) Glory points out that this is her one oppurtunity to use the key, as she is trapped in a human prison which will die in 60/70 yrs, barring accidents. So why the hell did the monks make the key a 14yr old girl living on a hellmouth? Hmmmmm, personally, I'd have gone for the "lets make it a piece of rock in the centre of the moon" option myself. Or the "how about making the key a 26 yr old bloke with super strength/speed/incredible magic powers who knows that a nasty hellgod is after him and can thus run away and hide if he needs to". Or..........submit your own suggestion. Anything which prevents Glory from getting her hands on the key before she and Ben die.

Oh, and yes, I know that at one point Buffy cut herself and let some of Dawn's blood mingle with hers, but that still doesn't make her the key. Her blood is still not Dawn's blood. Using the season 5 finale's logic, Glory could have cut Dawn and kept a pint of her blood, poured a bit of it into some hapless human victim pulled off the street and Viola! we have a spare key.

And I'm glad the monks made the key into Dawn, I really like her. She has been an excellent edition to the show, but still........

And yes I can just "forget about picking the show to pieces and just enjoy it for what it is", but if the subject of plot holes comes up, you can bet I'll be here to stick my oar in :)

P.S. any answers to questions I've raised will be gratefully recieved (but I'd prefer pizza :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Cynthia, 15:50:43 06/03/01 Sun

Maybe I'm wrong but I got the impression that the monks didn't have every much time to come up with solution to hiding the key to say nothing of thinking out the consequences. Perhaps they didn't believe that Glory would ever gain power and control over her human prison cell and were taken by surprise. Perhaps the number of monks who were able to make the transformation wasn't enough to complete the change with what they might have planned and settled for what they could complete.

Oh, make my pizza with achovies and ricotta cheese.

Siphoning off blood may not have worked because maybe it would quickly lose potency and power. Maybe a host has to be attached.

The first question does have a interesting point. But I got the impression that to close the portal it needed the blood not necessarily the key. Blood and the key were vital components of opening up the portal but they were not necessarily one and the same things until the monks made it so by the creation of Dawn. The question did lead to make me wonder thou: Is Dawn the Key? Or has everyone been lead to believe it. Perhaps she is a decoy. Maybe the monks were aware that there was more than one God and that the only way to fool them all was to fool Glory?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- AK-UK, 16:32:26 06/03/01 Sun

Ok,can just start by saying "anchovies"? What is the appeal of those nasty little fish? You might as well just pop a ball of salt in your mouth!

Anyway, back on topic, I can't really buy into the "Dawn is a spell the monks through together" theory. I mean, whats easier; turn the key into a rock, or turn the key into a living 14yr old girl, implant said girl with false memories, and then change the memories of everyone who would have interacted with her (Joyce, Buffy, the SG, school teachers etc).

If the keys blood isn't required to shut the portal, just sombody's blood, we are still left with two problems; why did Buffy jump off the platform (she could have just thrown a minion off) and why did Glory make such a big deal about needing to bleed Dawn slowly to keep the portal open? It also leaves Giles looking a bit stupid too.

Whilst I like the idea of the monks pulling a fast one, if Dawn isn't the key, then I wonder how the portal was opened in the first place.....

Keep those theories coming.......:)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Anthony8, 20:05:11 06/03/01 Sun

If you ever worry about the real ramifications of consuming anchovies, I suggest you take a listen to the J. Geils Band song 'No Anchovies Please.' Just let me put it this way...you'll never look at a bowling ball the same way again.

Oh yeah...The Key...The Blood...etc.

I think you're reading way too much into this alleged plot hole (is that one word or should it be two?). Most likely, the religious texts that Glory, Giles, and Doc derived their information, like all religious texts, were subject to interpretation. It was obvious that the "blood stop flowing" phrase was intended to mean when Dawn is dead. If that weren't the case, then Glory could have killed Dawn, drained her blood, and stored it in nice hermetically sealed blood bags for use at the required time. Remember the Key, like Glory, supposedly was only viable as long as its human host was alive. That's why the Knights wanted to kill Dawn. They were never able to identify Glory's human host, so they settled on the little girl.

Next, Buffy's realization that Dawn was literally a part of her (that Buffy was Dawn's template) was intuitive, not scientific. Her intuition, it seems, was helped along by the various clues presented to her by fate (the events shown in her flashbacks) and the supernatural forces of light (The PTB?) who communicated to her via the Spirit Guide in the desert. Also, we know that JW and the BtVS writing staff plot story arcs over multiple seasons (remember 730? 'Restless'?). It was no coincidence that the episode in which Dawn discovers she is the Key was titled 'Blood Ties.' Like the images in 'Restless,' the whole "Summers' blood" dialogue was there for a purpose. It was a cryptic clue at the time we just didn't know how crucial it would be.

The only plot hole that bothered me a bit was the whole Dagon Sphere thing. They made such a big deal out of it in 'TNPLH' and then forgot about it until Anya refreshed their memories in 'The Gift.' You know, at the very least, that the Watcher's Council would have come across it when they inventoried the Magic Box in 'Checkpoint.'

I let the whole Knights of Byzantium issue slide because we're talking about Sunnydale after all. I mean it's a land inhabited by a Ghora Demon that looks like Rodan and moves like the octopus in an Ed Wood movie, and all sorts of nasties, none of which ever even think to use long range firearms to take out the Slayer. Not to mention the fact the every demonic thing that is bipedal automatically knows martial arts. IMO, Suspension of disbelief is a small price to pay for our weekly dose of top rate writing.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Cynthia, 20:15:22 06/03/01 Sun

Don't worry about the anchovies. I always order a small individual pie when I go for pizza with others.

As for the taste? Well, cravings aren't always logical. :o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Malandanza, 18:19:36 06/03/01 Sun

I am in agreement with everything you've said -- I have been unhappy with the inconsistencies throughout the season and have a few minor nagging concerns as well. But here are the best suggestions I can come up with to try to patch the gaping plot holes:

First, points 1,2 & 6 (the ritual bloodletting and Buffy's sacrifice): I propose that it required a single drop of Dawn's blood to open the portal (provided that it was applied at exactly the right time). Glory intimated as much when she told Dawn that if Buffy showed up, it would be to kill her since the quicker she died, the better for the Buffyverse. Glory didn't seemed troubled by the possibility that Dawn could die before the ritual was completed (she would have been gone by then.) So why kill Dawn? Well, for one thing, she's a Hell God (not known for mercy). The sacrifice also had a great deal of ritual attendant upon it (the anointing, the robes, etc.) -- it may be that this is the way Glory's minions perform every sacrifice to her. Also, once Glory is through the gateway, she might have wanted to close the doorway behind her -- total chaos would be difficult to rule. To close the portal, I believe, required not merely stopping the flow of blood, but a life. Not necessarily Dawn's life -- perhaps any would suffice. We saw something similar to Angelus opening the hellmouth and Buffy shutting it with Angel's life. Maybe other restrictions were placed upon it -- like the life of a pure individual (so tossing Doc into the gateway might not have worked).

"3) The sphere of.....errrr, forgotten what it was called. The sphere which repelled Glory. Made sort of a late appearance, didn't it? All this time the SG had a magical weapon which repelled Glory and they didn't use it? They didn't bring it with them when they fled Sunnydale? What the hell was up with that?"

My feeling about the Dagon Sphere is that Buffy unwittingly contributed to the demise of the monk and security guard when she removed this protective device from the grounds. I also remember Glory visiting the magic shop, yet the sphere did not seem to phase her.

"5) I saw Xander get hit with that Troll God's hammer......twice. If this hammer is such a powerful weapon that it hurts Glory, shouldn't it have, like, killed Xander?"

I think Olaf was just playing with Xander. Even it had been just a regular hammer, with his troll strength, he should have been able to crush Xander easily. I also think that the reason Buffy was able to injure Glory with the hammer was because Glory had been weakened by Willow and the Dagon Sphere first.

"7) So, how come this key, with near limitless power, can only open the door between dimensions so infrequently ( apparently Glory would have to wait aeons for the next opportunity to use it ), and following on from that......."

I don't have a problem with this one. With big powers come big limitations. Also, waiting for the stars to be in alignment has a sort of Lovecraftian feel to it.

"8) Glory points out that this is her one opportunity to use the key, as she is trapped in a human prison which will die in 60/70 yrs, barring accidents. So why the hell did the monks make the key a 14yr old girl living on a hellmouth? Hmmmmm, personally, I'd have gone for the "lets make it a piece of rock in the centre of the moon" option myself. Or the "how about making the key a 26 yr old bloke with super strength/speed/incredible magic powers who knows that a nasty hellgod is after him and can thus run away and hide if he needs to". Or..........submit your own suggestion. Anything which prevents Glory from getting her hands on the key before she and Ben die."

Let's say that making the key a piece of extraterrestrial matter is beyond the ability of the monks, and let us also say that they cannot tap into the powers of the key to make a superhero (after all, the KoB did say that the monks had tried and failed to use the power of the key). Is an inanimate object better than a human? Glory and her minions found their way to Sunnydale rather quickly -- they had some way of tracking the key location -- at least its general location. Glory created a magic snake to track the key down from there -- if the key had been inanimate her greatest difficulty would have been some sort of mining operation. By making the key the younger sister of a superhero, the monks got a better guardian for the key than they could either create or provide.

Here are a few trivial plot holes that have been bothering me:

Where did the monks and knights come from? The Buffyverse or Glory's dimension? If they are from the Buffyverse, how is it that Glory and Gregor were on a first name basis? Wouldn't she just have massacred them all? And are the knights all dead? My feeling is yes -- Glory killed every last knight. Otherwise, next season more will show up to kill Dawn. And what about the monks? Are there none left? If any remain, what will they do about Dawn now that she is no longer needed?

What happened to the Watcher's Council? They came all the way from England just to tell Buffy that Glory was a god, then gave her no further support.

I'm sure there are other issues, but I have a habit of forgetting my most cogent points as soon as I sit down to write about them.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Dedalus, 10:55:50 06/04/01 Mon

Sorry it took so long to get back. I've got one heck of a cold.

Anyway, on to the alleged plotholes.

For questions one and two -

No, Buffy wasn't the Key. The whole ritual worked something like this:

The Key was living energy that had to be poured into a specific place at a specific time. That was why the tower had to be built. Dawn's blood had to be used to open the portal, and it was her blood that had to keep feeding it. That was why they had to bleed her slowly. The longer the blood flowed into that direct spot in space, the larger the portal got, until it engulfed everything. But it had to be a steady flow.

So the ritual was started. Dawn's blood opened the portal, but only a drop or two. That was enough to start a chain reaction, but not enough to sustain it. The portal would have stayed open as large as it was until the blood closed it, it just wouldn't have gotten any bigger. So Buffy grabs Dawn and pulls her away from the hole. She is still bleeding, but her blood is no longer in the right space. The ritual is effectively stalled. But still, the portal is open and sending out dragons and stuff. It never said the portal has to be constantly supplied with blood to stay open, either on the show or in the script.

Obviously, you had to have the power of the Key to open the portal, and that was activated by Dawn. However, what do we know about magic rituals in the Buffyverse? If you remember what Willow said in The Replacements, the spell doing all the work was what was keeping the two Xanders apart. It was their natural state to be together. Ending it was a simple thing. Same thing with the Key ritual. It was the natural state of the universe for the doors to be closed - the Key had to release quite a bit of power and it was doing all the work of keeping the dimensional portals open.

It was established that Buffy and Dawn have very similar blood. And that "she was me." How did Buffy know this? Intuitively, just like someone said. She was going on gut feelings and instinct, the same thing she's relied on for five years. It was a psychological realization, and a profound one. The ritual would not stop until the blood stopped flowing. And it has been established that killing Dawn would destroy the Key. Therefore, obviously the ritual meant the blood would stop flowing when the vessel was dead. One didn't need the power of the Key to lock the doors. A lock is not the same as a Key. Buffy's blood worked because she faked the portal out. She pulled a fast one. She didn't have to be the Key. As we have seen before, as in The Replacement, and it's just common sense with a spell of this magnitude, that it would be relatively easy to short circuit and get things back in their natural state. The Key was doing all the work pulling the universe apart. And then once Buffy jumped down in it, she died, and thus no more blood was a'comin' to feed the portal, and that was that.

Hopefully that cleared up your major problems.

3. Yes, the DAGONS sphere made sort of a late appearance. I had forgotten about it myself. I thought that was cool they tied that in, but I guess some people didn't. And obviously, it didn't do all that good a job in repelling Glory, it was only after Willow brain zapped her that it had some major effect.

4. Buffy couldn't beat Glory before because she didn't have the need to do so. When she realized how important Dawn was to her, she was capable of anything. She's the Buffy. And also, ALL the Scoobs had to help out. And Willow had just put together that spell for sucking the brain power out, which had considerable effect.

5.As someone mentioned, Troll guy was obviously toying with Xander. Buffy could hardly take him. He could have crushed Xander without a second thought. Now you're just being picky.

6. Dawn had to die. The blood had to stop flowing in that specific spot to stop feeding the portals, and it had to stop flowing in her veins to close the portals.

7. Because Joss said so. Come on, rituals always have really wierd limitations and loopholes. If that is a problem for you, maybe you shouldn't like the show at all.

8. I have no idea what was going through the minds of monks who are now dead. We know they thought they were doing the right thing. And though sheer speculation, I think we don't have all the info on the Key yet. Next year. Also, on a practical level, if they had sent it to be a rock on the moon, we couldn't have had a season five, and for some of us, that was the best season yet.

And I don't think you should just have to turn off your brain to enjoy the show for what it is. Your questions no doubt bothered a lot of people, and I thank you for asking them. I hope my answers helped a little.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Andy, 12:11:53 06/04/01 Mon

> 8. I have no idea what was going through the minds of monks who are now dead. We know they thought they were doing the right thing. And though sheer speculation, I think we don't have all the info on the Key yet. Next year. Also, on a practical level, if they had sent it to be a rock on the moon, we couldn't have had a season five, and for some of us, that was the best season yet.

My assumption as to why the monks didn't do the "practical thing" is that they probably felt, being monks and apparently quite idealistic and pious, that turning the Key into an innocent human would be a more glorious expression of the Key than the form of some inanimate object, and that that would lead to a more rewarding end (especially since fiction is always telling us how gosh-darned swell it is to be human :)). Seeing how the world didn't come to an end it would appear that they did okay picking the shape of the Key :)



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting Andy -- Dedalus, 12:58:50 06/04/01 Mon

Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines as well. It makes mythic sense if nothing else, the Key made Flesh, and all that.

I also had this theory (which I read a few pages back here) that the power of the Slayer is in fact the power of the Key. Why make it human? For that matter, why send it to a Vampire Slayer out of all the other superheroes that no doubt lurk in the Buffyverse? And the fact that Faith and Buffy both knew about it in their dreams long before the fact point to the possibility that the Key and the Slayers are connected in some way.

And also, it would forever chill the arguments of all those saying that Buffy shouldn't have been able to close the portal (though I think it already makes sense personally).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- AK-UK, 14:29:21 06/04/01 Mon

The only problem I have with Buffy closing the portal is that it requires us to invent key bits of information which contradict information given in the actual show. Now, of course Buffy was able to close the portal, we all saw that, but when it is stated time and again that the key must die to shut the portal, and it is the key's blood that must stop flowing.....well, it makes the finale look like a bit of a con. I just find the argument that Buffy was able to 'con' the portal with her similiar blood kind of weak. In "A new man", where Giles is turned into a demon, it is expressely stated that only a silver weapon can kill him, Buffy stabs him with what appears to be a silver letter opener, but is in fact pewter. He doesn't die. Pewter isn't silver, and Buffy blood (no matter how similiar) isn't Dawn's.

And, on the subject of Dawn, I LOVE the fact that the monks made her. She is a cool character. Giving the key life could well be seen as a glorious expression of love (although it could equally bee seen as incredibly blasphemous, guess it depends on what religon these monks belong to). But I do think making her a 14yr old girl was a bit silly (from a survival point of view) although, hopefully, we will see her investigating her nature in season 6.

The Dagon sphere was a blunder, which ever way you cut it. To just, forget about it for sooooo long...no, I don't buy it.

Still, it's always great to hear other people's theories. This place really does attract a smarter class of Buffy fan :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- Dedalus, 15:36:17 06/04/01 Mon

Thanks, AK-UK.

I think I could have worded my last post a bit better in some places, but I'm glad to see it more or less got the point across.

I may be wrong here, and feel free to correct me if I am, but it seems to me the critics of this episode are the ones who are inventing bits of information that never existed in the show.

"When it stated again and again that the key must die to shut the portal, and it is the key's blood that must stop flowing ... "

Um, where did it distinctly state that the Key must die to shut the portal? We know the show has stated again and again that killing Dawn would most certainly destroy all access to the Key, but I don't recall the ritual ever saying that the Key itself had to die. "When the blood flows, the portal opens, and the portal closes when the blood flows no more." Or something to that effect. And then Giles adds that "When Dawn is dead." The books don't say that. Giles did. He wasn't getting the connection between Buffy and Dawn. All that the texts said was that the blood of the Key was required to stop the ritual, not the Key itself.

And Buffy and Dawn DO share the same blood. I mean, the monks were so meticulous about everything, it seems obvious that of course they would give her Summers blood. Buffy, who we know has had visions and prophetic dreams of all kinds before, had some moment of revelation and realized that the monks made Dawn OUT OF HER. Again, the blood tie was established in ... well, Blood Ties. She is a part of Buffy. She is Buffy.

Anyway, that does not diminish the significance of the Key. The physical incarnation of the Key, whatever it was, had to be set at a specific place. The blood had to flow to open the portal. Buffy is not the Key, and Buffy could therefore not have opened the portal. And the monks, who seem to know more about the Key than anyone, stated that "It opens the door." Nothing about how only the Key can close the door. Opening and closing are two different things. All that is ever stated in the show (unless I'm mistaken) is that the portal requires the Key's blood to close, not the Key itself.

You mentioned earlier that GLory could have just grabbed Dawn at some point in the season, took out a pint of blood, and then go into hiding until the big day. But keep in mind, she didn't know Dawn was the Key until the beginning of Spiral. And then the group was on the run the entire time. All those eps took place over one night. And it seems to me that she didn't know blood was always the crucial element. It wasn't until after she had Dawn that she said, "We found out your blood is the key to the Key." They had just found out. That's why she said earlier that it could have been anything.

It is my opinion that the Minions had been in contact with Doc, and he had been doing some research, and he had found the book that told Glory and company blood was the Key. They probably got their info out of the very book the Scoobies did. And if he was an acolyte of Glory, it makes sense.

So you don't have to invent new information for the ending to make sense. All you have to do is except the fact that the monks made Dawn out of Buffy, and that all that was required for the doors to close was their blood. Both were stated clearly in the episode.

And I'm glad you love Dawn. She rocks. :-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- Rufus, 16:08:32 06/04/01 Mon

It was pretty clear in Blood Ties that it was important to establish that Buffy and Dawn were of the same blood line. This was made stronger when Doc took a bit of Dawns hair and was able to state that her mothers DNA was strong. So on a biological level Buffy and Dawn are family as well as in the manufactured memories. Then you have to consider that what Buffy did by leaping into the portal constituted a leap of faith. Buffy had to believe that she was a substitute for Dawn in this situation. Perhaps the belief as well as the genetics made it so. It also made Buffy become more than the killer she feared she was becoming. In The Gift Buffy freely gave the gift of death so Dawn could live on. So as much as this is a story about genetics it is also a story about love and faith.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- AK-UK, 16:42:44 06/04/01 Mon

Ooooh, I'm enjoying this :). It's helping me gain a clearer understanding of the season finale, but I still say the same plot holes remain (although i will go back and check the episodes again).

Firstly, we have problem's with the blood. Dawn and Buffy's blood is not identical. If it were, Dawn would literally be a clone of Buffy.....you would see a 14yr old Buffy. Dawn ISN'T Buffy. Dawn has Summers blood, but she doesn't literally have Buffy Summers blood. Different hair, different features, different blood.

Secondly, you said "All that the texts said was the that the blood of the Key was required to stop the ritual, not the Key itself". Well, Buffy isn't the Key, so her blood is not the Key's blood.

Thirdly, I believe that it's pretty clear that Glory new the significance of the Key's blood before she caught Dawn. She made a point of tasting Tara's blood when she thought that Tara was the key, and new instantly that Tara wasn't the key after tasting it, so Glory recognises the importance of the Keys blood.

Forthly, yes it is Giles who says that Dawn must die, and it is her blood that must stop flowing, to shut the portal. But if we follow your argument we have to believe that Giles was; right to say that only the Key's blood could open the portal, right to say only the key's blood could shut the portal, yet wrong to say that only the specific blood of the Key could shut the portal, yet right to say that that the person with the Key's blood had to die to shut the portal, yet wrong to say that the person with the Key's blood had to be Dawn.

Hmmm, so Giles is right in all the ways that support your argument, but wrong in all the ways that support mine. That's just NOT playing fair :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: DAMN YOU AOL!!!!!! -- Dedalus, 17:40:43 06/04/01 Mon

I SWEAR! I had just typed up one of the BEST DAMN POSTS OF MY FREAKIN' INTERNET LIFE, complete with philosophy and religious allusions and references and quotes from the script, and I lost my connection and the DAMN THING IS ERASED! Damn you, AOL CONNECTION! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!

Okay, the high points -


AK, if I can call you that for short, it still makes sense to me. Maybe it's because I'm just doped up on antibiotics, but it really does make sense.

That last paragraph made me laugh. I typed up two pages of dialogue from the script to prove my point, but since that's gone, my point was the book Giles was quoting from made no reference to Dawn's death. That was not a quote.

Good catch about Glory with Tara - not sure I buy it, but it might work.

Look, maybe I'm just missing something, but it seems obvious that Buffy's blood is Dawn's blood. As Buffy said, the connection went even deeper than that. I don't mean they're genetic clones ... we're dealing with science, not magic. I mean they MADE HER FROM BUFFY. Of course they would have the same blood. I'm beginning to feel a bit like Spike trying to explain the GLory/Ben connection to everyone. j/k

It's like this:

Dawn made from Buffy. Buffy have Dawn blood. Dawn blood close portal. Buffy dive into portal Crouching Tiger-style. Buffy heart stop pumping. Buffy blood no flow. Buffy die. Portal think Buffy is Dawn. Portal stoopid. Portal close. Bye, bye, Mr. Portal.

That's breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, but hey, I'm sick.

I'm guessing you're a fan. Probably a big one. I assume you think Joss is a pretty smart and talented guy. You know and I know he's had this ep planned for two years. This is the 100th, the biggy. Do you really think he would just tack on some ending that didn't make sense?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn made from Buffy -- Scout, 07:51:35 06/05/01 Tue

Hello there all. First of all, may I say how delighted I am to have found this board. It's definitely a good one from the look of it.

I was going to lurk for a while longer, but something you just said in your last message, Dedalus, is making me de-lurk, and that's the "Dawn made from Buffy" comment. A lot of people just swallow this without question. A lot of other people (and I'm one) want to know *when* and *how*. Did the monks just turn up in Sunnydale one day asking Buffy for a DNA sample? Doing a little breaking and entering to take hairs off her pillow? I don't think so.

If you're going to say it happened when Dawn and Buffy cut themselves, sorry, it doesn't work that way or else I'd still be carrying my best friend's DNA after we decided to become "blood sisters" by pricking our fingers and mixing our blood when we were 9 years old. There's no way Buffy could have Dawn's blood, and if the portal needed *Dawn's* - the Key's - blood to close, then it shouldn't have closed simply because Buffy hurled itself into it out of love for someone she considered to be her sister. It was a beautiful gesture but that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have worked.

Those of us who feel this way *also* feel like Spike trying to explain the Ben/Glory relationship. Our sticking point is that this is something that was never explained other than Buffy saying "the monks made her out of me", something she had no way of knowing and that had never been indicated before in any way.

Personally I've alway considered Joss Whedon usually to be above using the old deus ex machina to get himself out of a plothole he's fallen into, but that's exactly what he's done this time with the Gift. It doesn't detract from the beauty of the episode (I cried buckets) or the first rate acting, but I just wish it had been handled differently.

Because I'm now becoming convinced that JW is sending Buffy on the mythic hero's journey and that he decided she should undergo a literal rather than a metaphorical death on the way, I'm dealing with the plothole aspect a little better. Having said that, though, I hope Joss realizes that there are many fans who, while we happily suspend our disbelief to watch BtVS (and love it), also expect better exposition than we've received over the last several weeks.

With luck, things will become more clear in Season 6.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn made from Buffy -- Dedalus, 09:21:22 06/05/01 Tue

Whatever. IT'S MAGIC. How did Jonathon create an alternate universe? I don't know. Did he go about collecting everyone's DNA? What? I think people who don't "get this" are simply unwilling to suspend their disbelief any more.

It's nice to know that, if I accomplish nothing else in life, I know how to make people de-lurk.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn made from Buffy -- rowan, 14:57:35 06/05/01 Tue

I don't know. I guess I must have a tough constitution or a thick skin or a gullible mind. All along, I've been thinking, "well, how do garden variety monks make a human? I mean, it's the last veil, right? Only God can make a life..." Then when Buffy articulated how she felt, I thought, "gee, this feels right." The spark of life must have come from someone, and since the monks selected Buffy on purpose, they somehow used her mind, her memories, her spark, to mold Dawn's energy.

But hey, I'm no scientist. But maybe, just maybe, knowing too much about cloning can detract a little from the enjoyment of fantasy.


[> [> [> [> [> [> DOT filling plotholes -- rowan, 20:55:22 06/04/01 Mon

To me, Buffy is myth. Can Daphne turn into a laurel tree as she flees Apollo? Yes, because it's a myth. Does this make scientific sense? No, humans don't become trees. Here's why some things worked for me.

"1) No matter what way you cut it, Buffy wasn't the key. Her blood, no matter how "genetically" similiar it was to Dawn's, shouldn't have been able to close the portal. The only reason Dawn's blood was special was because it was the KEY'S blood."

Buffy's capability to substitute herself as a sacrifice for Dawn was foreshadowed in many episodes before The Gift ('Summers blood', 'death is your gift,' 'the monks made her from me' just to name a few). From the standpoint of the Buffyverse, this isn't a plothole because it didn't come out of the blue with no foundation in other events. It's just that some people didn't like the explanation (not that the explanation doesn't hold water).

The Buffyverse we've been shown allows this substitution to be valid on a symbolic and magickal level. No scientific basis is required. No where is an exact DNA match posited as the test to determine if Buffy can substitute for Dawn: that's our bias that we're bringing into the story. IMO, we can't arbitrarily impose a scientific test on a magickal act and fault it for not meeting the test.

Plus, this is one of the incalcuable effects that happened once the monks decided to make The Key human. That's why I think this storyline is so brilliant. Once the monks changed The Key's status from inanimate object (or animal, I suppose) to human, they introduced the complications of free will, human life/death, etc. They both made The Key more fragile and stronger at the same time. After all, Dawn could have been hit by a bus and killed, right? or become victim to a brain tumor? or killed herself in despair when her mother died? Another unanticipated effect of The Key's humanness was that The Key now existed in relation to others in a way it didn't when it was inanimate -- it now has kinship. That kinship made the sacrificial substitution possible.

"2) The point was made repeatedly that Glory would bleed Dawn slowly because she would need plenty of time to get through the portal. Yet, at the same time, it appears that once the portal is open the only way to shut it is to stop the blood flowing. Huh? Either the portal needs to be constantly supplied with blood to stay open or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways."

The portal is opened by one drop of Dawn's blood. We saw that clearly in The Gift. The bloodletting ritual was discovered/understood by Doc (the ritual text he was perusing was in the box Spike and Xander retrieved) in order to release the energy of The Key, which needed to be poured out on a specific place at a specific time. The search for and discovery of a bloodletting ritual only occurred once it was known The Key was human. The minions confirm this and we see it through Doc's actions.

During the release of energy, the portal remains open. When the release stops, the portal closes. Glory can't slash Dawn's jugular, because she needs time to get through the portal back to the hell dimension. Arterial bleeding might cause Dawn to expire before Glory can get through the portal. Glory could care less how long Dawn bleeds -- she just acknowledges that the SG will want to kill Dawn quickly, to stop the 'bleeding' of alternate dimensions into each other.

Again, the ritual text spells out that Dawn must die to stop the release of energy. Giles, Glory, and the minions accept this as true. Why? I'm guessing that it's because Dawn's blood would still be flowing (in her veins) after the portal is open by the drop of blood and until it's stopped, no closure.

"3) The sphere of.....errrr, forgotten what it was called. The sphere which repelled Glory. Made sort of a late appearance, didn't it? All this time the SG had a magical weapon which repelled Glory and they didn't use it? They didn't bring it with them when they fled Sunnydale? What the hell was up with that?"

It was an early ep where it appeared. They forgot about it. Their encounters with Glory were sporadic at first, so they weren't exactly holding on to the sphere waiting for her to show up. They were also silly enough to sell her the fixins' for a giant serpent creature that could sniff out The Key, too. They make mistakes sometimes.

"4) After making such a HUGE song and dance about how Glory was different, and how just beating her up was not an option, Buffy.......beats her up. Not sure if that is a plothole or just a source of disapointment."

Regular human strength, vamp strength, and Buffy's Slayer strength couldn't hurt Glory (except after Willow's spells). The Troll hammer had incalcuable power -- remember how it staggered Buffy to be hit by the hammer?

"5) I saw Xander get hit with that Troll God's hammer......twice. If this hammer is such a powerful weapon that it hurts Glory, shouldn't it have, like, killed Xander?"

When did this happen? In Triangle? Maybe Buffy wielding the hammer had more power behind it than the Troll wielding the hammer. That makes sense, since Buffy has Slayer strength, while the source of the troll's strength was all within the hammer. Buffy plus hammer is stronger than troll plus hammer.

"6) Lets face it, the whole "the blood must stop flowing" to close the portal is shaky. In what sense does Dawn's blood stop flowing? Must it stop flowing through her veins, or flowing from her wounds. Could they have just bandaged her up? "

See above.

"7) So, how come this key, with near limitless power, can only open the door between dimensions so infrequently ( apparently Glory would have to wait aeons for the next oppurtunity to use it ), and following on from that......."

It seems pretty usual to me that magickal events require an appropriate correspondence to certain astronomical events.

"8) Glory points out that this is her one oppurtunity to use the key, as she is trapped in a human prison which will die in 60/70 yrs, barring accidents. So why the hell did the monks make the key a 14yr old girl living on a hellmouth? Hmmmmm, personally, I'd have gone for the "lets make it a piece of rock in the centre of the moon" option myself. Or the "how about making the key a 26 yr old bloke with super strength/speed/incredible magic powers who knows that a nasty hellgod is after him and can thus run away and hide if he needs to". Or..........submit your own suggestion. Anything which prevents Glory from getting her hands on the key before she and Ben die."

The monks wanted to choose someone to protect The Key. They felt that by making The Key human, they would create an ideal situation for protection because of the emotional committment the chosen protector would feel for The Key. They chose someone with super strength (both mental and physical endurance) as their choice. And they were right.

Also, since when can anyone but God create life? Why would the monks be able to give Dawn a spark of life? I think Buffy's idea that the monks made Dawn out of her makes tons of sense, since they couldn't create from a blank page so to speak -- they needed already living material to work from.

"Oh, and yes, I know that at one point Buffy cut herself and let some of Dawn's blood mingle with hers, but that still doesn't make her the key. Her blood is still not Dawn's blood. Using the season 5 finale's logic, Glory could have cut Dawn and kept a pint of her blood, poured a bit of it into some hapless human victim pulled off the street and Viola! we have a spare key."

There are two elements here -- the shared blood, but also the kinship of sisterhood and of motherhood (Dawn made by the monks from Buffy).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> PERFECT Explanations, Rowan! -- Rob, 11:24:03 06/05/01 Tue

Thanks for writing your post, Rowan. I agree with you completely, and would have said much of the same sort of explanation for all of that stuff...but you beat me to it. LOL. (You also said it far better than I ever could...)

I'm sick of people jumping so quickly to call something a "plot hole"! Sometimes the problem is people taking things too literally or scientifically, not in the terms of the rules of the fantasy world. Joss, as usual, followed the rules for his world perfectly, if you carefully examine everything that happened.

As you said, we already know the troll's hammer could beat the Slayer. Therefore the Slayer weilding it could beat someone up to enormous effect, especially it being the weapon of a god. The Dagonsphere was there. Tara's brain-renewal was fair, too...Willow in essence reversed Glory's spell. We already knew that Glory sucks brains to gain energy, so therefore it follows suit that if the energy is taken away from her, she will weaken, maybe even act crazy like her victims. Glory was beat not by a deus ex machina, but by clues that were all carefully placed throughout this year in the show. And, from a scientific point of view, who is to say that Dawn doesn't have the exact genetic blood of Buffy? After all, for all intents and purposes, she shouldn't exist in the first place.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PERFECT Explanations, Rowan! -- rowan, 15:01:07 06/05/01 Tue

Okay, now I'll let you in on a secret. There is one thing that really bothers me because my mind does not naturally produce an explanation. It's gnawing at me like a sore tooth (kind of like these other things bother other people).

How did both Dawn and Buffy know that jumping into the portal would kill them as well as end the flow of blood? Did we have any clue about that one at all? Both came to this conclusion very quickly and naturally during the last scene, but I'm not sure why.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My explanation... -- Rob, 13:20:31 06/07/01 Thu

I thought that Buffy and Dawn jumping into the portal was as simple as this:

(1) Whichever one of them died, it would have to be done quickly. Neither sister would have been able to kill the other psychologically, and so, since they are at the top of a high precipice, jumping seemed the easiest way to end their lives.

(2) By instinct, perhaps Buffy and/or Dawn decided that jumping straight into the portal would make it close faster. Perhaps they figured that it would speed up the death and occur right at the root of the evil, perhaps closing the portal faster. I'm not sure if jumping into the portal is actually what did it...I kind of think it would have closed right away no matter how Dawn or Buffy was killed, but that's just what they chose to do.

Does that make any sense?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- AK-UK, 16:18:47 06/05/01 Tue

Firstly, lets make something very clear. If we say that BtVS should be treated as myth, then NO criticism based on plot, continuity, or character can ever rightfully be made. Ever. If you want to take that view, then fine. I don't agree with that view, so I'll call it as I see it.

Ooooh, that sounds really harsh. Didn't mean it like that. Sorry :)

Now, on to Rowan's answers

1) No-one has disputed that Dawn and Buffy share blood, that was well foreshadowed, the question is "is the shared blood enough for her to close the portal"? On this we disagree. The power of the key was in the blood, so if Buffy can close the portal, does she share the power of the key? If she displays some of this power in season 6 than this plot hole disappears. And there isn't really anything scientifically arbitary about asking about DNA.

2) Good point. I like your explaination.

3) Oh come on Rowan! How stupid do you think the SG are??? They unwittingly sold Glory the ingredients for that spell; do you think they would have done the same thing if they had known who she was? That Buffy, Giles, Willow, Tara, Xander and Anya should all forget about such a useful weapon........it's just silly.

4) and 5) Like I said, that wasn't a plot hole. but "Buffy beats up the major bad guy/girl" is getting kind of boring. And I would just make to points regarding the hammer. First, I don't see why the hammers ability to stagger Buffy makes it a weapon of incalcuable power. A good punch to the face from a vampire can stagger her. Secondly, if you are right, then Xander should really have been hurt more by it.

6) See above :)

7) You're right again.....but there just seems something a bit.....no, it's just me :)

8) This one will never sit easy with me. They gave her to the Slayer and the scoobies, which so nearly resulted in disaster (hell, this bunch was so useless they forgot about the Dagon sphere :) Dawn was completely incapable of defending herself. Why didn't the monks make her stronger, faster etc? We are talking about the Key here, a thing of almost limitless power, capable of destroying the world! Give her some powers! As I've said a million times, I love Dawn, she is a great, and I'll happily sacrifice logic for wonderful characters like her....I just wish I could have both.

I'm slightly baffled by your second to last point. Who says no-one but God can create life?

And Rob, seriously, if you are getting sick of people going on about plotholes, it's probably a good idea to avoid threads with the word "plotholes" in the title :)

Anyway, thanks for the intelligent answers. I've got some warm salty water if anyone wants to de-cramp their fingers after all that typing:)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- rowan, 17:14:54 06/05/01 Tue

Hmmm...well, usually I hate these plothole debates because they make me crazy (because I liked this season so much), but you put your points in a way that doesn't trigger my craziness impulse. Thank you. Let's see if I can respond rationally to your very rational points. ;)

"Firstly, lets make something very clear. If we say that BtVS should be treated as myth, then NO criticism based on plot, continuity, or character can ever rightfully be made. Ever. If you want to take that view, then fine. I don't agree with that view, so I'll call it as I see it."

Who says you can't criticize a myth? Not me. After all, every story needs to have some internal, logical order to it (James Joyce aside!) or we wouldn't enjoy it IMO (now I'll probably have the post-modernists after me...). I guess my point is just that these things were not so worrisome to me because the story arc was really speaking to me so strongly on another level.

"3) Oh come on Rowan! How stupid do you think the SG are???"

Well, they must be pretty stupid, because they had the Dagon Sphere for months and didn't use it. ;) Seriously, though, I didn't get the impression in The Gift that the sphere was really affecting Glory very much, since she caught and crushed it easily. My impression was that Willow's brainsuck did the real damage.

Also, these people are selling the parts and pieces of some very powerful magickal rituals. Shouldn't they take a few minutes to think about what they're selling? And they did know Glory's description, because later they figured out it was her. So I do charge them with befuddledness.

"I'm slightly baffled by your second to last point. Who says no-one but God can create life?"

Well, I guess what I'm saying is, who are these monks to just create people? Generally, when you're seeing a mythology unveiled before your eyes over a period of time, you start getting some hints about things like -- where did life begun? is there a higher power? if so, what does it do? And creating life tends to be one of those things that the average joe can't do in alot of myths -- it tends to be the province of the "higher power", whoever that may be -- and those that dabble in it get burnt. I mean, can just anybody mix up a person? where would they get the soul? catalog shopping?

So for me, my mind was already racing about how the monks could have "made" a person long before The Gift.

"8) This one will never sit easy with me. They gave her to the Slayer and the scoobies, which so nearly resulted in disaster (hell, this bunch was so useless they forgot about the Dagon sphere :) Dawn was completely incapable of defending herself. Why didn't the monks make her stronger, faster etc? We are talking about the Key here, a thing of almost limitless power, capable of destroying the world! Give her some powers! As I've said a million times, I love Dawn, she is a great, and I'll happily sacrifice logic for wonderful characters like her....I just wish I could have both."

Maybe Spells R Us store sent the monks the wrong Make a Human from Energy Spell Kit -- they got weak innocent instead of burly strong guy. :)

Now can someone explain to me why Buffy and Dawn knew to jump?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How the Monks got Buffy's Blood -- Brian, 09:40:44 06/06/01 Wed

I think this was posted somewhere else on this board. But if you recall Buffy vs Dracula (that very strange and surreal opening episode), Dracula drank Buffy's blood. Dracula was an agent ( an illusion) of the monks. Remember that Buffy couldn't kill him. So, he just dematerialized, and went back to the Monk's lab where they continued to put Dawn together. Therefore, Dawn's blood, etc is Buffy's.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- Masquerade, 14:18:27 06/13/01 Wed

Yes, I think a distinction needs to be made between a show breaking the rules of the real universe (e.g., magic is against the laws of physics) and a show breaking its own internal rules.

It was well-foreshadowed that Buffy and Dawn both had "Summer's blood", but what made Dawn's blood "special" was that it was blood transformed from the Key's energy, not that it was genetically Summers'. Buffy was not transformed from Key energy (as far as we know). So it was the "Key-like" properties of Dawn's blood that gave her the ability to open and close portals, not the "Summers" qualities.

Buffy's blood should not have been able to close the portal Dawn opened.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- Rufus, 14:57:11 06/13/01 Wed

When I thought of the scene in Blood Ties, I figured there was a big point to having it there. With all the talk of DNA it made sense that Buffy would connect the family ties and act upon it. The fact that she mentioned that Dawn was part of her made that tie stronger. The reason it worked is that Buffy believed so much in her tie to Dawn that her jump into the portal worked. We may never be able to fully understand why, but, not all questions get answered. So I look at the results.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- Justin, 16:15:49 06/14/01 Thu

Might have been interesting if Buffy hurled herself off the precipice gracefully and splattered messily on the concrete below and the portal stayed open. Buffy would have looked PREEEETTTTY silly.

As to their jumping, Rowan, I thought that it was Dawn's original idea just to JUMP. Not in the portal. But the fall WOULD have killed her. The fall, on the other hand, would NOT have killed Buff. Cause it didn't kill Spikey. So Buffy had to come up with SOME way to kill herself, right? Icky pukey on the throat slashing. Portals is such a LUUVELY way to die. Justin


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- rowan, 09:19:29 06/16/01 Sat

How can you separate the Key properties of Dawn's blood from the Summers' properties? Once the monks "made Dawn from Buffy", they created a link between then whereby Dawn and Buffy now shared blood. The first effect was that they both had Summers' blood. But the unintended effect of that was to also now endow Buffy with Key blood. This is part of the tremendous mystery of the making of the Key into human flesh. As I mentioned early in the season, the monks could not possibly have foreseen all the consequences of this clothing the Key energy in flesh. They both made it more fragile (the Key could be killed and the energy released unintentionally) and more powerful.

If a=c and b=c, then a=c means that if Dawn/Key = Summers and Buffy = Summers, then Dawn/Key = Buffy.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Malandanza, 12:38:15 06/16/01 Sat

"If a=c and b=c, then a=c means that if Dawn/Key = Summers and Buffy = Summers, then Dawn/Key = Buffy."

I think you meant "if a=b and b=c, then a=c" (transitive property of equality) :)

Transitivity doesn't hold with every relationship. Consider "is the first cousin of" as an operation:

George is the first cousin of Rebecca, Rebecca is the first cousin of Hubert; therefore, George is the first cousin of Hubert? George and Hubert could be brothers, or totally unrelated: the transitive property fails.

If we write the propositions using the language of logic, we have "All people to be referred to as Dawn are Summers" and "All people to be referred to as Dawn are Keys," the best conclusion we can come to (using the laws of logic) is "Some Summers are Keys" -- which tells us nothing about a particular Summers, like Buffy.

I agree with Masquerade -- if the death of the key was required to close the portal, then Buffy's death should not have closed the portal. To me, the interesting part of this conditional (if-then, for you computer programmers :) statement is found by examining the contrapositive: If Buffy's death closed the portal, then the death of the key was not required. The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement, so if the original statement is true, the contrapositive necessarily must also be true. Thus, Dawn's death was not a specific requirement to close the portal. Perhaps anyone's death would have sufficed.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Scout, 14:52:52 06/16/01 Sat

I agree with Masquerade too, but you've now put it in a way I can understand, sort of (as an English graduate now grappling with programming). Thing is, either you buy it or you don't. If you don't, then you get yelled at by the people who buy it no matter if it makes sense or not because it's "magic" and thus it's easier to swallow without question.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- rowan, 17:24:57 06/16/01 Sat

Sorry if you think I'm yelling...I don't mean to be. I'm really not trying to convert anyone, either. I can certainly see both sides of the coin here. I was just trying to elaborate on why it works emotionally for me.

I too, have some problems with a couple of things in The Gift (as I mentioned above). I'm not quite sure where this "jump into the portal and close it thing" came from, other than Dawn and Buffy's instinct.

Overall, though, I found this season so powerful emotionally that I can accept some inconsistency or doubt.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- rowan, 17:22:21 06/16/01 Sat

Sorry typo in my equation! You must be a teacher or an editor unable to pass these things by without noting them. :)

Of course, I'm of the radical opinion that Hank and Joyce's blood would have also closed the portal, unless we are to take Joss's words that "the monks made her out of me" very, very seriously.

My basic case is this (and it's not really based on the logic equation, by the way, I just threw that in for good measure). When the monks created Dawn six months ago, they created her in a way that she was inserted into everyone's lives as if she had always existed. Because of that, at the time of her birth (not her creation by monks, but her birth into the Summers family) she did share blood with Buffy's family. Therefore, they became key-like as well, since they had to have key-like properties in order to produce Dawn.

That's one argument.

Another is that because Dawn was made out of Buffy specifically, and then the whole "create the lifetime of memories" thing happened, the essence of the Key became shared by Buffy.

Another argument is that because Buffy believed that she could substitute for Dawn, it because either symbolically or empirically possible. I believe it, so it is.

Another argument is that the PtB found the substitution acceptable, so they allowed it (a little less aesthetically pleasing as a solution).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Malandanza, 20:18:06 06/16/01 Sat

"My basic case is this... when the monks created Dawn six months ago, they created her in a way that she was inserted into everyone's lives as if she had always existed. Because of that, at the time of her birth (not her creation by monks, but her birth into the Summers family) she did share blood with Buffy's family. Therefore, they became key-like as well, since they had to have key-like properties in order to produce Dawn."

Are you talking about going back in time? That Dawn was physically born to Joyce instead of just appearing out of thin air? (I hate time travel!) Even then, Dawn should only have shared blood with Joyce, not Buffy. Even supposing the Monks went further back (to conception) that would mean that Dawn shared much of the same DNA with Buffy, Hank and Joyce, not that Buffy, Hank and Joyce shared "Keyness" with Dawn. There is no reason to believe that Buffy or her family somehow became spare keys simply because Dawn's mortal form was drawn from them. Also -- this theory suggests that Dawn is, in fact, real and her memories are real. Buffy saw with a spell that Dawn is part of a false reality imposed upon her by the monks.

"Of course, I'm of the radical opinion that Hank and Joyce's blood would have also closed the portal, unless we are to take Joss's words that "the monks made her out of me" very, very seriously...Another [theory] is that because Dawn was made out of Buffy specifically, and then the whole "create the lifetime of memories" thing happened, the essence of the Key became shared by Buffy."

This is the theory that I adhere to. The monks took a great big slice o' Buffy and wrapped it around the key. The fake memories appear fake (like Dawn being brought home from the hospital). Other memories seem too real -- Buffy telling Giles how Dawn cried when her father left, the seashells gathered on vacation, etc. I believe that these memories were stolen from Buffy's childhood and given to Dawn to make her seem more real. It may also help to explain why Dawn was so young -- Buffy's distant childhood memories might not be missed, but if the monks had removed parts of Buffy's recent hopes, traumas, and aspirations, she might have noticed the holes in her mind. So I accept that Dawn may have a bit of the Slayer in her, but not the other way around.

"Another argument is that because Buffy believed that she could substitute for Dawn, it because either symbolically or empirically possible. I believe it, so it is."

So reality is subjective? I must say that I find it implausible that Buffy is enough of a masochist to dream up a life for herself filled with every imaginable hardship :)

"Another argument is that the PtB found the substitution acceptable, so they allowed it (a little less aesthetically pleasing as a solution)."

Definitely not aesthetically pleasing! The PtB are too apathetic, anyway.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reality is *collectively* subjective -- OnM, 20:55:39 06/16/01 Sat

Little late joining in, but since this particular theory is one that I share, and in fact postulated quite some long time ago, I just wanted to chip in with my thoughts.

*** "So reality is subjective? I must say that I find it implausible that Buffy is enough of a masochist to dream up a life for herself filled with every imaginable hardship." ***

Most theories of reality being formed by an act of mind or will, allow that it is almost impossible for a single individual to form or even slightly alter said reality-- it is the *collective* will of thousands of sentient entities that forms the reality. This isn't a perfect analogy, but think of reality as a beach, made up of trillions of grains of sand. Even in the grip of the fiercest storm, moving one single grain won't significantly change the makeup of the beach.

Now visualize the grains as sentient living creatures. That's the collective universe. For one creature to have a significant effect on the rest of the *universe*, it would have to be an extraordinary creature, i.e. had 'godlike' powers. In the mythological Buffyverse, like in many other SF and fantasy universes before it, the appearance of such a powerful being is a tried and true storytelling device, one recent example being one of Joss' favorite films, *The Matrix*, where Neo plays this role.

Buffy is Neo, just not quite as far along yet. Whether her blood is an exact match for Dawn's isn't a requirement. Buffy can alter reality to the slight extent necessary to make her blood able to close the portal opened by Dawn's blood.

This reality-bending behavior on Buffy's part has been demonstrated a number of times before, so there is significant backstory available on it.

So, very much not a plothole for yours truly! ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reality is *collectively* subjective -- Malandanza, 06:23:22 06/17/01 Sun

The big problem I have with subjective reality on BtVS is that it invalidates Buffy's sacrifice. Essentially, what you are saying is that Buffy's death closed the portal because Buffy believed her death would close the portal. Her sacrifice becomes meaningless -- if she had convinced herself that chopping off Ben's evil head and tossing it into the portal would close it, that should have worked just as well (or if someone else had convinced her -- like if Giles brought out his hypnotic crystals from helpless). Taken to an extreme, if Buffy believed that a handful of miniature marshmallows, blessed by a priest, tossed into the portal would shut it down, that would work, too. It shows that our heroine has a distinct lack of imagination.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or just a death wish! -- Masq, 09:43:42 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent Point! I have no rebuttal :) -- Malandanza, 14:04:59 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Blood Ties -- Rufus, 21:42:48 06/17/01 Sun

The gift of death was only for Buffy. If you go back to the blood thing remember the memories of Joyce giving birth to Dawn are built. If they in fact made Dawn from Buffy and only Buffy their blood tie would be the strongest. Even if she was made from Joyce and you could consider Hank, Joyce, or Buffy a substitute then you'd have the problem of Joyce being dead, Hank being wherever, and Buffy still being the only other option to Dawn at that moment. Also if you still aren't clear about the blood tie to the key, I thought that as Dawn was human the compostion of the key became human, with human blood, still the key but in human form. That would make it so Buffys blood could be accepted as a replacement for the key. If you consider a paternity test you can get it down to over 99% a genetic match. Buffy may not have been what the key originally was but Dawn is now a genetic match for Buffy. Buffy used that when she referenced the memory from Blood Ties. Dawn has Summers blood. The blood that dripped into the portal was Summers blood. Human blood that matched the blood that opened the portal was needed to close it. Imperfect science that you may question, but the results speak for themselves.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Squares and Rectangles -- Malandanza, 05:15:15 06/18/01 Mon

"Also if you still aren't clear about the blood tie to the key, I thought that as Dawn was human the compostion of the key became human, with human blood, still the key but in human form. That would make it so Buffys blood could be accepted as a replacement for the key. If you consider a paternity test you can get it down to over 99% a genetic match. Buffy may not have been what the key originally was but Dawn is now a genetic match for Buffy...The blood that dripped into the portal was Summers blood. Human blood that matched the blood that opened the portal was needed to close it. Imperfect science that you may question, but the results speak for themselves."

I accept that Dawn has Summers blood -- and that a DNA test would prove that she is a very close genetic match for her sister (perhaps significantly more than the usual 50% for siblings). But that doesn't mean Buffy's blood should have the same metaphysical properties as the Key's. Here's a math analogy: think of Dawn as a square and Buffy as a rectangle. Squares have all the same properties as rectangles (and are merely special rectangles) so every theorem regarding rectangles also works for squares. I wouldn't have had a problem with Dawn sacrificing herself in Buffy's place for a Slayer prophecy or giving blood for Joyce's operation (or even donating organs). The converse is not true, however. Theorems involving the special properties of squares do not hold for rectangles. Similarly, Buffy should not have been able to substitute herself for Dawn in the sacrifice involving the unique nature of the Key. Which brings me back to this proposition(unless you accept the whole subjective reality concept -- which I do not:):

If the death of the Key was required to close the portal, then Buffy's death should not have closed the portal, . and its contrapositive:

If Buffy's death closed the portal, then the death of the Key was not required.

I think that Buffy and the Scoobies were caught in a big deception -- Dawn's death was never mandatory. Ancient scrolls about the key made human (a Key that had been human for six months)? I don't believe it -- someone, or something, wanted Buffy to kill Dawn.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Squares and Rectangles -- Masquerade, 09:18:39 06/18/01 Mon

"I think that Buffy and the Scoobies were caught in a big deception -- Dawn's death was never mandatory. Ancient scrolls about the key made human (a Key that had been human for six months)? I don't believe it -- someone, or something, wanted Buffy to kill Dawn."

That's the best explanation I've heard so far. I was never comfortable with the logic behind what Giles read from the scroll, for one thing. "The key opens the portal", "to open it, they have to let her blood flow into the portal", "to stop it, the blood flow must stop", "ergo, we must kill Dawn". I always thought--"Why don't they just put some bandages on Dawn's cuts and get her the hell out of there? That would stop the flow of blood into the portal, too."

Recall that they got these scrolls from Doc, who went out of his way to draw Spike's attention to them under the guise of protecting them.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Squares and Rectangles -- Rufus, 15:24:30 06/18/01 Mon

For whatever reason Buffys blood was accepted as a replacement. I understand that you think that the key wouldn't have died but the form of Dawn would have been and that is what Buffy was out to save. She was out to save the reality that was Dawn. I agree that Doc had a reason to want the key reverted back to pure energy so it could be used as he wished. Even Glory said that the forms or bodies that Dawn and she inhabited were rentals. The key may not have died but Dawn would have and Buffy couldn't live with that. This reminds me of what we spoke about when Angel was able to enter Kates home to revive her, no answer was given and we may not get an answer to why Buffys jumping into the portal worked.......season six won't come too soon.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Ties -- sssaaammm, 12:55:16 06/21/01 Thu

Even as sisters, it would still be possible for their blood to be as different as B's being type A and D's being type O. The portal did not need blood to open it but the key's energy. Having similar genes to the key does not give you the key-energy Dawn has.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- rowan, 10:51:55 06/17/01 Sun

You know the whole intellectual problem with this Buffy substitutes as Key thing -- it brings up all these issues of the time dimension. What is real of what the monks created and what is not? How did it affect the present day characters? If Buffy feels that her memories of Dawn are real, do the Scoobies feel the same? I mean, once you start messing with the past in the future, then what happens? I can get my brain all tangled up by movies like Frequency and The Devil's Advocate where two timelines are being presented at the same time. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- AK-UK, 19:29:40 06/17/01 Sun

Man, I really must remember that no thread ever dies on this board (and that's a GOOD thing).

Suffice to say I agree with everyone who says that Buffy's death shouldn't have closed the portal, and that she did have a death wish.

And, like rowan, I wonder if the pre-Dawn SG are the same as the post-Dawn SG. For example, in "Superstar" Jonathan's presence meant that Buffy hadn't crushed the bones of the Master.....maybe hadn't killed the Master in the first place. Life changing moments in Buffy's life hadn't happened. Now, what effect has Dawn's presence had on BtVS history? Maybe Xander is stupider than he should be, maybe Willow is more powerful than she would have been. Buffy was pissed with Jonathan for screwing with everyones memories, but was pacified by the fact that reality returned. So, why is no-one asking whether they can have their old memories back this time? I know the monks are dead, but I'd still be looking for a spell that could get the real me back.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In case anyone reads all the way down here. :) -- mundusmundi, 11:24:16 06/18/01 Mon

>>Now, what effect has Dawn's presence had on BtVS history?<<

Well, of course there's the old idea that even so much as stepping on a bug would alter the entire history of the world. (Hilariously spoofed in a Simpsons' Halloween ep way back when.) I s'pose one could argue that Jonathan's spell was deliberately designed to make him an influence on everything, whereas the monks made sure the Dawnster's presence didn't affect the present or anybody personally in any way...Buuuuut, that'd be diving back into the intellectual quagmire those guys left us, and *nobody* wants that! ;)

>>So, why is no-one asking whether they can have their old memories back this time?<<

I would guess b/c they all love Dawn and they love their memories of her, fictitious or not. This is a great question, though, one I hope gets explored next season. I'd love to see some scenes, "Back to the Future" style, of old episodes, refashioned with Dawn in them. Dawn and Angel, Dawn and Faith. Lotsa possibilities there.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just so you don't feel like a tree falling in a woods with no one there to hear it, I read this! :) -- rowan, 15:07:29 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thx, Rowan. Always enjoy your posts, BTW. -- mundusmundi, 15:15:35 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Right back at you! -- rowan, 15:37:09 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Heya, make that two of us who read it! :-) -- Solitude1056, 16:50:39 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm content to peer over your shoulders....... -- Rufus, 17:18:04 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's always good stuff lurking at the bottom of the page! -- Wisewoman, 17:28:04 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy's blood, Buffy's sacrifice -- Rahael, 14:34:10 06/21/01 Thu

On another website, I read a great theory about Buffy's death (apologies for not being able to give credit). Pointed out the similarities between the Gift and 'THe Lion THe Witch and the wardrobe' - where Aslan has to die, in order to allow Edmund to escape - it was simply an ancient law, going back to the dawn of time. Blood for blood.

I think blood as a motif in season 5 is much larger than a literal Buffy = dawn blood. THe series starts with Buffy tasting blood, its power, it ends with her sacrificing hers. Other people may see a plot hole about how Buffy's blood could stop the portal - I find it perfectly satisfactory, and it doesn't involve suspension of belief. Blood signifies both life and death - the themes of Season 5. It also stands for kinship, another theme. Buffy's death draws all of these ideas together. Its a metaphor.

I don't know how well I have expressed this! Maybe someone else can do a better job :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's blood, Buffy's sacrifice -- rowan, 20:16:23 06/21/01 Thu

I agree -- blood for blood. If you read a little further down on this thread, OnM talks about subjective reality (with a little magick commentary from me). If the closing of the portal was "magickal", for Buffy's sacrifice to have enough efficacy to accomplish it, a blood sacrifice would be the thing that could do it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's blood, Buffy's sacrifice -- Dedalus, 09:13:32 06/22/01 Fri

Well, I brought up The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on this site. Alas, only got one response. But it seems to work. Especially when you take into account Willow did that for her book report in Restless.

I think Joss is rather fond of it. I've seen him mention CS Lewis several times.


[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- cjc_36, 12:01:46 06/03/01 Sun

When Joss said the comment about not liking cliffhangers, I laughed. He what?

I think he was putting us on. The man behind Becoming pt. II not only likes cliffhangers, he's a fan of them, I dare say.

Season 5 has plot holes. Okay. I'll give them these, but they aren't catastrophic. The acting and the dialog writing in The Gift were there, big time. And as long as I think Buffy believed her blood would close the portal--which, of course, it did--then it still works for me. A stretch? Yeah. But not a hugely bad one, especially based on past X-Files mythos plot disasters. Now if they start doing it all the time, then I'll have a problem. But now, this once season, it's fine considering the emotional 'notes' they played and the fine acting that was done by all.


[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Countess Karnstein, 06:38:57 06/05/01 Tue

And please add the whole Buffy/Spike storyline to the list of plot holes, in this instance a huge one. Where did THAT come from?


[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Q, 12:21:48 06/09/01 Sat

Personally, I think Joss respects our creativity and intelligence enough to not patronize us. He could have spoonfed us all of that information, but there is a point where the audience has to come up with interpretations on their own, and decide what is happening without it being dumped on us letter for letter.

A lot of people are smart enough to figure out things like that on their own, or devise their own theories, some are not. It is obvious by your very mean and condescending reply to DARK PHOENIX (especially in regards to his/her education) that you are *very* insecure in your own education and intelligence and need to deal with that before getting personal and taking it out on other board posters.


[> [> Amen to that, Q!! -- Rob, 11:32:40 06/15/01 Fri


[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- George Avalos, 17:11:34 06/11/01 Mon

Those are all perfectly legitimate questions. Some may be more important than others.

But surely, if unanswered questions cause you so much disappointment, then you must have been in a towering rage in years past.

For example, after 'Becoming 2,' we didn't know... --where did Buffy go? --would Buffy ever return? --what happened to Angel? --what was in the note Buffy wrote to Mrs. Summers? --what would be the consequences for Xander's lie? --what spirit possessed Willow? --would Spike keep his promise to leave forever?

There also were plenty of unanswered questions raised by the 'Restless' dreams.

I just wonder if you're applying the same standards to these other two seasons, which left quite a bit up in the air.



[> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- mundusmundi, 14:51:19 06/18/01 Mon

>>For example, after 'Becoming 2,' we didn't know... --where did Buffy go? --would Buffy ever return? --what happened to Angel? --what was in the note Buffy wrote to Mrs. Summers? --what would be the consequences for Xander's lie? --what spirit possessed Willow? --would Spike keep his promise to leave forever?<<

Very true, all those questions were unanswered at the end of Becoming. However, because most of them were incidental or irrelevant to B2's plot arc, I'm not sure they make an accurate analogy with what Virgill's talking about.

Maybe a better analogy would be if, say, nothing about Angel's soul had ever been mentioned, or we never saw Jenny Calendar save the curse to disk, or we weren't told that Angel's blood could close the portal just as it opened it. *Then* there might have been a lot of head scratching and debates along the lines we're seeing here.

Not to dive into all of it again -- my nitpicks have already been mentioned, and more succinctly, by many others above -- but IMO Joss did a less effective job 'splainin' things in B5 than he has in seasons' past. For me, there's a difference between plot threads that *should* have been sewed up better pre-"Gift" (e.g., Buffyblood, the Byzantine knights, the collective amnesia over that daggone Dagon Sphere), and threads that were largely irrelevant and can be left hanging a while longer (the hellgods, the power of the Key, Dawn's klepto impulses).

Mostly, though, I enjoyed this past season. And I would still argue that, for all the loose ends, Joss doesn't do cliffhangers. A cliffhanger to "The Gift" would have ended with Buffy jumping, followed by a freeze-frame as she hangs suspended in mid-air and an annoying voiceover ominously intoning, "Will Buffy survive??? Will Anya be in a coma??? What *is* the deal with Spike's hair??? Tune in, in four months, and find out!!!" Overall, "The Gift" was a nice conclusion to the season.


[> [> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- rowan, 15:11:24 06/18/01 Mon

"Mostly, though, I enjoyed this past season. And I would still argue that, for all the loose ends, Joss doesn't do cliffhangers. A cliffhanger to "The Gift" would have ended with Buffy jumping, followed by a freeze-frame as she hangs suspended in mid-air and an annoying voiceover ominously intoning, "Will Buffy survive??? Will Anya be in a coma??? What *is* the deal with Spike's hair??? Tune in, in four months, and find out!!!" Overall, "The Gift" was a nice conclusion to the season."

Amen to the cliffhanger comment! The thing is, with Buffy's death if (God forbid) no other ep is ever shot, the story arc would be complete. Sure, we wouldn't ever know the future of all the characters, but the present would at least be resolved.

I'm thinking there's actually alot to be learned by tracing the evolution of Spike's hair and his accent against his change of identity. Notice that when he's trying to be tender with Dawn the hard Cockney (?) accent is just not there? ;)


[> [> [> [> Stress and accents -- Rufus, 15:35:13 06/18/01 Mon

You would think that with the years of living in the States that Spike would pick up some of the speaking habits. But it makes sense that when he is being who he really is not the pose, his accent would revert back to the original.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Stress and accents -- rowan, 17:34:32 06/18/01 Mon

I agree. That's how I can tell when he's saying something heartfelt -- that belligerent, in-your-face accent goes away. "I'm drowning in you, Summers." It's all in the tone.


[> [> [> [> [> [> It is all tone...... -- Rufus, 17:45:26 06/18/01 Mon

I like how they have done that cause when I've spoken to people with accents when they are stressed or being very serious they sound different...then there is the part where if something happens extremely stressful the way they speak can totally revert back to the language or accent of origin. When my grandad died my grandmother started speaking like she just got off the boat from Scandinavia, she had almost no accent before he died then after you couldn't understand her. So I wonder with the stress of Buffy being dead how Spike will sound?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of S6...let's gossip a little -- rowan, 18:09:36 06/18/01 Mon

"So I wonder with the stress of Buffy being dead how Spike will sound?"

Now, here's what's puzzling me a little. Joss usually keeps to Realverse time in his Buffyverse as far as the year goes, right? So when we return to the SG, three months will have passed (or so) since Buffy's death. So some burning questions will have already been answered.

1. Where will Dawn be? I mean, Buffy is buried, so there's a death certificate. That means the school will know that Dawn is without a guardian. I've heard the theory that they'll either use the BuffyBot to impersonate Buffy or that they'll keep Dawn under DCFS's radar, but I don't buy that.

Will Hank take her? I could see Dawn somewhere other than Sunnydale, with Spike as her loyal vampire companion. But what happens then when Buffy returns (how will she ever get guardianship back, BTW?)? I remember Joss mentioning that involving Hank gets way too complicated.

I don't think Giles could be her guardian because would the courts grant custody to a single man of 45? Willow and Tara probably can't do it, because I assume our world isn't that liberated yet (although maybe I do us a disservice). Xander and Anya seem like the best possibility -- they're both employed and planning to marry.

I assume that Spike would let Dawn live in his crypt (and Dawn would probably love that, the little ghoul), but Spike can't support her and he'd probably want her to have as normal a life as possible, to fulfill what Buffy would want (plus the SG would go ballistic).

I guess these questions are a little pointless (like discussing where Angel's money has come from) but enquiring minds want to know!

2. Will Giles already be relocated back to England? Unless he's Dawn's guardian, it seems as if his role as Watcher is at an end, and he would be called back.

3. Will Xander and Anya be on the verge of marriage? They'll have had several months to plan their wedding.

4. Spike...I figure Spike will have picked up nightly patrols (along with others in the SG, but with him as the main guy because he'll think that's what Buffy would want in the absence of a Slayer in Sunnydale). I also figure that Spike will be within shouting distance of Dawn at all times (because she's still theoretically in danger as The Key). He'll be bereaved, guilty, but still trying to be good for the sake of Buffy's memory and Dawn.

5. I suspect the gang will be very strongly bonded as a result of Buffy's death. I think they will take her last wish "love each other...be strong...live for me" very seriously.

What does everyone else think?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of S6...let's gossip a little -- Rufus, 18:44:41 06/18/01 Mon

The issue of custody could come up, I can see that the best option may be Anya and Xander, but will Anya want Dawn as part of the Xander package. They think Buffy is gone forever and unless they find Hank they could have to scramble to find someone to take charge of Dawn. I feel that Xander could end up in the Summers home cause it would be Dawns home now. It was bought with Joyces money so Hank would have no claim. I can see Giles as being inconsolable about Buffys death. He had conflicted feelings about Dawn so he would not be the best choice to take care of her. Plus, how much cookie dough can a middle aged man eat before he goes nuts? Spike will be the one to watch. He could turn evil because he sees nothing left in the world to value, but I doubt that will happen. I do see him perhaps getting a bit suicidal and acting out a death wish of his own by continuing to kill demons. Plus he has had his life complicated by a promise to a lady that I think he will attempt to keep. I don't think they are going to find Docs body so Dawn is indeed in danger from a man that may be the opposite to the monks. The monks were attempting to harness the energy of the key to work for the purposes of light, Doc may be a guy that wants to use the power of the key to continue to do evil. As the season starter has Buffy coming back in the second half of the season premiere I think the gang will have attempted to stay together to help Dawn live in this world. So that would mean that their energy would be focused on preserving the Summers home and keeping Dawn as secure as possible.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of S6...let's gossip a little -- rowan, 19:20:49 06/18/01 Mon

"As the season starter has Buffy coming back in the second half of the season premiere I think the gang will have attempted to stay together to help Dawn live in this world. So that would mean that their energy would be focused on preserving the Summers home and keeping Dawn as secure as possible."

Yes, I think they'll try to hang on to the house too, to keep a firm family base. I could see perhaps Xander and Anya living there with Dawn (or maybe Willow will try to take the lead). Tons of fanfic has Spike living in the basement. I mean, really...why the basement for goodness sake? If he's going to live there, can't he have a bedroom?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Xander is a carpenter......... -- Rufus, 20:05:52 06/18/01 Mon

They could give him an upstairs bedroom with inside shutters to block out the sun in the daytime. I do wonder if he prefers a firm matress.....? But for the blood....well....when he eats may I suggest he clean out the mug right after his red entree.....blood starts to smell pretty quickly. But,....yes if they don't build a basement suite for the vamp they could adapt a room for him.....of course he would probobly spend hours in Buffys room so he could smell her clothes.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander is a carpenter......... -- rowan, 20:15:06 06/18/01 Mon

Okay, I've officially lost it.

"They could give him an upstairs bedroom with inside shutters to block out the sun in the daytime. I do wonder if he prefers a firm matress.....?"

He probably prefers female mattresses. Oh God, did I say that? Can he bring the lastest Harmonyclone home with Dawn in the house (well, I guess Buffy brought Riley, so...)

"But for the blood....well....when he eats may I suggest he clean out the mug right after his red entree.....blood starts to smell pretty quickly."

Yes, that's pretty gross. I always wondered how Buffy could stand kissing Angel, frankly. I mean, blood breath might be worse than even coffee breath or garlic breath.

"Of course he would probobly spend hours in Buffys room so he could smell her clothes."

He'll probably refuse to let Dawn throw them out, which will be a good thing, especially if the PtB return Buffy naked.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffys naked return.......... -- Rufus, 20:38:42 06/18/01 Mon

Now I'm killing myself laughing here........Spike wouldn't be bringing home any floosies with Dawn in the house he was after all a Victorian male....he would just have to be content siffing sweaters......I suggest they hang on to Buffys robe in case of a naked return...and a soft pillow to break Spikes fall when he beholds a naked Buffy.

As for the blood.....I do think too much and remember just how quickly blood gets to smell....awful......


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffys naked return.......... -- rowan, 08:51:33 06/19/01 Tue

He'd better fall backwards and not forwards or he'd definitely sustain a soft tissue injury. LOL.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> soft!? -- Solitude1056, 10:30:57 06/19/01 Tue

Ok - ROFL - I'd better shut up now.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, sometimes. LOL -- rowan, 11:09:17 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You guys are right out of control! I love it!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:38:46 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> They are out of control aren't they, must be the fact that Sol is part demon....:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:48:43 06/19/01 Tue

I'm sure that if Spike sustained a nasty fall the rowan would be there with bandages and a few volumes of poetry.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They are out of control aren't they, must be the fact that Sol is part demon....:):):):) -- rowan, 18:19:10 06/19/01 Tue

I'm good with soft tissue injuries, too.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now you made me spray pop on the screen...naughty........:):):) -- Rufus, 19:50:03 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pop goes the weasel....:) -- rowan, 20:12:22 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Darn, now how do I stop these bad evil thoughts?????:):):):) -- Rufus, 20:29:20 06/19/01 Tue


[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Rob, 11:50:50 06/15/01 Fri

I for one am glad that Joss didn't tie everything up with a nice pink bow. He kept things open for discussion, for imagination. I believe it would be much less fun to watch or to analyze Buffy if Joss were to reveal every single reason for every single thing that happens in the show. In real life, not every question is answered. As far as I'm concerned, every important point was brought up and resolved in "The Gift"...and who is to say that Joss will not explain more in the next season? I believe that in all probability any left-over questions from this season will have something to do with how Buffy is restored next season. I also think it was wise of Joss to leave questions unanswered, particuarly this year. Even at the start, he did not know the show's fate, regarding what channel it is on. Especially on a season finale where a show is moving channels, it is important for the viewers to really want to watch next year, enough to switch channels. The other part of the so-called "plot holes" argument I don't agree with is the use of the term "plot holes." Just because it is not immediately understood or explained doesn't make it necessarily a "hole" in my opinion. I'm sure Joss has an explanation in that brilliant mind of his for everything on the show. A hole is what happened in the finale of "Xena" in the 3rd season. Gabrielle fell into a pit of lava, and apparently died. At the start of the next season she was apparently saved. They never explained how, why, or anything like that. That is a plot hole. (Actually, they made up for that this week in the episode "Soul Possession" where they actually answered that question, proving, I believe, that very few plot holes are too huge to find some way to later cover or explain them.) Buffy's blood closing the portal? Not a hole, but an amazing occurence that can be analyzed to find an explanation. This is the difference: In the case of the "Xena" episode, one would need to create more PLOT to explain what happened. In "Buffy" filling this "hole" merely requires analysis and discussion of the rules of the Buffyverse that have already been set out. In my opinion, Buffy's blood "tricked" the portal. That's what I assumed from the moment I saw Buffy's death in "The Gift." It was only when I went online that I saw some people had a problem with that explanation. While not identical enough to open the portal, its very similar nature caused the portal to think it was Dawn's blood and then close, much like the way a person's immune system and the idea of a vaccine works. A person is given a very low non-harmful version of a disease and the person's blood cells attack it. Once it is vanquished, the next time a person might be introduced to that disease, it is instantly fought by the blood cells as if it were the vaccine, just as the blood cells fought the vaccine as if it were the disease. Dawn's blood could be seen as the "vaccine" that opened up the portal, so when Buffy's almost identical blood is introduced, the portal knows its time to close.

Of course that's only my interpretation, but that's what I love about Buffy: It's so open to interpretation, as is every part of the Buffy mythology, from Spike's chip to the true nature of the Gypsy curse on Angel. Joss didn't leave any plot out of the story but some explanation. As can be evidenced by the huge amount of "interpreters" online however, his full explanation is not yet needed, although I think it would probably fall somewhere between my interpretation and the idea that because Buffy's belief was so strong, it made it so. In my opinion, both are plausible explanations.


[> Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic* & still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- OnM, 20:50:57 06/18/01 Mon

S'cuse me, I was just going to amiably hijack this (unfortunately) bottom-dwelling thread to get it up near the top again, but I can see that it's ALIVE! ALIVE, I TELL YOU! Bwahhahaha!

( Oh, sorry... where was I? Oh, yeah... )

These discussions about the portal, and the need-- or not-- for Buffy's blood to close it continue to be very thought-provoking. All that, and now this, too:


What are your feelings about *magic* in the Buffyverse? Do you:

A > Pretty much accept it without much thought. Whatever happens is cool.

B > Accept it as long as there are some 'rules' that apply so that just any old thing isn't allowed to happen whenever it's convenient.

C > Accept it but attempt to apply some degree of scientific logic to it, for example, magic as a manifestation of technology or biological evolution that can alter our 'reality as collective subconscious?'

D > Dislike the magic elements of the Buffyverse, but accept it 'cos you love the show for other reasons?


ITEM NUMERO DOS-- If you answered 'C', you're in my camp. If so, read on. If not, read on at your own risk! ;)

Those who are interested might look up my previous post on 'Buffy and the Collective Unconscious' in the archives, it was posted on or about Jan. 14, 2001. In it I go into some detail on this concept of how the Buffyverse seems to be predisposed towards having certain entities-- Buffy included-- who are powerful enough to 'alter reality', be it consciously or unconsciously. If for some reason you can't find it, let me know and I can always e-mail it to you.


A couple other comments that may support this general line of thought:

In 'Earshot', Oz makes an interesting comment after discovering that Buffy can hear his, and that matter, everyone's thoughts, reasoning that since Buffy is now hearing his thoughts, he is now Buffy, he no longer exists as Oz:

"No one else exists, either. Buffy is all of us. We think, therefore, she is."

In my old 'Kwisatz Haderach' post from last year, I noted the following (among a lot of other stuff, of course! ;):

"At the 4th season's end, Buffy, in joining with her friends, and calling on the power of the First Slayer, enables a level of power far more Godlike than human, suggesting she really doesn't yet understand the eventual power she may wield. The fact that she turns Adam's weapons into birds, ripples of water (things of beauty/purity?) may have significance (turning dark to light). "

Then, back around April sometime, I wrote this:

"There was quite a lot of board bantering here last fall after Dawn first appeared as to whether her appearance was the result of a spell that just altered peoples' perceptions to accomodate Dawn's presence, or whether we were dealing with an alternate reality/timeline a la *The Wish* or *Superstar*. At the time I voted for the alternate reality scenario (as did several others) and Masquerade (and several others) sided with the spell. After the monk revealed the story to Buffy, we then generally accepted that it was a spell, and not an alternate reality. Of course, one could still debate this, as the writers always manage to leave some ambiguity lying around loose.

"But let's assume it was a spell. To make the thing work in a reasonably logical fashion in my own mind, I developed the following presumptions:

"1 > The spell acts like a virus, traveling (metaphysically) from peson to person as the need arises to reconfigure the universe around Dawn. So, initially, only Buffy, her mother, the Scoobies, Spike, etc. fit into the universe. Every other person they or Dawn contacts afterward has the 'virus' enabled in them, and their memories are reconfigured to adapt to the new Dawn-inclusive universe. This makes the spell self-perpetuating, just like a computer virus that steals your address book and mails itself to everyone in it.

"2 > The memories of a 14 year old girl were not created directly by the monks, the spell/program/virus borrowed the DNA of Buffy and her mother to create the raw human physical form of Dawn (so, yes, she really is their sister/daughter biologically) and the memories are then inserted into the newly formed brain. The virsu begins propogation into Buffy (who you will recall is the first to see Dawn) and then into Joyce, and then onward.

"3 > So Dawn may contain a link to 'The Key', but I do not believe that it literally resides within her human, corporeal form. Someone possessing the same magical (programming) skills as the monks (such as Glory) could access the link and retrieve the Key. Whether this would cause the destruction of the human Dawn is still unknown."


OK, so consider #3 in particular. Was anything shown that would keep this from being the case? That is, is Dawn both *physically* Dawn and the Key *simultaneously*, or is her physical body (and it's blood) a *link* to the Key, which actually resides in some other dimension or 'vibrational matrix', whatever?

If this is the case, then having 'Summer's blood' could indeed be enough to cause a link to the Key, especially if as stated, Dawn was 'made from Buffy'. This could therefore enable Buffy to close the portal.

Anywho, just some additional grist for the mill. Personally, I still go with the ability of Buffy to subconsciously alter reality enough to imbue her blood with the 'Key' properties, and therefore have no problem closing the portal, but I've loved reading the other theories.

Must say, the idea of the 'blood-ties' being a ruse by Doc to get Buffy killed is an interesting one, though-- have to give it some space in the cerebral melange.

That's all for now! Let me know how you all feel on the 'magic' concept, too. See ya!



[> [> Re: Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic* & still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- rowan, 21:07:06 06/18/01 Mon

"S'cuse me, I was just going to amiably hijack this (unfortunately) bottom-dwelling thread to get it up near the top again, but I can see that it's ALIVE! ALIVE, I TELL YOU! Bwahhahaha!"

I don't know if bottom-dwelling refers to the positional location or the subject matter, but I can only say, I resemble -- er, resent -- that remark. ;)

Hmmm...I think I need a choice E. I accept the magick in the Buffyverse as natural energy harnessed by will for a purpose. It's efficacy is therefore directly related to all three elements: how it is harnessed & directly, by whom it is directed, and why it is purposed. I don't accept it without question, but nor do I apply scientific principles to it. I accept that magick can alter reality and the only rules I lay upon it are that it not be easy or without consequence.

I do subscribe to your brilliant theory, BTW, that Buffy can alter reality. Damned that portal's sinister attraction!


[> [> [> Yes, the Ruby Slipper theory....... -- Rufus, 21:52:00 06/18/01 Mon

Remember at the end of The Wizard of Oz (the movie version with Garland) where all she had to do was think there is no place like home........Buffy believed that she would be able to replace Dawn to close the portal, her love as strong as a wish to go home.......she believed it she it happened.....she could have altered reality with her thoughts......or something more like in Angel could have happened......in the end Buffy will end up home...just via death.....


[> [> [> I don't know if bottom-dwelling refers to the positional location or the subject matter... -- OnM, 21:57:37 06/18/01 Mon

Re: Question in post title-- Yes!


Re: Magic Poll-- Well, from your description, you don't really need an 'E' option, 'B' pretty much covers it. You accept it, you just expect there to be limits on it and it's results.


[> [> [> Can I pick "all of the above"? -- Solitude1056, 09:40:50 06/19/01 Tue

I'd normally go with C, but I agree with rowan's added commentary, that "I accept that magick can alter reality and the only rules I lay upon it are that it not be easy or without consequence."

Very well put. :)


[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic* & still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- Wisewoman, 10:48:18 06/19/01 Tue

"I accept that magick can alter reality and the only rules I lay upon it are that it not be easy or without consequence."

I'm with her, gimme an *E*!


[> [> Re: Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic* & still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- mundusmundi, 06:49:53 06/19/01 Tue

Hmmmmm, actually I got big probbos with the Buffy-can-make-things-happen-by-wishing-it theory. First, there's really no precedent for it. (Oz's comment is funny, but I see it as just Oz-speak and not Joss telling us what's what). Second, and most important, it goes against the whole concept of the show, which is 1) bad things happen in this world; and 2) wishing they'd go away won't make it so. The SG is so appealing because they've been depicted as young people with a heads'-up on life: They've seen evil, experienced it, and know that sometimes, even with a Slayer around, there's nothing you can do about it. If Buffy could close the portal just by wishing it, what's to stop her from wishing Joyce back, or Jenny Calendar or anything else? There have to be limits, even for a Slayer.

So, in sum, I guess I'd pick "B." :)


[> [> [> Subjective reality does not equal 'wishing' any more than magic equals 'wishing'. -- OnM, 10:28:08 06/19/01 Tue

I guess I'm not doing something right in my explanations so far, have to figure out what. Anyone out there on my side of this theory care to have a go at it? I find it puzzling that people accept Willow 'casting a spell' and Glory teleports somewhere (for example), but someone exercises a directly mental process to do the exact same thing, and it's 'I don't buy that'?

Usually avoid the Trek analogies, but think about 'Q'. Now think of Buffy as a very primitive 'Q'.

Does that make more sense?


[> [> [> [> Re: Subjective reality does not equal 'wishing' any more than magic equals 'wishing'. -- rowan, 11:04:20 06/19/01 Tue

Maybe Masq could make her board magick happen and move this post closer to the top of the board. ;)

OnM, I think you're being clear, but I live a magickal life everyday in the RealVerse, so my perception is probably clouding my ability to see this issue.

To me, I see Willow's ability to harness energy in order to alter reality by moving Glory as the same thing as Buffy's ability to close that portal by jumping into it. It's power that's being exercised. Perhaps we're struggling because Willow is explicitly "practicing magick" and Buffy is not? Are our expectations that Willow has power of this kind but not Buffy (or Xander for that matter)? Technically, IMHO, if Buffy can sustain the mental concentration necessary for a vision quest, she has at least some basic skill to harness energy to tranform reality.

Some might ask, why couldn't Buffy have closed the portal with a bicycle pump? Well, I guess theoretically she could have, but I doubt her chances of success. Magick needs a few things. First, it needs energy to harness -- and that energy was in the Key's blood. Will is needed to focus and drive the energy. Buffy didn't believe a bicycle pump would do it. She believed Dawn's blood could do it. Once she was able to believe her blood could work, she gained sufficient will to achieve her purpose by harnessing the energy.

Finally, magick requires acceptance of consequence. Buffy undertook alot here. Whether you're a shaman, a green witch, a ceremonial witch, or none of the above, if you accept magick in your life, you usually accept the Threefold Law or the Law of Return. What you send comes back. Buffy was choosing to alter the life of another. In order to do that, she needed to accept the consequences. These consequences were steep -- she had to sacrifice her life.

Could Xander (or anyone) do magick? Again, with will and purpose, theoretically yes. But we're talking in particular about the Slayer. Buffy has already surpassed the usual expiration date, hasn't she? Although her initial powers have leaned towards the physical, Giles has attempted to show her the more spiritual side of Slayerness. Who knows what her mental/spiritual capabilities are? I think we've only scratched the surface.


[> [> [> [> No prob with the explanation....:) -- mundusmundi, 11:28:11 06/19/01 Tue

Your explanations are fine as always, OnM. I may have been just a little slow, and my eyes too glazed, in my morning comprehension. (Not for the first time. :))

Hope I'm not being irksome, however, if I still say...nein. However one chooses to define it, Buffy has never exhibited that skill. Willow can transport Glory, make stuffed animals dance, and turn her eyes that really cool black color b/c she's been seen working at it for a very long time -- and even then she's still getting the kinks out of her spells. (I wouldn't have believed Willow capable of closing the portal either.) Buffy has many great powers, but I just don't see this Q-ish talent as being one of 'em.

On the other hand, if next season Joss explains the blood issue more thoroughly, or gives us a glimpse at some of B's hitherto hidden talents, then maybe it'll make more sense to me. Though I don't really like this "retroactive explanation" gambit either, since it gives him too much leeway in terms of playing by his own rules. ("Oh, the blood! Yes, well, you see, what happened was....")

Sorry, don't mean to be difficult. :)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: No prob with the explanation....:) -- rowan, 11:35:32 06/19/01 Tue

Okay, but how about the SuperSlayer stuff, plus the vision quest, plus that thingy she did when she saw that Dawn wasn't really her sister, etc.? Aren't these all part and parcel of this type of power?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No prob with the explanation....:) -- mundusmundi, 12:19:56 06/19/01 Tue

>>Okay, but how about the SuperSlayer stuff, plus the vision quest, plus that thingy she did when she saw that Dawn wasn't really her sister, etc.? Aren't these all part and parcel of this type of power?<<

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the SuperSlayer (from Primeval, yes?) was the result of a Willow spell and a little help from their friends; the vision quest prompted by Giles doing the hokey-pokey; and even the spell-thingy from NPLH was from Wil's suggestions, wasn't it? You could add Buffy's prophecies as another of her talents. I guess my point is -- there's a point? ;) -- that Buffy has never demonstrated any *independent* powers that would lead her to believe that she could close that portal.

Maybe that's what's really bugging me. Not so much that she closed the portal, but that she seemed to *know* it would work (ditto Dawn). Almost like there's a deleted scene somewhere, a prophecy privy only to herself. (I know, Joss showed that quick montage from Blood Ties, etc., but it didn't cut it for me. I felt like I was watching a magician trying to distract me with the cards while pulling an ace out of his sleeve.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No prob with the explanation....:) -- rowan, 13:13:34 06/19/01 Tue

"Maybe that's what's really bugging me. Not so much that she closed the portal, but that she seemed to *know* it would work (ditto Dawn)."

Yes, this is one thing I struggle with -- alot.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She's always has these instincts. They usually seem to emerge in times of extreme stress. -- OnM, 17:22:59 06/19/01 Tue

What about her 'instinct' not to kill Spike? Or for that matter Angel when he returned from hell? Or that she could somehow face the Master and not die, even though it was fortold with absolute certainty? What about her instinct to not allow Dawn to be killed even if it would save the world by denying Glory access to the key powers? Her instinct to prevent Angel from killing himself in *Amends*? Her instinct that if Angel drank her blood to save himself from the vamp poison, that he would be able to stop in time?

She 'just seemed to *know*' that all these things would work, even though most of them greatly defy logic and common sense.

Ask yourself why in *The Gift*, Xander wasn't terrified that the world would end, while everyone else seemed to be sure that Buffy was hanging on to a desperate hope in trying to defeat Glory.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: She's always has these instincts. They usually seem to emerge in times of extreme stress. -- rowan, 18:22:11 06/19/01 Tue

Wow, you're good. I think that Buffy acts on what she believes to be instinct, but probably is the more spirtual/magickal side of her nature. She doesn't yet seem to be consciously aware of all her power. She equates and feels comfortable more with the physical side of Slayerness.

We've noticed that Willow's power seems to increase faster than what we can explain at times. Buffy's might well be the same. What is that theory of evolution called? punctuated equilibrium? You know, the one that posits that evolution takes place in large leaps forward followed by two steps back, rather than a steady evolutional pattern. Magickal evolution in the Buffyverse seems similar to me.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great point about the physical side of herSlayerself... -- OnM, 20:24:50 06/19/01 Tue

...she has always been far more comfortable with that than with her intellect or general mental/spiritual capabilities. This is unfortunate, because it's been demonstrated over and over again that she has a very fine logical mind to go along with the obvious physical strengths she possesses.

I believe, in fact, that that has been a weakness in that she doesn't always trust herself to 'think', she feels that she has to 'react' instead. That may be why she trusts the 'instincts' so much, in that they seem to bypass conventional rational thought, which she feels is not her strength.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We just have a mutual admiration society going today...;) -- rowan, 20:37:36 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Slayers may die, but great topics don't.... -- mundusmundi, 16:08:30 06/20/01 Wed

>>What about her 'instinct' not to kill Spike? Or for that matter Angel when he returned from hell? Or that she could somehow face the Master and not die, even though it was fortold with absolute certainty? What about her instinct to not allow Dawn to be killed even if it would save the world by denying Glory access to the key powers? Her instinct to prevent Angel from killing himself in *Amends*? Her instinct that if Angel drank her blood to save himself from the vamp poison, that he would be able to stop in time?<<

I guess we're defining "instinct" in different ways. To use just one example from above, B's decision to not stake Spike is informed by previous experience: 1) Their tenuous alliance in Becoming; 2) The fact that he's defenseless; and 3) Maybe some kind of attraction she acknowledges only unconsciously. It's a psychological profile, nothing mystical/magical about it, nor in any of the other examples, IMO. (Also, as we've seen plenty of times, Buffy's instincts aren't always honed in properly and are often left ambiguous. The stuff w/ Angel particularly.)

>>Ask yourself why in *The Gift*, Xander wasn't terrified that the world would end, while everyone else seemed to be sure that Buffy was hanging on to a desperate hope in trying to defeat Glory.<<

Not sure what you mean here. I suspect Xander was optimistic b/c of his unshakable confidence in Buffy, or perhaps he didn't want to worry Anya more than she already was. Whatever the case, I don't see this as being anything magickal/mystical either.

Someone else mentioned evolution. People who believe in evolution or any other scientific theory do so b/c they accept the evidence -- nobody says, "Ahhhh, I can feel it." That's a statement of faith (not Faith), and perfectly fine as such. I have faith in Joss, but I'm also an "evidence" guy and I like my favorite fantasies to be empirically sound, to a certain extent, even in the Buffyverse.

Having said that, I think we could apply Occam's Razor and say that the simplest reason may be the best -- that Buffy interpreted "Death is your gift" to mean what it meant, and she trusted the prophecy enough to do what she did. I just hope we get a little more info next year and not a scene with Giles asking Buffy how she knew it would work and Buffy answering cryptically, "Ahhh, I could feel it." ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Slayers may die, but great topics don't.... -- rowan, 17:31:51 06/20/01 Wed

"Someone else mentioned evolution."

Okay, now, that was me...just to clarify...the reason I brought up the theory was to demonstrate that forward, evolutionary progress may be achieved by a series of two steps forward, one step back, rather than a steadily increasing sequence. This principle seemed to me persuasive (not on a scientific level) but as a comparison to how Willow and Buffy's powers might be maturing -- not to prove the existence of magick by measuring it against the scientific method.


[> [> [> [> [> You're not being difficult, I was concerned I wasn't explaining my intent very well. :) -- OnM, 17:08:57 06/19/01 Tue

Rowan seems to get it pretty exactly, though, so at least I'm not totally out in left fireld, her explanation is excellent.

Disagree all you like, my friend, that's one of the things that makes this such a great board!

I do think there *is* substantial precedence for the 'Q' Buffy, though.. I'll do some further digging, to see if I'm correct or just imagining. In the meantime, off the top of my grey matter:

Consider one scene from back in the fall, it's actually the one that got me thinking of the SR stuff in the first place-- Buffy is escaping with one of the monks, trying to get away from Glory. She grabs the monk, hugs him to herself, jumps out (apparently) a second story window, **lands on her back, still carrying the monk**, and gets up afterward, obviously in pain, but also obviously without a shattered spine! I think this extraordinary feat (Slayer strength or not!)was possible because she *believed she could do it*, and reality was altered sufficiently to permit it. Also, the fall off the RV in *Spiral*? Withstanding the blows from Glory? Wielding the Troll Hammer effortlessly which Spike could just barely lift? Causing Glory to bleed? (Especially that-- think about it-- she made a *god* BLEED!)Defeating Adam as UberBuffy in Season 4 (spell or no spell, that was some wicked reality-altering)?

Those are some things that come to mind quickly. I will research the earlier seasons and see if I can gather some more supporing data, maybe post it next week sometime.

Anyways, thanks for listening to my rants, I appreciate it!


[> [> [> [> [> [> The thing about precedent is that you have to have an originating event..... -- Rufus, 18:03:43 06/19/01 Tue

Just because Buffy hasn't exhibited these powers before doesn't mean that she hasn't always had the potential. Buffy seems to get enough power to deal with each situation, the powers growing with the needed response to a given situation.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're not being difficult, I was concerned I wasn't explaining my intent very well. :) -- Malandanza, 20:36:21 06/20/01 Wed

"Disagree all you like, my friend, that's one of the things that makes this such a great board!"

Well, since you asking us to disagree... :)

I'm still not a fan of subjective reality (or collective subjective reality) so I'll make yet another attempt at debunking it.

First, Masquerade derailed my last attempt by bringing up the possibility that Buffy's subconscious desires and fears (i.e., her Death Wish) can alter reality. This idea would be in keeping with your vision of Buffy as a primitive version of Q -- she has not yet learned to truly harness her ability.

We caught a glimpse of Buffy's subconscious in WotW -- and it is a grim place (dwelling on her mother's death, suffocating her sister). We have also seen Buffy's dreams, on occasion. Dreams of being drowned by Faith, of killing Angel, the disturbing Riley/Psyche Class dream -- all manner of violence (and these are just the dreams we have seen). If Buffy's subconscious were truly altering reality, then perhaps the evil in Sunnydale is there because she dreams it there (which would explain why the demons and vampires keep coming there in spite of the prospect of a sudden, painful death). With Buffy dead, will Sunnydale suddenly become a safe place? Somehow, I doubt it.

By the way, OnM, I once again urge you to read "The Mysterious Stranger," by Mark Twain -- there's some subjective reality stuff in that book that will have you joining me in hoping that it isn't true (while supporting your own position).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now that's an interesting idea... -- OnM, 21:07:35 06/20/01 Wed

*** "If Buffy's subconscious were truly altering reality, then perhaps the evil in Sunnydale is there because she dreams it there (which would explain why the demons and vampires keep coming there in spite of the prospect of a sudden, painful death). With Buffy dead, will Sunnydale suddenly become a safe place?" ***

I doubt it too, but what a great story idea!

Some big bad comes to town, and tries to convince Buffy that *she* is actually the cause of Sunnydale's evil, because in Anyanka-like fashion, she has been thinking/dreaming it, and so the subconscious is made real.

Turns out to not be true, of course, but oh, the angst if they managed to convince her even to some degree!

Some possible fic for our upcoming sister-site?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooo! Ooooo! More thoughts! (Gee, whatta surprise... ;) -- OnM, 21:20:42 06/20/01 Wed

That's it! This is all part of Doc's evil plan!

Season 6 starts and everyone is baffled that demonic activity and evilness in general is way, way down-- in fact, nearly non-existant. Since if anything, Buffy's death should have had the opposite effect, this is extremely disconcerting.

Turns out that Doc orchestrated things to get Buffy to jump into the portal, thinking she had to do it to save Dawn, but that she really didn't. (Some other posters here have already wondered about just exactly that line of thought).

Now, he has made a pact with the forces of darkness so that they are holding off, while an effort can be made to convince people that the Watcher's Council (he arranges to reveal their existance to the world, or at least Sunnydale) and their 'instruments', the Slayers, are actually creating evil by allowing 'monsters from their ids' to transmute in reality. If the Council and the Slayers could be exposed and discredited, then evil would be setting itself up to take over the human dimension again. (The eventual apocalypse we've been hearing about on A:tS?)

Oh man, if only I had the time to write all this stuff out...


Thanks, Mal! Good one!! Anyone out there interested?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're not being difficult, I was concerned I wasn't explaining my intent very well. :) -- rowan, 21:11:58 06/20/01 Wed

"We caught a glimpse of Buffy's subconscious in WotW -- and it is a grim place (dwelling on her mother's death, suffocating her sister). We have also seen Buffy's dreams, on occasion. Dreams of being drowned by Faith, of killing Angel, the disturbing Riley/Psyche Class dream -- all manner of violence (and these are just the dreams we have seen). If Buffy's subconscious were truly altering reality, then perhaps the evil in Sunnydale is there because she dreams it there (which would explain why the demons and vampires keep coming there in spite of the prospect of a sudden, painful death). With Buffy dead, will Sunnydale suddenly become a safe place? Somehow, I doubt it."

Wow. Now I'm seeing Buffy as as Jonathan, albeit unconsciously creating her reality (and a frightening one it is, too). Remember the end of the television show St. Elsewhere? Didn't it turn out the whole show was the daydream of an autistic child looking at a snow globe?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, that's right. I thought that was so brilliant, but a lot of people hated it. -- OnM, 21:40:47 06/20/01 Wed

Ah, most beloved *St. Elsewhere*. Great art does seem to have a polarizing effect at times, s'pose that's just the nature of the beast.

Now that's another show I'd like to see remastered and issued on DVD! BTW, remember that ep where Fiscus died (temporarily) and had that meeting with God, who-- looked just like him?

"Well, I created you in my image, didn't I?"

Now *That* was must-see TV for it's day!


[> [> Vote me in as the queen of "B" -- Masq, defender of internal consistency in the Buffyverse, 11:39:58 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> B and Q -- AK-UK, 16:39:31 06/20/01 Wed

I think we are in danger of streching things to cover up inconsistencies in the Buffyverse. The fact is, characters strengths vary continously. Buffy jumped out of window and landed on her back in one episode, but gets stabbed with her own stake by a normal vampire in the other. Why? Because the writers had a good story to tell which required her to get beat. i mean, look at Angel, in the AtS episode "Sanctuary (I think) he practically FLEW from a flight of stairs, through a sun roof and onto a helicopter.....talk about power upgrade. Is he a primitive Q too?

I definetly think Buffy is getting stronger, but the show would become very boring if she can alter reality and think herself into becoming a key substitute. If that's the case, what the hell is so special about the key? Couldn't someone else just give themselves it's powers by changing reality?

As you might be able to guess, I have serious problems with Anyanka's previous demon abilities (sooooo, you have the power to permanently alter reality, just by wishing? And this was a gift of the lower beings? Wow.......makes you wonder what the higher beings can do. Makes you wonder how the hell demons ever lost control of the planet with power like that.........ah well, mark it down as another case of "Writer has cool story to tell, so screw consistency" :)


[> [> [> [> I'm not a consistency monger of that calliber. I mostly -- Masquerade, 16:52:14 06/20/01 Wed

try to find nice explanations to cover things that the "Plot hole!" whiners harp on the most. And I admit defeat sometimes. There's just no way to patch up Joss's math-suckage, for example : )


[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not a consistency monger of that calliber. I mostly -- rowan, 17:34:06 06/20/01 Wed

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds(did I quote that correctly? it's been a long time). Maybe math is the hobgoblin of little minds. Or maybe little minds like mine can't do math as well as hobgoblins. Or...


[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, pretty much any kind of goblin would be at home in the Buffyverse, right? -- OnM, 20:46:15 06/20/01 Wed

Consistancy has it's limits. If the story's good enough, I let 'em slide a bit. If you hold the writers up to a near-perfect standard, you'd get far less entertainment.

A lot depends on whether they're *trying* to be especially clever or innovative, and mostly succeed. It's the same when I look at movies, like in 'Moulin Rouge', where some scenes run perilously close to being over-the-top. But I don't care-- the entity as a whole is just so completely original, minor quibbles are just that-- minor quibbles.


[> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- rowan, 18:52:08 06/20/01 Wed

"I think we are in danger of streching things to cover up inconsistencies in the Buffyverse."

I hear your point and respect your different opinion. But what I'm saying is that I think the altering of collective reality is occurring through magick and that's why I don't see inconsistencies, not: I see inconsistencies, so let me find a theory that covers them. As a Wiccan, this theory we're discussing isn't that far-fetched to me.


[> [> [> [> [> What is inconsistency? -- Masquerade, 19:32:04 06/20/01 Wed

The inconsistencies I try to find resolutions to on my page are not inconsistencies of the Buffyverse with the physics of the realverse. That is the essence of science fiction (most of it anyway) and fantasy--it doesn't follow the rules of the real world and wouldn't be much fun if it did.

The inconsistencies I try to find resolutions to are when the show breaks its own rules. In one episode, it is crucial to the plot that a vampire's mind casts no reflection--Buffy can't read Angel's mind and find out his true feelings for Faith and so she must take his word for it. Then in later episodes, we take trips in a vampire's dreams, see vampires getting their auras read, see someone seemingly talking telepathically with a vampire.

As long as we are given plausible explanations about why these things can happen once a rule has been set, I consider consistency met. I.e., Willow didn't read Spike's mind in the Gift, she just appeared to, or Willow found a special wiccan spell that allowed her to enter Spike's mind in a way Buffy didn't (with no such spell) in "Earshot".

Sometimes, writers will break their own rules (or forget them) for the sake of something they want to do in a new episode. Writers have a phrase for that.

It's called "lazy writing".

Other times, it's called "plot holes" or "Deux ex machina" where an unforeshadowed something or other pops out suddenly at the last minute to save a character's problem. I try to cover their butts on my site when I can through fan theories about how the rules can be legitimately broken in this case, and I do it as a fellow writer who tries to live by the constraints I've set down for myself in my own fictional worlds.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said. -- rowan, 20:03:42 06/20/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> Another thought.... -- rowan, 20:07:07 06/20/01 Wed

"As long as we are given plausible explanations about why these things can happen once a rule has been set, I consider consistency met. I.e., Willow didn't read Spike's mind in the Gift, she just appeared to, or Willow found a special wiccan spell that allowed her to enter Spike's mind in a way Buffy didn't (with no such spell) in "Earshot"."

Is that why Spike had to speak out loud in response to Willow's telepathic words? She could put thoughts into Spike's head, but she couldn't read his (just as Buffy couldn't read Angel's) -- he had to say them out loud, then her spell amplified them so she could hear (and he knew he needed to do this?!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was what I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process. -- OnM, 20:55:58 06/20/01 Wed

And so, no inconsistancy for me in that instance.

You know, an interesting future poll to do at this board might be to ask what our various background histories are regarding what we prefer in genre fiction, for example, as I've mentioned before in many posts, I come from mostly 'straight' (but not 'hardcore'-science) SF and fantasy backgrounds in my reading, so my opinions are heavily shaded by that preference.

Feel free to poll that if you want, rowan, since you seem to be taking charge of all things poll-ish here of late! ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was what I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process. -- rowan, 21:09:22 06/20/01 Wed

I will add that to my list. I have about 14 topics written down on a legal pad that people have either suggested or that have occurred to me as I'm reading things -- I'm trying to spread out the 1st Anniversary Fun polls for each week until S6.

Since we're hiding down here at the bottom of the board, I'll let you in on a secret - next week's post. It will be about Eye Candy (we had ear candy this week). I'll ask everyone to post their favorite image/moment (without words) from BtVS.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was what I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process. -- Masq, 21:38:39 06/20/01 Wed

Ooh, goodie, that one's easy for me. I've archived my favorite visuals with the pics I pick for my website. (Buffy weilding the Hunga-munga in Anne... you go!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was what I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process. -- Rufus, 21:38:41 06/20/01 Wed

Oh...I guess my favorite image can't be of my cats????


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, only if your cats were spotted eating Canadian chocolate in a recent episode -- Masq, 13:59:49 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If you look really closely, in Triangle Rufus was one of the victims at the Bronze....:):):):) -- Rufus, 14:32:47 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another thought.... -- verdantheart, 11:20:59 06/22/01 Fri

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is how I interpreted it. We assume Willow can cast her thoughts telepathically via a spell. There's no reason why Spike, even though his mind might not "cast a shadow", can't have thoughts cast into his head. And assuming Willow can create a telepathic spell, why does she have to pick up Spike's responses from his mind? She can pick them up from any of the Scoobies nearby, who can clearly hear Spike's words. An additional amplification spell would then be unnecessary. Why doesn't she transmit to all of them? That might be more difficult, and might cause confusion, as she was talking directly to Spike not to them. Just my thoughts. I didn't think this was much of a stretch to cover a plot-hole.

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> verisimilitude -- verdantheart, 12:14:31 06/22/01 Fri

Thanks, everyone, for a very interesting discussion. I'm late with my comments (as usual) but here I go anyway.

I'm going to put myself in the B camp as well, interpreting it as follows.

What you're talking about is "verisimilitude" (the quality of appearing to be true or real). The question is, "Is the work of drama self-consistent enough to feel real?"

I don't feel that there needs to be a scientific basis for phenomena in a story. Heaven knows I've seen enough people bending what we know of physics into pretzels in order to somehow explain the latest bit of Star Trek technobabble. For me, the question is not "Does this obey physics?" or even "Is this *completely* consistent with earlier technomythology presented on this series?" but "Is this so out of context that it pulls me out of the story?" It is best when the work is completely self-consistent, but it's unrealistic to expect this, especially of a TV series, which has contributions from multiple authors.

For example, John McClane happens to be at just the right spot to be squirted out a manhole by the wall of water that is coming at him, and this happens (conveniently) at the same time that his buddy Zeus is driving by (Die Hard with a Vengeance). Do I buy it? NO. When my credulity is strained to this extent, my enjoyment of the work suffers.

Did the Willow/Spike telepathic exchange pull me out of the story? Even if I didn't have an alternative reading of the exchange other than straight Willow-Spike telepathy, it wouldn't have bothered me. In fact, I didn't even think about any problems with it until afterwards.

Does it bother me that Spike called Angel his "sire" and then it later turned out that Drusilla was his sire, Angel only his mentor? I'm sorry that this wasn't worked out ahead of time, but as of the current situation, the story works out better dramatically if Drusilla vamped him. The fact is that TV series are written as they go, so sometimes history is re-written to fit dramatic needs. Considering that Spike was only supposed to last several episodes, I can hardly fault the writers for failing to work out his origins more thoroughly.

What would bother me (probably more than inconsistencies in magickal rules, for example) is if a character acted out of character. For example, take the original Star Trek. In season 2 Vulcans rigorously avoid discussing their mating rituals. In season 3 (speaking of disasterous seasons) we find Spock casually discussing this subject with a woman he barely met in The Cloud Minders. Yuck and double yuck.

We believe in Spike's transformation because we were led through it by the hand by the writers and Mr Marsters' nuanced performances. If he went straight from Buffy vs. Dracula to The Gift, would we believe it? No. I don't think that even Mr Marster's could have made me buy that one.

OK, now I'm losing track. Anyway, what I'm saying is if the combined effect of all the little flaws in consistency ruin your enjoyment of the show, then for you, the series' verisimilitude has been destroyed.

Personally, I don't see a lot of major flaws, but then I haven't been it in for the entire duration and am catching up by means of transcripts (can't wait for FX to run them!). I'll let you hash out whether the verisimilitude of BtVS has been compromised or not.

Meanwhile, thanks again!

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- AK-UK, 20:42:11 06/20/01 Wed

Hey, I'm a chaos magician, so I'm very open to the idea of the individual being able to alter reality with magic, BUT I don't think that that is what is happening in the Buffyverse vis-a-vis the closing of the portal. Whilst such a theory might tie in neatly with our own beliefs, I just don't see much evidence for that theory in the show.

To be honest, I'd prefer it if Buffy didn't develop such powers, but I think that discussion belongs in a different thread.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- rowan, 21:02:03 06/20/01 Wed

This thread just keeps getting better and better. A few posts ago, I was creating a story to fit the inconsistencies, now I'm forcing the inconsistencies to bend to my beliefs.



[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- OnM, 21:34:49 06/20/01 Wed

I can see that topic go either way, and it can be done credibly. I'm thinking though, that if the theme of S6 is 'Oh, grow up', then it very possibly will deal with a more powerful Buffy. After all, power brings with it the need for responsibility, and greater power means greater responsibility. And all that certainly resonates with the theme of 'growing up'.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Amen -- verdantheart, 11:22:18 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> Anyanka's Realities -- Malandanza, 20:06:23 06/20/01 Wed

"As you might be able to guess, I have serious problems with Anyanka's previous demon abilities (sooooo, you have the power to permanently alter reality, just by wishing? And this was a gift of the lower beings? Wow.......makes you wonder what the higher beings can do. Makes you wonder how the hell demons ever lost control of the planet with power like that.........ah well, mark it down as another case of "Writer has cool story to tell, so screw consistency" :)"

I'm not sure Anyanka's power rises to the level of Q. Consider the source: D'Hoffryn. Why did D'Hoffryn offer power to Willow? To right wrongs? No -- because she had demonstrated an ability to inflict torment upon the people she most cared about. I am sure the case was similar for Anya -- D'Hoffyrn was not interested in avenging scorned women (no matter what Anyanka's job description said); rather, the women were tools to inflict suffering on those around them. The wishes Anyanka offered to the scorned women were of the "Monkey's Paw," "Bottle Imp" or Evil Genie variety.

Could Anya permanently alter reality? We see no real evidence of this. Perhaps the realities exist along the Buffyverse and her power was merely that of opening a gateway for her supplicants. Perhaps they were the inherently unstable realities like Jonathan's universe -- remember, Adam was unimpressed by the false reality and decided to let it run its course and collapse on its own rather than intervene. I suspect that most of Anyanka's women ended up just as dead as Cordelia in "Wish" (had the amulet not been broken, Cordy would have remained dead). In any event, these realities were not permanent.

How did they lose power? There seems to be a rule restricting the use of power. Human cooperation appears to be a requirement for some of the biggest powers. Hence, the demons' interest in corrupting humans. They can channel mighty powers through their human thralls, but they cannot use those powers directly (the Mayor, a host of minor powers and creatures -- like the Hellhounds -- from earlier seasons, Yeska from "Guise Will be Guise" and the Paranoia demon from AYNOHYEB). I think the Buffyverse has been fairly consistent in this area.


[> [> [> [> [> All this good stuff way down here at the bottom of the board...:) -- rowan, 20:09:57 06/20/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities -- AK-UK, 05:44:26 06/21/01 Thu

What has D'Hoffryn's motivation got to do with the streength of the power of the wish? I agree that Anyanka was an evil genie, but doesn't that make her very powerful?

I think there has been a clear distinction made between Jonathan's spell (which fell apart quickly and failed to fool Adam......or Buffy, for that matter) and Anyanka's wish (which utterly altered Sunnydale, resurrected the Master and turned Willow and Xander into vampires). From what we've seen, Anyanka could have wished Glory away just like she wished Buffy away.

We have clearly seen that Anyanka's powers create changes in this reality (rather than transporting the wisher to an alternative reality); when the jewel is destroyed we travel back in time to when Cordelia made her wish, and the Anyanka of THIS reality loses her power (rather than an alternate universe Anyanka).

On another point, I know that demons have to channel their powers through humans now, but what did they do before humans arrived? How were they kicked off the earth if they have such awesome powers?

But like I said, if I have to have accept plot inconsistencies to get episodes like "Doppelgangland" then I'll gladly do so.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities -- Malandanza, 07:00:47 06/21/01 Thu

"I think there has been a clear distinction made between Jonathan's spell (which fell apart quickly and failed to fool Adam......or Buffy, for that matter) and Anyanka's wish (which utterly altered Sunnydale, resurrected the Master and turned Willow and Xander into vampires). From what we've seen, Anyanka could have wished Glory away just like she wished Buffy away. "

Jonathan changed everything. Anya's spell altered Sunnydale. Maybe Anya could have wished Glory away -- but I think her powers were limited to "aiding" scorned women (so unless Ben had used and abandoned some young, vengeful woman, Anya would not have been able to affect Glory). By contrast, Jonathan (as the leader of the initiative) new exactly how to destroy Adam. In fact, he knew everything so it's hard to see how he would have failed to defeat Glory. I'd say Jonathan's spell was more powerful.

"We have clearly seen that Anyanka's powers create changes in this reality (rather than transporting the wisher to an alternative reality); when the jewel is destroyed we travel back in time to when Cordelia made her wish, and the Anyanka of THIS reality loses her power (rather than an alternate universe Anyanka)."

"Dopplegangland" (and Anya's repeated references to other realities, almost identical to the Buffyverse) suggests that Anya made no changes in the Buffyverse -- if "The Wish" had physically changed the Buffyverse (instead of catapulting Cordelia into an alternate reality), where did VampWillow come from? And the after effects? If Anyanka had sent Cordelia a nightmare, it would have had more lasting effects -- at least Jonathan was able to help facilitate a reconciliation between Buffy and Riley after his reality began to disintegrate; Anyanka's spell had no lasting effects at all. No time travel -- merely a projection of Cordy's consciousness into Alternate Cordy's mind. Only the Oracle could do time travel.

"On another point, I know that demons have to channel their powers through humans now, but what did they do before humans arrived? How were they kicked off the earth if they have such awesome powers?"

The dinosaurs ruled the Earth once -- how did the mammals take over? Some sort of climatic change or a mass extinction (caused by a catastrophe). Things change -- the demons that couldn't adapt fled to more favorable realities. Some of the demons (like the Senior Partners) cannot even exist in this plane in their true form. Others (like the First Evil) can only affect things by suggesting and encouraging their potential victims.

"What has D'Hoffryn's motivation got to do with the strength of the power of the wish? I agree that Anyanka was an evil genie, but doesn't that make her very powerful?"

D'Hoffryn wasn't offering Anya limitless (Q magnitude) power to with as she pleased. He offered her serious power with serious limitations. D'Hoffyrn's motivations are important because they reveal just how constrained Anyaka's power really was. Anyanka couldn't simply wish away anything she pleased -- she could use her powers only to "help" scorned women -- and only to wreak havoc. If a woman had asked Anyanka to make her boyfriend come back to her so they could live happily ever after, would Anyanka had granted this wish? Or if she did, would it have been in such a twisted manner that the woman would have ultimately regretted her decision? In specific circumstances Anyanka was very powerful -- but outside her sphere of influence, I doubt she could have done much. The Buffyverse has been consistent on the issue of big powers having big limitations -- or serious consequences (perhaps what made Glory a god instead of just a demon was that she had very few restrictions about how to use her power).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities......sorry Malandanza...... -- AK-UK, 14:03:07 06/21/01 Thu

Sorry to put your ideas down like this, but you are very wrong on a number of points.

"Jonathan changed everything, Anyanka changed Sunnydale".


In fact, the reverse is the case. Jonathan merely changd the perceptions of the people of Sunnydale, and he didn't manage that very well. Adam wasn't fooled, and Buffy soon pulled herself out of it's influence.

From "Superstar"

Willow: Jonathan did an AUGMENTATION spell.....(which effects)...HIM AND HOW WE SEE HIM.

and later in the script:

Buffy: He starred in "The Matrix" but NEVER LEFT TOWN.

When the spell is broken, perceptions slowly change, people's memories return, they begin to see things as they truly are. Even with the spell, things are pretty much the same. Riley is still with Buffy, Adam is still on the loose.......the events that happened in earlier seasons (like the master's bones being crushed) still happened, but now the SG believe that Jonathan did it.

Anyanka spell changes EVERYTHING. Her spells ressurect the Master, makes Willow and Xander vampires, makes Angel a torture victim who hasn't even touched Buffy. Anyanka's spell isn't limited to Sunnydale either. In "The Wish" Giles talks on the phone to Buffy's watcher, and we discover that she fights demons in CLEVELAND. She has never even been to Sunnydale before.

"No time travel-- merely a projection of Cordy's consciousness into Alternative Cordy's mind. Only the Oracle could do time travel."

Wrong and wrong again.

Anyanka's powers clearly alter time. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.

From "Doppelgangland"

Anyanka (to D'Hoffryn): Give me another chance. YOU CAN FOLD BACK THE FABRIC OF TIME. Send me back to that moment (the moment her power centre was destroyed) and I'LL CHANGE IT.

Note that Anyanka is not asking to be transported to a different reality, but to a different TIME in THIS reality. Also note that she clearly states that D'HOFFRYN has the power to fold back time.

In fact, Anyanka continues on, and seeks out the help of Willow.

From "Doppelgangland"

Anyanka (to Willow): I need a secondary to create a TEMPORAL FOLD.

a fold in time, which Willow SUCCEEDS in doing, but the spell goes wrong and instead of retrieving the power source, they accidently retrieve VampWillow. Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. Like I said, I prefer the alternate reality theory too, but it's just not right in this case.

As for the magnitude of Anyanka's powers, I think we are arguing at cross purposes. The scope of Anyanka's power is limited, but it appears the depth of her power is near limitless. But that doesn't address the problem. So what if D'Hoffryn put limits on Anyanka's powers......what limits are there on D'Hoffryn's powers? How powerful were the demons who used to inhabit the earth? Do the demons who left this planet wish to come back? How did they lose their grip on this planet? These are questions I'd like to see answered in the next season.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities and LOTR -- OnM, 21:16:39 06/21/01 Thu

It's been a very long time since I read The Lord of the Rings, but wasn't there something written in it that referred to the older inhabitants of that reality losing their 'purchase' on the world because humans were becoming the predominant residents of the Earth, and they didn't believe in the existance of the old ones? And therefore (in SR fashion, actually) the old ones gradually cease to exist.

Couldn't that be the same situation here? If humanity collectively disbelieves in 'magic', for example, then it gradually gets weaker and weaker.

One of the questions that hasn't been answered to date (as regards the Buffyverse), are there demons and 'old ones' and magic *everywhere* on our current-day Earth, or just in scattered spots like L.A., Sunnydale or Cleveland?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities and LOTR -- rowan, 21:41:05 06/21/01 Thu

Okay, I'm going to grossly oversimplify for speed. In the Silmarillion (backstory to LOTR), the Elves are the First Children of God. The Elves live in paradise with the lesser gods (Vala and Maia), and develop an intense bond with these gods. A group of fallen lesser gods who have turned evil also come to Earth to rule. Eventually, some adventurous Elves move out into Earth to dwell, still retaining their love of the gods and their memories of paradise. They come into conflict with the fallen lesser gods, even as they spread beauty & wisdom on Earth.

Eventually, God awakens his other children, Men (humans). They have long life spans, but eventually die, unlike the Elves, who never age and never die. They do not at first get along with Elves, and they never develop the close relationship to the gods that the Elves have. In some ways, they are bitter, because they have been given the "gift" of death. The lesser gods cannot explain why God chose in his wisdom to give death as a gift. Some Men begin acting against the lesser gods, and they are punished with diminished lifespan.

Eventually, the two races combine forces with other free peoples (hobbits, dwarves, etc.) to defeat the great evil (fallen lesser gods). As a result of the sacrifices required, the Elves grow weary of their time on Earth, and they return to paradise, leaving Earth in the hands of Men. Many beautiful things pass away as a result, but the sacrifice was necessary in order to defeat the great evil. Slowly, the other free peoples decline, until Men are left.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities and LOTR -- AK-UK, 07:40:27 06/22/01 Fri

OnM and rowan, I think that in the LOTR the Gods actively withdraw their powers from the world, in some way taking the "magic" with them (Gandalf returning to the west is symbolic of this, I think).

The idea that human's belief helps perpetuate magic is similiar to the concept of the "Cycle of Faith", explored the fantasy novels of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman and the "Sandman" graphic novels by Neil Gaiman.

In their works, Gods gain power by attracting believers: the more people worship them, the more powerful they get. In the "Sandman" graphic novels, God's who lose believers slowly lose their powers, eventually fading away and becoming myths, at which point they enter the Sandman's realm (the realm of dreams and the imagination......the realm they were created in).

Was the encroaching power of humans based on their ability to just ignore all that was around them, and that places like Sunnydale contain large numbers of people who are willing to believe what they see, hence the demon activity? That could tie in nicely with the "reality is a collective subjective reality" theory posted above.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Power linked to believers? -- Little One, 09:15:51 06/22/01 Fri

Just to give another example of this Believers Make Gods theory, try reading Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. Pratchett and Gaiman collaborated on several novels, so perhaps they created this theory together. In Small Gods, as a god's followers diminish, so does its power until the god eventually dies (is forgotten). Some gods are able to stay rooted in folklore and so maintain some small semblance of power (such as being able to cause a small breeze instead of its former mighty gale).

This theory relies on the principal that the more believers a god has, the greater his/her power and vice versa. If we apply this to the Buffyverse, it would mean that the demons are much less powerful than in the past. Few people currently believe in demons and magic and so they must therefore be weak compared to when many people believed in it. My question is if magic and demons are now in a watered down form and it takes the combined energy of slayer, Council of Watchers and an increasingly powerful Scooby gang to keep it in check, what powers were necessary when the demons had believers/power? Were the first slayers more powerful than current ones? Is the First Slayer more powerful than Buffy? I would say yes, since she seems much more spiritually and mentally capable than Buffy. Afterall, she's been dead for eons and yet she could communicate with those who woke her (Restless).

Now, just to muddy the waters a bit, does this mean that the more people who believe in Buffy increase her strength and powers? Kendra reveals that it is in the slayer handbook that slayers normally do not have friends, family or socialize in anyway, devoting themselves to their craft. They keep their powers secret from the rest of humanity. Could this be why Buffy has managed to live past the standard slayer lifespan and why her powers are increasing? Because constantly more and more people are added to her list of believers? In S4, the entire Initiative was let in on her secret. Perhaps it is not coincidentally that in S4 she became stronger and wiser than before.

Sorry to ramble.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities and LOTR -- rowan, 11:10:42 06/22/01 Fri

"OnM and rowan, I think that in the LOTR the Gods actively withdraw their powers from the world, in some way taking the "magic" with them (Gandalf returning to the west is symbolic of this, I think)."

Actually, the gods in The Silmarillion (not much evident about gods in LOTR) never had much to do with the world, which is strange. Iluvatar (the creator) created the demigods (Vala and Maia), but after that, seems to disappear. Now the Vala and Maia had much to do with Illuvatar's First Children (Elves) and the Valar's attempts at children (Dwarves), but much, much less to do with Men. And all this contact was in the Blessed Realm (Undying Lands), not on Earth. Only one Valar and a few Maia went to Earth to deal directly with Men.

So, I agree that the gods were not a direct presence in the lives of most on Earth. However, the Elves carried the "magick" of the gods into the Earth and all that it entails. Once the great evil arose, the Elves then sacrificed that magickal presence in order to purge the evil, giving way to the rise of the non-magickal, human dominated world.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities......rebuttal, AK-UK -- Malandanza, 22:24:51 06/21/01 Thu

"In fact, the reverse is the case. Jonathan merely changed the perceptions of the people of Sunnydale, and he didn't manage that very well. Adam wasn't fooled, and Buffy soon pulled herself out of it's influence."

Jonathan did not merely change people's perceptions. Let's look at a few minor examples of Jonathan artifacts and real knowledge that he gained through the spell: trading cards, magazines, posters, the swimsuit calendar -- all real. He was able to easily beat Giles at Chess and outfight the vampires with Buffy. Perhaps you can argue that Xander, Giles and Anya were looking at other things and imagining Jonathan (like a Michael Jordan poster and seeing Jonathan or a magazine with Bill Gates with Jonathan.com instead) but the knowledge he gained was real. Look at a scene where the initiative works with Jonathan:

Colonel: "For those of you who don't already know my name is Colonel George . I'm commanding officer here until such time as the facility review is completed. This review does not mean our primary mission is changed in any way. Recovery of the hostile known as Adam is our first and most important job. To this end I've asked our tactical consultant here to address us today. Mr. Levinson."

Jonathan: "Thank you, colonel."

Graham [aside to Riley]: "It's about time we brought out the big guns."

Jonathan unfolds a schematic of a skeletal structure and spreads it on the table.

Jonathan: "Men, before we can locate Adam we need to understand him better. And there's something that's bothered me almost from the start. He doesn't eat. We've known him to kill but never to eat the kill. So I've pulled some of Professor Walsh's original design schematics and I've found something - his power source is not biological at all. It's here" [points to center of chest in the skeletal schematic.] "The design attempts to hide it, but I believe that there's a small reservoir of uranium 235."

Riley: "Sir, how long will it last?"

Jonathan: "Essentially forever. It also means that cutting off his head is useless. Killing Adam means annihilating him completely. But first we have to find him."

This knowledge was real. In fact, Adam did have a nuclear power source which Buffy had to remove in order to destroy him -- it was not merely a question of the Initiative soldiers perceiving Jonathan as knowledgeable.

You quoted Willlow on the Augmentation spell; here is what Adam had to say: "These are lies. None of this is real. The WORLD has been CHANGED. It's intriguing but it's wrong." Note that Adam did not say that "Our PERCEPTION of the world has been CHANGED." It was real. But is that possible? Buffy asks ex-demon Anya:

Buffy: "But someone could wish the whole world to be different right? That's possible?"

Anya: "Sure, alternate realities. You could uh, could have like a world without shrimp. Or with, you know, nothing but shrimp. You could even make like a freaky world where Jonathan's some kind of not perfect mouth breather if that's what's blowing up your skirt these days. Just don't ask me to live there! Now if I, uh, could just have book back you could be on your way someplace else?"

We are back to the idea of an alternate reality -- a world created out of nothing to suit an individuals needs. Furthermore, even Willow acknowledges that the Augmentation spell created some real changes since it changed (this is the rest of your Willow quote) "Him! And how we see him. This spell TURNS the sorcerer INTO a sort of paragon, the best of everything, everyone's ideal." A physical change -- not merely the altering of one's perceptions. Here's Riley's response: "So if this is the WORLD HE CREATED, what's the real world like?"

Finally, as the alternate reality gives way to the real world, here are some final comments by Buffy and the Scoobies:

Willow: "I can't believe we believed it"

Riley: "It seemed so real."

Buffy: "Well, in THAT world, it was REAL."

Okay -- let's look at Anyanka and the Wishworld. You say:

"Anyanka's powers clearly alter time. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.

From "Doppelgangland"

Anyanka (to D'Hoffryn): Give me another chance. YOU CAN FOLD BACK THE FABRIC OF TIME. Send me back to that moment (the moment her power centre was destroyed) and I'LL CHANGE IT.

Note that Anyanka is not asking to be transported to a different reality, but to a different TIME in THIS reality. Also note that she clearly states that D'HOFFRYN has the power to fold back time."

Star Trek technobabble aside (the temporal folds and such), Anya is not asking to be sent back in time in this reality. Her power center was never destroyed here -- none of the events of the Wishworld actually happened in the Buffyverse. After Anyanka's amulet was destroyed, the Buffyverse picked up EXACTLY where it left off. Anyanka's alternate reality had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER even on Cordelia who made the wish. Going back in time to the moment the amulet was destroyed in the Buffyverse is impossible -- it never happened. Clearly, Anya and Willow reconnected to the alternate reality where the amulet was destroyed -- since they brought VampWillow (who also never existed in the Buffverse) into the Buffyverse.

Also interesting to me is that when Cordelia returned to the Buffyverse it was to the exact moment that she had left. When VampWillow returned to the Wishworld it was also to the exact moment that she had left. Time in various alternate realities seems to behave differently (although I still hate time travel -- total agreement there). Since these alternate realities are created by spells and fade quickly, I have less of a problem with D'Hoffryn manipulating "temporal folds" in pet universes created through his own magicks than I would him being able to alter time in the Buffyverse.

"As for the magnitude of Anyanka's powers, I think we are arguing at cross purposes. The scope of Anyanka's power is limited, but it appears the depth of her power is near limitless. But that doesn't address the problem. So what if D'Hoffryn put limits on Anyanka's powers......what limits are there on D'Hoffryn's powers?"

I do not believe the "depth is limitless." Anya's Troll spell from her pre-vengeance demon days had more of a lasting effect than the alternate reality she sent Cordelia to (or created for Cordelia, depending upon your point of view). As for D'Hoffryn, I don't think he can have much of an effect on the Buffyverse himself -- like the Senior Partners or the First Evil he must rely on his human intermediaries. How powerful he is on his own plane of existence is largely irrelevant if he cannot use those powers in the Buffyverse.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When you're right, you're right (NT) -- Slayrunt, 23:51:06 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities......rebuttal, AK-UK -- AK-UK, 07:01:27 06/22/01 Fri

Sorry to come back like this, but I think you are misreading the quotes provided. firstly, I'll open concide a point to you. The effects of Jonathan's spell were greater than i stated in my first post. Jonathan is clearly more powerful than he was before. That's obvious from his enhanced fighting skills. However, I still dispute that his spell changed the world. How the heck would the SG know what effect the spell had outside of Sunnydale? When Riley uses the term "world" he can only be refering to the small part of the world he was experiencing at the time. Sunnydale. Buffy even makes the point that Jonathan "starred in "The Matrix" but never left Sunnydale". Whereas, in "The WIsh" we are given clear information from Giles's telephone call, and Buffy's appearance from out of town that Anyanka's powers have a greater range than just Sunnydale.

Now, as to the whole time debate, you once again misconstrue what is going on in the Buffyverse. Anyanka grants Cordelia's wish; the world changes as a result of this. Anyanka's power centre is destroyed and time folds back to the moment Cordelia made the wish, only this time Anyanka cannot grant it. Anyanka goes to D'Hoffryn asking him to fold back time to either the point at which she granted the wish or the point at which her power centre was destroyed. D'Hoffryn refuses, so Anyanka asks Willow to help her. They do a smaller spell which aims to create a smaller fold in time through which Anyanka can retrieve her power centre before it is destroyed. They succeed in creating the fold, but pull through VampWillow instead.

The argument that this couldn't happen because the events in "the Wish" never happened is clearly false. We are dealing with (sci-fi) time travel here. The events did happen, but then the power centre was destroyed and events were rolled back to the point at which the wish was made. Hence all the talk of creating folds in time.

We've been here before. In the AtS episode "I will remember you" Angel is turned into a human by some demons blood. He eats, shags Buffy etc etc, but realises he is now to weak to be able to fight evil effectively. He goes to the Oracles (in tha same way Anyanka goes to D'Hoffryn) and asks them to fold back time (same again). In this case the oracles, unlike D'Hoffryn, grant Angel's wish. Time is folded back, and the events of the episode never occured. Except they did. Which is stupid, and defies realverse logic, but heck, this is a tv show. Joss and Co played fast and loose with the laws of time in "I will remember you" in the same way they did in "The Wish" and "Doppelgangland".

I'll say it again, I PREFER the parallel dimension theory (heck, I wrote a kick ass BtVS spec script based on that premise) but it's not true.

Who knows how powerful D'Hoffryn's is? He can change people into demons, pluck them from their own dimension (ala Willow in "Something Blue") fold back time and who knows what else. Like I said, I'm not arguing about that. I'm just saying I would like to see some stories dealing with the early demons, the "arrival" of humans, the creation of the first slayer etc etc. 5 seasons have gone by now........and after episodes like "Primeval" "Restless" and "Buffy v Dracula" (*groan*) set the stage for some major revelations I hope we see some in season 6.
Are we going to have to watch PBS? -- cknight, 22:10:50 06/02/01 Sat

The new show planned for Giles... is there a way it will be seen in America? Or is there a really cool person in England willing to start the VCR running? :)


[> Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- Emcee003, 09:26:37 06/03/01 Sun


[> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- Sam Raimond, 14:52:17 06/03/01 Sun

You know what confuses me? How on Earth are they going to make a spin off about Giles that is interesting? I don't mean to insult Giles fans but I just don't understand.


[> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- Rufus, 15:26:44 06/03/01 Sun

Oh please have you not been paying attention since season one? Giles is way more than meets the eye. He has a background that warrants looking into. First, like a slayer he had no choice in becoming a watcher, it seems to be a familial thing. Then he went into major rebellion mode and became a sorcerer. He has changed his personality similar to the way Spike did. He pretended to be something he wasn't. He also got into enough trouble in the magic department to have a demon chase him after years of rejecting the magicks he did in his youth. Then you have to consider how they train the watchers. Some seem to be strictly academics and then there are the squads of soldier types that clean up problems in the most brutal way. Add to all this Giles actions in the Gift there is lots to build a story around. They could always bring Ethan into the mix.


[> [> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- cknight, 17:48:00 06/03/01 Sun

I agree. I think Giles is based on John Constantine the character from DC comics "Hellblazer" comic.

They've said his show would have a slower pace and be more adult in tone.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- Brian, 07:06:06 06/04/01 Mon

Cool analogy - John Constantine is a favorite comic book character of mine - However, I hope, Giles won't take up smoking after he moves to England.


[> [> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- purplegrrl, 08:48:13 06/04/01 Mon

Yes, Ethan, the villain I love to hate!

Also Giles is probably not currently on the best of terms with the Watchers Council. I'm guessing that the new Giles spin-off and BtVS would be running on parallel timelines. Then Giles could also have some angst about leaving the Scoobies to their own devices on the Hellmouth. Also he'll need to show up when Buffy returns from the dead. And there's probably lots of evil things that need dealing with in the back alleys of London. Maybe Giles as some sort of supernatural consultant/private detective!!

I think the spin-off will be great. I just hope we'll be able to get it on this side of the pond.


[> [> [> [> [> BBCAmerica? -- verdantheart, 11:46:11 06/04/01 Mon

I get it on my NetLink lineup on C-Band. Don't know how much delay there is, though.

Xander and Destiny -- Jarrod Harmier, 00:41:34 06/03/01 Sun

This is a revamped post. I posted much of this information to another thread that seaems to have been deleted. I revamped it to take into account a reply I received from SingedCat when I posted a portion to another thread about who can be access magic in the Buffyverse.

I was wondering about Xander's destiny. Even though he does fall into the category of the Everyman, there are some instances in the series that suggest that he is slated for so much more than that. Not to suggest being an Everyman is a bad thing.

In "Superstar" the group is looking over spell books and Riley asks if the spells really work and Willow said that the spells take concentration and being tuned in with the universe. Then Xander says, "Right you can't just go 'librum incendere' and expect..." The book bursts into flames. He closes it to extinguish the flame and Giles replies, "Xander, don't speak Latin in front of the books." I believed that the power to make the book burst into flames came from Xander. SingedCat reminded me that that there are books that are capable of containing power in the Buffyverse, including releasing that magic when read. The example given was the book used to trap Moloch the Corruptor in "I Robot, You Jane". The problem with this example is that even though it contained magical power itself, the book had certain restrictions on its use. The book could only trap Moloch when a ritual was performed. If the book Xander read from contained magical power, it is probable that it had similar restrictions to its use. So, what type of magic was Xander using when he unleashed the magic from the book? SingedCat had a theory that there are two kinds of magic in the Buffyverse: Hermetic magic (the classic Western method of incantations, components and gestures) and Shamanic magic (magic that runs off the intuition rather than the intellect). The first possibility is that he was using a type of Hermetic magic. This is a possibility that it could be Hermetic magic because the ritual used to trap Moloch unleashes the power of the book. However, it is doubtful that Xander used this form because Hermetic magic requires both concentraion and preparation and, when he read the Latin, he had neither. The second possibility is that he was using Shamanic magic. This is very different from Heremetic magic because it, as SingedCat says, "Either it drops on you or it doesn't." This is a more reasonable explanation that Heremtic magic. This leads to several objections and two questions. The first objection is that Xander is not in tune with the universe because he would be aware of it. Not necessarily. I believe that Hermetic magic requires a more explicit understanding of the universe, while Shamanic magic requires an implicit understanding since Shamanic magic utilizes intuition more than intellect. Xander would not not need to be aware of being in tune with the universe to utilize his abilities. I'll get to another reason why he might not be aware of his abilites later. The second objection is: If most magical books require Heremtic rituals to unleash their power, then Xander could not have unleashed the power from the book using Shamanic magic. This is incorrect. Because Shamanic magic is intuitive rather than intellectual, Xander would have an implicit understanding of magical "shortcuts" that others do not know. That is not to say that he is the only one who knows them. Most of the characters on "Buffy" who have constantly studied with a focus on the occult (Giles) or with a focus on the magical arts (Amy, Tara, and Willow seem to know these shortcuts on an explicit level because of their constant study. The question is: If he has access to Shamanic magic, where did he get this power from? One is that the constant research for the Scoobies has caused Xander to remember some of this information on an unconscious level. When he read the book, he accessed some of it on an implicit level, thus allowing him to perform the spell with ease. This might be part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think the Powers That Be (PTB) instilled in Xander some an implicit understanding of the magical shorcuts that others must read about. This, in combination with the research he has done, allowed him to pull off the magical feat in "Superstar". The second question is: You said that there is another reason why Xander might not be aware of his abilites. What is it? The reason Xander may not be aware of his abilities is his self image. It's obvious that Xander's parents abused in some fashion. Based on information provided by Xander, I can conclude that it was probably a mixture of physical abuse (hitting), emotional abuse ("What good are you?), and neglect (showing outright indifference). This created problems because the relationship with his parents was not just abusive, but inconsistent. He had no way of knowing at any one point what kind of abuse was going to be used. If an individual knows exactly which type of abuse is going to be used at any one time, that individual probably has learned how to avoid it. This created a sense of learned helplessness which, until recently, consumed him. Now that he is out in the real world and felling better about himself, his abilities will begin to surface. The reason why he is now feeling better about himself is next.

To explain why Xander is feeling better, I must talk about an episode of "Babylon 5" called "Walkabout". In it Dr. Stephen Franklin, a memeber of a relatively new belief system called the Foundation, starts going on a journey called a walkabout, which is a ritual borrowed from the Australian aboriginial cultures. Apparently, the Foundation borrows customs and beliefs from various cultures (from Earth and cultures from other planetsm I think) in the belief that no one group has all the right spiritual answers. According to Franklin, an individual takes a walkabout in order to find himself or self and learn about your character and your strength. At some point in the past the person taking the walkabout came to decision that was like a fork in the road. Some sort of distraction caused part of the person to go one way and the other part went the other way. In order to be a complete person, the person begins to walk. The person continues to walk until they actually meet themselves (metaphorically). After metting with the himself or herself, the individual has a conversation with the other half. This continues until nothing more can be said because the most important things can't be or don't need to be said (I can't remember which.) When this happens, the individual goes home. What does this have to do with Xander? Before the "The Replacement" many people questioned which Xander was the real Xander: "suaze" Xander or the Xander from "The Zeppo". In some seasons he was overly brave but has no patience when it comes to Giles doing research, while in others, he was scared as hell, but was patient when it came to Giles and his research. In episodes he was confident, but a little too forceful when it comes to getting results, while in others he lacked confidence, but also knew that force isn't always the best way to get results. In some episodes, he took the job way too seriously, but was also too judgmental when he thought the others weren't doing to the same, in others he didn't take the job as seriously as he should have, but was understanding of the actions of the others. In others, he was really happy, but didn't have that wacky sense of humor that we love, in others he was sad, but had that wacky sense of humor we love. How did this happen? Xander's strongest and weakest qualities became stronger or weaker to each other season to season and episode to episode. Later, Xander's strongest and weakest qualities split off from each other psychologically. This happens later physically in "The Replacment". When Xander is split in two, he is allowed to view his strongest and weakest qualities by themselves and talk to himself. Therefore, after the reintegration, he will be able to combine his strongest and weakest qualities and become a more balanced person. If he has a destiny the PTB would want Xander to have a balance between his strongest and weakest qualities rather than having them at war with with each other.

Also, Joss Whedon seems to love using storylines inspiried by known archetypes, movies, short stories, etc. The end of "Forever" mirrored the end of the short story "The Monkey's Paw". In the end of the story, the father uses the monkey's paw to negate a wish to bring back his son who had been killed in an accident with some machine. When his wife opens the door, no one is there. Also, the facts that Glory came from a hell dimension, that she is a shapeshifter (kind of), and that there were three ruling hell gods seems like Joss was using the comic book "Hellblazer" (or possibly "Sandman" as I've recently learned) as inspiration. In "Hellblazer" (and "Sandman"), Hell is run by three demons that are all shapshifters and tricksters. The reason I mention this utilization of other sources for inspiration is that Joss sometimes uses references that appear to be Biblical in origin. I only caught this recently, but the fact is that Xander is carpenter. Not just a carpenter, a damn good one. In several episodes his work has been shown on camera and it looks beautiful and functional. I thought that maybe Joss has made Xander a carpenter to allow the audience to associate him with Christ because Christ was a carpenter also. On one message board, someone mentioned that Xander's hair is being allowed to grow longer like Christ's. I'n not sure about this, but I'm posting it here. I'm not saying Joss is setting up Xander to be a Christ-like figure like other people have said, but I do think Joss is using association to implying that Xander has some sort of grand destiny that isn't implied by his regular routine. We know that Buffy and Angel have destinies linked to them their being champions. Xander's destiny would be linked to something else. At one point, someone thought that Xander might be the key to averting some sort of apocalypse. It was an incorrect spoiler for the end of season 4, but it was interesting. The apocalypse was attributed to Judaism and the result was decided not in a battlefield, but in the mind of one person. I tried to do a search but I found only one hit. The site (which may be incorrect) mentioned something about the death and destrucion of metaphysical entities in the mind of one person. This is the kind of apocalypse that I think an Everyman who might have a more than just a touch of Shamanic magic in him is perfect for. Of course, he could always go to L.A. and sing at the Caritas. Then all would be revealed! (I don't know much about apocalypytic thought being an atheist. Anyone who has information about the apocaplypse or armaggeddon I'm trying to think of, you have my explicit permission to email me.)


[> Re: Xander and Destiny -- Brian, 07:34:39 06/03/01 Sun

Very thought provoking post. I really enjoyed it. If Xander is the Everyman figure in the Buffyverse, then perhaps Joss is implying that within every person are some seeds of greatness. As Xander becomes more comfortable and has more understanding of who he is, then his access to "the magicks" may become stronger. It also ties in with my belief that every character in the Buffyverse is on some journey inward as well as outward. That is what makes them so interesting.

For Xander his "walkabout" has given him a career, and the courage to ask Anya to marry him.

Are demons more honest than humans? -- John Burwood, 07:52:12 06/03/01 Sun

Tact is just not saying true stuff - said Cordelia. Since her departure who have been the 'telling it like it is' characters - Vampire Spike and ex-demon Anya. Remember Pangs, where Anya referred to Thanksgiving as 'ritual sacrifice' and Spike to 'kill or be killed, take your bloody pick' - both in defiance of nice politically correct attitudes struck by Willow. Maybe demons, unhampered by tact or convention or fashionable or pc attitudes, are by nature more honest and truthful in how they see and describe the world. Anyone agree, disagree, want to comment?


[> Re: Are demons more honest than humans? -- Lazarus, 09:35:31 06/03/01 Sun

I've got to agree with you, John... Buffyverse demons seem to be essentially unfettered by the human need for obfuscation and misdirection in language, and in general seem to be more truly in touch with their attitudes and who they are as individuals. Our western culture has seems to have evolved a need to conceal meaning behind twists in the English language (which, by the way, seems to be ideally suited for this). This is obvious in, for example, the 'politically correct' movement where people seem to believe that changing the verbal label of something somehow actually changes what is being described... This subject is a bit of a linguistic sore spot with me and, while I could engage in quite a rant on it (insert sigh of relief from readers here), I won't... :)

P.S... For anyone interested, an entertaining yet relevant source for some excellent commentary on the subject is comedian George Carlin... If you haven't heard his work it is definitely worth really listening to...


[> [> Re: Are demons more honest than humans? -- Aquitaine, 10:31:56 06/03/01 Sun

I, too, have to agree with you. And I love it that Anya and Spike can get away with calling a spade a spade. Part of the reason I had trouble with Buffy's (and Giles' and Willow's) characters this season, is that I feel that on some level they are not being completely honest with themselves or with the world about their true desires. As walking Id's, demons definitely have appeal by contrast then. They are what they are. Of course, this question begs another question. Are 'being human' and 'acting human' really just ways in which we go about rearranging the world to conform to *our* human-chauvinism. In short, do humans use obfuscation to control their environments and their 'subordinates'... or themselves? People who tell the truth get little respect or status in our society. The better you are at 'playing the game', the more success you have (in business, in the arts and even in affairs of the heart). Conversely, honesty - guilelessness - is considered 'childish' and unrealistic.



[> [> [> Maybe the question is..... -- AK-UK, 11:28:39 06/03/01 Sun

"Are demons less imaginative then us?". A lie is, in one sense, a more imaginative way of seeing a particular situation. Maybe Anya and Spike and other demons lack our creative abilities. Looking at it that way, aren't you glad we can lie?


[> [> [> [> Re: Maybe the question is..... -- Greta, 09:02:38 06/04/01 Mon

Anya referred to Bugs Bunny as that "scary cartoon rabbit running away from that nice man with the speech impediment" and you question her ability to look at particular situations in a different way?:)

In fact she's enabled me to be more honest. I never liked Bugs and I positively LOATHE that $#%F$ing roadrunner. I feel so free! I think I'll go write a fic about Tweety becoming Dru's newest pet(evil grin:)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe the question is..... -- Brian, 09:51:16 06/04/01 Mon

One wonders - On the plant without any shrimp, are there large, vicious rabbits with sharpened teeth, and razor-like claws that give Anya this bunny aversion?


[> Re: Are demons more honest than humans? -- Jarrod Harmier, 11:28:00 06/03/01 Sun

Demons do seem unhampered by tact or convention more than humans as group. However, when you when compare demons (as a group) to a human individual, you realize that a human individual can stop using convention or tact and say what's what. My example is Xander. In "Prophecy Girl", season finale to the first season, Xander forces Angel to show him where the Master's lair is. Xander does this because no one else will and does this with the knowledge that there is no way he could survive in a fight with the Master. However, there are times when human beings. In "The 'I' In Team" (I think) Xander questions the Inititative's agenda. Giles questions it first, but I think that's due to experience. I think Xander voiced his skepticism a bit more forcefully than Giles did, though. In "Into The Woods", when Buffy doesn't want to hear about what Xander thinks about what's been happening with her relationship with Riley, he tells her what he thinks anyway. He believes it's more important to get everything out in the open then let Buffy leave it buried.

So, what allows Xander (or another human individual) to change from "tact mode" to "brutal honesty mode"? In a reply I posted to another thread, I mentioned a quote by Robert A. Heinlein that I found on-line: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Human beings are complex because they have multiple modes that they can utilize. That is not to say that humans cannot get stuck in one mode because it is comfortable. Most of the demons we have seen in the Buffyverse seem to have one basic mode of acting. Spike and Anya do seem to be stuck in the "brutal honesty mode." However, it seems that their constant connect with the others has allowed them to at least begin to develop other responses.


[> [> Xanders school of etiquette........;) -- Rufus, 13:36:16 06/03/01 Sun

When Anya firs became human she was very blunt, she only had to keep one being happy, herself. Then she started to date Xander. Out of all the SG he has the patience to tell the former demon the subtleties of human living. Demons are quite capable of being less than honest, but that is never to make anyone feel better but to get a desired outcome for them. They never have to worry about the feelings of others. Anya has now learned that to coexist she has to learn manners and the art of the white lie. She is getting to be not bad at it, except for the fact she tells you right away that she was fibbing. As for Spike, he may be blunt and uncaring to others feelings but he does have more skills than Anya, he has been a demon for less time and he was used to fabricating the truth for Dru. He may be blunt, but he is quickly catching up to us in the art of BS. Demons may seem more honest but it is only in relation to dealing with us, and they aren't very concerned about our feelings.


[> [> [> Re: Xanders school of etiquette........;) -- rowan, 14:49:37 06/05/01 Tue

"As for Spike, he may be blunt and uncaring to others feelings but he does have more skills than Anya, he has been a demon for less time and he was used to fabricating the truth for Dru."

Sometimes, too, I think with Spike it's an active choice to be so brutally honest. I think the highest compliment Spike pays to people he respects (and although he loved Dru, I'm not sure he respected her) is to give them the unvarnished truth and then to help them deal with it. I look at his contacts with Buffy and Dawn when I say this. He cares for them the most, and that caring has developed over time, but it hasn't made him any less blunt in conversation with them (although he at least has softened his tone of voice to piss them off a little less).

This is probably one of the reasons I like Spike. I don't feel that his honesty comes from cruelness. He is just honest about things; he would never be one to kill with machinations or stab someone in the back (like Angelus would). He comes right at you, face to face. A honorable demon. Wow. Strange concept.

Troll God -- Paulo, 12:16:30 06/03/01 Sun

The troll in triangle wasn't a god, why did everyone in the gift seem to think he was?


[> Re: Troll God -- cknight, 17:57:47 06/03/01 Sun

He was a enchanted being with a magic hammer. They figured and rightly so that a magic weapon would deal heavy damage to Glory and she would not be able to easily heal the damage. During this season only Willows magic hurt Glory. So the hammer was a cool choice. I hope we all get to see the troll again.


[> Re: Troll God -- Sam Raimond, 18:04:16 06/03/01 Sun

Yeah, that got me too, Anya even said the hammer was "the weapon of a god" what was that about?


[> [> Re: Troll God -- darrenK, 21:17:02 06/03/01 Sun

The troll doesn't have to have been a GOD to have possession of a God's weapon...


[> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Lazarus, 05:19:09 06/04/01 Mon

Or perhaps he was a minor god? The Buffyverse seems to have a plethora of dieties running around being corporeal, so that would imply some kind of ranking or pecking order among them with some of them necessarily being at the bottom of the god-chain so to speak... Like a poor relation from out in the sticks...


[> [> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Brian, 07:01:50 06/04/01 Mon

Well, could you imagine Anynaka dating some low life troll? Come on, she's hung with Dracula. I'm sure this troll was some big wig. After all, Trolls don't have to be bright to be a head honcho, do they?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Cactus Watcher, 10:02:58 06/04/01 Mon

Time out. Olaf was not a troll when he started dating Anya. She turned him into a troll for cheating on her. Only Joss knows where he got the idea Olaf was a troll "god." If Olaf was a god, it was never explained on the show how he became one.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Lazarus, 12:57:04 06/04/01 Mon

Perhaps the god part was part of the curse... From what little we know of trolls, being one of their dieties may not be the most pleasant occupation... ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll with a hammer -- Brian, 13:02:59 06/04/01 Mon

You're absolutely right. We only have Anya's word that the hammer is of the gods, and I guess she would know. Apparently Olaf must have acquired the hammer doing troll things.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: troll things -- Scout, 11:31:24 06/05/01 Tue


"doing troll things"

For some reason that makes me laugh. Olaf. Doing troll things.

(Olaf, telling himself, "Remember, pillage *before* you burn")


[> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Traveler, 13:07:18 06/05/01 Tue

The fact that the weapon was even the weapon of a god was never mentioned when Olaf had it. Anya simply said that it was the source of his power. It IS a little cheezy to retroactively declare it a god weapon, but I'm willing to overlook it, 'cause that episode just rocked.

Wouldn't it be funny if... -- LadyStarlight, 15:23:55 06/03/01 Sun

Buffy came back bad & the first one to figure it out was Spike--because:

(the SG is in the Magic Shop. Spike opens the conversation)

S: I'm telling you, Buffy's changed!

Giles: Well, of course she's changed! She was reborn, for heaven's sake!

S: It's not that...it's (pause) shewantedtohavesexwithme.

SG: Pardon!

S: (deep sigh, clearly embarassed) She wanted to have sex with me. But she was all Faith-y about it. You know, ride me like a horse, etc.

Xander: And you said no, I trust.

S: After my brain caught up with my trousers, yes I said no.

Hee hee, if you lived in my head, you'd find this hilarious too. I suppose now I'm truly obsessed.

(hope this isn't too off-topic. I just thought it was too good not to share)


[> Ok LadyStarlight...... -- AK-UK, 15:58:22 06/03/01 Sun

I want to see this episode. I DEMAND that you write it and post it up somewhere (that fanfiction.net place?). C'mon! I wanna know what happens next :)


[> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- Lazarus, 17:17:09 06/03/01 Sun

Absolutely perfect, LadyS...


[> [> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- Sam Raimond, 18:02:25 06/03/01 Sun

But then the question becomes is she evil or just naughty?


[> [> [> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- Dee, 19:26:32 06/03/01 Sun

I hope just naughty-act on those buried desires without all the analyzing. Write out the whole episode-I loved the "head catching up to my trousers" line-it's so Spike!


[> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- LadyStarlight, 20:03:13 06/03/01 Sun

Well I've started it. Will you volunteer to beta-read it for me?


[> Re: Faith-y? -- vampire hunter D, 13:42:46 06/04/01 Mon

I know how nitpicking this sounds but...How does Spike know what Faith's like? He only met her once (when she was in Buffy's body) and didn't even realize who she was. Actually, that one line sounds more like Xander than Spike.


[> [> Re: Faith-y? -- LadyStarlight, 15:54:40 06/04/01 Mon

Maybe someone told him....sorry, it just sounded funny.

As anyone made a list regarding Tara -- Cynthia, 15:57:11 06/03/01 Sun

When I rewatch The Gift last night I noticed that Tara as she was leaving the shop stared straight at Giles and said "You're a murderer". A short time later that's exactly what he did.

I didn't keep track of her outbursts while she was affected by Glory's feeding (I've got to start archiving) but it might be interesting to gather them together in one place and see if they lend any insight about next season. Anyone remember any of her other comments?


[> Re: As anyone made a list regarding Tara -- Dedalus, 13:19:42 06/04/01 Mon

That's a great idea. All I can remember off the top of my head is her calling Willow a bitch. And really loudly.

Hope that helps.



[> Re: I'll get right on it -- vampire hunter D, 13:48:21 06/04/01 Mon

That's a great idea. I'll get right on it.

By the way, in response to Daedalus's post, the line was: "Bitch! I should be working on the factors"


[> [> Re: I'll get right on it -- Rob, 08:44:58 06/05/01 Tue

I think the "Bitch" line was a projection of Glory's feelings for Willow. After all, she's the only one who can hurt her.

What is all this about Doc? -- Sam Raimond, 18:13:58 06/03/01 Sun

I've been looking at the other posts lately and alot of them have this dwelling thing with the Doc character. I don't understand why he can't just be a simple demon that worshipped Glory. I actually felt his presence was more to drive home the fact that Glory had farther reaching God-presence than just the hobbit things.


[> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Wisewoman, 18:53:37 06/03/01 Sun

I think perhaps part of the emphasis on the character of Doc is owing to the fact that the actor who plays him, Joel Grey, is so well-respected. I recognize that many younger people may never have heard of him, but back in the 1970s he was hot stuff as an actor, a dancer, and a singer. Added to that, the fact that he's not done much television, and was noted mainly for Broadway stage and film work, and his appearance on Buffy is quite remarkable.

Somehow I don't think we've seen the last of Doc...

;o) Wisewoman


[> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Nina, 19:19:17 06/03/01 Sun

I second that! Joel Gray is a fantastic actor. Only for that fact I can't believe he won't come back. What would be the point to get Doc for 3 episodes and let him go without really knowing why he didn't tell Glory about the key. He had his own agenda and we'll know what it is next season (if not well I'll be disappointed!).

He scared me so much that I'm really rooting for him being the Big Bad next season!


[> [> [> All us Godless Canadians love him! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:36:01 06/03/01 Sun


[> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- OnM, 21:59:46 06/03/01 Sun

Agreed-- an actor of his status, appearing on a 'silly kid's show'? I doubt it was a one-shot deal, unless JG happens to be a big fan of the show and just requested a guest spot. I mean, if you're Joss, and JG comes to you and says please, would you refuse? I think not!

I hope he comes back, such a great and malevolent presence, reminds me of The Mayor, one minute cheerful, next minute Evil as can be. (The Mayor is still one of my all time fav Big Bads.)


[> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Rufus, 00:44:28 06/04/01 Mon

Hey it would be a big bad with layers. Cocoa slinging grandpa looking guy....with a long tongued nasty, beat you to a pulp, nasty worships dead gods, underlayer.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Sam Raimond, 11:02:42 06/04/01 Mon

Well now i see why everyone thinks he will return but in typical Joss fashion, it would be suprise to the audience if he never showed up again.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Humanitas, 13:24:54 06/04/01 Mon

Boy, it would be nice to have such an impressive Big Bad. Joel Grey is the King of Creepy, to me. I had the pleasure of seeing him on stage in the revival of Cabaret some years ago. I saw the show in an old opera house in Philadelphia, and our seats were about a mile from the stage, but even at that distance, his presence just oozed through the aisles. For any of you who are unfamiliar with his work, I strongly suggest (hopefully without stepping on OnM's toes ;)) you rent the film version of Cabaret. I prefer the stage version, but you need to see this guy in action!


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- rowan, 20:02:17 06/04/01 Mon

If you don't find JG's Cabaret character creepy, you won't find anything creepy! ;)

I, too, hope to see JG back next season. I'm thinking perhaps as a surprise part way through the season (you know, everybody thinks he's dead, and then suddenly that pesky little lizard creature is back). I half-wondered if his strange recognition of Spike in the first ep he was in wasn't somehow precognitive (rather than memory).

I'd like Spike to get the chance to go up against him and win the next time (yes, I'm advocating that Spike actually get to do something heroic next season after his abysmal failure in The Gift).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- verdantheart, 06:30:05 06/07/01 Thu

I'm sort of expecting a bit more heroism from Spike next season simply because drama tends to work that way. If it should occur vs. Doc it would be all the more apt.


[> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Ramo, 17:24:25 06/04/01 Mon

I think Doc is very important. After all, it's his fault that Buffy died! Glory couldn't even get to Dawn to open the portal, but Doc, and innocent seeming demon, was the one.

What a perfect entrance for him being on next season!!!

Rumours / Spoilers (?) on Giles' spin-off -- Marie, 03:56:53 06/04/01 Mon

This is my first post to this board - though I am an avid reader! First of all, may I add my congratulations to the most interesting and thought-provoking posters I have found on the Web. I am not a very articulate person, and certainly don't claim to know anything about philosophy, but an earlier thread was asking about the Giles spin-off show, so I thought I'd add my two penn'orth, if you don't mind.

The latest in the UK is that the show is definitely going ahead, which means that Giles will be a recurring character, because of ASH's desire to spend more time with his family here.

The rumours I'm hearing are:

After Buffy's demise, Giles does some reading of the books of prophecy, and learns that originally there was a Hunter, as well as a Slayer - they were a couple, and fought as one.

Then came one of the slayer's 18th birthday, and the Council's test - only she died. The Hunter, devastated, denounced the Watcher's Council, and left, presumably to hunt alone.

Giles comes to the UK to try and find the latest Hunter.

Of course, I have no idea whether this is true - knowing JW, it's been put out to throw people off the scent, so if it never comes to pass, my humblest apologies.

Hope this gives you all something to conjecture about!

Love and admiration,



[> Hello, Marie! -- Wisewoman, 07:39:55 06/04/01 Mon

Well I, for one, love that scenario! Can't wait to see if it pans out (and if we get to see it here in Canada). Thanks for the info :o)


[> [> Re: Hello, and thanks for the reply! -- Marie, 07:50:24 06/04/01 Mon

I hope you get the series, whatever it's about - after all, this is JW's new baby, so it's not going to be bad, is it? I would be glad to tape it for anyone who doesn't get it - I assume British VHS tapes work the same as Canadian/US ones??? And if it's a short series, it should fit on one or two tapes, so postage shouldn't be too much. Perhaps you could arrange a postal route for fans and pass them on?


[> [> [> Re: Hello, and thanks for the reply! -- Wisewoman, 08:10:23 06/04/01 Mon

What a lovely offer! I'm sure you'll have a lot of requests, if we can figure out the VHS tape thing. I know there was a time when UK/US and/or Canadian tapes weren't compatible, but that's probably changed by now if they're all VHS.

Please keep us posted on when/how it starts. Even if the tape thing doesn't work out, it might be possible to set up a message board strictly for that series, so our UK buddies could let us read summaries of the episodes. (I am what we call a "Spoiler Ho," -- I love to read about the episodes before I see them...it's a curse!)

Cheers, Wisewoman


[> [> [> [> Re: VHS & DVD Differences -- Brian, 08:50:06 06/04/01 Mon

I was under the impression that Canada VHS & DVD are a different format than English VHS & DVD. So they are not interchangable.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: VHS & DVD Differences -- LadyStarlight, 09:20:02 06/04/01 Mon

Unfortunately, North American & UK VHS tapes are not compatible. To play tapes from the UK, you'd have to have a multi-format VCR (or find someone in the UK to tape them in NTSC format)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: VHS & DVD Differences -- gds, 15:56:07 06/04/01 Mon

I am so irritated by the fact that UK will have season 3 of BTVS before we in the US get season 1, I found an alternative I am seriously considering. In case others are interested, I include a link to the product. If OnM or someone else who is knowledgable has any comments about it I would be very interested.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> These players are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- OnM, 20:36:26 06/04/01 Mon

This isn't the first player I have seen marketed that is free of the region-coding firmware that allows a standard player to play only those discs produced for a given region.

In fact, while I forget the name of the company now, about one year ago on ZDTV, Leo Laporte of 'The Screen Savers' program tipped viewers off to just such a machine. Within less than two weeks, legal action was filed against the manufacturer, and all sales and production of the machine were halted. All unsold units had to be recalled and modified to restore the original region protection in a tamper-proof manner.

The problem in purchasing the advertised DVD player is that if the same thing happens to the company selling it, you will be left with an unsupported, orphan product. If it breaks in two months, and you return it for service, it will be modified to restore the original protection before returning it to you. Or, depending on the legal action taken, it may simply be confiscated. You might become involved in a long and hassle-filled project to get your machine back.

The situation is similar to 'gray market' goods, but with gray market goods the legalities are often unclear. Here, that is not the case-- any general consumer DVD player operating region-code free is illegal-- period.

The only real recourse you have is to write (snail-mail is more effective than e-mail, still) or call DVD producers/studios etc. and complain politely that you are unhappy about not getting to see programming that others in the world can, even though that programming originates here first. If enough people bitch and moan, action may be taken.

BTW, you might mention that you would like to BUY, not RENT the software in question. Program producers and their bean counters tend to see renters as 'freeloaders'. I certainly don't agree with this-- there are people who rent, and there are people who buy-- but that is the way they see it. You are probably aware that the main reason for the delay in Buffy DVD's is that Fox wants to get the money from the syndication market first, they are convinced that if people can tape the eps 'for free', they won't buy the DVD's.

This is nonsense-- see rent/buy, above-- but again, that's what they think. It's what they thought back in the 70's when Sony was shipping the first Betamaxes. Bean counters never change, and they run the studios. (Most of the time, anyway).

Vote with your dollars-- wave them in from of those holding your entertainment hostage. Eventually they *will* get the message.

OK, end of rant!! ;p


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These players are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- gds, 21:00:03 06/04/01 Mon

I know that the recording industry uses its lawyer clout to threaten prople, but I am almost positive that it is NOT illegal, just that major companies find it not worth their while to fight. I am aware of the case you mentioned and last time I checked the region free part of the unit was supposed to work (but this unit couldn't convert signals). The 'surgery' removed the option of avoiding copy protect.

I know for fact that region free vcrs & TV's have been used all over the world for decades, and in places areas of the world where they are not addicted to 1 standard, you can buy them in normal stores.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These players are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- gds, 21:22:49 06/04/01 Mon

In my previous post it would be more accurate to replace the phrase "region free" with "multi broadcast standard" in speaking of TVs & VCRs. Region coding was something that was devised for DVDs for the benefit of the recording industry. Whereas mutiple broadcast standards reflect the inability of the countries of the world to agree on anything. The TECHNICAL problem with most region free DVDs is they can't convert signals so that even though they can read the disks, the TV can't understand what the DVD sends.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Multi-format TV's and VCR's -- OnM, 22:18:12 06/04/01 Mon

gds-- you are right about the TV's and VCR's being available in multi-format, but the main reasons for there being limited or no legislation as to 'regions' or copying, is that videotape had pretty much spread en masse over the world by the time digital media such as DVD came on the scene, so restricting it had become a largely moot proposition. Also, the differing technical TV/video standards, as you stated.

You need to realize that what freaks the entertainment moguls is that:

1 > The performance quality of the media is extremely high, far higher than tape. This increases the quality of copies.

2 > If you can make high quality copies, there is nothing to stop you from selling them worldwide, unless the copy contains a digital code to make that copy useless anywhere else but the country it was made for.

3 > Like any code, it can be 'cracked'. Therefore, you must agressively nip all such efforts in the bud, or over time disc will become like tape-- everywhere, and uncontrollable. Most industry people feel that this is inevitable anyway, so the best they can hope for is just to put it off as long as possible. Maybe some newer, more protectable technology will come into being, and we'll start all over.

One last note-- it isn't illegal for you to purchase the machine-- it is illegal to MAKE or SELL them for the normal consumer market. There is, in fact, legislation to this effect.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These players are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- gds, 22:46:53 06/04/01 Mon

A little research indicates that the REGION CODING is what may be illegal: e.g. From http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.10

"Some people believe that region codes are an illegal restraint of trade, but there have been no legal cases to establish this."

It is copy protection avoidance which is illegal:

"Movie studios have promoted legislation making it illegal to defeat DVD copy protection. The result is the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (December 1996) and the compliant U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed into law in October 1998. Software intended specifically to circumvent copy protection is now illegal in the U.S. and many other countries."

The case you sited (Apex AD-600A DVD player)has a lot of conflicting info on the web so I don't know the actual status of this player.


After hunting on the web for a few hours, I found NO evidence that region free is illegal, but plenty that the file industry doesn't like it - e.g. trying (not very succesfully with "Regional Code Enhancement (RCE) Program"). I am a technical guy not a laywer, but the only problems I find are practical - not legal.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, the plot thickens... at $500.00 per hr, no doubt! ;) -- OnM, 22:29:09 06/05/01 Tue

Nice research, gds! This really does remind me of Betamax all over again... years and years of conflicting litigation.

As I said, as far as I know it isn't illegal to own region-free players. The rest? You got me. I'm a techie also, I can only observe the legal end of things and shake my head.

The only other observation I can make is that I have NEVER seen any of the major manufacturers (Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony, Philips, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, etc. etc.) make any code-free players other than maybe in the very first year of player production. I suspect it's because they just don't want the potential legal hassles/costs.

Whatever! Craziness, as usual.


[> You sound pretty articulate to me! Welcome, please post again! :) -- OnM, 08:14:54 06/04/01 Mon

If true, that would be a pretty big change in the overall Slayer mythology, since we are so used to the concept of the Slayer working alone.

By all means, let us know if you get any more goods on the series, we're all hoping it will be shown in the U.S. also.


[> [> Yin and Yang -- Wisewoman, 11:03:47 06/04/01 Mon

Oooooh, OnM, you just made me realize why the idea of a Hunter appeals to me. I know JW has stated his overt intention to make BtVS about a girl who has power and responsibility and a role as a hero (I'm paraphrasing here ;o)) but it seems to me the mythos needs a polarity. I'm kind of conflicted about this, because I'm from the generation that used to say "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" :o0 and I recognize that Buffy herself does not need the presence of a man to complete her as a person (although she may not see it that way!) but maybe the Slayer did originally come as part of a set.

Buffy was part of the set of "Buffy and Angel" but that was brief and ephemeral. I thinking more of a fated-kinda two people who are destined to find each other because in combination they become greater than the sum of their individual strengths?

Help me out here...does anyone see what I'm talking about?

Aaaaaaaaargh, Wisewoman


[> [> [> You'd need to find a damn good actor -- abt, 12:06:26 06/04/01 Mon

to play that part.


[> [> [> [> Re: You'd need to find a damn good actor -- Wisewoman, 13:31:20 06/04/01 Mon

Hmmmmm. This IS the UK we're talking about. No pausity of sterling talent there! I figure any young buck from the Royal Shakespeare Company could give it a go... ;o)



[> [> [> ...'Fish without a bicycle' -- That was Gloria Steinem, was it not? -- OnM, 22:33:43 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> I believe it was... -- Wisewoman, 08:34:51 06/06/01 Wed

I know we all went around wearing T-shirts (over our bra-less bosoms, of course!) that bore that slogan.

Maybe if I'd thought I would look as good as Gloria does at her age, I would have given up men altogether! (But probably not...)



[> [> [> [> [> More Bawdy Variation On Steinem Quote -- Anthony8, 12:40:28 06/06/01 Wed

A young woman once told me the following joke.

Q: What do you call a woman without an a_ _ hole?

A: Single.

Believe it or not, some people did not get the joke at all and some women were offended because they thought it was making fun of a person with a birth defect that made her unappealing to the opposite sex. Go figure.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More Bawdy Variation ...Takes me back to my youth, *sigh* -- Wisewoman, 21:20:47 06/06/01 Wed

Spike chip -- abt, 05:37:20 06/04/01 Mon

my take is this. When someone becomes a vampire they are preserved as they were at the time of their death, but made evil etc. so dru will always be mad, harmony will never grow up like cordy. somehow the chip has given spike a space in which to grow up. even if the chip comes out and he goes evil again, he'd be different now, more mature.


[> Vamps growing up -- Morgane, 07:56:37 06/04/01 Mon

I believe that's far more complicated than that! Vamps appear to stay the same and don't grow up, that's true but I don't believe that's because they can't but more because they don't have to. Most of them are loners and doesn't have to live in the society or with anyone else, they just hang around by themselves and catch some happy meals with legs when they need to. Some exceptions actually live with others and/or in society but their all special cases. Drusilla will probably always been bad but keep in mind that she's insane! and that's usually for a pretty long time(because I don't believe she would go thru a complete phsychological therapy without drinking the phychologist!!) Harmony is another case! I don't believe that she won't ever grow up, I mean she already did a little! At first, when she was with Spike, she was quite a dumb blonde but later, when she was trying to convince him that Buffy would get upset and kill him if he keeps try to kill her. That was pretty logic and a little more mature than the girlfriend who used to hide stake in her bed! You know they all have their own personnality and I believe that they change, maybe slower than human but still... It's pretty logic that they don't change as fast, I mean, they like have eternity (if Buffy doesn't get in their way) to change and learn things, it's not like they're in a hurry!! So I don't believe than Spike's chip is the reason he suddenly grow up, but it probably helped to change perspective a little for him. But after a little think, he didn't change that much, I mean, he's not on the same side anymore but that's mostly all! He has always worked in team well, and had always been very devoted to his lover (Drusilla back then, and Buffy now) He had always understood things(especially feelings) that other doesn't, he still does. So I believe that the vamps don't change much, more because of their immortality than because of their evilness or something like that.


[> Re: Spike chip -- Rufus, 16:00:02 06/04/01 Mon

When vampires are created they become immortal, but they don't get any smarter or change much in who they were. The big difference is that when infected with evil, the vampire references the hosts personal hurts and resentments, and capitalizes on them by acting out the worst thoughts of revenge or getting the upper hand that the host may have had. To explain this you only have to go as far as Angel to see what can happen. Darla wanted a plaything who could keep her company, she spotted who she thought would be lots of fun, Liam. Liam was in a situation where he felt stiffled by family responsibility and expectations, he was in a period of rebellion where he went the the pubs and drank his sorrows away. He was in what he thought was a competition with his father. He thought there could only be a winner or a loser. When Darla gave him the opportunity to travel and be what he thought he could be with no restrictions, he jumped at the chance. What happened after was a mass murder. Angelus was a creature that acted out all of Liams deepest feelings of hurt and anger. He became the most monsterous of all the vampires, the worst of them all. He finally killed his father, he thought that the battle was over he had won, then Darla hit him with the reality that his father would live on in his heart. The thing that gave his father power was the mistaken perception of a young man who felt trapped. His father may not have been a nice man but he did have Liams best interests in mind. Angelus had wiped out all the love that existed in this world at that time. He wiped out what he felt trapped him, the ability to love. He became an artistic killer because he couldn't stand being mediocre at anything. Life even unlife had to have some meaning, even a perverse one. Now, to Spike. William was a bloody awful poet, but a good man. His start in unlife was the result of rejection in love, and the feeling that he was mediocre, and invisible to others. When he became a vampire he set out to change his persona. He made himself different to reflect that change. He was considered a wimp in life so in unlife he became a "manly man". Spike killed to gain attention and admiration from the other vampires, his new peers. As that wasn't enough he stalked Slayers to gain the best reputation he could. Where Angelus seemed to hate and fear love, Spike retained the ability to appreciate love. Unfortunately for humans this love only extended to Drusilla. Spike was still a killer to be feared by mortals(and vamps that got in his way). Then he met Buffy. Even pre chip he liked her, admired her, chose her. He lost Dru because she knew what Spike couldn't accept, he loved the Slayer. None of this would have surfaced if it weren't for the chip in his head. Spike hated the chip. It neutered him, made him feel less of a man. Until OOMM, when he discovered what Dru knew years ago, he loved Buffy. If it weren't for the chip that may never have surfaced in a way he could have understood. The chip took him away from the addictive act of killing then consuming the blood of humans. I don't think the chip had implanted false emotions but given Spike time away from the hunt to change his perspective. What consequences the removal of the chip will have is unknown. One could be the return to hunting humans because of the rush it gives him, but with his new perspective will that rush exist anymore?


[> Re: Spike chip -- Ramo, 17:16:26 06/04/01 Mon

I agree and think that the chip has allowed Spike to mature because he has been unable to act on his instinctual evil tendencies since he got the chip.

I believe it's partly the same for Angel, that his soul definitely allowed him to grow up. As a person, Angel was a drunkard with nothing to live for, and it didn't change much when he became a vampire. When Angel received his soul though, he changed and found a purpose in life, to save other people's souls.

When it came to Spike's love life, Buffy was Spike's first real love since his death; he seemed like the lovesick teenager that was turned into a vampire and has been stuck in it ever since. Towards the end of the season, I noticed a change in how Spike had acted towards Buffy, like in Intervention when he showed Buffy that he'd sacrafice his life for her. Spike was finally being able to accept things with Buffy in the season finale, and therefore has matured and grown as a vampire.

Where is Dawn? -- Cactus Watcher, 06:58:23 06/04/01 Mon

Where do you suppose Dawn is right now? Has Hank Summers finally shown up? Is she in foster care? Has Willow magically tricked "family services" into letting Dawn stay with her? Did Dawn get failed for missing the rest of the school year? What do you think?


[> Re: Where is Dawn? -- AK-UK, 07:18:06 06/04/01 Mon

I would hope that Giles would use his Watcher's Council connections to pull some strings and become Dawn's foster father (assuming Hank Summer's absence).

Ooo, maybe Hank will come back and try to get custody of Dawn? That would be a cool season 6 twist on the previous seasons plot. You could have the SG commenting on how ironic it is that they are once again battling to stop Dawn falling into the wrong hands (Hank's).


[> [> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Dedalus, 11:03:18 06/04/01 Mon

Cool thoughts, guys. I wondered the same thing about Dawn's school work, considering she had already gotten in trouble for cutting class.

I think Hank is gone for good, and Joss said he complicates things enormously, so I doubt we will see him next year. Although maybe, since both Buffy and Joyce are dead.

I would love for Giles to put the Watcher's Council connections to use for once. I personally think she will wind up with Xander and Anya after they tie the knot.

AK-UK, I answered your questions about plotholes (I hope) way down there. Sorry I didn't sooner.


[> [> [> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Sue, 22:56:17 06/04/01 Mon

I still think Hank is a Vampire.

The Hank we saw in season one isn't the Hank we saw (or I should say didn't see) in season five.

Buffy even stayed with Hank over the summer between season one and two.

Hank is a good father. A caring and loving father. The only explanation for his absence this year is either he is captured, or he is dead.

If he is a Vampire, will Dawn have to Slay him? Dawn loves Hank very much, but if he is a vampire that means he is dead and isn't Hank anymore (here we go again with another can't kill the vamp scenario).


[> [> [> [> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Susan, 00:28:08 06/05/01 Tue

Dawn losing her father after losing her Mother, her self, and her sister?

Do you think this girl is going to want to have any close relationships after this?

If she does get slayer like powers(if Buffy and Dawn's blood is similar it would be yet again bending but not breaking the Slayer succession rules for technically a "new" Slayer can only be called when Faith dies) she might feel the only "real" thing that she can count on in her life is the moments before the kill. The only thing she can rely on is the act of the slay.

Dawn at this point in her life seems to have more in common with Faith than Buffy. While I am sure she is still upset about Faith holding her and her mom hostage, perhaps lacking Buffy she will be attracted towards Faith. Or will she be strong enough to actually do what her sister was unable or unwilling to do? Buffy couldn't relate to Faith's life for Buffy's despite the trauma of slayer duties (sending Angel to hell) still had quite an ideal life for she was grounded in her friends and her family. But Dawn could understand Faith better than Buffy ever could.


[> [> [> [> [> DAwn. Where then(S1-4)???? -- Akdov Kid, 05:19:36 06/06/01 Wed

What if Dawn is the dauther of Buffy and being the first ever 2nd generation slayer. Anyway the Hank thing. I think Hank will return So to give that trouble in the home edge. As the fights between Hank and Buffy (Ver 3.0)would tie in with the growing up and parents leading go, which is said to be harder for a farther(no mater how part time). So in my veiw the question sould be where was fake dawn before the 1 thats just gone? As if he was looking after Dawn theres bound to be a closer relationship between him and Dawn than to Buffy. Another cause of trouble.


[> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- vampire hunter D, 13:19:37 06/04/01 Mon

Actually, I don't think Dawn missed any school. As stated in somone else's post, "Spiral" starts around noon an one day (you can tell time by the fact that they were having lunch), and "the Gift" ended at sunrise the next day. No more than 20 hours could have passed over tyhe period of the last three eps. And since Dawn wasn't in school for lunch, we can assume it was either a weekend or that she had been suspended (for cutting classes). either wasy, Dawn didn't have achance to miss more school (although she didnm't get in any studying for her geometry test).


[> [> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- Dedalus, 14:31:46 06/04/01 Mon

Excellent catch, vampire hunter. I was just thinking myself that it was amazing all three eps took place over a 24 hour period, but that was indeed the case.

That is good news, and will no doubt make it easier for the Scoobies to keep Dawn. Still, after going through all that, she can't be expected to do all that well on her school work.


[> [> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- Cactus Watcher, 15:06:14 06/04/01 Mon

While it is no accident that most of the action of the last two episodes takes place at night (to contrast with Buffy's dream world, and to make the sunrise significant), it's not necessarily true that the episodes were the same night. It was already dark when Buffy called Ben. It took time for Ben to arrive at the gas station. Ben was there for a while before he turned into Glory. Between driving back to Sunnydale, getting Giles patched up, going and talking to Doc, reading what Doc was hiding, arguing over what to do, then finding and fighting Glory, it's a lot to do in the remaining hours till daylight on one night. More likely it was at least two nights. Having said that, what you say about Dawn's school might be right. Anyone else?


[> [> [> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- Sue, 23:07:31 06/04/01 Mon

Dawn was kidnapped by some crazy religious wackos. Her sister (who should have called the police, but feared that if she did so the cult might harm Dawn) took it upon herself in a foolish but successful attempt to save Dawn from these drugged out wackos. She lost her life in the effort.

Dawn, greatly tramatized, was allowed to stay with a friend of the family (Giles) pending notication of the girl's father. CPS is montoring the situation.

I think the Sunnydale police would buy the story about drugged out religious wackos (they probably know that isn't exactly what happened, but is as good as anything they could make up). Who could expel a child who as been tramatized by the death of her mother, her own kidnapping, then the death of her sister.


[> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Susan, 00:06:34 06/05/01 Tue

I know this is just fiction, but the situation that Dawn has been put into is just so unbelievably sad.

At the beginning of the season we saw a happy little forteen year old girl. Who went to book club meetings with her mom. Made her mom tea. Read Harry Potter Books. Had a sister who yes argued with like all sisters do, but who she adorned and looked up to.

Not that her life was perfect. Like all too many children in America her parents got a divorce when she was very young. She took that very hard. Then she had to move to a new area with her sister and mother. That couldn't have been easy.

But that was a few years ago (yes it really never happened, but can we get past that). When we see her she shown as smart, clever, joyous, and inquistive. Being the sister of the slayer you can't say her her life is normal, but she has a mother and sister who she can count on, providing stability and seems, although feeling sometimes overlooked, to really be starting to come into her own. Finding her own identity and place in this world.

So what happens? Her mother, who she was very, very close to, someone who she depended on more than anything, and additionally someone she seemed to do many social attivities with, dies. Then her sister, who she saw as her own personal hero and role model, dies as well. Even her image of herself, as reflected in her diaries, is destroyed.

I remember on Xena when Gabrielle asks Callisto about the death of her family. Callisto responded "Think back to when you were a little girl and all you knew were your mother and sister and your faith revolved around them. (puts her hand over Gabrielle's eyes) Now kill them."

Dawn has learned that there is nothing to grab hold onto in this world. For whenever she begins to count on something, anything, it is destroyed.

Where does a girl go who has learned not to trust? Who believes (with some reason) that whenever she begins to rely on anything, anything, as some sort of foundation providing stability, that will be pulled away.

Now she is without family. She still has her sister's friends, but can she trust them? What if they leave, die, or whatever?

Perhaps the only one who can provide some stability in her life is a dead guy with a british accent. No he isn't perfect, but he has existed for 100 years. That provides some stability doesn't it? Perhaps not enough. For what Dawn has learned is one you start relying on anything, that will be taken away from you. Better not to trust. Trust nothing and no one. Better not to rely on anything at all. It hurts less that way when it is taken from you. And it is always taken from you.

How does one live in a world that will disappear on you when you need it the most? Buffy said it would be difficult. She had no idea.

The world might not have ended, but Dawn's world has, no less than three times in one year. How will she have the strength to carry on and yet again pick up the pieces? How will she re-build when everything she touches turns to dust?

"Think back to when you were a little girl and all you knew were your mother and sister and your faith revolved around them. Now kill them."


[> [> When I was Fouteen, I learned I didn't exist -- June, 00:39:54 06/05/01 Tue

Sounds like how Dawn might start out a new diary.

Poor Dawn.

Buffy's love is strong, even in death, but is it enough for Dawn to carry on.

"I just want to go home."

But home isn't there anymore. And, there you are Dawn all alone. But at least when you have nothing, you have nothing left to lose.


[> [> [> Re: When I was Fourteen, I learned I didn't exist -- Ben, 00:50:33 06/05/01 Tue

Maybe Buffy never existed? Maybe her mom didn't either?

Maybe Dawn was never fourteen? Maybe that whole last year with all that pain and all that lost never really occured?

How does Dawn know? I am sure she must be thinking that right now. Maybe it all wasn't real. Maybe I just started out 15 years old just a few months ago.

More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- Nina, 18:24:46 06/04/01 Mon

I started to have an idea while answering one of OnM's thread on season 6 speculations. I thought about that idea a little more, watched Doc's scenes again and came to some conclusions.

1- Doc has is own agenda. He may worship Glory (or make us think he is), but when he opened the portal, Glory was already dead. What would be the point? If he wanted to open the portal for Glory he would have tried to protect her from Buffy so she wouldn't die. He obviously was there for his own benefit.

2- I believe that Doc was not after Dawn but after Buffy. Why? We've got quite a few pointers, but they were always hidden. First, Doc took Dawn's hair in "Forever" and said that her mother had a strong DNA. We all assumed he was talking about Joyce, but I think he meant Buffy. Buffy herself felt that Dawn was a part of her. Her blood. Her DNA. In the original script she refers to Dawn as being her daughter. Since "Forever" Doc has in his hands Buffy's DNA, the material he needs to bring her back (clone her maybe?). Second, In WotW, Doc says to Spike and Xander "Her day is coming boys, when she returns then you're gonna see something". Here again we are misled. We're thinking about Glory. But Glory wants to go home. The one who can return is Buffy. She will come back because Doc will bring her back and then we'll see something. Probably a bad Buffy? That could be a very interesting way to have bad Buffy without having her being a vampire damned forever.

3- Doc is a time traveler? I don't know. He could be, but one thing for sure he uses teleport. Spike refered to it in WotW and Doc answered "I guess". There's no other way how he could get to Dawn. Giles says that no one went up the tower, yet Doc miraculously appears. He's all proper and doesn't seem to have climb his way up (contrast with Spike who was breathing hard even though he doesn't breathe!). If Doc can teleport himself in the present, he could well teleport himself in the future or the past, no?

4- So Doc seems to know about Spike's past (cocoa, China, hair color), he knows that Dawn his the slayer's sister. He doesn't tell Glory about the key. He makes sure that Buffy knows about the blood ritual and puts out a fake fight so Spike and Xander can feel they got the papers on their own. Doc could have killed them, but he didn't. He let Xander kill him and didn't went after them to get the box back.

5- There's something about the blood. Doc made sure to stab Spike with the knife first before cutting Dawn. If he could throw him so easily down the tower, why did he bother to stab him first? He mixed Dawn and Spike's blood to open the portal. Buffy closed the portal with her own blood. Maybe Doc needed those three blood mixed somehow!

6- Now the question is, why would Doc go to such an extend to make Buffy die to bring her back? I don't know. When Doc saw Buffy coming along he said "This will be interesting...". It looks like Doc knew what was to come. He didn't put out a fight, he let her throw him. Okay, slayer strenght, but he wasn't agressive or anything. He let her do it. Like he let the boys take the box. His agenda can be anything. He has her DNA through Dawn's hair. So far he's a potential Big Bad, with a potential way to bring Buffy back. That's surely could be interesting!


[> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- George Avalos, 18:40:11 06/04/01 Mon

Problems with your theory...

--Glory did want to return home, but with the portals remaining open for an extended time, Glory also could return to dominate the Earth with her forces. So the "she" who is coming back still referred to Glory. And when you look at it in the context of the fight with Spike and Xander, it all happens so quickly, and in such a fashion, that Glorificus is Doc's point of reference

--Doc never knew, before Glory found out, who was the key. He may have noticed that Dawn and Mrs. Summers had strong DNA, but that alone wouldn't have been a clue to the identity of the key.

--To teleport is different from time travel, in standard sci-fi. That's the transport of physical objects in a current time frame, rather than the transport of objects from one point in time to another. It has to do with physical movements in space, but not time.



[> [> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- Nina, 19:00:27 06/04/01 Mon

Love the comments! :) but what about the fact that Glory was dead when Doc cut Dawn? That one is pretty important, isn't it? I can't associate Doc with Glory for that one reason! As for Doc knowing about Dawn. He knew in "Forever". We got the glimpse of his reptilian tail and serpent construct can recognize the key. If Doc had been with Glory he would have told her as soon as in "Forerver". I agree with the time traveling thing though. It's a poor argument at this point. Doc could be clairvoyant instead, like Dru! ;)


[> [> [> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- abt, 06:47:58 06/05/01 Tue

and what about the sobek stuff in 'shadow'? reptile worshippers? sobek has a life giving ankh, and doc does resurrection spells? http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/komombo.htm


[> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- Cactus Watcher, 19:13:44 06/04/01 Mon

Interesting indeed. Nice theory!


[> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- rowan, 19:55:48 06/04/01 Mon

I loved reading your theories. Doc really puzzles me. On one hand, I can see him just as a one-off character for this season. On the other, he's so mysterious that it begs for further exploration of his nature and background.

1. Doc definitely had a scary way of reading/knowing things about others. I don't know if that's because he had previous knowledge, or if there's some type of empathetic/telepathic ability he possesses.

2. I too, noticed the Dawn/Spike blood minging and wondered if it meant anything. Since Spike was stabbed first, that means that when Doc cut Dawn, it mingled Spike's blood with Dawn's. Any signficance to that, or just a minor point? I wondered why Doc didn't cut off Spike's head or stake him?

3. I don't think Doc knew that Glory was dead, did he? Or are you interpreting the "she's a little late" comment as acknowledgement that Glory is dead? I thought based on the sequence of events that Doc came to Dawn before Buffy had finished with Glory and Giles had killed Ben (or else Buffy would have been up on the platform sooner, like before or during the Spike/Doc fight). I interpreted Doc as a sort of backup plan to get the portal open in case Glory was delayed.


[> [> Re: More speculations on Doc -- Lazarus, 23:27:43 06/04/01 Mon

"...the Dawn/Spike blood minging and wondered if it meant anything. Since Spike was stabbed first, that means that when Doc cut Dawn, it mingled Spike's blood with Dawn's..."

Just had a thought on this...

Doc's (possible) Plan

Perhaps Doc was intentionallly mingling Spike's blood with Dawn's to make it impure, under the theory (knowledge?) that Dawn's now impure blood would not be able to close the portal. Then with Dawn gone, Buffy would be in a negative enough emotional state to try to close the portal by using her own blood and taking her own life. By leaping while in a state of emotional weakness like this, Buffy would leave herself completely vulnerable to his control when he subsequently brings her back for his own ends.

The Actual/Possible S6 Events In Relation To Doc's Plan

As with most carefully laid plans, Doc's went awry. Firstly, he didn't count on Buffy being disciplined enough mentally to prevent Dawn from jumping, and thus Dawn (with the Key energy) is still alive. What possible effects this will have we don't know. Secondly, Buffy's leap was made while she was in a complete state of clarity and peace with herself, which will be the lever she ultimately uses to break free from Doc's control with the help of the Scoobies.

Any thoughts?



[> (~sniffle~) Oh, Nina.. I'm so proud. Such fine reasoning. Bless you, child! -- OnM, 20:54:02 06/04/01 Mon

Evil Clone: Oh, quit it already. She would have figured it out even if you hadn't started the stupid thread. 'Buffy will be black', yeah, uh-huh. All those words, why can't you just get on with it?

OnM: Hey! How'd you get in here! I have a firewall on your machine!

EC: Had a firewall, bucko! Now we'll get some real action on this board... (cackles demonically)

OnM: Oh, no you don't.

(Martial arts ensue. We'll return after a word from our sponsors)

(Happy music plays)

"Ersatz Brothers Coffee-- It's the REAL Thing!"

(More happy music)

OnM: Whew! Sorry about that, folks. Nina! Good goin'! Definitely puts you in the running for the annual OnM Think-Too-Much Awards.

Nicely reasoned, don't see any obvious flaws yet, have to analyze it a bit more.

OK, we cookin' now... ;)


[> [> My evil thought..........:):):) -- Rufus, 20:59:18 06/04/01 Mon

I had this vision of Buffy returning in a similar way and state as Angel. This time Spike would get to utter the words: "You naked there Slayer???"

I do have some ideas on how she will return, they have nothing to do with clones and evil, but pure light.


[> [> [> Re: My evil thought..........:):):) -- rowan, 21:00:52 06/04/01 Mon

Just make it, "you naked under there, Slayer?" and it's deja vu all over again!

I'm thinking a reborn Buffy, thrown back by the PtB, dazed, confused, and not exactly herself right away (very Angel-like).


[> [> [> [> So I changed the words a bit...thought you'd like that one.....:) -- Rufus, 21:07:29 06/04/01 Mon

It was rolling around in my brain for a bit and all this talk of evil clones and rebirth made me think of how Angel reentered the world......of course there were no witnesses to Angels return, my addition of Spike was for dramatic effect.....and I thought it would be funny. I'm quite sure that after the shock of a naked reborn slayer wore off...say 10 minutes or so...Spike would be happy to wrap something around the reborn in the buff, Buffy....:):):)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: So I changed the words a bit...thought you'd like that one.....:) -- rowan, 04:55:12 06/05/01 Tue

You have an evil, disgusting mind, and great potential for a career in fanfic. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So I changed the words a bit...thought you'd like that one.....:) -- Nina, 09:02:01 06/05/01 Tue

Lazarus: I love what you said about mixing impure blood with Dawn's blood. If there was any reason for Doc to stab Spike, that must have been the one! I couldn't put my finger on it, but I like the sound of it!

Rowan: It's probable that Doc didn't know what was going on with Glory. But if he can know stuff from the past or the future, I would believe he'd know about Glory. Maybe not though. Lazarus' explanation is quite interesting in that matter. If Doc intentionally wanted to open the portal with impure blood it would mean he was't with Glory who needed clean blood to open the portal!

OnM: LOL!!!!!!!! My god you got me laughing once more! Love that evil clone of yours. Make sure to offer him some chocolate next time, maybe while he eats you can have two words in edgewise! ;)

Rufus: I confess I'd prefer to see a light Buffy too. A pure Buffy. A Buffy returned by TPTB. Confused, but pure. It doesn't mean that Doc can't try to clone her though... but personally I think we've seen enough Buffybot and I don't need a Buffyclone on top of my sunday! I'm just trying to see what was Doc's plan, but on a greater scale it would make more sense if Buffy was returned by TPTB!

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I am always afraid to speculate too much and not be surprised when the real Buffy will come back. Let's just hope it was all for fun and that JW found something else! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So I changed the words a bit...thought you'd like that one.....:) -- rowan, 11:08:43 06/05/01 Tue

I'm starting to think we may get back not the same Buffy, not a dark Buffy, but a kind of supernaturally creepy Buffy in the sense that she might "know" things -- you know, the edge someone has where they're on the twilight of this world and the next. Kind of a seer-like quality.


[> [> [> [> [> [> My husband was wondering how long it would take you all to catch on to my mind......:):) -- Rufus, 20:31:05 06/05/01 Tue

I've been called evil before...I just can't figure out why....:):):):) As for fan fic I'm not a writer and haven't the patience to do fiction. I do sling out a few ideas here and there to my writer friends...they call me evil too...go figure...


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus, you & Aquitaine should know I'm dedicating my Classic Movie to you both this week ;) -- OnM, 22:18:49 06/05/01 Tue

Of course, you guys will have to wait 'til Friday to see what it's about, but rest assured it'll be appropriate.

Actually, the Evil Clone suggested it, and I had to agree for once!



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh oh! I am quaking in trepidation... -- Aquitaine, 11:04:17 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course .....same here....quaking.......:):):) -- Rufus, 21:31:00 06/06/01 Wed

Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- Dedalus, 18:30:33 06/04/01 Mon

Well, this is my first New Message post. My maiden voyage. Are you as excited as I am? I thought so.


Giles: She's not your sister.

Buffy: No. She's not. She's more than that. More than family ... my sister, my daughter ...

Xander: She's your sister and your daughter?

Buffy: She's me. The monks made her out of me. I hold her and I feel closer to her than ... it's more than physical, it's ... Dawn is a part of me. The only part that I ...

Now compare with our old friend Schopenhauer -

"How is it possible that suffering that is neither my own nor of my concern should immediately affect me as though it were my own, and with such force that it moves me to action? This is something mysterious, something for which Reason can provide no explanation ... This presupposes that I have to some extent identified myself with the other and therewith removed for the moment the barrier between 'I' and 'not-I.' Only then can the other's situation, his want, his need, become mine. I then no longer see him in the way of an empirical perception, as one strange to me, indifferent to me, completely other than myself; but in him I suffer, in spite of the fact that his skin does not enfold my nerves."


Now, before we go any further, I'm not a Schopenhauer expert. Let's make that clear. I came across this quote via Joseph Campbell. So, since this is a philosophy forum, I don't want everyone going "Ooh, Dedalus quoted Schopenhauer, I'm going to ask him every time I have a Schopenhauer question." Cause, you know I just like that one quote.

I do think it is profound. A morality that is not forced by external means or threats, but one that truly springs out of a spiritual or psychological realization. It's not a commandment to treat others as you which to be treated, but rather a living impulse after which you cannot help but treat others as you which to be treated because you and the other are in fact one. The self is transcended and the unity of all life presents itself.

And isn't this really what was going on in The Gift? If it is, it means Buffy's epiphany is more far reaching than simply what it means to be a Slayer ... it's about what it means to be human. And face it, you just don't get that on most television shows.

Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Rotten fruit hurled in my general direction? Blank faces and apathetic stares?


[> Re: Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- Anthony8, 19:32:14 06/04/01 Mon

No rotten fruit projectiles, blank Frank faces or apathy here.

I've been thinking about the real meaning of the episode's title 'The Gift' beyond the level of "Hero gives life for the cause. " We must be on similar wavelengths. In fact, in the wee a.m. hours on a local Bay Area PBS station today, was broadcast a docu-biography of JC in which he delivers the Schopenhauer quote you cite above.

Since I generally like to collect my thoughts after I have had a chance to read a few thread responses before chipping in my own more extensive two bits, I'll reserve any in-depth response until this thread has developed somewhat.

In the meanwhile, I came across an interesting episode quote from 'Lovers' Walk' that seems relevant to your thread and strangely connected to 'The Gift' in light of all the discussions regarding blood, love and sacrificing oneself for another. In this early episode, Spike, pining over his loss of Drusilla to the chaos demon, comes back to Sunndydale to enlist Willow's help (and Joyce's motherly advice) to get Dru back. Somehow he ends up working on the same side as Angel and Buffy to get out of a tricky situation. Anyhow...enough back story. Always the voice or unfiltered opinion, Spike says "love isn't brains children. It's blood...blood screaming inside you to work its will." Especially prophetic when you consider how integral his little blood speech in 'The Gift' was in Buffy's epiphany? Or am I muddying up your thread?

Sorry--this ended up being lengthier than I intended. Cursed stream of consciousness (and too much caffeine)!

Once again, great topic. Let's see where it takes us.



[> [> Re: Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- rowan, 19:47:51 06/04/01 Mon

So much for plotholes, huh? When observant people like you come up with stuff like this that seems to foreshadow future events, I wonder how so many can be so unconvinced by the artistic rightness of Buffy's sacrificial substitution for Dawn.


[> Re: Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- rowan, 19:43:14 06/04/01 Mon

Welcome! And congratulations on your first post: you've picked something so interesting that I think we could spend quite a long time analyzing the different levels of meaning in Buffy's feelings about Dawn. I have a few thoughts to add.

1. It's interesting to note how Joss made some changes between the shooting script and the final cut. The shooting script (which you quote) is quite explicit in having Buffy declare that she is both Dawn's sister and her mother. Yet the final ep omits those lines. I've puzzled over why. I think the scene is stronger for the deletion, because it portrays Buffy as struggling to convey something so profound that mere words aren't quite getting to it. Was the change just for those (or similar) reasons, or for something else?

2. Buffy's statement (and her role as sacrificial lamb) of course beg very obvious comparisons to Jesus. I know that everybody always compares every sacrifice to Jesus, but bear with me for a minute. In this scene, I heard echoes of Jesus on the cross, saying to John and his mother Mary: 'Mother, behold thy son. Son, behold thy mother' as well as Jesus saying, 'whoever does this for the least of my brothers does it for me.'

This is the notion of empathy, the great circle of life that binds us together with silken cords of relationship. Your quote from Schopenhauer is wonderful, because it defines (for me) the nature of good as the truly empathetic soul. It's converse would of course be the truly evil soul.

3. As much as I see very symbolic meaning to what Buffy is saying, she also is being very literal and personal as well, IMO. She clearly feels a very real connection to Dawn (not just Dawn as a symbolic representation of all humankind). That connection is so strong that she identifies Dawn as a part of herself. So, Buffy's death can't be considered merely suicide (which would be life defeating), but it is sacrifice for others in the full knowledge that she lives on through Dawn.


[> [> Ah! Finally a Schopenhauer expert! I have all these questions... -- OnM, 20:06:39 06/04/01 Mon

Just kidding!

Seriously, mighty fine first voyage, Dedalus! :)

Yours truly being of a humanist bent as opposed to embracing conventional Western theology, I applaud the idea that it is possible for morality and ethics to be established by the collective, long term experience of humankind, and the basic recognition that there is more in common than in difference between us. Your Schopenhauer quote speaks directly to that point, and it does seem to apply to Buffy's feelings regarding herself and her relationship to her sister/daughter.

Rowan is correct when she notes that Joss omitted the mother/daughter lines from the final cut. I think this was wise for two reasons-- One, the reason rowan stated, about the concept being so hard to put into words, (Flashback to *Hush*, anyone?) and that less is definitely more in a dramatic moment such as this. Two, many people will hear the line as a reference to Faye Dunaway's situation in *Chinatown*, and in so hearing it that way, will either be distracted or amused. Neither of these reactions furthers the emotional intent of the scene.


[> [> [> roflmao! -- rowan, 20:15:42 06/04/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> A dissenting voice -- AK-UK, 21:05:13 06/04/01 Mon

I believe Buffy's moral development took a great step backwards in "The Gift". Her choices weren't motivated by an unselfish love for all humanity, but a selfish love for her sister. She explicity states that she is prepared to watch the world go to hell rather than harm her sister, and is prepared to harm anyone who attempts to save the lives of countless billions by killing Dawn. In fact, this desire to put Dawn's life ahead of all others is even more selfish if you subscribe to the view that Buffy see's Dawn as an extension of herself.

Thank goodness that a way existed to close the portal without killing Dawn, or the people of the Buffyverse would have been screwed.

As for a morality that comes from the heart and defies reason, well, that's all very well as long as all our hearts agree. but what if the my heart tells me that allowing gay people to adopt children is wrong, or that a woman's place is in the home? If my morality comes from the heart and defies reason, how can it be reasoned with? Maybe an external morality, rationally argued and with the weight of the law behind it isn't such a bad thing after all.

And how can anyone deny the clear suicidal impulses that, at least in part, contributed to Buffy's decision to throw herself off that platform. Spike saw the desire for death in Buffy's eyes in "Fool for love", and her life went downhill pretty rapidly after that. When she saw an oppurtunity to end her pain, her depression, and her exhausting attempts at world saving, which would also allow Dawn to live on, she leapt at it.

Hey, I like the poetry of the finale, but also like the internal logic of BtVS. I just don't see why, to enjoy the former, I have to ignore the latter (I didn't have to in any of the other season finales).

Anyway, thanks for such a thought provokng "maiden-voyage". I hope it hasn't left you feeling sea-sick, or left you sick of sea-ing me arguing with you ( oh boy, that pun sucked ). I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the show :)

Oh, man that pun was awful. I feel like that pun has totally destroyed my whole argument :(


[> [> [> [> [> First bad puns. Then comes fungus. It's all over now, baby blue... ;) -- OnM, 21:43:59 06/04/01 Mon

I had posted at length on this before, when I did my review of *The Gift*, but I disagree that Buffy would have let the world end to save Dawn. If you have a tape, cue it to the point that starts with the SG meeting in the Magic Box. This, as you know, is where Buffy takes her 'stand' on Dawn having to live even if it means the end of the world. Follow through until the scene in the gym with just Buffy and Giles. Listen to them both as they speak. **Watch Buffy's face** after Giles asks if she hates him (for stating that Dawn has to die, if that's what's needed to save the world). If you watch her expressions, you can see that *she accepts this, intellectually.* (Said it before, will say it yet again-- SMG was *brilliant* in this scene!) It explains her verbal responses later, as she and Giles talk.

As she prepares to leave the room, her comment that 'If Dawn dies, it's over. I quit' is the acknowlegment that it may be necessary to kill Dawn, or allow her to die (as she turned out to be willing to do). What makes Buffy the hero is that she wouldn't accept this 'easy' way out. It was still the course of absolutely last resort, and that Giles and the world simply had to put their trust in her-- as they had done so many times before-- to do her job, to make the right choice.

"To live outside the law, you must be honest".

There are very few truly honest people. That's why we have laws, religion, collective concepts of morality. You are right, you can't always trust a single 'heart'. But as Giles states just before ending the life of Ben/Glory, "Buffy isn't like us".

Real world, and the world we wish was real.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: First bad puns. Then comes fungus. It's all over now, baby blue... ;) -- Sue, 22:45:20 06/04/01 Mon

No I disagree.

It was really Dawn or nothing.

Buffy would (and indeed should) let the world be destroyed rather than to allow anyone harm Dawn. She would protect Dawn to the end, regardless of the cost. Or as she had Spike promise "to the end of the world".

I think the only thing Buffy was implying to Giles is that if he somehow did get by Buffy he will not only lose his life, but Buffy would no longer be his slayer either. She will kill him, then end it all for herself.

And if Dawn would have died regardless of how (if someone else kills her or she sacrifices herself, or however) then Buffy will end it all as well.

Dawn or nothing. Either Dawn lives, or it is all over. Without Dawn, there really is no tomorrow.

As it should be.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Sue, 22:34:42 06/04/01 Mon

"selfish love for her sister."

I can't disagree with you more. Buffy's love for her sister transcends Buffy, and speaks for SISTERLY love in general.

To have Buffy symbolically destroy that love by actively killing her sister (and it really was her sister, the monks made Dawn Buffy's sister in every possible way that mattered) would have been far far worst.

Sure the world would have been saved, but at the cost of sisterly love. No a sister's love is absolute. Better for the whole world to be destroyed than for Buffy to destroy that love. Fighting for the survival of love is more important than even the survival of the universe.

"BUFFY Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her."

I found that the most beautiful thing I have ever heard. Consider the alternative "the last thing Dawn sees is the sister she loves killing her."

Buffy must protect Dawn. At all costs. But by protecting Dawn she protects the only thing that really matters anyway. She is protecting the humanity in all of us.

I honestly would understand. And Buffy wouldn't need to threaten my life (though I would understand and respect her if she did). Either Dawn lives or we all die. For it can not go down any other way.

One for all and ALL FOR ONE!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Anthony8, 01:28:10 06/05/01 Tue

AK-UK: I'm not sure if you are playing Devil's Advocate or really hold the beliefs that inform your opinion here. The whole tenor of your reply to Dedalus' initial thread seems limited by the constraints of viewing the world in terms of our own temporal existence (and the relatively trivial events that occur during such an existence)and not on the mythological level (which deals with concepts that transcend time and physical being). Terms like selfishness, moral development, and reason reflect concepts that pertain to humans in their political and animal shells and take differnet forms depending on the local environment and culture. Moreover the examples you cite (gay adoptions, woman's place in the home) are straw men. You could have just as easily said that Hitler's heart told him to kill and torture millions of people. No,these things are all aspects of "lower being" and constitute barriers to reaching higher levels of consciousness. In contrast, the heart I'm talking about is not the one that "motivates" an individual to do things because of the benefit to that individual. That's not the heart at all (usually it is some other organ speaking). I'm talking about the heart that represents pure love. It seems to me that the love to which you refer is the base carnal love that exists in one form or another in all animals. It is not unique to humans, just more highly refined. By carnality, I obviously don't just mean sexually speaking, but rather the aspect of existence pertaining to our general physical relationship to other mortal beings (blood relatives, friends, leaders, etc.)as well. I don't believe that JW intended for that type of love to be the basis for Buffy's sacrifice. It would entirely undermine her role as the Hero. Transcendent (pure) love is a different creature altogether, as I will explain below along with some other definitions.

I should disclaim here that I do not subscribe to any particular religious discipline. Consequently, when I make religious references I am simply using them as illustrative myths to help reveal essential truths that transcend earthly morality and ethics. It is clear to me that there are certain truths so powerful that they find themselves expressed in poetry, art, human psychology (via dreams and, possibly, hallucinations), and in the mythologies of the world. Besides, to paraphrase the Great Groucho, I'm not sure I would want to join any club that would have me as a member. That having been said, I'd like to point out the contradiction inherent in your own argument which is best summed up by your statement regarding poetry vs. internal logic. IMO the poetry trumps the logic any day. Applying logic to poetry defeats the whole purpose of using poetry at all, doesn't it?

Yes, it is true that on one level or another almost every human activity can be explained as some form of selfishness. We are all bio-genetically motivated to survive/reproduce and use varying strategies to accomplish this selfish aim. Even the extrememly cynical could explain how the Schoppenhauer example (total stranger endangering life to save total stranger) cited in Dedalus' starting thread could be selfishly motivated. I suppose you could say that such a hero was motivated by the need for attention, or had a death wish, or merely gets off on the danger. Of course, that's small thinking--in such cases we're not talking about a Hero (capital H this time) at all. With respect to 'The Gift,' we are talking about the Hero.

To start with, it is called 'The Gift' not 'The Otherwise Apparently Heroic Act Inspired by Selfish Desires Transparently Disguised As Noble Deeds.' What is 'The Gift?' Well we know that "a" gift is the transfer of something from one to another with no conditions. The only pure gift is unconditional, otherwise it is commerce of some sort. The pure gift is really not the physical transfer of something, but is the giving itself. That is, the act of giving is the poetic expression of the transcendent love. Vague enough for you yet? Okay how about this illustration? When the Dalai Lama was visiting the Bay Area some time ago, people in the receiving line presented him with a numerous gifts. One of the fantastic things I noticed was how the Lama would bow in gratitude and then return the physical object to the giver. The idea expressed there was that the act of giving was in fact the gift and the object merely the vehicle of expression. The Lama was recogizing the divinity present in the giver (as the divine is present in everything in the universe)and acknowledging the sublimeness of the interaction. The giving itself is a sacred, transcendent thing.

Okay back to BtVS. You will recall that the Spirit Guide tells Buffy in 'Intervention' that she is full of love and that fear is the only thing that keeps her from allowing love to lead her to her gift. We know that it is her fear of facing the pain of failing as the protector of humanity (Slayer duty)and protector of Dawn (sister role)that throws her into a comatose state. Willow helps her past the fear to face the music, whatever the outcome. She appears to continue clinging to these fears until she reaches Dawn on the tower. We know from the shooting script, and her dialogue earlier in the Magic Box that Buffy has realized that the connection between her and Dawn is more than a sibling relationship. In fact, it is the pure love of parent for child. Her epiphany doesn't occur until the do or die moment with Dawn on the tower and the Portal. It is in that moment of clarity (all logic and ego stripped away) that the truth becomes manifest. It has nothing to do with Spike's rantings in FFL (let's not forget his selfish motivations at that time--just because he says something doesn't make it true). It has nothing to do with saving the world. I believe the relevant quote from the Christian Bible is something to the effect that it means nothing to save the world and lose your soul. If you recall from AtS, Holling enlightened Angel to the fact that there will always be another apocalypse. In fact we know from natural history, that there have been a number of "apocalypses" (vast species extinguishing cataclysms) on this planet. Furthermore, our sun will eventually burn out and with it us, so one way or another we will have our own apocalypse which none of the Buffys in this world, real or imagined, will be able to prevent. Remember Angel's epiphany? Nothing you do matters, so the only thing that matters is what you do (at this moment without regard to the past or the future). Consequently, a single act of kindness is the greatest thing. The single act here is the sacrifice. In other words, the love for humanity expressed in the act of a sacrifice for the love of another. That's what the gift in 'The Gift' is.

Finally, I think it is important to further illustrate the concept of love discussed above. In some translations of the Christian Bible, it is sometimes to as charity (from caritas. Ah, ringing some weird Angelic bells here). Not the charity of giving to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, but something much bigger--okay, let's say, oh, transcendent. Listen to Buffy's words and be mindful of the expression on her face and the way that she said them: "I love you Dawn. I will always love you...Tell Giles I figured it out and I'm okay." Not eloquent, but pure Buffy--to the point. No suicidal notions here; no self-conscious heroic deed; no external morality dictated by local prejudices or irrational fears; and most importantly--no fear. Total resolve. Total clarity. Epiphany.

There's a great passage in the Christian Bible that pulls the whole thing together. Once more, I disclaim any inclination to be a cheerleader for any one religion. Some day, as I become more familiar with the Dhammapada, the Upanishads, the Koran, The Tao Te Ching, etc., I hope to be able to confidently cite examples from those texts as well.

Anyhow, the passage is from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians. And BTW, Joni Mitchell did a great musical interpretation of this on the "Wild Things Run Fast" album. Keep in mind that in some translations the word "Charity" is substituted for the word "Love." Make your own judgment, but I feel it is the love described here that was intended to be the real meaning of "the gift" in 'The Gift.' So cynics be damned!

"If I have all the eloquence of men or of angels, but speak without love, I am simply a gong booming or a cymbal clashing. If I have the gift of prophecy, understanding all the mysteries there are, and knowing everything, and if I have faith in all its fullness, to move mountains, but without love, then I am nothing at all. If I give away all that I possess, piece by piece, and if I even let them take my body to burn it, but am without love, it will do me no good whatever.

Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous; love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins but delights in the truth; it is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes.

Love does not come to an end. But if there are gifts of prophecy, the time will come when they must fail; or the gift of languages, it will not continue for ever; and knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect; but once perfection comes, all imperfect things will disappear. When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and think like a child, and argue like a child, but now I am a man, all childish ways are put behind me. Now we are seeing a dim refection in a mirror; but then we shall be seeing face to face. The knowledge that I have now is imperfect; but then I shall know as fully as I am known.

In short, there are three things that last: faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is love."

Any thoughts, grievances, angry glances thrown my way? Any questions? Any Answers? Any rags, any bones, any bottles today?



[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- rowan, 04:50:46 06/05/01 Tue

I think that the real art of The Gift is evident when you compare it to Becoming. We now have the bookends which show two different views of the Buffyverse. In one, Buffy sacrifices someone she loves "so much" -- Angel -- because it is right to spill his blood to save the world. She puts the good of the many ahead of the good of the one.

In The Gift, she decides that she will not sacrifice another that she loves. The choices stink. She will not live in a world with these choices. She verges on despair by threatening to give up her work. She wants her mommy. But through all this, in standing strong on this point, her mind finds a third option in which she can both do her work to protect the world as well as her work to protect an innocent. She puts the one ahead of the many.

We're now left to wonder how both of these events can be "right" within the context of the Buffyverse. Just in case we're too thick to get the point, Joss has Buffy make a reference to her sacrifice, as well as to her loss of the sense of what's right or wrong. But Buffy definitely met her death thinking she had found that sense again, judging by her comments to Dawn. Brilliant.

The major difference between the two events for me hinges on Buffy's determination that Dawn is "innocent." Is this the point that Buffy's decision turns upon? Angel is not "innocent" -- he made the choices that resulted in his state. But Dawn doesn't even know that she's The Key in any real way (other than being told she is). Remember, Buffy spare Ben as well, who she also deems innocent. So here we have Buffy saying, "No, not even to save the world will I take an innocent life."


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice (part 1) -- AK-UK, 06:58:35 06/05/01 Tue

Well, a lot of different themes are developing here, and it is interesting to see the various views held. I'd like to pick up on them, PURE (higher) love v CARNAL (lower) love As argued by Anthony8. Carnal love is the love that it ultimated inspired by our 'lower' instincts, instincts such as self-preservation, fear, hunger etc. The love of survival, so to speak. Higher love is the love that is entirely unmotivated by selfish desires. It is the pure love that comes from unselfish giving, whether it be the giving of food, shelter, or giving your own life. People like the Dalai Lama and Christ have exhibited characteristics of this pure love. Ok, here I my points 1) It can be argued that there is no higher love. You acknowledge that all actions, no matter how unselfish they seem, could be viewed as being in form motivated by selfish desire. That is a valid position to take, and I don't think it's fair to just dismiss such a philosphical viewpoint as being essentially narrow minded and unpoetic. However..... 2) Let us agree that there is such a thing as pure love, entirely unmotivated by selfish desires and that we humans are capable of experiencing this pure love. Will we all experience exactly the same thing? You say that someone who says they are feeling pure love and expresses the view that a woman's place is in the home isn't really motivated by pure love, that the lower love is acting here. Well, does this mean that to people act through pure love couldn't hold different views on homosexuality, or abortion, or the age of consent, or the use of drugs, or capitailism? POETRY v LOGIC I feel that there has been a slight misunderstanding here. When I refer to logic, I mean the internal logic of something. So the idea of poetry trumping logic just doesn't apply to the point I was making. Let me explain what I mean. If we look at a poem, the 'logic' of the poem that I'm refering to is the structure. It uses verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, commas, exclamation points, assonance, imagery. It uses language and the rules of language. Poetry is the PERFECT example of the beauty of the heart and mind, of logic and emotion, working together, DANCING together, to produce a work of wonder (can you tell I'm a bit of a poetry lover?). My point (and it was a very minor point) was that whilst I can see the (emotional) beauty of the season finale, I didn't like the plotholes (gaps in the logical flow) in the finale, and was therefore disappointed with the finale. (please note, that many of my complaints have been dealt with in another thread, feel free to add your opinions to that sub-thread. It's the one that starts Agreed/plotholes). HEROISM, GIFT GIVING, AND BUFFY What makes a true hero? Anthony8 and Sue make two points, both showing why they view Buffy's action as heroic. Sue says that Buffy is a hero beacuse of her unwillingness to comprise on a pure belief. Her love for her sister is absolute, and it is a beautiful thing. In a world in which we are all too ready to compromise, to do things we know are wrong, Buffy's decision to hold true to her beliefs is a wonderful thing. Not even in the face of death, not even in the face of countless deaths will she allow this world to force her hand. To kill her sister would be evil, and a world which demands her to do evil is a world which doesn't deserve exist. Anthony8 makes a differnt point. He says that Buffy is a hero because her actions are motivated by pure love. She recognises, unselfishly, what is required of her. Death is her gift, and like any true gift, it must be given freely and unselfishly, without thought to the rewards you might recieve for such acts. From this point of view, Buffy's motivation becomes hugely significant. A wish to end her own pain, her own fear and depression would just be an expression of the carnal love, the lower love. The true gift comes from the higher love, the true hero is a hero because their acts are an expression of that pure love.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice (part 2, short. Honest) -- AK-UK, 07:25:36 06/05/01 Tue

With regards to Sue and Anthony8's arguments, I find I can't agree with either of them. Yes Sue, I do see that there is something wonderful about Buffy's uncomprimising stance.....but if that stance leads to the deaths of billions I can't support it. I'm not a cold accountant-like utilitarian, balancing up the weight of happiness and making choices on that basis, but in this case the overwhelming pain caused by the unwillingness to sacrifce one life is just too great.

Anthony8, you make some strong points. With regard to the show itself, I feel Buffy does feel suicidal at the point she reaches her decision. Not everything Spike says is true, but the look in Buffy's eyes when Spike tells her she has a death wish, and her tacit agreement with his views speaks volumes to me, and everything that follows on from that episode (including the death of her mother) just adds weight to that view. But that is an argument of interpretation, and might best be had in another thread.

The real bone of contention is "what makes a hero"?. And here, my view is quite simple. I demand a lot less from my hero's than you do. Look at Doyle. He died in an episode expicitly titled "Hero". What were his motivations? Were they based on pure love? Were they based by guilt, or self loathing, a wish to prove himself worthy of respect and love? For me these questions are unimportant. When I look to see what makes a hero, the question I ask is "Did they have a way out"? Could they have side-stepped the issue? Buffy could have sacrificed her sister and no-one would have blamed her for it. Doyle could have let Angel make the leap. Neither Buffy nor Doyle had to do what they did. They could have chosen to save their own lives, allow others to die in their place.

They didn't.

And that, to me, is the definition of a hero.

Wow. Those posts went on a bit, didn't they? Thanks for reading through them (I have no idea what happeneed in part 1.......I swear I'd spaced out my paragraphs but, no, they all seem to have merged together. Give yourself a pat on the back for getting through 'em :) and I look forward to reading your replies.

And I got through the whole thing without once using a lousy pun! Amazing!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You Guys Are Amazing -- Dedalus, 09:55:41 06/05/01 Tue

I'm serious. This is coming from someone who rarely patronizes. I'm in awe. Every post here reads like some dissertation or something.

It is such a treat to come back after posting something like that and seeing so many great arguments on both sides. It is even better when you get an urge to reply to something someone has said, then scroll down to the next post and find out another poster has said the exact same thought, probably even better than you could. I almost have nothing left to say the level of discussion here is so high. Almost. :-)

A couple of shout-outs.

Rowan, Buffy was totally Christ. I am going to do a post on that alone sometime. I've already written an article about symbolism in the Gift, and it is filled with Christ references. Buffy has been a messianic figure since Prophecy Girl (remember the Master calling her The Lamb?), but The Gift took it to a whole other level.

Sue, I am so glad you posted. I completely see your point of view, and agree with it. It's like you said a page or two ago "And if that universe to survive that love must be killed, then it is in chaos regardless. If that love must die for the world to continue then it isn't a world worth living in anyway." Wow. Get down with your poetic self. It's just like the Buffster said, "I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices ... if everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point." Buffy is on a whole other level. In a world where "everyone is drinking, smoking, shooting up, shooting each other, or just plain screwing their brains out cause they don't want 'em anymore," in a world where everyone seems incapable of taking responsibility for anything, Buffy shows us what it's all about. And I agree she did the right thing. Universe be damned. That's a lot to admit, but I admit it.

AK, my buddy! Sorry, but I don't agree with you here either. Big surprise, huh? I was referring to a totally transcendent, metaphysical breakthrough, certainly nothing that could be conveyed with mere words or logic. Speaking of logic, I understand what you're saying about internal logic of a poem, but I would argue that the best poems transcend logic altogether. And no, I can't explain that, so don't ask me to! :-) It just seems to me, with all your talk about DNA and stuff, you're trying to fit the Buffyverse in a context where it simply doesn't fit. I think we can just chalk it up to a difference in philosophical temperament. The best discussion I have ever read on why organized morality doesn't work is a book called The Tao is Silent, by Raymond Smullyan.

I also love Blake's line "Prisons are built with stones of law, brothels with bricks of religion."


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You Guys Are Amazing (Part 2) -- Dedalus, 10:13:45 06/05/01 Tue

Okay, kids, one more thought before I break for lunch.

I was looking up where that quote came from, and I got to reading The Power of Myth. Joseph Campbell made an awesome statement that is very relevant to what we are talking about:

"Schopenhauer's answer is that such a psychological crisis represents the breakthrough of a metaphysical realization, which is that you and the other are one, that you are two aspects of the one life, and that you apparent seperateness is but an effect of the way we experience forms under the condition of space and time. Our true reality is in our identity and unity with all life. This is a metaphysical truth which may become spontaneously realized under circumstances of crisis. For it is, according to Schopenhauer, the truth of your life. The hero is the one who has given his physical life to some order of realization of that truth."

And I don't think it was suicide. It was a spontaneous realization transmitted by circumstances of crisis. I don't think Buffy was rushing away from her destiny, but towards it. "This is the work I have to do." There was a wonderful Campbellian line about Peter Abelard in the twelfth century, and his interpretation of the crucifixion. It wasn't about a ransom of sin being paid, it was about an act of atonement, or at-one-ment, with the human race. Buffy was embracing the pain of life once again, even through her death. It was a universe worth saving and living in after all. I think she was suicidal at various points in the show - but the time I think she was the least suicidal is at the end of The Gift. If she had still "wanted a way out," she never would have come out of her catatonic state in Weight of the World. "Tell Giles I figured it out, and I'm okay." Not the sort of thing you would expect to find on a suicide note.

Okay, one more Campbell quote: "The one who suffers is, as it were, the Christ, come before us to evoke the one thing that turns the human beast of prey into a valid human being. That is compassion."

"The human beast of prey?" Sound familiar? "The blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute. Alone ... No friends! Just to kill!"

So there you have it. Buffy is guiding the evolution of the Slayers through the regenerating power of love. She isn't "just a killer." She's a compassionate savior figure.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ground Zero -- Malandanza, 19:27:47 06/05/01 Tue

"With regards to Sue and Anthony8's arguments, I find I can't agree with either of them. Yes Sue, I do see that there is something wonderful about Buffy's uncompromising stance.....but if that stance leads to the deaths of billions I can't support it."

I do not believe that Buffy's decision would have led to the "death of billions" -- maybe not even thousands. Buffy made the decision to protect Dawn until one or both of them died if the portal opened and could not be stopped except by Dawn's death -- but they were standing atop a haphazardly constructed tower with monsters pouring forth around them. Buffy was told that the world would in if Dawn was not killed, Dawn is part of the world, therefore, Dawn will die either way. Buffy accepted this, but made the decided she would not be the one to kill Dawn. Dawn would surely be killed by something from the portal before the destruction became too widespread. At most, I see much of Sunnydale being destroyed, either by the initial bolts of energy or in succeeding days as the monsters ran amuck (at least until the Initiative boys got back from the jungles).

The Utilitarian argument still holds -- Dawn should have been sacrificed to preserve the lives of the residents of Sunnydale -- and the sooner, the better. But I cannot help feel as though Dawn's life had more value than the lives of the people (like Giles) who would willingly butcher her to save their own.

Buffy wasn't merely washing her hands of the situation and allowing Dawn to die -- there almost seems something Nihilistic in Buffy's initial decision to defend Dawn as long as possible -- to make her death leave a lasting impression with as high a body count as possible and I cannot help but think that the First Slayer was, for perhaps the first time in Buffy's tenure as the slayer, exultant.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice (part 1) -- Anthony8, 14:31:49 06/05/01 Tue

AK-UK, I apologize if my post sounded dismissive of any of your opinions--that was not what I intended. I could see the validity of what you (and others who agreed) were saying and I would be wrong to dismiss such thoughtful analyses. It's my fault for not being able to type as fast as my brain spits things out.

Anyhow, what I was trying to convey was the role of transcendence in mythic imagery. Buffy is a mythic figure. Joss Whedon has said in numerous interviews that that has always been his intention. The fact that a Hero has fallibility, feet of clay, whatever, at one time or another does not inform the ultimate deed (sacrifice) every Hero must perform. Did the fact that Christ had a lapse of faith on the cross("God has thou foresaken me?") turn his sacrifice into something less? By definition, that sacrifice must be symbolic of something transcendent. If it is not, then it is just one of any number of minor albeit impressive deeds performed by the Hero (and certainly not worthy of the lofty title 'The Gift') on the way to his or her destination.

By definition, transcendence is beyond logic of any kind; it is beyond time and the trivial events of temporal existence; and, paradoxically, it is beyond precise definition. It's transcendent. Furthermore, by definition, pure love as a transcendent thing is beyond the world of labels, categories, beliefs and thought itself. It just is, pure and simple. It's like Nirvana--a state of pure being and at-one-ment. Issues like the morality of homosexuality, abortion, capitalism, etc. are matters that live in the physical world, not the transcendent. An individual may invoke the transcendent to justify or bolster his or her viewpoints on these matters, but, in the context of the truly transcendent, these are insignificant. That's not to say that debating these issues is not important in our day-to-day existence or how we interact with others in our community and the world at large. Ultimately, however, they are issues having to do with corporal existence, not eternal matters (that is, beyond all matters in the field of time and mortality).

In order to have a chance at understanding these things, an individual has to break through the psychological barrier that separates the finite from the infinite, or at least recognize that the barrier exists. The function of high art, poetry, mythology, and meditation (or prayer, if you will) is to help the individual to pass through the barrier and reach a higher level of consciousness. Is this making any sense in terms of your argument, or am I just repeating the same old blah, blah, blah? Sorry once again if it is the latter. Not being a poet, I lack the skills to better communicate these concepts.



[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- WanderLost, 13:18:42 06/05/01 Tue

I completely agree with AT-UK. The emotion behind the finale was lovely, but it didn't make sense. The logic error did mess it up.

Even if Buffy's blood was the same as Dawn's, it shouldn't have worked. The blood of the Key was still flowing, and all Buffy did was feed the portal even more just-as-good-as-key blood. You'd think that would make things worse.

Was Buffy right to place Dawn ahead of the universe? I think no. Some of you have made compelling arguements that she was. The problem was that I think the writers took the easy out of not having her make the decision at all. They pulled a third option out of nowhere that just wasn't logical, in a very basic cause-effect way. They could have gotten out of it by having Dawn kill herself, before Buffy could stop her. Then the world would live, the hero wouldn't have compromised, and the plot would make sense.

That said, I still enjoyed the ep. And I kind of see her death as a heroic sacrifice AND a cowardly suicide. At the same time. Which is a cool head trip that only Joss could pull off.

Sorry that my sophmore post was so fricken long. I just thought more posters would agree w/ AT-UK, especially after all the Noir-Angel stuff.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice (o/t) -- rowan, 14:01:55 06/05/01 Tue

I like your name WanderLost...it reminds me of the Lord of the Rings:

All that is gold does not glitter, Nor all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice (o/t) -- Wisewoman, 14:30:42 06/05/01 Tue

rowan, rowan, rowan...okay, I give in! I'm gonna go back and start reading it again...I was trying to wait for the first part of the movie trilogy in December, but now you've got me all nostalgic and I don't think I can wait...

I've just realized that it's been so long since I read it, the kittens I once named Merry and Pippin have long-since passed away of old age!

Cheers, Wisewoman


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice (o/t) -- rowan, 14:41:45 06/05/01 Tue

I can't believe you named your cats Merry and Pippin! How wonderful!

When I was younger, I used to read it once every year. But it's been a few years for me. But now I remember why I love it so much -- it's got everything. I, too, was reading in preparation for the movie. I don't see how I can wait three years for each installment. I also gave it to my 8 year old godson to read, so I have to be ready to answer questions. ;)

It's the only book that can make me cry every time I read it, no matter how many times I read it. That darn Grey Havens scene at the end...


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Totally O/T -- Wisewoman, 17:36:51 06/05/01 Tue

I hear you, sister...and speaking of sniffles, have you read the (short) trilogy, The Fionavar Tapestry, by Guy Gavriel Kay? I defy anyone with any sensitivity to get through the third book of that without resorting to the tissues. The first time I read it I felt like I had drowned, and the second time was WORSE, because I knew what was coming, so I started sobbing earlier! Gotta love those fantasy quest novels...

Hey, come to think of it, maybe this isn't so O/T--a random group of disparate individuals banding together to save the world? Sounds familiar to me...



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Totally O/T -- AK-UK, 19:04:58 06/05/01 Tue

Oh man, how cold hearted am I? I didn't cry after "The Gift" and I didn't cry whilst reading the Fionavar trilogy (The third book was called.....errr....."The Longest Road", right?). Great story though!

And if you are looking for connections between that trilogy and BtVS, how about this; both tell the story of a group of friends drawn into a battle to prevent an evil god from unweaving reality. There are two female characters, one of whom becomes a kick ass witch, and the other, though she struggles to be normal, cannot overcome the fact that she was born different. All the characters develop some special ability except one, a guy, who, whilst helping out as best as he can, spends a great deal of time feeling like a third wheel.

I wonder what the future holds for Xander (if i remember correctly, the "third wheel" guy in the Fionavar trilogy was a bit of a "sex viking"..........and look where that got him ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, Pity the Lacrimationally-challenged! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:58:51 06/05/01 Tue

But, y'know, I didn't cry (much!) the first time I saw The Gift, either. But the second and third times? Wooo-hooo!

And, to extend the analogy, we'd have Buffy as Guinevere? Willow as Morgan le Fay? Or Ninian? Giles as Merlin?

Oooh, oooh, Angel as Arthur, and Spike as Lancelot...I love it!

Or, hold on, wouldn't Buffy have to be *Arthur*? Well, there goes the whole theory...



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A wee bit of limb-dangling here -- Little One, 09:00:46 06/06/01 Wed

The Tolkein thread yanked me out of lurkerdom to add my 2 cents (Canadian cents, so probably only 0.002 cents US). I can relate, Rowan. That Grey Havens scene gets me every time. Not to mention the burning of the Shire seems to make me angrier than any of the gory and evil deeds previously described. Sure, Gandalf sacrificing himself to the Balrog made me tear up, but nothing combined to the chopping of the grand old Shire oaks. Possibly because the Shire is more tangible at this point. It IS home.

Wisewoman, I like your idea of parallels existing between BtVS and The Fionavar Tapestry. It made me think that perhaps there are a few parallels which can be made between LotR and BtVS. Gandalf's sacrifice (it was even a fall from a great height as was Buffy's) to save the world, for example. He is reincarnated as Gandalf the White, the all powerful who weapons can not harm. Perhaps this is a portend of what might occur in Buffy? She becomes more than a mere slayer and must deal with not only more powerful demons (though what is more powerful than a god?) but also with all of the baggage that power and wisdom bring with it. I'm sure it would further separate her from the SG as well as the humans she is saving day after day.

Sauranon, who was the voice of wisdom, is later revealed to have been evil, his advice to the White Council was simply a means to further his own ambition: possession of the ring and ruler of Middle-Earth. Could the Doc perhaps be the Buffyverse's Sauranon? When Spike takes Dawn to him for advice on bringing Joyce back, he treats Doc as if he is a long-standing voice of reason and wisdom. Later it is revealed that he is on the side of evil and we assume by his words and mannerisms that he is in league with Glory (as Sauranon is thought to be a servant of Sauron). If this parallel can be continued does this mean that Doc will be revealed next season to not actually be a worshipper of Glory but has ambitions to surpass her as a god himself? His body was not found, so this leads me to believe that he is next season's big bad.

So if Buffy is Gandalf and Doc is Sauranon, do you think there are any more parallels? Would Willow be Frodo? A former shy geek becoming stronger and stronger until her actions can result in the fate of the world? Now, would that mean Tara is Sam? Hmm... maybe not!

Does anyone have any thoughts on any more possible parallels between these two realms? I've probably gone so far out on a limb with these as to be dangling from a leaf by my fingertips by these. Any thoughts?

By the way, I just discovered this posting board yesterday after searching for a sensible and provocative Buffy board. At first those other boards seemed fun but there's just so many "Angel is a hottie" and "Buffy is dead?!" 's that one person can take! Thank you all for providing a lurker like me with intelligent conversations to overhear and, occasionally, pop my head into! Cheers!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome! Comparative mythologies are one of our faves, here... -- OnM, 09:40:08 06/06/01 Wed

...so we're pleased to read your thoughts.

Jump in any time-- the Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom are happy to mind-meld with ya'll!



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom -- purplegrrl, 11:36:59 06/06/01 Wed

***Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom*** indeed!!!

OnM, bad puns like this mean you've been on your computer too long. Take a rest before something serious happens.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Serious? Me? Nahhh... -- OnM, 19:44:13 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Put down the mouse and step back from the keyboard, slowly... -- rowan, 20:00:28 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> They'll get my mouse when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!! -- OnM, 20:30:41 06/06/01 Wed

Uhmmm, on second thought, I take that back-- The EC is giving me a very opportunistic-looking evil glance right now...



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You leave OnM's puns alone. He is closer than he appears to be in the mirror -- Masq, 18:39:10 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Antelope Expressway, 1/4 mile... Antelope Expressway, 1/8 mile... Antelope Expressway, 1/16 mile... -- OnM, 20:34:52 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Welcome! Comparative mythologies are one of our faves, here... -- Brian, 12:36:11 06/06/01 Wed

Danger, danger, OnM - you have exceeded your pun limit per post. Put down the mouse and proceed immediately to the nearest adult beverage, or, if you are at work, to a colling, non-caffinated soft drink :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Warm cockles -- Little One, 13:40:53 06/06/01 Wed

I feel so welcome! Thanks, OnM! You've warmed the cockles of my heart accepting my humble opinions. Now my mind is consumed with thoughts of theories, threads and themes (oh my!). I'm abandoning my work, neglecting my cats in favour of possible posts. And all due to your support. You've created a monster (insert maniacal laughter here)!

Hmm...or maybe it's just the unfortunate side affects of too many PpP (Puns Per Post)... ;-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't those things take care of themselves? -- OnM, 19:49:15 06/06/01 Wed

Don't let Rufus overhear you say anything about neglecting your cats!




[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I heard that....................:):):) -- Rufus, 21:26:11 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't those things take care of themselves? -- Little One, 07:10:19 06/07/01 Thu

Don't what take care of themselves? Cockles or cats? :p

Don't worry, Rufus, Fizban and Pandora refuse to be neglected. They are a bit pushy that way (well, in every way actually, I mean, they ARE cats!).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just makin sure..........:):):) -- Rufus, 12:34:32 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A wee bit of limb-dangling here -- Cynthia, 19:27:19 06/06/01 Wed

If we're comparing Buffy characters to LOTR characters, which Buffy character gets to say "my precious" around Dawn, who is the equalivent of the ring in the trilogy?

Sorry, the thought of it made me smile.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A wee bit of limb-dangling here -- rowan, 20:33:18 06/06/01 Wed

Somebody did call Dawn precious at one point...oh sugar, I can't remember. Argghh!!! It might have been Glory.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She did call her "sweetie"............. -- Rufus, 21:29:08 06/06/01 Wed

Glory called Dawn sweetie that is.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike/Gollum....Okay so I'm grasping at straws -- Little One, 06:58:16 06/07/01 Thu

Hmm...for some reason I seem to think that Spike called Dawn Precious. Spike could be Gollum. Ok, so he's not slimy and cringing (James Marsters is the antithesis of slimy and cringing) but they both can't stand the sunlight, both attempt to protect the Precious, and both like to paw at their respective leader (Gollum is always pawing at Frodo and, well, we all know Spike has done a wee bit of pawing at the BuffyBot).

Or perhaps I've simply had too many Tim Horton's Iced Cappuccino's....brain frozen...must stop drinking...mmm, frosty goodness...


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A wee bit of pawing at the Buffybot????:):):):) -- Rufus, 12:41:09 06/07/01 Thu

Now, that has me laughing....I'm surprised her batteries didn't run out with the pawing sessions Spike had with the Buffybot.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, we know she's not solar powered -- Little One, 13:13:34 06/07/01 Thu

I agree! She could have blown a gasket! ALERT: dirty mind alert advises that might have been a poor choice of words! ;p ...takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'? (I couldn't help myself, sorry!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dirty Mind Alert!!!!!!!!!!!.......I love that one.........:):):):):) -- Rufus, 13:30:25 06/07/01 Thu

The ep Intervention was on the edge when it comes to sex. The smart thing they did was leave so much to the imagination.....solar powered....LOL.....


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike is not Gollum! Leave my boy alone, please. He's in mourning. ;) -- rowan, 14:59:59 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- purplegrrl, 16:07:41 06/05/01 Tue

***Even if Buffy's blood was the same as Dawn's, it shouldn't have worked. The blood of the Key was still flowing, and all Buffy did was feed the portal even more just-as-good-as-key blood. You'd think that would make things worse.***

But for the blood of the Key to stop flowing, death had to occur. Since Buffy has the same blood as Dawn (Joss says so, then it must be so), then Buffy's death will serve the same purpose as Dawn's. Death makes the blood stop flowing and causes the portal to close. So Buffy gave herself over to death.

Like you (and as I posited somewhere down the board!), I think Buffy's death was part sacrifice, part suicide. Now I believe it was mostly sacrifice - perhaps 99 percent. But that leftover 1 percent is the knowledge that if she dives into the portal, exchanging her life for Dawn's, that she will no longer have to deal with the angst and weirdness that go along with the duties and responsibilities of being the Slayer. Cowardly perhaps (although I think that may be a little harsh), but understandable.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why is suicide selfish? -- rowan, 16:51:47 06/05/01 Tue

I struggle with the concept that suicide is selfish. "My true love hath my heart, but my bones are my own" to quote Peter Wimsey. Surely if we're allowed to control one thing in our lives, it would be our own continued existence? Wouldn't it have been more selfish to deprive Dawn of life?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is suicide selfish? -- June, 21:09:17 06/05/01 Tue

"I struggle with the concept that suicide is selfish. "My true love hath my heart, but my bones are my own" to quote Peter Wimsey. Surely if we're allowed to control one thing in our lives, it would be our own continued existence? Wouldn't it have been more selfish to deprive Dawn of life?"

This was a sacrifice, and therefore not selfish.

But usually suicide is selfish. Others are left to pick up the pieces.

I wouldn't call what Buffy did 'suicide'. It was a sacrifice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is suicide selfish? -- purplegrrl, 07:12:11 06/06/01 Wed

The reason we (meaning Western Culture) view suicide as selfish probably stems from some sort of socio-religious view point. When most people lived in small communities where the lives of all the inhabitants affected all the others, suicide was a more selfish act because it had a greater effect on the entire community. Also, in the early days of the Church (particularly before the Reformation) cardinals, bishops, etc., went to great lengths to define what was correct moral behavior and what was not. I don't remember the history of the Roman Catholic Church very well, but I think there was some sort of edict (or similar writing) against suicide.

Of course, what always confused me was suicide being illegal. If done properly, you couldn't be prosecuted for your "crime."

Also, I don't think the person committing suicide views the act as selfish. It is those people who are left behind to contend with the death that consider it so.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is suicide selfish? -- fresne, 11:20:54 06/06/01 Wed

Well, from what I recall, (and it's been awhile since I thought about this) in medieval Judeo-Christian culture suicide was not only selfish, but seen as a sin. Suicide is a rejection of God's greatest gift, your life. Even if your life is terrible, you have an obligation to the gift to live out your life. And of course the afterlife is where all the good stuff happens anyway.

However, rather than accepting your gift, suicides have chosen to throw their lives away. As a result of that decision, not only will they not be passing Go nor collecting $200, they will be going straight to Hell.

For a particularly chilling view, read Dante's account of the wood of the suicides in Inferno. Basically, the souls of suicides are thrown into Hell where they become thorny, knotty, black leafed trees. Harpies live in the wood and rend the tree's branches causing them to bleed and cry out. In the final days, all the dead will retake their bodies, except suicides. Their bodies will be hung from the branches of their tree body.

To make the issue even more complex, there is the whole martyr thing. Dying like a lamb for your faith is a good thing. Thus killing yourself because you feel bad is wrong. But dying to save someone (in imitation of Christ) is good.

And then there is the whole pile of virgin suicide/martyr stories. They tend to go like this. A young virgin of a pagan (Roman) family becomes Christian. Her family wants her to marry a judge, patrician, Caesar, but she since she has made the decision to essentially become a nun/bride of Christ, she'll have none of it. Either she gets tortured, bleeds milk, and dies or (crucially) she kills herself. But it's okay, because she did it to stay true to her husband, Christ. Very Rape of Lucretia. See the Third Book in Christine de Pisan's Book of the City of Ladies for a fairly long list of examples.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why is suicide selfish? -- purplegrrl, 11:41:52 06/06/01 Wed

***suicide was not only selfish, but seen as a sin***

That's where I was going, I just didn't quite get there. Thanks.

***virgin suicide/martyr stories***

And then they had the opportunity to become a saint!


[> [> [> [> [> [> Awesome, dude! Great post! -- OnM, 21:38:29 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Mishka, 10:24:34 06/05/01 Tue

Okay there are many great ideas here, and I`m glad that I was around to be able to read them.... Here`s some personal opinions, musings, etc. The Hero Cycle by Campbell is incredibly impressive. However, there are other discourses that don`t include the hero myth. For example, Canadian literature and movies almost never have a hero story at all. The reason being that anytime an individual tries to extend itself farther than its community, it gets crushed. The lesson being, that the individual is not more important than its community, nor can it be allowed to transcend it for true knowledge of oneself stems from how you regard yourself in relation to said community.....this is very simplified. Anyway, the point being that maybe Joss referenced some other view points in 'The Gift' other than the traditional Hero Myth. I think that Buffy was exhausted with her slayer role, she hurt when Angel left, she hurt when Riley left, she hurt when her mother died, and therefore she decided that she wasn`t going to hurt anymore. I think in her conversation with Giles she was basically saying, "I am not sacrificing any more of myself for this crappy job. I`m tired of being the one who loses everything. It`s not going to happen anymore. I won`t allow it to." And so I think when she sacrifices herself, she is actually taking something back for herself, away from the fates that decided she would be the slayer, her mom would die, Dawn has to die to save the world. She only had an epiphany in so much as she figured out a way to save Dawn. I definately think that there was a little bit of her deciding to finish her life. I don`t think you can dismiss the slayer Deathwish so quickly. She was exhausted and this was the perfect way for Dawn to live and for her to not have to suffer anymore for being the slayer. When Buffy does come back, (if she`s not evil Buffy as some suggest), she`ll probably be monkish, ie/ enlightened. She will not be able to be as close to people, she will have transcended. OR/// She will take everything that life has to give her, no matter what, cause living her life just in the slayer role was killing her. So she will be with Angel again (disregarding the things we already know in real life about networks and so on), she will relax more, go out, dance, have fun etc. She won`t accept less than what she deserves anymore, to be a happy, regular, early-twenties, female human being. Whatever happens, I think that Buffy will be a very changed person. Mishka


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Dedalus, 12:04:32 06/05/01 Tue

Interesting thoughts, Misha. You have a valid point. Some of us can get overdependent on the mythic view of things. Although, I got a question to Joss Whedon published in the Buffy mag, and he said Buffy was definitely suppose to be mythic.

I definitely agree Buffy will be a changed person. I can't wait to see how it turns out.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh no! Us Godless Canadians are Heroically-Challenged, as well! -- Wiswoman, 20:05:27 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh no! Us Godless Canadians are Heroically-Challenged, as well! -- Mishka, 07:14:43 06/06/01 Wed

Yes we are....*sigh* English major, forgive me.


[> The Effect of Belief and Reality -- Rufus, 20:31:10 06/04/01 Mon

Buffy: "She's me. The monks made her out of me. I hold her and I feel closer to her than...it's more than physical, it's...Dawn is part of me. The only part I....."

Buffy had an Epiphany....her's was one that involved belief...the belief that Dawn was part of her. A part that even though seperate was vital to preserve. If Buffy had allowed Dawn to die, a part of herself would have died with Dawn, a part so vital that Buffy was willing to die to save it. It didn't matter how Dawn started...it didn't matter that Buffys memories of Dawn were built...what mattered was the now...the present where Buffy believed that Dawn was a part of her she wasn't able to let go of. If Dawn had jumped into the portal, part of Buffy would have died with her. Buffy would have felt that indeed she was only a killer, an instrument of death. Instead Buffy understood her gift of death meant life to a part of herself(Dawn)that she cherished above all else. It doesn't matter if Buffys blood isn't a total match with Dawns, what matters is that Buffy took the Leap of Faith and let her belief guide her actions. There is no tangible proof that what she believed was right...the results are what mattered. The world was safe. Buffy was worried that she was turning to stone, hardened by her years of killing and losing the people she loved. Her only reward was an eventual death. Buffy did the unthinkable and chose to change the nature of the gift of death. Death was no longer an escape, but a sacrifice to love and family. Buffy died to save her sister, the world, and that part of herself she thought had turned to stone.


[> [> Re: The Effect of Belief and Reality -- rowan, 20:58:21 06/04/01 Mon

"It doesn't matter if Buffys blood isn't a total match with Dawns, what matters is that Buffy took the Leap of Faith and let her belief guide her actions. There is no tangible proof that what she believed was right...the results are what mattered."

I agree. I posted something right after the ep about this. Buffy believes she can substitute for Dawn, and therefore, it works. It's almost as if she creates meaning out of reality through the strength of her belief.


[> [> [> Which is a god-like quality, is it not? -- OnM, 21:15:19 06/04/01 Mon

*** "I agree. I posted something right after the ep about this. Buffy believes she can substitute for Dawn, and therefore, it works. It's almost as if she creates meaning out of reality through the strength of her belief." ***

You're preaching to the minister here! ;)

Buffy states (paraphrasing) that if the world has to end for Dawn to live, so be it (although she knows that can't really be allowed to happen, she puts that thought into a tiny hidden corner of her brain, so she can concentrate on making reality bend to her will).

She fights Glory *until she bleeds*. Stop and think about this-- really think about it. **A god bleeds**.

Should that be possible? But it happens.

Glory asks for mercy-- not with that word specifically, but she asked Buffy to 'Stop', which amounts to the same thing. This is the god who could 'crush you like a bug'. Think about it.

Think about in *Restless*, when spirit-guide-Tara shows Buffy the Tarot cards, with The Hands. Buffy replies "I'll never use those."

What do you think The Hands represent? I could think of a couple interpretations, one of which is the ability to bend or mold reality. Buffy doesn't think of herself as a being holding immense potential power. But is she right?


[> [> [> [> Re: Which is a god-like quality, is it not? -- Rufus, 21:45:47 06/04/01 Mon

From FFL...

Spike: "Death is your art. You make it with your hands, day after day."

If Buffys hands have the power of death...what other power do they have?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which is a god-like quality, is it not? -- rowan, 04:36:50 06/05/01 Tue

I just love you guys!

I'm starting to think Buffy's return may be a la Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. In that book, Gandalf's old life as Gandalf the Grey burns away in his confrontation with a Balrog (an ancient godlike evil). He dies and he is sent back by the Powers that Be. When he returns, his memory of his old life returns slowly ('Gandalf...that was the name...I was Gandalf') although he still knows his purpose & mission (his work). His personality undergoes subtle change and his powers have a new brilliance ('no weapon can harm me.'). He is now Gandalf the White, highest of his order. He is an inspiration of good to those around him, and those who are evil tremble.

I'm wondering if Buffy's acceptance of death as her gift, her active acceptance that she is full of love (demonstrated by her changed attitude towards Spike and her dying instructions to Dawn) and her sacrifice will transform her into the next level of Slayer, who is perhaps endowed with yet another gift (beyond Slayer strength, love, and death). I know alot of people have commented on the progress of hero in the heroic cycle. I'm assuming we'll discover at some point that the Slayer mythology includes "orders" of Slayers or a progression that a Slayer can follow. Have any other Slayers ever "evolved?"

Buffy's body is currently rotting in her grave, according to Joss, and her soul is...wherever. Let's say the PtB create a new Slayer body for her and place her soul within it. She will retain some Buffyiness because it is still Buffy's soul, but some of the old personality remains with the corpse that has died (she's Buffy, but she's different). Her new body now has some new, further skill. No other Slayer has made it to this point of transformation to date, because they've either been killed or have given in to the Slayer death wish.

So now, her hands, beside making artistic death (God, do I absolutely love that line -- it's so memorable) may now make something else. I'm half wondering if Buffy is on the road to immortality -- perhaps these transformations have the effect of taking away the Slayer expiration date.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh my god -- Dedalus, 12:16:58 06/05/01 Tue

A new order of Slayers? That was the exact thing I wrote in the posts above this thread! And I honestly hadn't read these yet. I think that is so right.

Did any of you guys read that magazine article about Buffy about a year ago, and it had Marti Noxon saying that maybe there is even a greater extent to the Slayer's power/destiny that even she realizes? I have been thinking about that since The Gift.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Cookie time again for you..........:):):):) -- Rufus, 14:20:25 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is getting scary...we need to disagree more often just for variety's sake. :) -- rowan, 14:43:03 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Which is a god-like quality, is it not? -- OnM, 21:53:56 06/05/01 Tue

*** "I'm starting to think Buffy's return may be a la Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. In that book, Gandalf's old life as Gandalf the Grey burns away in his confrontation with a Balrog (an ancient godlike evil)...

... He dies and he is sent back by the Powers that Be. When he returns, his memory of his old life returns slowly He is an inspiration of good to those around him, and those who are evil tremble." ***

BTW, I'm starting to keep a file of Buffy rebirth scenarios that I really like.

Consider this one entered in that file, rowan! I like it!


[> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- jules, 22:49:53 06/04/01 Mon

A long-time lurker de-lurks here. First, I have to add my compliments to the others heaped upon this board- I've been looking for a really intelligent, thoughtful fan discussion of BtVS for what seems like years. I don't know why it took me so long to find this place!

I have a question for you, OnM, on your statement:

'Think about in *Restless*, when spirit-guide-Tara shows Buffy the Tarot cards, with The Hands. Buffy replies "I'll never use those."'

I don't have the episode on tape, so I can't go back and look, but to my knowledge there is no card "The Hands" in the Tarot deck most widely used (the Rider-waite deck). I looked in the shooting script, but it doesn't specify which card Tara is showing to Buffy. Now there are plenty of other decks out there that I've never seen which may feature a card with hands, but I interpreted Buffy's statement as referring to the cards themselves.

But any reference to the Tarot deck is still fascinating to me. First, because through an odd coincidence I just this weekend decided to start memorizing the meanings of all the cards of the Tarot. So I've been reading up on the symbolism and history of the cards. Second, it's really interesting that a thread that started with a mention of Joseph Campbell should also bring up the Tarot, because the Major Arcana (the cool cards like The Lovers, the Hanged Man, and Death) are often intrepreted as being a Hero's Journey. Or a Fool's Journey, as the case may be.

You can read a complete description of the Fool's Journey here:


The Journey begins with the Fool, an innocent, stepping out into the unknown. As he moves upward through the Major Arcana, he enounters mother and father figures, symbols of organized religion, the Hermit (a symbol for the search for meaning) followed immediately by the Wheel of Fortune (a symbol for destiny). Later come the Hanged Man (sacrifice) and Death (transition to a new life). And that's still only half-way through the series of cards.

Not that there was any doubt that Buffy is on a Hero's Journey- I just thought I'd toss out that neato factoid.



[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- Wisewoman, 08:51:33 06/05/01 Tue

I'm glad you brought this up, for similar reasons--I don't have that episode on tape and I can't remember what the card looked like. I just assumed that the reference was to one of the Aces in the minor arcana, which show disembodied hands holding a cup, a pentacle, a rod or a sword.

If that's not it, then I'm really curious as to what deck "The Hands" belongs to, and what its significance is.



[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- rowan, 11:06:45 06/05/01 Tue

This has made me very curious. I'll be out checking various alternative Tarot decks all day. I had the same thought, that it was a card of the minor arcana (boy, this could take a while). But, I was also thinking that if this was a goddess deck, for example, this card could be in place of the Magician (Mago, maker, etc.). The Magician has learned the power of all the elements.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- fresne, 12:43:24 06/05/01 Tue

While I am certainly no expert, I've never seen a deck that shows the hands, or for that matter: heart, spirit, mind by themselves.

One web site that I found useful for visual comparison of various decks is: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/. The site both explains some tarot background and has many, many gifs of various decks. (Brief explanation, a year or so ago I made a deck using photo's of my friends from various costume events. Harley Quinn as the Fool, J. Caesar as the Emperor, Arthur Dent as the Hermit and so forth.)

Although, now I'm resisting the urge to make a Buffy tarot deck. No down self (I don't have an evil twin, merely an overactive idea of my own free time). I have enough projects. Must finish current load.

I would agree with Wisewoman's desire to see these cards as Minor Arcana Aces. Perhaps, Heart=Want/Fire, Mind=Cup/Water, Spirit=Sword/Air, Hands=Pentacles/Earth. Although, you could shift them around depending on your perspective.

I like Hands=Pentacles=Earth because it places the Slayer (as opposed to Buffy herself) in opposition/similarity to Vampires. Vampires are static, undead, parasites who reproduce by taking over living things. A living being which is a perversion of the original. Vampires live in the earth, but are not of the earth. They rise from their graves, while others peacefully decompose and make new life (American burial rites aside). The Earth/Slayer is seasonal. The Slayer lives and the Slayer dies. And in the spring, there is a new Slayer. The Slayerness exists in symbiosis with a human girl makes a living thing greater than it was. Because tests are gifts and gifts are tests, it is not always a pleasant symbiosis, but if the test is taken, if the gift accepted, ultimately an enriching one.

Anyway, hmm...so (because ARLtR) Buffy rejected the Hands card in Restless. A bit hard for me to interpret because I see Buffy's sacrifice at the end of the Gift as the ultimate expression of her Slayerness as opposed to a rejection of it.

I would have to reiterate that I don't see Buffy's death as an expression of a Death Wish. Buffy with a death wish, was a Buffy who did not understand. Heart, Mind, Spirit, and Hand were in disunity. When, she spoke with Spike in FfL, when she went catatonic in WotW, even most of the way through the Gift, Buffy was in disharmony with herself. This was a Buffy who could/would/maybe should have a Death Wish.

She was faced with soul grinding decisions, and because she wasn't in sinc, she was only able to cling to a single idea, that she would not kill Dawn. She couldn't plan. Anya had the ideas. Others came up with ideas outside the box. Buffy could only focus on her one concept, defend Dawn.

Here I think, she had a Death Wish. The world was "finally" going to go to hell (what a relief after all those years fighting it) and Buffy would die defending her sister. Note she rarely spoke of succeeding in holding off Glory. (Interesting, that Spike, cause ARLtS, also thought that he was going to die in the coming conflict) And then comes the moment on the top of the tower, and Buffy rediscovers hope. There is a way to save the Dawn and the world. There is another option.

And here we come to a matter of perspective. If Buffy had died as a result of a Death Wish, I don't see how her action could have been a joyous, peaceful action. Slayer Death Wish, according to Spike, comes not because of something a Slayer does or does not do, but because they want Death more than they want to act.

Hmmm..I would almost like to go back to Restless and reinterpret why the First Slayer attacks the Scobbies. Rather than the attack being an attack of anger, "You've been messing with things that you shouldn't." Perhaps, it is a test, a gift. Since the Scoobies have passed a test of sorts, (accessing the kinds of uber-Slayer magic that they did), the First Slayer's attack can be seen as a confrontation of internal self that they needed to go through. Buffy needed to confront the idea that she is more than just a killer. After which, mission accomplished the First Slayer leaves, job done. (Well, she was awfully easy to ditch.)

This is a spiritual message that is reinforced in Intervention. A message that Buffy finally understands as she stands on the tower. She wants Giles to know that she understands now. The Heart, Mind, and Spirit finally understand what the Hands must do.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- rowan, 14:05:19 06/05/01 Tue

This whole discussion made me go back and read the shooting script for Restless. I can't wait to see this ep again when F/X starts the reruns.

Anyway, it would be an interesting exercise now to go back to Restless and see which events foreshadowed in that ep have been fulfilled in S5. As I re-read, a surprising number of them seemed to me to be more predictive of S6.

I also thought Pentacles for Earth, or perhaps Swords. Not Cups or Wands...different feel.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- Jac, 16:05:02 06/05/01 Tue

This is my first time posting, mostly I just read all the comments and insights and think "Wow."

I don't know if y'all are still wondering about what the card looked like, but since I had that episode on tape, I decided to share with y'all what it was:

It had two hands crossed at the wrist, palms up. One hand was clenched in a fist the other hand was open. There were white clouds around the forearms of the two hands. Also, there was a cresent moon centered at the top of the card, with the endpoints pointing down (like an upside-down smiley face). The moon was yellow in color and the background was blue sky. At the bottom of the card it said the word "Manus."

Anyway, I know nothing about Tarot cards or their meanings, and I haven't got a clue what Tara was trying to convey to Buffy, but maybe someone else does. Hope this helps.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- rowan, 16:55:38 06/05/01 Tue

Hmmm...well, I really don't know if this card is actually in any Tarot deck or just comes from the fertile imaginations of the writers. But I'll take a crack at interpreting it.

The two hands are Buffy's hands, the hands of the Slayer. One is closed in a fist, which represents the strength of the Slayer, the defense against evil. The other hand is open, palm up, representing Buffy's nature, which is full of love (and therefore giving). The hands are crossed, because these sides are both forever joined and forever in conflict. The moon above, which might either be waxing or waning, represents the goddess power which inspires Buffy. You can choose if the power is diminishing or growing. I suspect growing.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- Wisewoman, 19:01:17 06/05/01 Tue

Awesome interpretation, Rowan! Do I detect the presence of another Wiccan?



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely! -- rowan, 19:46:25 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the clarification! -- Wisewoman, 19:02:38 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> Re: The Effect of Belief and Reality -- Dedalus, 12:11:17 06/05/01 Tue

Ah, leap of faith. I like how you phrased that, Rufus. So now we're on Kierkegaard. :-)

I love the thinking behind this analysis of the situation. I guess it was a leap of faith, yet a leap of faith that was almost inevitable since that faith sprang from the very depths of her being. One of my favorite literary critics, Northrope Frye, defined faith not as words but as the action one takes in life. One's lifestyle is what is ultimately indicative of their faith, not just their alleged beliefs. This was certainly an example of that.

I like the part about how she was saving that part of her that was turning to stone.

I don't mean to be a quote-o-rama here, but I can't help getting this in -

"Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart." - William Butler Yeats


[> [> [> Lovely quote! -- rowan, 12:29:05 06/05/01 Tue


[> A hearty thanks to everyone! -- verdantheart, 07:39:02 06/07/01 Thu

My sister ... my daughter ... my sister ... my daughter ...

Sacrifice ... suicide ... sacrifice ... suicide ...

Where's that aspirin?

I'm sorry to say that I don't have much to contribute, I just want to let you all know I stand in awe. I was waiting til I could sit down and spend some time with this thread since it was huge (and growing). Thanks to everyone who contributed!

From earnest discussions on selfish/unselfish lower/higher conditional/unconditional love to discussions of The Lord of the Rings (got to reread that this summer!) to myth to the Tarot to symbolism to bad puns, there is so much chewy goodness here I'll be working on these thoughts for some time.

This is why I hang around this board.

- vh

6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Jack_McCoy, 20:40:52 06/04/01 Mon

For those of you who have never played this game, the object is to connect an actor/actress to Kevin Bacon within 6 trys or less. For example, Sigorney Weaver:

Sigorney Weaver started with Kevin Kline in "Dave", who started in "In and Out" with Matt Dillion, who stared in "Wild things" with....Kevin Bacon.

So far, I have yet to find an actor/actress I couldn't link to Kevin in 6 trys or less. I just figured out how to connect everyone in Angel and Buffy to him. Can any of ya'll?


[> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Liquidram, 23:02:49 06/04/01 Mon

Here's three for the price of one:

David Boreanaz was in "Valentine" with Marley Sheldon, who was in "American Pie" with Alyson Hannigan who is in "BtVS" with Sarah Michelle Geller who was in "Scream 2" with Neve Campbell who was in "Wild Things" with .... Kevin Bacon


[> [> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Mishka, 08:21:07 06/05/01 Tue

Con`t J.August Richards (Gunn) was in Good Burger with Can Schneider II. Dan Schneider II was in The Big Picture with Kevin Bacon.

Andy Hallett (Host) was in Chance with Shammus Murphy Shammus Murphy was in Deuces Wild with Frankie Muniz Frankie Muniz was in My Dog Skip with Kevin Bacon

Julie Benz (Darla) was in Inventing the Abbotts with Billy Crudup. Billy Crudup was in Sleepers with Kevin Bacon

Juliet Landau (Dru) was in Ed Wood with Bill Murray Bill Murray was in Wild Things with Kevin Bacon


[> [> [> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Rob, 10:57:53 06/05/01 Tue

Sarah Michelle Gellar was in "Scream 2" with Neve Campbell, who was in "Wild Things" with Kevin Bacon.

Allyson Hannigan was in "Dead Man on Campus" with Tom Everett Scott, who was in "That Thing You Do" with Tom Hanks, who was in "Apollo 13" with Kevin Bacon.

Nicholas Brendon was in "Psycho Beach Party" with Lauren Ambrose, who was in "Can't Hardly Wait" with Ethan Embry, who was in "Disturbing Behavior" with Katie Holmes, who was in "Go" with Jay Mohr, who was in "Picture Perfect" with Kevin Bacon.

James Marsters was in "House on Haunted Hill" with Geoffrey Rush, who was in "Mystery Men" with Ben Stiller, who was in "Meet the Parents" with Robert DeNiro, who was in "Sleepers" with Kevin Bacon.

Eliza Dushku was in "Bring It On" with Kirsten Dunst, who was in "Interview with the Vampire" with Brad Pitt, who was in "Sleepers" with Kevin Bacon.

Clare Kramer was in "Bring it On" with Kirsten Dunst...

Michelle Trachtenberg was in "Harriet the Spy" with Rosie O'Donnell, who was in "League of Their Own" with Tom Hanks, who was in "Apollo 13" with Kevin Bacon.


[> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Q, 09:05:24 06/05/01 Tue

I have the board game of "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" It's pretty cool because you get names at random to link to him, which makes it harder. Anyway, we never play six degrees to kevin bacon, we alway play "six degrees to Buffy" at all our parties. I'll show you a round.

I roll the dice and the card says: Andy Garcia

1. Andy Garcia was in "When a man loves a woman" with Meg Ryan

2. Meg Ryan was in "Sleepless in Seattle" with Tom Hanks

3 Tom Hanks was in "Dragnet" with Dan Akroyd

4 Dan Akroyd was in "My stepmother's an Alien" with Allison Hannigan who is


The card says: Sissy Spaceck

1. Sissy Spaceck was in "The outlaw josie welles" with Clint Eastwood.

2. Clint Eastwood was in "The unforgiven" with Gene Hackman

3. Gene Hackman was in "enemy of the state" with Seth Green who is Oz.

That's how we play it, anyway!


[> 2nd degree Eliza -- vampire hunter D, 12:30:23 06/05/01 Tue

Eliza Dushku in "True Lies" with Jamie Lee Curtis Jamie Lee Curtis in "Queen's Logic" with Kevin Bacon.


[> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Bob128, 12:46:44 06/05/01 Tue

Remember, the shortest number of degrees is better, all below have 3 or less connections:

Alyson Hannigan was in Boys and Girls (2000) with Kylie Bax Kylie Bax was in We Married Margo (2000) with Kevin Bacon

Nicholas Brendon was in Pinata (2000) with Eugene Byrd Eugene Byrd was in Sleepers (1996) with Kevin Bacon

James Marsters was in Winding Roads (1998) with Rob Lowe Rob Lowe was in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) with Clint Howard Clint Howard was in My Dog Skip (2000) with Kevin Bacon

Eliza Dushku was in Soul Survivors (2001) with Luke Wilson Luke Wilson was in My Dog Skip (2000) with Kevin Bacon

Clare Kramer was in In & Out (1997) with Matt Dillon Matt Dillon was in Wild Things (1998) with Kevin Bacon

Michelle Trachtenberg was in Inspector Gadget (1999) with Matthew Broderick Matthew Broderick was in She's Having a Baby (1988) with Kevin Bacon

Anthony Head was in Rock Star (2001) with Jennifer Aniston Jennifer Aniston was in Picture Perfect (1997) with Kevin Bacon

Charisma Carpenter was in Timemaster (1995) with Irwin Keyes Irwin Keyes was in Friday the 13th (1980) with Kevin Bacon

Marc Blucas was in View from the Top, A (2001) with Stephen Tobolowsky Stephen Tobolowsky was in Murder in the First (1995) with Kevin Bacon


[> Here's one -- Jack_McCoy, 16:05:08 06/05/01 Tue

Sarah was in Cruel Intentions with Ryan Philippe, who stared with Neve Campbell in 54, who stared in Wild Things with Kevin Bacon.

BtVS on DVD--Shelf Life? -- Wisewoman, 21:26:10 06/04/01 Mon

There's a thread below referring to the differences in VHS and DVD players in different regions of the world, and it reminded me of something mind-boggling (IMHO) that I read in a local community (Vancouver) newspaper this weekend.

I quote: "Microfilm lasts for 500 to 1,000 years, but trying to find specific information in it can be a nightmare. Good-quality paper lasts just as long...Video and audiotapes last as little as ten years before the magnetic layer, which stores pictures and sounds, begins flaking away...with CD-ROMS [and DVDs?], the stored information spreads over the disk, rendering it next to useless in 10 to 20 years."

And I was gonna spend my old age mooning over the bleached-hair guy who shall remain nameless...oh well.

The article also says that Apple records it's software codes on...paper! LOL!



[> Re: BtVS on DVD--Shelf Life? -- OnM, 21:57:48 06/04/01 Mon

The information you quote is accurate for magnetic tape, although with today's technology the problem is less one of the oxide coating flaking off, than the tape's natural tendency to slowly demagnetize itself over long periods of time.

There is no truth to the 'stored info spreading over the disk, rendering it useless'. CD's and DVD's are molded from polycarbonate plastic ('Lexan') and are extremely stable over a *very* long period of time. CD's have already been in existance for over 20 years, and show no signs of deteriorating. DVD's should be the same.

There are no known 100% accurate life expectancies for CD's/DVD's, but 50 to 100 years isn't out of the question.

Even if they would start to deteriorate, being a digital medium, if you can get a copy made while the disc is still good, there will be no generation loss, as with analog media.

So fret not. DVD's are one of the greatest pieces of technology to come along in many a year. We have only begun to really utilize this medium-- the story is far from over!

And no, I don't work for any DVD manufacturers! (~grin~) Just your friendly neighborhood A/V technician, here.


[> [> What a relief! -- Wisewoman, 08:10:53 06/05/01 Tue

Whoooo-hoooo! Thanks, OnM. Where do the reporters come up with this stuff? I guess, that's the problem, they don't really say...

I'll happily go back to my fantasies of retirement now...



[> [> [> Re: I'm glad somebody is relieved -- Dedalus, 15:54:48 06/05/01 Tue

Okay, so I just got my Crouching Tiger DVD today. I can play it on my uncle's DVD player, but I can't play it on my brand spankin' new DVD-ROM. Damn it, that was the entire reason I wanted it. What kind of cruel cosmic justice is this? It will play every DVD under the sun, but the one that is my favorite, no luck.

What a rip-off.

*Dedalus angrily shakes fist at the sky*


[> [> [> [> Well, Daedalus... -- fresne, 16:48:38 06/05/01 Tue

As long as you only shake your fist angrily at the sky. If in a fit of anger you fly too close to the sun, your waxy wings might melt.

Or given that its CTHD, would that be floating through the air.

Sorry, couldn't help it.


[> [> [> [> Contact the player manufacturer... -- OnM, 20:53:19 06/05/01 Tue

There may be a software update available. If, not, inform them of the disc or discs you are having trouble playing, they may have an update in future.

This problem is becoming more common, although it usually afflicts owners of older machines. It's usually directly related to increased copy protection on the disc. Discmakers are trying to keep ahead of people trying to hack the DVD copy protection methodologies. The idea is to have players play the discs OK, but prevent a digital-to-digital copy from being made. Sometimes this causes the player to become unable to read a legitimate disc.

My boss just got a copy of 'Ben Hur' last week, and his machine (less than 1 year old) wouldn't play it. He brought it into the store the next day, and it played fine on every machine we have. He called the company, and sure enough there is an update available, although this was the first call they had had on 'Ben Hur'.

Hope this helps, Dedalus. Give it a shot!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks Guys -- Dedalus, 12:36:47 06/06/01 Wed

Actually, I did do all the Help Guides and all that, but they weren't very helpful. There are upgrades available, and you can send in a complaint, but the form is really complicated and you have to have all these codes and stuff and I'm all like "Whatthehellijustwanttowatchcrouchingtiger" and they're like, no fill out all these forms and it was this whole big thing ...

I can see if it was an older machine, but this is a brand new DVD-ROM.


Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- Steve, 06:46:14 06/05/01 Tue

Maybe I am off base here, but I see Buffy's whole relationship with Dawn as kind of a mirror image of what happened to her with Faith.

Faith was the first "sister" that fate put in Buffy's life.

BUFFY Yeah, she's personable. Gets along with my friends, my watcher, my mom -- look! Now she's getting along with my fries!

ANGLE: FAITH is in fact reaching over and snagging some of Buffy's fries.

JOYCE Now, Buffy --

BUFFY Plus, in school today, she was making eyes at MY not-boyfriend. It's creepy.

JOYCE Does anybody else think Faith is creepy?

BUFFY No, but I'm the one getting Single White Femaled here.

JOYCE It's probably good you were an only child.

BUFFY Hey, I... Mom, I'm just getting my life back. I'm not looking to go halfsies on it.

Buffy didn't want to share her life with Faith. She didn't want to go "halfsies on it.".

With Dawn she couldn't go even go "halsies". She had to give her whole life to Dawn.

Now when I say mirror, I mean that it is reverse. Faith forced Buffy into a situation whereby Buffy almost killed her by pushing her off a building after stabbing her with a knife (sounds familiar). Dawn was innocent of the situation, Faith was not. In Dawn's case, it was Buffy who in the end took the fall.

I realize that Faith and Buffy never really even developed a sister-liker elationship. But the similarities with how Buffy almost killed Faith, and how Buffy was supposed to kill Dawn were very similar. Buffy rejected that type of relationship with Faith out of selfishness (and yes there were other uncontrolable circumstances as well, not totally Buffy's fault) but with Dawn she finally got it right.


[> Excellent post Steve. -- AK-UK, 07:32:35 06/05/01 Tue

That "it's probably good that you were an only child" line is brilliant.


[> Re: Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- rowan, 11:01:27 06/05/01 Tue

So clever...that's why I've grouped them together in the character posting party. To contrast the good sister with the bad sister.


[> [> Re: Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- Steve, 19:01:34 06/05/01 Tue

Buffy's unwillingness to "halfsies" and not share her life with Faith set a tone for what was to come.

Faith might have been the "bad sister", but then again so was Buffy.

Buffy could never forgive Faith. She might have been more good than the rest of us, but she wasn't perfect. And while I don't blame Buffy for what happened to Faith, I always have felt a need for some kind of reconciliation. Forgiving someone who has wronged you is one of the hardest things to do.

Now that Buffy is gone, perhaps Dawn will be able to do what Buffy was never willing to. Perhaps in their shared lost some form of reconciliation can take place.


[> Re: Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- Anthony8, 17:02:07 06/05/01 Tue

Great post, but I would disagree that Faith and Buffy never really developed a sister-like relationship. To me it was a classic older(Buffy) to younger (Faith) sister relationship, sibling rivalry taken to its extreme. Buffy was the cautious, more responsible older sister. She had some respect (well, as much as can be expected in a teenager) for her parental figures (Joyce, Giles) and worked for their approval. Faith, the classic baby sister, gets away with murder (okay, not really) and leaves older sis' to cover for her with the parental units. Faith is jealous of the things Buffy has accomplished and sees Buffy's sense of responsibility as an obstacle to fun. Buffy is resentful of the freedom Faith enjoys, but understands to some extent the potentially disastrous consequences that can result from acting without thinking.

Sounds like the Bush twins. No wait, they're just couple of chips off the old average block. I know--not too deep, but my posts have been too long lately anyhow.


[> [> Good excuse for us to all rewatch *Bad Girls* this week! -- OnM, 21:22:38 06/05/01 Tue

Anthony, thanks for bringing up this point.

Interesting that Buffy began to bond with Faith in a more sister-like fashion once she started to recognize elements of her own self reflected in Faith.

Speaking of the above-mentioned ep, was watching *Witchblade* tonight on TNT. Reminds me oh so much about Harlan Ellison's great old quote about how without writers, all you have is a bunch of actors standing around with nothing to say.

Of course, unless you have *good* writers... not here to speak ill of the dubious, but in one entire program chock full'o'words, nothing was said that even once matched the simple elegance of, say,

"Want. Take. Have."


[> [> [> Re: Good excuse for us to all rewatch *Bad Girls* this week! -- Anthony8, 21:45:19 06/05/01 Tue

Your Harlan Ellison quote made me think about the scene in 'The Player' where Peter Gallagher and Tim Robbins are discussing the merits of bypassing the artistic process altogether by eliminating both the actors and the writers.


[> [> [> [> LOL! Yeah... that too. -- OnM, 22:45:07 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> Re: Dawn's reactions to Faith -- Brian, 08:46:27 06/06/01 Wed

What would Dawn's reaction to Faith really be? I wonder how they got along in those programed memories? I imagine that Faith, like Spike, would have some allure. Maybe some hero worship, with some Buffy grumbling on the side. What would Dawn think about Faith trying to turn then kill Angel. In fact, did Dawn think Angel was "cool" or "icky." Ah, specualtion!


[> [> [> Re: Dawn's reactions to Faith -- Cynthia, 12:19:23 06/06/01 Wed

I think Dawn may have liked Angel. Perhaps is mad at him for the pain and suffering that he has caused Buffy even thou it may have been beyond his control. Sisterly protectiveness is not necessarily rational. It also obvious that she likes Spike better.

All this based, of course, on non-existance memories of course LOL


[> [> [> [> We may just find out. -- Humanitas, 09:43:26 06/07/01 Thu

The upcoming BtVS Animated series is supposed to be set during Buffy's high-school years, with Dawn as a character. Evidently these are tales not previously told, that have been affected by the Monks' spell. So we may get to see what Dawn thought of Angel and Faith.

Buffyish character?!? -- Rob, 08:42:59 06/05/01 Tue

I just read at Wanda's site on E! Online! that yes, Sarah Michelle Gellar would be coming back to the show in the first episode of the year, and everyone after that. She also said, yes, she would be playing Buffy...or at least a "Buffy-ish character." Any speculation on what that means? Could Joss actually not be bringing Buffy back next year but Sarah Michelle Gellar as another character? This show is so amazing and brilliant, Joss is a genius...I'm sure it could work...but I don't know...Now I'm going even more crazy waiting for the season premiere. However Buffy returns...or in whatever form SMG returns next year...I wanna know now!!!


[> Welcome to the World of the Spoiler Ho ;o) rotflmao! -- Wisewoman, 09:03:41 06/05/01 Tue


[> could you give a link to this, I can't find it -- abt, 09:06:04 06/05/01 Tue

I found eonline.com, but I can't find the article you describe thanks


[> [> Here's the link... -- Rob, 10:31:50 06/05/01 Tue


It's a little farther than halfway down the page...


[> [> [> Re: Here's the link... -- rowan, 11:00:17 06/05/01 Tue

I saw this too, last night....and wondered. Of course, one must take Wanda's spoilers with a grain of salt.

But, if Buffy's body is really mouldering in the grave (and if the show is true to form, we'll pick up 3 months after her death), and some of a person's personality is related to their body (vamps retain some personality of former human even after the soul is gone and the demon takes up residence), then if Buffy is reincarnated (her soul, new body that just happens to look like SMG) then she would be a little different...different, yet the same.

This is starting to get a little creepy.


[> [> [> [> When Doyle Died -- mundusmundi, 13:35:35 06/05/01 Tue

This reminds me of when Doyle died. The very next ep, the actor (can't remember his name, dammit!) played a Doylish, similar-yet-evil version of him. Only for one episode, though. And it wouldn't surprise me if something similar happens w/ Buffy. I can see SMG playing a variation or doppleganger, but not for too long. The real-deal needs to come back sooner or later. Right? Hmmmmmm....Maybe she'll *gradually* come back. (Whatever that means. I dunno either.:))

Anyway, if it's true (a big, qualified *if*), I smell a Joss fake-out.


[> [> [> [> [> I still think... -- Scott L., 19:02:46 06/05/01 Tue

That SMG will play the Buffy-bot until they can bring the real Buffy back.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still think... -- Evg, 11:58:26 06/06/01 Wed

That's just dumb


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still think... -- Shaglio, 13:10:42 06/06/01 Wed

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. I personally would not enjoy this circumstance and hope that it's not true, but it does make sense with the "buffyish character." I really don't like mixing Fantasy with Sci-fi. One or the other is preferable, but Buffy is currently in the Fantasy genre and things like the Buffy-bot, the Initiative, and Adam tend to delve into the Sci-fi realm.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Another stupid possibility -- Shaglio, 13:25:40 06/06/01 Wed

Maybe the PTB will make Buffy a god and she will share Dawn's body with her. The two could morph back and forth like Glory and Ben. I'm sure that would certainly kill the show. Can you tell I'm really bored at work?


[> [> [> Thanks...I'd never heard of Wanda before... -- Scott L., 19:00:19 06/05/01 Tue

I put her in my Favorites.


[> [> [> [> Your welcome... -- Rob, 12:58:51 06/07/01 Thu

I discovered her site at the beginning of this season and have been going to see it every week to read the Monday night chat transcripts. Glad to spread Wanda-ish goodness to the world! LOL.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: You're welcome, I meant (I can't believe I misspelled that...I'm an English major!!!) -- Rob, 13:08:39 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> But, are you a *modern* major, general? -- OnM, 20:30:19 06/07/01 Thu

So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? -- Jack_McCoy, 09:50:53 06/05/01 Tue

Now that Giles is being reduced to a reoccuring character (at his own request), do you think Tara will now be on the opening credits?


[> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? -- Humanitas, 10:21:52 06/05/01 Tue

Alas, Joss has said that Tara will still be a recurring character. :(


[> [> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? -- AK-UK, 12:14:00 06/05/01 Tue

Much as I dislike Tara, I do find it amazing that she didn't get a mention in the opening credits THIS season, so I'm amazed that Joss isn't putting her in the next seasons either.

Poor girl loses her mind for the gang and she doesn't merit a mention along side them!


[> [> Re: Tara - what's her story? -- Brian, 12:31:13 06/05/01 Tue

Tara seems to be the exception to the rule of the Scoobies' journey out and in. Perhaps, this why some people see her as boring. Her character seems established. She is not on any character quest. She often supplies comfort and understanding to the various characters in their times of need. As such, she appears to serve an earth-mother role.


[> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? -- Bob128, 12:26:37 06/05/01 Tue

I don't think they can give cardboard a credit?


[> [> Ouch! -- AK-UK, 12:33:33 06/05/01 Tue

That was a bit harsh, wasn't it?

Not that I entirely disagree with the point you are making, but still......:)


[> [> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? -- Bob 128 sucks, 13:22:09 06/05/01 Tue

You're an asshole...how's that.


[> [> [> Gee, Bob, think you might be on the wrong board...;-) -- Wisewoman, 13:52:55 06/05/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Well, you know what they say Bob.... -- AK-UK, 14:09:46 06/05/01 Tue

Assholes are like opinions; every........errr, hold on. that doesn't sound right :)


[> [> [> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? -- Bob128, 19:47:16 06/05/01 Tue

You read the Handbook for Piffy Comebacks too huh?


[> [> [> Jeez, people don't have.... -- Bob128, 19:56:14 06/05/01 Tue

a fit. Its only cardboard.


[> [> They did with Riley -- Tista, 16:45:20 06/05/01 Tue


[> How can she be considered recurring when... -- Jack_McCoy, 16:11:40 06/05/01 Tue

How can she be considered recurring when she has been in every episode of this season? I mean, recurring character usually means that the person is in less than half of season's episodes. Oh course, the same can be said about Broots from the Pretender, so maybe its just a creative decison.


[> [> Re: How can she be considered recurring when... -- Wisewoman, 17:07:49 06/05/01 Tue

I remember reading a while back on another board that "recurring" status actually has nothing to do with how often an actor appears on a show--it's some legality having to do with the number of regulars the network contracts for and, of course, money, and I'm sorry I can't remember all the details, but it's not because they just don't want Amber Benson as a regular. She's certainly done her time, but then so had Christine Sutherland.

Joss has been quoted as saying he's quite devoted to the Willow/Tara relationship, but that doesn't mean he won't kill one or the other, or both of them, off! :-o


[> [> [> Re: How can she be considered recurring when... -- Scott L., 18:55:45 06/05/01 Tue

I can't find my original source, but I'm sure that I read both Joss and Amber say that she would be a regular next season. But, I could have misread that.

Joss DID say that Amber has become such a part of the heart of the show that no matter what happens between Tara and Willow, he'd like to keep Amber on.

And, I don't think she's cardboard. She's calm and nurturing and that's a different role for a Buffy female. But Amber shows a good understanding of characterization and body language.


[> [> [> [> Excerpt From TV Guide Online - 052401- Joss Interview -- OnM, 21:05:33 06/05/01 Tue

TVGO: Will Amber Benson (Tara) be added to the opening credits next season?

Whedon: No, Amber's going to stay at a recurring status. But she will, like this year, be in most of the shows.


[> [> [> [> Re: How can she be considered recurring when... -- Mishka, 07:10:38 06/06/01 Wed

I am unfortunately on the 'I can`t stand the Tara-character' team. As I`ve said before I find her and Willow obnoxiously sweet, to the point that I`ve started channel surfing when they have their cutesy conversations. I personally hope that they nix the character and pick someone with a little more personality, less whiny person to be with Willow. However having said that, Amber Benson has done a great job playing her and she has served her time like the other actors and actresses. So if its not some union issue, she certainly is no less deserving of opening credit status.


[> [> [> [> [> This has to be one of those 'agree to disagree' scenarios... -- OnM, 09:31:44 06/06/01 Wed

I too really appreciate the excellent work Amber Benson has done in her role as Tara, so we do have something in common!

I really like the Tara character, though, as I've stated previously. The only thing I can suggest is give it some time-- 'Bout a year ago, I stuck my (cyberspace) neck out, and pretty much got it de-rezzed by many other BtVS fans, for saying I really liked the Anya character, and that I thought the role had great future potential. Now, there are Anya fans all over the place. The writers work on BtVS and Angel is kind of like a Bonsai tree - a slow sculpture.

Patience bring rewards-- ya never know!


[> [> [> [> [> [> I was an Anya fan from the start, as well -- Rob, 09:28:01 06/07/01 Thu

From the first time Anya showed up in Xander's basement, I was a bonafide Anya fan. I never understood why she was disliked by fans, and, now finally, a lot of people love her. But this sort of thing happens many times when new characters are added. For instance, Joxer on "Xena." He was hated by many of the fans, making fun of Joxer lovers, etc. Eventually many people changed their minds or at least stopped being so vocal against Joxer fans. I think people should stop being so quick to hate a new character. All characters should be given time, for after all, when the show started, none of the characters are how they are today, not only have they grown, but the actors know them better. How can an actor new to a show in their first few episodes know their character perfectly? People should be given time before they are judged. At the beginning of this year, everyone hated Dawn. I didn't. I thought "Real Me" was a brilliant way to introduce her as a new character, and also establish her relationships with the others, by how she viewed them. But that's just my 2 cents...


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was an Anya fan from the start, as well -- Rufus, 12:37:46 06/07/01 Thu

I like Anya, I just don't like what she has done as a demon. So it took awhile to warm up to her. I go through periods of being angry at a character for the stupid things they may have done. I can like Spike but still see his evil acts as cowardly, I like Anya but hate her actions as a demon. Don't get me started on Angel.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was an Anya fan from the start, as well -- gds, 20:49:14 06/07/01 Thu

For Anya's advice to the lovelorn see http://www.palefella.com/duh/agonyaunt.html The DUH has a variety of mildly amusing Buffy fun while we are waiting for the real thing to return.


[> Humm...as the one who is starting the Tara thread for the Anniversary Celebration... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:05:59 06/06/01 Wed

and as someone who really likes the character...I'm getting the sense this may be a tough room... ;)


[> [> Re: Humm...as the one who is starting the Tara thread for the Anniversary Celebration... -- rowan, 20:10:18 06/06/01 Wed

Hey, speaking of, can you switch to 6/14 instead of 6/21?

On the tough room subject...here's what I struggle with. I like Tara in a couple with Willow. Their relationship has a sweetness and a tenderness which is quite unique in BtVS. But I have trouble appreciating Tara as a character because there just doesn't seem to be much to her. She's not really featured in her own right. Anya suffers from this as well, but at least we've gotten a little more backstory on Anya and Anya benefits from being "the funny one."

I'm hoping through your appreciation of her, I'll get turned around. I'm wondering if Joss is so high on her because she's filling the "nurturing earth mother" role that Joyce has vacated.


[> [> [> Re: Humm...as the one who is starting the Riley thread for the AnnCel... -- OnM, 20:24:49 06/06/01 Wed

I expect to get a 'tough room' also.

Don't care - like Riley. Intend to explain why.

My foes shall tremble...

(or not;)


[> [> [> [> Pity me, please. -- rowan, 20:29:57 06/06/01 Wed

No one has volunteered for Xander, but he needs to be done because he's a core Scooby. He's not exactly my favorite (I just don't know if I have anything brilliant to say about him because I don't totally understand him), but I guess I'll have to dive in anyway. After the recent anti-Xander post, I'm trembling...


[> [> [> [> [> Tell you what, rowanificus, most mighty organizing one... -- OnM, 20:44:40 06/06/01 Wed

Why don't you mail Joss and ask him to do a post? After all, he's stated on a number of occasions how much he identifies with Xander.

Wouldn't that just be a little coup for us here?

(Yeah, I know, but we can dream, right?)


[> [> [> [> From the girl who wants the Riley bot........... -- Rufus, 21:15:56 06/06/01 Wed

You should be pleased to know that there is one fan in the audience. I like Riley...always did. I can't wait to see your take on the guy. Bad boys are fun to watch, only watch. I like nice men. With brains and some consideration.


[> [> [> [> [> From the other girl who wants a Riley bot........... -- purplegrrl, 07:02:06 06/07/01 Thu

I like Riley, too. So OnM, please do the poor boy justice. Of course Rufus and I will jump in with our own two cents worth of free philosophy.



[> [> [> [> [> Ah, that's the reality, is it not? I'm a big Faith fan, but... -- OnM, 20:27:04 06/07/01 Thu

...in the realverse if I met someone like her I'd run like hell if I had any functioning brain at all.

In the realverse, I'd be looking for someone like Tara. Well, a hetero/bi-sexual Tara, anyway.

Well, you get the idea.



[> [> [> [> [> [> Yup, fun to watch......... -- Rufus, 21:14:56 06/07/01 Thu

Faith.....hmmmm....remember what she did to Xander...not the time she slept with him then dumped him out the door, clothes in hand....but the next time when she tried to kill him....Angel mentioned she forgot the safety word.....Faith has no safety word.......

Your choice of Tara makes more sense, she is kind hearted, will listen to anything, and she has a cat. Where is there wrong here?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Where's the wrong here... -- OnM, 21:59:20 06/07/01 Thu

Other than me being 48 and she being 20 you mean? ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where's the wrong here... -- Rufus, 23:27:34 06/07/01 Thu

And I thought that you were going to mention the cat. You do have quite the point and a ship with Tara would be like the Buffy/Giles stuff out on the net...if she were my kid I'd kinda have to break your legs...but only in a philosophical way...or is it I'd quote philosophy to you as I break your legs?????......I did mean a woman with the temperment of Tara would be more appropriate than the thrill seeking, butt kicking, leave you outside the door cold, Faith.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quote of the week: "I'd kinda have to break your legs...but only in a philosophical way" -- Masquerade, 14:55:20 06/12/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just trying to keep it philosophical......:):):) -- Rufus, 18:27:34 06/12/01 Tue


[> [> [> Re: Humm...as the one who is starting the Tara thread for the Anniversary Celebration... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:33:49 06/06/01 Wed

That may be part of it. I also remember Joss mentioning in an article lately that there were a couple of times when he had plans for the character, and in writing her, she had other ideas :) That can be very appealing to a writer- when a character becomes that real to you.

(I think the two examples he gave were Tara falling for Willow- he hadn't necessarilly planned a love affair from the word go, but in writing those early eps in his mind Tara just fell head over heels for Willow. The other was the demon storyline- he'd thought when he wrote the spell sabotage scene that she might be part demon. In writing Family, it came to him that they were handling it wrong- that they'd just told her that- made her feel she was evil. Which he said was ten times more interesting than "Oh, I have wood sprite blood")

It's hard to explain the appeal of a character if they just plain don't appeal to you. I love Tara, love the quiet strength and mystery and the different feel she brings to the mix. And I think they have been doing more exploring of her as a character since family, and especially since the Body. I think she's beginnging to come into her own.

And yeah, I guess I can go first. First up's good- nothing for others to compare ya too :)


[> [> [> [> Thank you, sweetie...you must have wood sprite blood! :) -- rowan, 20:35:50 06/06/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------ "1st" pilot thoughts and comments -- cjc36, 21:01:40 06/11/01 Mon

'FIRST' Pilot spoliers! If you've seen it, read on.

Finding that silly thing has been hard. The link I used is now gone, so the legal-eagles have struck again.

Anyway, it was really, really cool to see the so-called "First" Pilot (really an internal Twentieth Television Proof of Production reel).

Tone: at times was more like the movie than what the show would become. SMG's acting was more glib, and the ending teen-campier than usual.

LOVED the scene with Xander and Buffy walking thru the hs quad and naming the cliques. Wish this had made the cut into WTTH.

protoWillow: Lot has been said about her weight. And, yeah, she wasn't a skinny person. And I'm not gonna sit here and defend Hollywood and say the prods didn't consider her physcal type in recasting the role. But to me, the real problem with the character as played by Rif Regan was the fact I wouldn't have liked her one bit. This was some whiney wimp who had none of the 'inner spark' of AH's Willow (Okay, AH could have watched this and seen what 'not' to do.)

Vamp makeup was there, but the FX was basically 'filler,' one level up from a "VAMP TURNS TO DUST" title card insertion.

Thank God for AH! I'm wondering how much of "Willow-speak" comes from her? More than I had thought, I bet.

Hopefully, if legal concerns can be met, this version, or at least selected scenes, will one day make it to DVD. It's a cool thing to see this early first draft of Joss's vision, especially considering what it has grown into.


[> Re: "1st" pilot thoughts and comments -- Slayrunt, 21:38:12 06/11/01 Mon

I agree about AH's Willow.

I read about AH's screentest. She talks about the whole we use to go out until X stole my Barbie scene. She said she wanted to not be so down on herself so she add "I got most of it back" as happily as she could to show Willow looks on the bright side.


[> [> Re: "1st" pilot thoughts and comments -- Dedalus, 12:08:45 06/12/01 Tue

I have a copy of the pilot. If you check out any of the comic conventions that migrate from place to place all over the country, you could probably pick one up. There's always a few people selling copies of such things. I got a bootleg copy of Crouching Tiger two months before the DVD came out.

And the Willow in the pilot ... it would have been something to see where they went with her. I suppose it isn't right to judge on just those few scenes, but I just don't see it working. Of course, we are all biased.

But can you see that girl playing VampWillow?!

"Plus I think I'm kinda gay."


[> [> [> Re: "1st" pilot thoughts and comments -- Sam I Am, 17:34:48 06/12/01 Tue

I agree she wouldn't have made a good Willow, but I am disparaged by commments on the web about her as a person and an actress. Comments about her size are most prevalent--ok she doesn't have the cuteness of AH but I thought B fans were a little above making fun of that. I guess not.

Besides that the 20 min ep was more of a demo reel than anything concrete like a pilot. And Joss obviously knew of Riff Regan from Sisters and her one stint on Roseanne of which Joss wrote for. He must have a good reason for casting her in the role of Willow in the demo, I don't see him casting stones about it. The actors in these demos often know they won't get picked up in the actual show sometime. Heck, I may not have even picked the show up based on this demo, it was pretty bad, but of course the actors either ripened or gave it more effort for the actual series.
Becoming and The Gift -- Humanitas, 15:20:06 06/05/01 Tue

Several threads have mentioned the parallels between Becoming and The Gift, so I went back and re-read the shooting scripts for both parts of Becoming to see what I could find. This post is sort of my first attempt at getting some thoughts in order. Please feel free to comment on, add to, and generally poke holes in anything I write.

1. Let's start with a nice obvious parallel: as Spike says, "It's always gotta be blood (TG, Act I)." In B, it's Angel's blood that opens and closes the gate for Acaltha:

WHISTLER: Angel's the key. His blood will open the door to Hell. Acathla opens his big mouth, creates the vortex, then only Angel's blood'll close it. One blow. Send 'em both back to hell. But I strongly suggest you get there before that happens. --B2, Act III

In TG, it's Dawn:

GILES: "The blood flows, the gates will open. The gates will close when it flows no more." When Dawn is dead.

BUFFY:Pretty simple math, here. We stop Glory before she can start the ritual. --TG, Act I

The language used is almost identical. Angel is even refered to as "the key."

2. Both stories focus on sacrifice, especially on the part of the Slayer. Angel plays with Buffy for the season leading up to "Becoming," terrorizing her and her friends. He kills Jenny Calendar, and ends up capturing Giles, and seriously harming both Xander and Willow. The worst loss for Buffy, though, is the loss of her love for Angel. In Season 5, Buffy deals again with loss. Reily leaves, Joyce dies, and there is seemingly nothing that Buffy can do to stop Glory. What is most interesting, however, is that in both cases, Buffy discovers that she must ultimately rely on herself:

ANGEL: That's everything, huh? No weapons, no friends. No hope. Take all that away and what's left?

BUFFY: Me. --B2, Act IV

BUFFY (V. O.): Dawn listen to me. Listen. I love you. I'll always love you. But this is the work I have to do. Tell Giles I... I figured it out. And I'm okay. --TG, Act IV

Of course, neither struggle finds Buffy truly alone. She is backed up by her friends (doing the spell to restore Angel's soul in B2, and helping in the battle in TG). "With a little help from my friends" is a recurring theme in the series, especially Season 4.

OK, I know I've missed stuff. There's more here, but my brain's a little fried. What parallels or progress do you see?


[> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Kerri, 09:19:25 06/06/01 Wed

To me the main difference between these two episodes is hope.

In Becoming Buffy is left with the belief that there is nothing for her to live for. She lost Angel twice, she lost her mom-in the sense that she was kicked out of her home, she's kicked out of school, she lost her friends-because she doesn't feel she can face them.

At the end of Becoming Buffy is left with no hope. In Anne when Lily comments that they are in hell and Buffy denies it, Ken comments, "What is hell but the total absence of hope?" Becoming leaves Buffy in a sort of hell-believing that she has lost everything and with no hope.

In The Gift Buffy says to Giles the she doesn't know how to "live in this world if these are choices. If everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point." She then tells Giles, "If Dawn dies I'm quitting." To me this statement didn't mean she would stop being the slayer-it meant she would quit life-she would have to reason to go on. As Buffy tells Dawn in her final words, "The hardest thing in this world is to live in it."

Without Dawn Buffy sees no reason to live.

Firstly, because she feels like she will have no one. Dawn is the most important thing in Buffy's life. Buffy needs Dawn-the two sisters are incredibly close which is the only reason they were able to get through their mom's death.

Secondly, killing Dawn is killing a part of Buffy, as she tells the SG earlier in the episode, "Dawn is a part of me, the only part I..." In my opinion this sentence would be ended with love, but that's only speculation. So for Buffy to kill Dawn she is destroying what she sees as the best part of herself: her humanity.

Thirdly, killing Dawn means that there is no hope. If Buffy had to kill her sister she would lose her faith in good. In Spiral Buffy asks the general, "what kind of God would demand her life for something she can't remember." (sorry just paraphrasing there) If Buffy was forced to kill Dawn she would lose her beliefs about good and evil which she needs to fight evil.

So getting to my point about The Gift, Buffy's sacrifice gave her hope. Buffy felt like there was no hope if was forced to kill her sister, but when she realized she could sacrifice herself Buffy was given renewed hope in the world and was glad to give her life for the world and for Dawn.

When Buffy realized what she could do she had a serene peaceful look on her face. In that moment Buffy had clarity about her life, her purpose.

Compare the way Buffy dies to past experiences/conceptions with regard to death. First there is her death in Prophesy Girl. Buffy is terrified as the master is about to bite her, paralyzed with fear; her life is taken from her even though it is her choice to go and fight. Then there is the idea of the slayer's death wish-that Buffy will need death as an escape.

Previously Buffy has been afraid of death, but now she meets it on her own terms and uses it to express her love.

In both Becoming and the Gift there is a death of sorts. In Becoming Buffy's innocence dies. The end has a somber feeling that is heavily flavored with loss and despair. The music at the end of becoming includes the line, "pulled down by the undertow, never thought I could feel so low. Oh darkness I feel like letting go."

On the other hand Buffy's sacrifice in the Gift allows for life. It allows for love and hope to flourish in Buffy's heart. Buffy dies as the sun rises-it is a new day-filled with hope. While I cried at the end of the Gift there was something almost happy about it. Buffy had discovered herself. As we see her body we hear her voice say, "Tell Giles I figured it out and...and I'm okay." This gave me chills-she died but it was okay because Buffy gave her life for love, life, and hope.

Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?

Sorry for the ramble.



[> [> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Cynthia, 12:12:37 06/06/01 Wed

If this season has dealt with Buffy struggling to keep hope within herself and in doing so her humanity despite the lost of love and bitter choices, I feel it also has been dealing with the rediscovery of hope and lost innocence and perhaps the regaining of humanity with Spike.

One is dealing with the overwhelming horror of the knowledge that they are losing hope and (realizing that is what happened to the other slayers that Spike killed), Staring into what could only seem to be darkness,. The other being at first blinded by the light of hope (love?), not understanding how or when it appeared but drawn to the many possibilities it opens up, having lived in sameness (in emotional growth/spiritually) for so long.

Hope this makes a little sense, I'm not a natural-born writer.


[> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Emily, 09:25:45 06/06/01 Wed

love the parallels you've shown... I think basically TG is a more mature, more scary version of B2...while Buffy's friends do help her - they are backup - the climax, the decisive moment is Buffy and Angel (or) Buffy and Dawn... in both she tells the other that she loves them and in both she is making her own choice without any outside influence. also, spike's first turn towards the Scoobies begins in B2 --- when he aligns with Buffy against Angel, and it is solid by TG, when even Buffy has defended him to the Scoobies....I also think that the journey element is recurring here - we don't know where Buffy is or where she will be next season... kinda like her getting on that bus at the end of B2.....also - death of Jenny b/c of Angel... death of Joyce (possibly b/c of Dawn....the mental stress of the monk's creation???) just some thoughts.


[> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Sam Raimond, 11:45:17 06/06/01 Wed

It just seems to me that they re-hashed ideas from 3 years ago. I don't think it was done to draw the two episodes together


[> [> Everything happens for a reason (in the Buffyverse) -- Malandanza, 21:47:13 06/06/01 Wed

"It just seems to me that they rehashed ideas from 3 years ago. I don't think it was done to draw the two episodes together"

In Becoming Buffy had to sacrifice someone she loved to save the world -- this time around... she has to sacrifice someone she loves to save the world. Ok, it seems like rehash at first glance -- except that Buffy refuses to sacrifice Dawn.

I think we have to look to the source of the slayer's power -- slayers are not noble warriors of light, fighting darkness on the behalf of TPTB. They are destruction incarnate, neither good, nor evil. This was the First Slayer's revelation:

"I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death. The blood-cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute. Alone."

"The slayer doesn't walk in the world."

"No... friends... just the kill... we are... alone."

We also know from Giles that the First Slayer slept on a "bed of bones" (so was not exclusively a vampire slayer -- or it would have been a bed of dust). And, of course, we have the infamous "Your gift is death" line.

Somewhere along the way, the watchers harnessed this primitive force for their own uses (much as the monks attempted to harness the power of the key). They are willing to kill off slayers who become too dark (as the attitude towards Faith demonstrates) -- it is probably easier to train a new slayer than to attempt to reform a creature who has awakened the dormant First Slayer within.

This season Buffy has been darker (more like Faith) than she has ever been -- in BvD Buffy had become a hunter, seeking the kill and sleeping undisturbed thereafter, untroubled by the evening's destruction. There was the massacre of the vamp pimp and his entourage. There was her vow to keep Dawn alive even if the world (including herself and Dawn) must die. For me, however, the event that most revealed how dark Buffy had become was this scene in Family (from the shooting script):

"The beast throws Buffy off and goes for the dad -- he stumbles and falls -- Buffy sweeps its legs out from under it, landing it with its chin slamming down on the top step, just in front of dad. She gets to her feet in a blur, plants a foot at the back of its neck and CRUNCH! -- snaps it brutally."

I remember this eisode -- a second later Buffy was facing down Tara's father like nothing had happened. It was chilling.

The difference between B2 and The Gift was vitally important. Buffy was in the same position she was in with Angel yet she managed to break this cycle of destruction in which she, and every slayer before her, have been caught. Buffy is special because she broke the power of the First Slayer and, in doing so, achieved redemption.

I cannot imagine that she will return dark or disillusioned. It would negate everything that she has striven for.


[> [> [> That was wonderful................ -- Rufus, 22:21:30 06/06/01 Wed

I think you are right. Buffy has changed the rules of the game and the terms under which she will work. Buffy has gone from an instrument to be used to something more. When she comes back I don't think she will be dark in the way that we saw earlier this season. For Buffy to be just a killer wasn't enough, and when tested she chose to give death to herself instead of killing an innocent. Buffy rejected the notion that the slayer wasn't a part of the world, it was the fact that Buffy was a part of the world by her friends and family that kept her alive so long.


[> [> [> [> Re: Darla's words -- Brian, 09:21:16 06/07/01 Thu

And isn't it wonderfully ironic that Darla's words seem to be so fitting for Buffy:

....."What we once were informs all that we become. The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple death won't change that..."


[> [> [> Ah ha! :) -- Humanitas, 10:03:07 06/07/01 Thu

I knew there was a reason why my post didn't seem finished! Thanks, Malandanza, for pointing out the contrast that goes with my comparason. The growth of the character is shown in the change in her reaction to similar circumstances. Yea!

Buffy and Wisdom (long, sorry) -- Wisewoman, 20:39:38 06/05/01 Tue

I've been working on a project for the past several years that I call "The Seven Keys to Wisdom." In a nutshell, I tried to come up with a working definition of wisdom that I could use to try and find out if I ever got any :-)

I looked at definitions of wisdom from lots of different cultures and time periods, and decided that they all had seven basic things in common. Someone who was wise would 1)know themselves, 2)behave ethically, 3)think critically, 4)be mindful, 5)acknowledge the Source, 6)overcome the fear of death, and 7)live aesthetically. My theory is that someone who achieves all of these seven aspects of wisdom becomes either enlightened or, in Maslow's terms, a self-actualizing individual. I'm not sure which, or possibly both, 'cause I'm no where near there!

I'm trying to place Buffy, as we saw her in the final moments of The Gift, in this wisdom scenario. She certainly knew herself better then, than she had before, as evidenced by her saying she'd "figured it out."

She was behaving ethically both when she spared Ben and when she sacrified herself.

Thinking critically? Well, I'm not sure. You could say she wasn't thinking critically when she decided it was better to save Dawn than to save the Universe (not that I'm saying that was the wrong choice, just that it wasn't necessarily all that logical).

Mindfulness is something that I think Buffy is still lacking, as I see it. She's much more action-oriented than mindful of subtleties, undertones, etc., and I can't remember ever seeing her meditate, although her workouts could be seen as a form of meditation, I suppose.

As for acknowledging the Source, Buffy is at least aware of TPTB, but I don't know that she's acknowledged their influence, or accepted any other sort of *divine* or numinous Source of her existence.

Overcoming the fear of death, well, she's got that one licked!

And finally, living aesthetically, which in my view has everything to do with beauty and simplicity of form and function (and involves all kinds of granola-type things like tree-hugging ;o)) and not so much to do with clothes and hairstyles, well, I predict we'll see a much more aesthetically-aware Buffy in S6. She's not just returning from a near-death experience, she'll have had a totally-completely-mouldering-in-her-grave-dead death experience.

Okay, enough babble! What do you all think?



[> Meditation -- Humanitas, 08:40:25 06/06/01 Wed

Hmmm... Buffy meditating...

The first time we saw Buffy learning to meditate was in Helpless. That turned out to be a set-up, allowing Giles (on orders from the WC) to temporarily supress her powers in preparation for the Cruciamentum. Needless to say, meditation has not been a favorite thing for the Buffster since.

Lately she seems to have gotten over that, though. In No Place Like Home she says "I've been practicing concentration skills," and indeed is able to enter a trance state, which allows her to see the traces of the spell which created Dawn. And of course her vision quest in Intervention may also count as meditation.

I would say that this season has seen the Slayer become more mindful. In fact, it may be this increased clarity of mind which allowed her to see the solution to her dilemma in The Gift.


[> [> Good Point... -- Wisewoman, 09:34:03 06/06/01 Wed

on Buffy's being justifiably hesitant to meditate.

Normally I would accept the vision quest scenario as a definite example of a meditative state. It seemed to me in this case that Giles did the actual "ritual" that brought on the vision, and Buffy just wandered around the desert for a while until she saw the *kitty*. Of course, there may be no connection between what Buffy experienced and an actual vision quest. It might be something entirely different, applicable only to the interaction between the Slayer and The First Slayer, that coincidentally mimics a vision quest.

But yes, I agree, Buffy has been more mindful in S5 than previously...so she's on her way.


[> Re: Buffy and Wisdom (long, sorry) -- Mishka, 12:34:44 06/06/01 Wed

Hmmmm...interesting ideas here. I`m not sure about your 'behaving ethically' category though. Simply because ethics in general are a society driven thing. Ie/ your personal moral and ethical code are dependent on the culture in which you were raised. In other words you have a different ethical code whether you`re Christian, Muslem, Jewish, Athiest, American, Parisian, a member of the Dobe Kung tribe in Africa.....etc., etc., etc....I don`t think that it is possible to say that one code of ethics or morals is better or more wise than another. Not logically anyway, since the only thing we have to base our opinion on is the set of ethics that we personally were brought up on. But, on every other thing....is Buffy wise? Not particularily. I find that she is distinctly less grown up than a person might be under the circumstances. Her epiphany at the end of the gift was more IMO likened to a person figuring out a puzzle. She had hints from the original slayer, she had hints from Giles, she had hints from Spike...etc. Yes she put them together, she`s smart and has a lot of experience with complicated world-saving problems, but is she wise? No. Also, I don`t think that a wise person overcomes their fear of death. I think that a wise person acknowledges this fear but does what is needed to be done regardless of said fear. Buffy welcomed death. Whether it was because she was happy to be able to save Dawn or because she was happy not to live in her depressing circumstances, I don`t think we`ll ever know for sure. Sorry, I rattled on, but your ideas are very thought-provoking. I enjoyed reading them. Mishka


[> [> Re: Buffy and Wisdom and the Bhagavad Gita (Long-Sorry) -- Anthony8, 13:13:47 06/06/01 Wed

I found some passages from the 'Bhagavad Gita' that seem relevant to this discussion on Buffy and wisdom. I think they're applicable in the context of Buffy's journey as the Hero. I also think that her figuring out the puzzle was a form of wisdom. Ultimate wisdom? No. A big step along the way? Yes. She may not have become the epitome of wise but she definitely has achieved a considerable level of wisdom.

With regard to the Hindu scriptures, I'll present what I feel are the relevant excerpts and hope that some will chime in and comment as to whether these ideas resonate with regard to Buffy's epiphany.

From the 'Bhagavad Gita':

"He whose undertakings are free from anxious desire and fanciful thought, whose work is made pure in the fire of widsom: he is called wise by those who see.

In whatever work he does such a man in truth has peace: he expects nothing, he relies on nothin, and ever has fullness of joy.

He has no vain hopes, he is the master of his soul, he surrenders all he has, only his body works: he is free from sin.

He is glad with whatever God gives him, and he has risen beyond the two contraries here below; he is without jealousy, and in success or in failure he is one: his works bind him not.

He has attained liberation: he is free from all bonds, his mind has found peace in wisdom, and his work is holy sacrifice. The work of such a man is pure."


"In the fire of an inner harmony some surrender their senses in darkness; and in the fire of the senses some surrender their outer light.

Others sacrifice their breath of life and also the powers of life in the fire of an inner union lighted by a flash of vision."


"He who makes pure his works by Yoga, who watches over his soul, and who by wisdom destroys his doubts, is free from the bondage of selfish work.

Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom the doubt born of ignorance that lies in thy heart. Be one in self-harmony in Yoga, and arise, great warrior, arise."


"And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another's, even if it be great. To die in one's duty is life: to live in another's is death."


"A sacrifice is pure when it is an offering of adoration in harmony with the holy law, with no expectation of a reward and with the heart saying 'it is my duty'.

But a sacrifice that is done for the sake of a reward, or for the sake of vainglory is an impure sacrifice of Rajas."


"Quietness of mind, silence, self-harmony, loving-kindness, and a pure heart: this is the harmony of the mind.

This threefold harmony is called pure when it is practised with supreme faith with no desire for a reward and with oneness of soul."


"A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect nothing in return."


"For concentration is better than mere practice, and meditation is better than concentration; but higher than meditation is surrender in love of the fruit of one's actions, for on surrender follows peace."

What do ya people out there think?



[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Wisdom and the Bhagavad Gita (Long-Sorry) -- Nina, 15:11:23 06/06/01 Wed

"He who makes pure his works by Yoga, who watches over his soul, and who by wisdom destroys his doubts, is free from the bondage of selfish work.Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom the doubt born of ignorance that lies in thy heart. Be one in self-harmony in Yoga, and arise, great warrior, arise."

Buffy was doing Yoga in "Family" just before the fight begun with the Lei-Ach (sp?) demon. We haven't seen her practicing much, but it was shown at least once.

"A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect nothing in return."

That's exactly what Buffy did, didn't she?


[> [> The Ethical Behaviour Thing -- Wisewoman, 15:42:01 06/06/01 Wed

My quest to determine what constitutes ethical behaviour is on-going, but to date I have come up with the following (from a work in progress):

<<< "It would sure do me good To do you good Let me help" Billy Swan, 1974

Ethical behaviour is, basically, being a good person. Banal as it may seem, a great deal of ethical behaviour can be summed up by something most of us learned as children: the Golden Rule. The version I learned at Sunday School was, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but the basic premise is a part of most major religious teachings the world over:

Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful. (Buddhism; Udana Varga 5:18)

This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. (Hinduism: The Mahabharata 5:1517)

Regard your neighbors gain as your own gain, and your neighbors loss as your own loss. (Taoism; Tai Shang Kam Ying Rien)

Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Confucianism; Analects 15:15)

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. (Judaism; Talmud, Chabbat)

An' it harm none, do what thou wilt. (Wicca, The Witches' Rede)

All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Christianity; Matthew 7:12)

A refinement to the basic Rule includes respect for other's autonomy: what works for you might not work for everybody. That's why Wiccans often conclude their spells with "This, or something better, for the greater good of all concerned." That takes into account that the spellcaster, while wishing only good for others, may not necessarily have the information needed to decide exactly what constitutes "good" for someone else. It's a sort of failsafe measure.

There's also the biblical "Love thy neighbour as thyself," which is pretty much the same idea, but doesn't necessarily imply the action that "Do unto others" does. Both of them imply concern and respect for others.>>>

Okay, pretty plain and simple, grassroots stuff, but that's were I was coming from when I described Buffy's behaviour in The Gift as ethical. (Sometimes I'm torn between exhaustive investigations of things, and the beauty of the simplest available explanation ;o)


[> [> [> Re: The Ethical Behaviour Thing -- Humanitas, 10:23:26 06/07/01 Thu

There is also Kant's Imperative, for those with a non-religious bent: Behave in such a way that you would want everyone else to behave. (Is there a Kantian in the room who can fix my quote? It's been a while.)


[> [> [> [> Oops - that's 'Categorical Imperative' -- Humanitas, 10:24:40 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Thanks! I'll use that one too... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:11:45 06/07/01 Thu
Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- Griffin Micheals, 11:53:28 06/06/01 Wed

I just don't see why you people are obsessing about such a one-time-shot character. For one thing Joel Grey hasn't had a job since about 1975. Of course he's going to do a TV show, he has to work just like everyone else. Doc was just a distraction and you are all falling for it hook line and sinker. You come to this posting board and rant and rave about his significance. Joss is probably laughing his ass of because of it.


[> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- fresne, 12:22:19 06/06/01 Wed

Well, it would be nice think that we could give Joss a little pleasure in recompense for all the hours of pleasure that we have gotten from not only watching Buffy, but thoroughly masticating each and every elemental aspect of the series.

Although personally I would prefer that he laugh at some of our philosophical/metaphysical theories.

And as to why Joel Grey... He was cool. He was creepy. He can sing. And I want a singing villain for the Big Musical Episode (which certainly deserves some capitalization). And if I don't get it, then I'm just going to have to re-watch Pirates of Penance or maybe Labyrinth in protest (Great examples of leather pants of evil).

*fresne who has yet to see Moulin Rouge, darn visiting relatives, darn them.*


[> [> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- AK-UK, 12:41:10 06/06/01 Wed

Who needs an excuse to watch Labyrinth again? The beautiful Jennifer Connelly, David Bowie walking up walls, wonderful songs, sharp and witty dialogue, amazing sets, romance, action, the bog of eternal stench, talking door knockers, pesky fairies, the ballroom scene.........

That film should have made more money then Titanic :)


[> [> Re: Moulin Rouge -- Brian, 12:42:51 06/06/01 Wed

Just saw this film last night. What a ride! Like being on a rollar coaster. Filmmaking at its best. See it on the biggest screen possible with Dolby if you can.


[> [> [> Re: Moulin Rouge -- Liquidram, 14:51:43 06/06/01 Wed

And Lord Almighty, can Ewan sing!


[> [> [> [> Re: Ever See Emma? -- rowan, 16:26:31 06/06/01 Wed

Ewan sang in Emma (with Gwyneth Paltrow) a few years ago. Just two songs, but I agree -- surprisingly good voice.


[> [> [> [> [> And don't forget Velvet Goldmine -- AK-UK, 18:35:37 06/06/01 Wed

In which he played the Iggy Pop like character Kurt Vile.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And don't forget Velvet Goldmine -- rowan, 19:05:40 06/06/01 Wed

Oh, I didn't see that one. Ewan seems to be a pretty versatile actor, doesn't he?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> MOULIN ROUGE!!! SEE IT!!! -- Rob, 09:17:18 06/07/01 Thu

Just had to butt in here for no good reason but to say that everybody HAS to go see "Moulin Rouge." I've been to it 4 times already, and it is without a doubt my favorite movie of all time (not kidding)! Especially reading a recent article about Joss' upcoming musical episode of Buffy, you guys should see this one to whet your appetite! It's amazing!


[> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- Aquitaine, 14:25:50 06/06/01 Wed

Well, I don't know if I'm part of that 'you people', LOL, but I think Doc is just the *type* of villain the Buffyverse needs at this juncture. Frankly, where does ME go after having dealt with the bimbo from hell for the last 17 episodes? Glory was hopelessly out of tune with humanity. Didn't Spike say something to the effect that "around here you are just an imbecile"? I'm paraphrasing ...

In the end, she did not understand what made people act the way they do; she never thought Buffy would kill herself to save a sister that wasn't hers, wasn't real. Doc understands demons *and* humans. He is subtle and creepy. I think he scares me more than even Angelus scared me. Doc isn't insane, isn't an 'Überteufel'. At this juncture, because we know nothing about him, he represents the unknown. And *I* fear the unknown. There is something to be said for "the devil you know"...


[> [> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- Nina, 14:45:51 06/06/01 Wed

If Joss wants a laugh he has better things to laugh about in my opinion! (but hey, if he wants to laugh at my Doc speculations I'll laugh with him!) I've seen threads elsewhere that I find useless (lots of them. Tons of them). When I don't like something I move on and go where I feel home. If you don't like those speculations you don't have to read them, you don't even have to read the title of the thread. You are free! As we all are. Speculations are speculations and that's all they are. It's fun, it makes our grey cells works a lot, it's good for the body and the mind! As for wasting our time speculating about Doc it's a personal choice. Time is what we choose to do with it. As long as I am happy spending my time thinking about Doc I am not wasting my time. If you don't like those speculations, then you are wasting your time creating a thread about a subject you don't even like!

I am eager to read anything you'd like to write about, just pick something you like and I'll go along with the ride if I like it too! :)


[> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- rowan, 16:42:32 06/06/01 Wed

"You come to this posting board and rant and rave about his significance."

It's funny, I guess everything is perception. I didn't perceive any ranting or raving going on. What I saw was one or two posts, very detailed and seriously thought out, which speculated on what Doc's role was or might be in the future.

However, I can see where some might perceive a negative tone coming from your posting -- "ranting and raving" tends to have a pejorative meaning. My suggestion is that if you don't find a particular post interesting, pass it by. Different strokes for different folks. Interesting posts usually generate a lot of responses. Those that are less interesting will die a natural death.

By the way, welcome if you're new to this board. I don't remember reading any of your posts before (probably senility setting in on my part).


[> Why Joel Grey rocks.... -- Wilder, 21:13:09 06/07/01 Thu

I'll give you five words right outa my formative 80's years:

Remo. Williams. The. Adventure. Begins.

... ran out of fingers ... But, C'mon, It's a movie even Capt. Janeway can be proud of. And the scenes on the Statue of Liberty. Cutting the glass with that one dude's jeweled tooth. (of course that was Fred Ward, but you get the point.) That's a lost American classic. .... And he's Jennifer Grey's father, who is now, unfortunetly unrecognizable. How's that for a gift with a twist. Watch out what you wish for....

You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Anthony8, 13:50:09 06/06/01 Wed

I wasn't sure where this would fit within the most current threads so I'll just put it out there and see what happens. This board has prompted me to return to my reference material on the Hero's Journey and I found some passages from 'The Hero With A Thousand Faces' that seem to provide some relevant ideas as to where JW and crew may take us next year. The following passages are from the chapter titled 'The Belly of The Whale.' I may be mistaken, but I think this is where we stand now as participants in this adventure.


"The idea that the passage of the magical threshold is a transit into a sphere of rebirth is symbolized in the worldwide womb image of the belly of the whale. The hero, instead of conquering or conciliating the power of the threshold, is swallowed into the unknown, and would appeared to have died."


"This popular motif gives emphasis to the lesson that the passage of the threshold is a form of self-annihilation. Its resemblance to the adventure of Symplegades is obvious. But here, instead of passing outward, beyond the confines of the visible world, the hero goes inward, to be born again. The disappearance corresponds to the passing of a worshiper into a temple--where he is to be quickened by the recollection of who and what he is, namely dust and ashes unless immortal. The temple interior, the belly of the whale, and the heavenly land beyond, above, and below the confines of the world, are one and the same. That is why the approaches and entrances to temples are flanked and defended by colossal gargoyles: dragons, lions, devil-slayers with drawn swords, resentful dwarfs, winged bulls. These are the threshold guardians to ward away all incapable of encountering the higher silences within. They are preliminary embodiments of the dangerous aspect of the presence, corresponding to the mythological ogres that bound the conventional world, or to the two rows of teeth of the whale. They illustrate the fact that the devotee at the moment of entry into a temple undergoes a metamorphosis. His secular character remains without; he sheds it, as a snake its slough. Once inside he may be said to have died to time and returned to the World Womb, the World Navel, the Earthly Paradise. The mere fact that anyone can physically walk past the temple guardians does not invalidate their significance; for if the intruder is incapable of encompassing the sanctuary, then he has effectually remained without. Anyone unable to understand a god sees it as a devil and is thus defended from the approach. Allegorically, then, the passage into a temple and the hero-dive through the jaws of the whale are identical adventures, both denoting, in picture language, the life-centering, life-renewing act."


"Indeed, the physical body of the hero may be actually slain, dismembered, and scattered over the land or sea...The hero whose attachment to ego is already annihilate passes back and forth across the horizons of the world, in and out of the dragon, as readily as a king through all the rooms of his house. And therein lies his power to save; for his passing and returning demonstrate that through all the contraries of phenomenality the Uncreate-Imperishable remains, and there is nothing to fear."


"And so it is that, throughout the world, men whose function it has been to make visible on earth the life-fructifying mystery of the slaying of the dragon have enacted upon their own bodies the great symbolic act, scattering their flesh, like the body of Osiris, for the renovation of the world."


Okay, go forth and discuss. Or not.



[> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Sofdog, 14:42:23 06/06/01 Wed

I've been arguing from the heroic journey standpoint on other boards myself. I very much agree that Buffy is currently in the descent stage and will be reborn as something more than the Slayer, ultimately to benefit the world. She will also likely be at peace with her dark side and no longer trying to deny it. Below are some tidbits I scrounged out of my hero texts last week:

Buffy vs. Dracula, Dracula's comments about the Slayer's power being routed in the same darkness as vampires'- "He [the hero] must put aside his pride, his virtue, beauty, and life, and bow or submit to the absolutely intolerable. The he finds that he and his opposite are not of differing species, but one flesh." - "The Hero with A Thousand Faces" p. 108

Buffy vs. Dracula, Opening clip-segment - "The original departure into the land of trials represented only the beginning of the long and really perilous path of initiatory conquests and moments of illumination." - "Hero" p. 109

The Gift, Speaking to Giles of 'the gift's' meaning, Buffy continues to struggle with the meaning of 'The Slayer." In taking the plunge through the portal she faces the reality/opportunity to embrace the dark side of herself which is the true guiding factor. - "The voyage to the Underworld is the 'night journey' or 'dark night of the soul'- the second and final stage of meditation. It is the crucial stage of self-exploration in the face of a life already lived." - "Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero" p. 213 --AND-- "The descent into the Underworld is a pilgrimage which the true hero cannot avoid for only after the pilgrimage can the new complete self be born in the act of rebirth." P. 214

The Gift, In support of my ideas on Buffy's death being a stepping stone in her evolution --"Much of the Underworld myth's meaning lies in the fact of the hero's return to the inner earth - to the natural mother. This is the stage of the germinating seed; the hero must spend the allotted time in the world womb before he can be born again in his role as divine hero who has truly broken through the local and national barriers of human life to become the Son of Man." - "Mythology" p.213

The Gift, On the night-time ritual and Buffy's sacrifice at daybreak - "On the simplest level, certain times of the day are given over to or dominated by Otherworldly powers: night is a tenebrous time when the Other is strong, and to extend a quest past the onset of night virtually guarantees some sort of supernatural intervention or occurrence. (A passage through the curtain that separates this world from the next is very likely to occur at night.)

Spike's role in The Gift/Kendra's role in Becoming - "The full or efficient complement for a typical quest ought to be reducible to four players: hero, heroic helper, the sovereign, and the woman. ...The hero may be backed by a strong-arm warrior or one with other martial skills [Spike/Kendra], but more often the quest companion is equipped with tricksterish talents [Spike], and is a satellite capable of guile and subterfuge - or at least of some degree of low but effective cunning. Often enough the plot's calculus demands that a quest companion (especially the almost-sufficient, hypermuscular heroic helper) fall or fail, leaving the central hero to take a final test alone..."

The Gift, Dawn: a possible definition for the duality of the sister/Key - "The woman, we know well, makes up a complex knot of roles and modes in the quest, but in the simplest arrangement these will be to act as goal of the quest, as assistant in the quest, or as enemy (temptress, sorceress, evil queen). In the first role...she may even be the human prize sought and fought for by the hero. The intense ambivalence of her intrinsic powers shows up in the opposed roles of helper and enemy..." -"The Epic Hero" p.169

A possible Spike Characterization - "With his healthy taint of the comic and erotic, his odd unbalanced powers and occasional awful failures, the trickster hero puts spice, contrast, and even a dimension of our own humanity into the marmoreal perfection of the hero's presence and story." - "The Epic Hero" p.260


[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Nina, 14:55:48 06/06/01 Wed

Reading all this, one can only wonder if JW didn't plan Buffy's journey from day one! I'm far from being an expert on the Hero's journey so I don't have anything to contribute, but it surely makes my grey cells work again! :) Thanks to both of you!


[> [> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Andy, 15:19:54 06/06/01 Wed

I believe he did plan it out that way. I think one could look at Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest as a microcosm of the journey, or Prophesy Girl, or the first season as a whole, and then repeat that for basically all of the seasons, and then of course move further outward and look at the entire series. It's almost structured like a kaleidoscope (or it is in my head anyway...). Like Whedon says, Buffy is a story about living life, and that's what the Hero's Journey is as well.


[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Kerri, 15:14:47 06/06/01 Wed

Great ideas! The only thing I don't agree with is seeing Buffy's sacrafice as embracing her darkness. On the contrary I think she embraces her humanity which she once though was lost. I do think that maybe this journey will lead Buffy to deal with her dark side that Dracula spoke of.


[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- rowan, 19:44:12 06/06/01 Wed

Boy, I really like your analysis. Kudos.

I don't have any brilliance of my own to add to yours, other than to say that the source of power is a very interesting subject. Dracula may characterize that vamp power and Slayer power both come from the same darkness. But I suspect his words, because he is a demon and therefore I need to be aware that he may be twisting the truth for his own ends.

It may that their power just comes from the same place or is of the same magnitude. Again, to continue with my Lord of the Rings obsession, Sauron and Gandalf are both Maia, of the same order and power in Tolkein's mythology. Yet the path they allow that innate power to take marks one as the ultimate evil and the other as the ultimate warrior against evil.

Buffy, as a Slayer, may face greater temptation to evil as she increases in her own power (absolute power corrupts absolutely), which may be another important element of her sacrifice. Because she gave up power (control over her own life), she may now be reincarnated, which advances her up the karmic chain to a higher level. Again, I compare with Gandalf, who, in giving his life in fighting the Balrog to save the others in the Fellowship of the Nine Walkers, advanced from the Grey to the White.

I also think your comments on the timing of Buffy's sacrifice at daybreak are very perceptive. Dawn is a liminal moment when the veil is thinnest between the seen and the unseen worlds, which is why it is a common time for the performance of magickal events (the same applies to midnight, when the day changes). This seems to give some even deeper meaning to the event, beyond just the obvious, "it's always darkest before the dawn/Dawn."


[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Scout, 03:01:18 06/07/01 Thu

I, too, have argued from the heroic journey standpoint on other boards, but this is the only board I've found where it's actually discussed seriously (yes, yes, yes, I'm a happy bunny now!). I find myself wondering how JW plans to deal with the apotheosis, ultimate boon and various return stages of Buffy's journey, and whether she will embrace the idea of returning at all, or instead need some encouragement to come back and share what she's learned.


[> [> [> Eeeek.....bunnies...where...where......??????:):):) -- Rufus, 04:34:20 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Sixth Season Opener -- Brian, 08:57:23 06/07/01 Thu

If Joss continues his usual approach to the new season, this first episode will focus on Buffy who will once again reaffirm she is the Slayer, the Choosen one.

Since she will be coming back from the dead (been there, done that, didn't like it), I imagine the story will focus on the differences in how she achieves her re-establishment for her true idenity.

In the past episodes, each time Buffy has returned from the next level of her inward journey, her abilities have been faster, sharper, stronger, and darker.

The question will be: Has she finally understood her darkness,and will move toward the light, or has she only reached a way station on her continuing dark journey?

The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Dedalus, 14:06:32 06/06/01 Wed

Don't you like it when someone posts a thread to discuss a certain subject, and then has the audacity to christen it "official"? Like in some fragile hope that all other threads discussing the same subject will somehow be disenfranchised? I always get a kick out of that.

Anyway, in a follow up to my blockbuster, smash hit first post (shameless plug) "Buffy and the Basis of Morality" - which somehow became a discussion of Lord of the Rings - comes the official Fray discussion thread. Seeing as how it is late in the day, I'm surprised someone hasn't got one going already. Granted, they still can, but keep in mind this is the "official" one, the one all the cool Fray fans will post on, and the other ones that may exist at some point in the future are pale imitations in all their un-official capacity.

So anyway, now that the disclaimer is over, I picked up a copy of Fray, Joss Whedon's newest addition to the Buffy mythology, this afternoon. I use to love Spiderman as a kid, but have since gotten away from comics.

Still, I knew I wanted this one, and it is cool. It is set some 200 years in the future, or at least 200 years since the last Slayer has been called. One of the most interesting aspects of this project is that all magical beings on earth are now gone - no demons or anything. Vampires are called Lurks and nobody knows what a vampire is. Whedon speaks of how "the eradication really did them in," but we don't know what happened. Still, it is clear there was some fundamental change in the very nature of the Buffyverse at some point in the early twenty-first century. Hmmm ... about the time of Buffy's rebirth.

This issue had a lot of info. I liked Melaka Fray - I wish people wouldn't call her Mel (I keep having Mel Gibson visions - in a non-sexual way of course) (not that there's anything wrong with that), cause Melaka is such a cool name. Several people wrote in, and she is a lot like battle Buffy in The Wish. She does get a few good one liners in, and I love her thoughts guiding the story. Bad day. Started bad, stayed that way.

This would make a cool movie. Cost a lot, but it would be cool. As Joss has said, you can never have enough flying cars. I like the terminology, the radies and lurks and uppers and all that. It takes two reads to get acclimated to it, but I like kinda being thrown into a world where you don't quite no what's going on yet but it still feels ... lived in rather than newly created.

I love it when Melaka zapped that guy - "we have a stand-off" - ZAP! Not. I love Gunther's pad. That would look really cool on film. And I like his line complaining about why Fray never visits him in a skirt. LOL.

And I love it when we see that Melaka is not invincible ... she has a mysterious phobia generating from what we don't yet know ... but she's petrified of vampires. Major psychological block. She can't even move when they come for her. Great twist, Whedon, what with she being a slayer and all.

I love the confrontation between her and Erin, her big sister the cop. It had weight and depth even though we just met them and don't know what they're talking about. More of a backstory to be explored.

Assuming the guy standing in a pool of gasoline was a Watcher .. wow. When Joss said the future Watchers were "babbling idiots," he wasn't kidding. With two centuries with no Slayers, they have apparently turned into, well ... complete loonies. Can you imagine if that Watcher had approached Buffy - "You are Chosen ... I'm unworthy to stand in your presence ... you will save us from the scourge ... you will cleanse us by fire" then whipping out a lighter and setting himself on fire.

And that last demon lurking in Fray's room looked pretty damn serious. Way to keep us on the edge of our seats. July 5 my arse. So now, not only do we Buffy fans have to wait until September to see what happens to Buffy, we Fray fans will have to wait until JANUARY to find out the end of Fray's eight issue hero journey!!!

Damn you, Whedon.

(It just occured to me I've spent an inordinate amount of time damning people and things this week - AOL, my DVD-ROM, and now Joss. Sorry. I'm not usually so confrontational.)

Any other Fray fans preparing to De-Lurk?

Happy pun.


[> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- AK-UK, 16:10:10 06/06/01 Wed

Huh? YOUR smash hit first post? Hey, I claim my share of the credit for making it such a monster! If it hadn't of been for my well reasoned disagreement that thread would have been nothing, nothing I tell you! I was the sand in the oyster, the grist in the mill, the anchovies on an otherwise-perfect pizza!!!!!

Ahem :)

Anyway, I'm a bit of a comic fan (although my tastes run more towards the non-superhero stuff) and I will definetly be checking this baby out. Sounds like it could be a blast. Just out of interest, who drew the comic? I've seen the cover art, and it looked good.

As this is the OFFICIAL thread for Fray, do I like..........get a badge or something? Membership card, discounts, regular updates on all things Fray :)


[> [> Credit where credit is due. -- Anthony8, 16:44:31 06/06/01 Wed

You both deserve the credit. Without AK-UK's contribution, it would not have been as interesting a thread though (I probably would have just lurked quietly in the shadows). I'm not sure that the anchovies on the pizza metaphor fits in with the other references. Anyhow, pizzas to both of you! Your choice--Zachary's in Berkeley, Gepetto's [sp?] in D.C., or Ray's in NYC (or pick your favorite pie parlor from your part of the world--uh-oh, sounds like another O/T thread to me).



[> [> [> Re: Credit where credit is due. -- AK-UK, 18:30:57 06/06/01 Wed

Anchoives on pizza = something that irritates and/or provokes a reaction (well, they provoke a reaction from me anyway, usually along the lines of "Get those nasty salty fish off my pizza, freak!")

And here in the UK we prefer a nice Balti curry, oooooo, with onion bargi's and naan bread, and.........errr, I feel we've strayed WAY off topic here :)

Go buy the comic!!!


[> [> [> [> Re: Credit where credit is due. -- Anthony8, 22:29:22 06/06/01 Wed

Yeah, I understood the reference, but when you consider that the sand in the oyster is what eventually yields the pearl (I'm not sure about the grist for the mill), you can see what I meant about the anchovies and my comment about the importance of dissenting opinions in these discussions. Sorry, I have no interest in the comic at this time, but really, is there any particular food item in the UK (pizza included)that sparks debate with respect to the best vendor of said food item? I know my Irish friends over here are big on arguing the merits of which establishment makes the best curry fries, is there something similar in your part of the world?

Sorry for the digression. Really.



[> [> [> [> [> Food discussion -- Scout, 03:24:16 06/07/01 Thu

A8, may I stick my $0.02 in? I live between Leeds and Bradford in West Yorkshire, UK, and just this last year went back to do another degree at the University of Bradford - a place I had never been in all my years of living in England until I went to study there. The only reason I mention this is that I quickly discovered that Bradford has a huge Pakistani population and, as a result, many, many balti houses. I can't speak for anywhere else in Britain, but people round these parts can discuss the best places to eat curry for what seems like hours on end (or maybe it only seems so to me because I get bored listening to it).

When I lived in London, it appeared that often folks were more concerned about how trendy an establishment was than the actual food on offer, so there was argument about that.

I've had discussions with people (usually other Americans) about Mexican food in Britain, but they're not really arguments because we tend to agree that Mexican food is one that the Brits don't quite know how to get right. I've been to more than one so-called "Mexican" restaurant that had Jamaican food on the menu. Go figure.

OK, this is still digression (sorry), but it's an interesting sidetrack.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Food discussion -- Anthony8, 13:27:33 06/07/01 Thu

Yeah I know my sub-thread had absolutely nothing to do with BtVS, but considering the diversity of opinions on this site I thought it would be interesting to see what people think about things from another viewpoint. Food is such a universal topic and the discussion of pizza has cropped up more than a few times in the threads on this board, so I figured "what the hell."

I've rarely ventured out of Northern California (I have lived in L.A. and Washington D.C. for extended periods) so my contact with other cultures comes mainly from people who are ex-patriates, tourists, students staying temporarily in the US, "foreign" movies or programs on PBS. Sometimes even other cities in California seem more alien to me than any foreign country. I have friends and relatives from L.A. and, no matter how many times I visit, or how long I stay there, that is one strange place. I don't know how many Americans realize it or admit it, but we tend to live an insular existence, unless we travel to and live elsewhere, and our attitudes often reflect that insulation. I have a particular interest in what people from Canada, the U.K. or Australia think, and how they live, because so many of the musicians, actors, and filmmakers whose art I admire come from those countries. It is apparent that there are at least a few Canadian, British and Australian visitors to this site, and it has been interesting to read their opinions on topics relating to one of the few quality American television programs.

Thanks for your response.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hungry Canadian here.............:):) -- Rufus, 14:05:55 06/07/01 Thu

Yes we are legion on the board....and with all this talk of good food....really hungry. Food connects humanity....we talk about our lives over dinner or lunch....we all have to eat. When you first meet someone from a different culture the one thing you have in common is that you eat. To eat dinner with someone is to learn who they are and break the ice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Canadian Foods -- Little One, 14:21:51 06/07/01 Thu

I also feel that names given to individual dishes say a lot about that particular culture. In Canada, we believe Beaver Tails are a deep-fried delicacy, though other cultures may be repelled when merely told the name. Vice versa applies here as well. To me any foodstuff called Blood Sausage does not sound appealing in the least, though I'm sure to those familiar with it, enjoy it immensely. I'm sure different cultures have different comfort food as well. In a recent poll I took of friends, popular Ontario comfort foods tend to be chocolate (this is international, I'm sure), fresh baked bread, pudding and mashed potatoes. I'm sure this list would be extremely different in different parts of Canada as well as in the US and Britain.

The ethnology of various cultures in relationship to their particular cuisine is immensely interesting. Thank you for bringing it up.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Canadian Foods -- Anthony8, 16:24:46 06/07/01 Thu

Those all resonate with comfort to me. I would add apple pie and ravioli (separate dishes, not mixed together). I bet those Fray people really hate me now--I've polluted their thread with stray commentary. Oh well. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> To Scout, completely O/T, but somewhat interesting... -- Wisewoman, 18:03:13 06/07/01 Thu

Yorkshire, Bradford University...hmmm. I guess you haven't been there long, have you? The reason I ask is we have this mystery, or rather mystery man, here in Vancouver. In November of 1999 he apparently woke up on the street in Toronto, with a broken nose and a lump on the back of his head, with global amnesia. He was tanned, in excellent physical health otherwise, and wearing expensive clothes with international labels. He got himself to a hospital where it was discovered that the only identification left on him was an Ontario medical card in the name "Phillip Stauben" with the birthdate June 7, 1975. He has no idea whether he really is Phillip Stauben or not. The thing is, he managed to save up some money on welfare in Toronto to come to Vancouver, and a linguistics expert at UBC spoke with him and determined that his accent was "upper-middle-class, educated Yorkshire."

This guy can't get a passport to travel back to Britain because he has no birth certificate, and he can't work because he has no social insurance number, so he sits in the libraries all day reading poetry and Latin!

He's been in Canada at least 18 months, he's 26 years old now (supposedly) and he's contemplating suicide. So, on the off chance (yes, I know Yorkshire is a big place--my ancestors are from Castle Bolton ;o)) that you or someone you know has ever heard of this guy, I thought I'd give it a shot. Nothing ventured, as they say...

Maybe you could mention it the next time you're out with your mates for a curry?

Cheers, Wisewoman


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To Scout, completely O/T, but somewhat interesting... -- Scout, 02:44:19 06/08/01 Fri

Wow! I've lived in England since 1986 (I was born and raised in Atlanta) and in Yorkshire since 1997 and I've never, ever heard this story! Fascinating, particularly the pinpointing of the guy's accent - I find some Yorkshire accents impenetrable but, then again, some of the people here think the same about me (my accent isn't dissimilar to Fred's on Angel).

Actually, the prospect of living in a place as beautiful as Vancouver sounds pretty damn good to me, except with my memory and identity intact.

What a bizarre story. It's strange that someone appearing to be from the sort of background this lad seems to be would've had a friend or family member claim him by now, don't you think? Now that you've piqued my interest, I can see that in addition to spending a lot of time on this board, I'll also be digging around to see if I can find any information about missing young men from the north of England (hey, my exams are over now, why not?). I love a mystery. If I find anything, I'll let you know.

O/T again, I know, sorry all.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Scout...I'll keep my fingers crossed...:o) -- Wisewoman, 17:24:02 06/08/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> Curried Anchovies -- Little One, 07:48:07 06/07/01 Thu

Sorry, your curry discussion (somehow morphed from a Fray topic) made me think of Death enjoying his curry in Ankh-Morpork. Any Pratchett fans out there? Sorry, I know that is extremely off-topic from the Fray-ish Curried Anchovies discussion. Just made me smile, s'all.


[> [> [> [> [> Lemon Curry? Sorry--old Monty Python reference.(NT) -- Anthony8, 16:26:16 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> Re: For AK-UK and his comic needs -- Dedalus, 19:41:01 06/06/01 Wed

Well, tis true, I couldn't have done it without you. You have helped me clarify my thoughts on the matter, and I think I have done the same for you. Odd, though, that we're still heading in opposite directions. :-)

And this is what the credit page says -

Created and written by Joss Whedon

Penciller is Harl Moline

Inker Andy Owens

Colorist Dave Stewart

Letterer Michelle Madsen

Now only the first name means anything to me personally, but it may be a different story with you.

As for being a member of the OFFICIAL(notice the emphasis) FRAY DISCUSSION THREAD, you don't get a badge, but you do get a secret decoder ring.

And also ... I'm not promising anything, but I sincerely hope to get an OFFICIAL FRAY DISCUSSION THREAD square dancing party going before it's all over.


[> I'm such a wuss... -- Wisewoman, 18:50:16 06/06/01 Wed

Y'know I really, really wanna read Fray, but a 48 year old woman with greying hair just can't go into a comic shop and wander around looking for the Buffy section!

Well, okay, I COULD, if I could get my partner, who is 60 and has *white* hair, to go with me...what do you think the chances are?

Pity me, all you youngsters out there...;o)


[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- AK-UK, 19:07:22 06/06/01 Wed

I know comic shops aren't the most welcoming place for people who aren't teenage boys addicted to reading stories about man and woman dressed in spandex beating each other up, but TRUST ME, there are a lot of reasons to make the effort.

Fray being one of them.

( AK-UK is very proud of the fact that he successfully resisted the urge to post a ten page rant about the lousy state of the comic industry, the unhealthy effect that superhero stories have on the comic book medium, and the uphill struggle serious comic book writers face getting their work noticed in a medium which is generally regarded as only being suitable for childrens stories )


[> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Dedalus, 19:23:08 06/06/01 Wed

Wusses and non-wusses alike, missing the point.

This is Joss Whedon. Buffy. Big name stuff. Newstand stuff.

Why do people think comics can only be found in comic book stores? They're everywhere. Bookstores, all over the place.

Just pucker up your courage and go. Look, if I, as a 25 year old American male can walk in Toys R Us and buy Star Wars figures, I think you can manage at least a run or two to the comic store.

Ooh, thought. I think I'm having a thought. Oh yeah ... now I'm having a plan. You know you can order Buffy comics off the net now too, don't you? The only one who will ever know is your postman.


[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Scott L., 19:22:42 06/06/01 Wed

Wisewoman, you'd be amazed at how many over 40 women I see in comics and gaming stores nowadays.

But, if you are truly not up for it, I'd be glad to send a copy to any address or PO Box you name. My treat (your first dose is ALWAYS friee)

I figure if I entice enough mature women (as opposed to immature boys) to buy and comment on comics, the medium can only become a better place for all of us to be.

I might throw in a copy of Promethea too. I just bet you'd love it.



[> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Dedalus, 19:25:12 06/06/01 Wed

What is this Promethea stuff? Doug Petrie loves it doesn't he?

I keep hearing about it, but I've never seen it. Is it a graphic novel or an ongoing series?


[> [> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Andy, 20:00:13 06/06/01 Wed

Promethea is a series published by the ABC imprint of DC Comics. It's written by Alan Moore and drawn by JG Williams III. The best way I can explain it is that it's about a girl who transforms herself into a mythical heroine by exercising her creativity, and who in the process of becoming this heroine learns about the nature of magic. It's quite interesting, with beautiful artwork, but I must admit that when I read it I often feel like I'm being lectured to by Moore, who is much more interested in his theories of magic than I am :)


[> [> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss...Promethea!!!!!! :) :) :) -- AK-UK, 20:10:42 06/06/01 Wed

Scott L, you rock my world!

Promethea is an absolutely BRILLIANT comic, written by the amazing Alan Moore. What is it about? it's about a young woman with extraordinary powers, it's about poetry, myth, buddhist philosophy, tantric sex, transdimensional demons, high magic, and..........well, about 80 other things that I can't remember. For example; one issue of this comic uses a tarot pack to explain the evolution of mankind, each of the Major Arcana representing a period in history. If you like the philosophical aspects of BtVS ( silly question ), but also love the fighting and the witty one-liners, you will LOVE Promethea.

Oh, and guess who happens to be Alan Moore's number 1 fan?

Yep, Joss Whedon!


[> [> [> [> [> Oh, and it's also what Andy says it is :) (NT) -- AK-UK, 20:14:06 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh -- Dedalus, 20:27:32 06/06/01 Wed

Just out of morbid curiousity, how does tantric sex (whatever that is) fit in with buddhist philosophy and transdimensional demons?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh -- AK-UK, 20:44:23 06/06/01 Wed

Quick answer. Promethea fights transdimensional demons, learns about buddhist philosophy, and has tantric sex (tantric sex is sex which expands the mind, in which different sexual positions are used to produce different states of conciousness).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh -- Scout, 02:32:45 06/07/01 Thu

I've read that Sting and his missus get into tantric sex for up to 6 hours at a time, but if I tried to do that I'd probably just get cramp in my calf muscles or something and throw off all that mind expansion...


[> [> [> Re: Scott's Offer... -- Wisewoman, 21:06:25 06/06/01 Wed

...is the nicest thing that's happened to me in days...what a sweetie!

I actually hadn't considered the possibility that Fray might be out there on the stands with other magazines, or in bookstores. I sorta figured comic book collecting was an art form, and you had to go into those little stores in strange parts of town.

And now, of course, I have to read Promethea, too! So, I'll have a look around town and see if I can find them in non-scary (to me) places, and if not, well, boy howdy Scott, I'm gonna take you up on that offer.

And again, the greatest people in the Buffyverse AND the realverse are on this list. :o)))))



[> [> [> [> Hey, Scott, that is so kind, are you a Canadian????:):):) -- Rufus, 21:27:41 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> You don't HAVE to be Canadian to be kind...;-) -- Scott L., 16:42:20 06/07/01 Thu

Although, I hear it's a lot harder to be mean north of the parallel.

I live in Minneapolis. Grew up in North Dakota, so pretty close to Canada, actually.


[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Mishka, 07:44:01 06/07/01 Thu

From my personal experience, people are thrilled to see a female of any age in a comic store. It just shows your amazing diversity of interest. Plus, it also shows that you can see past the slinky outfits that most comic heriones don to what is possible to find once in a while, really great writers. Not to mention sometimes, some very talented artists. Its definately a blessing to any comic store to see a female and especially an intelligent one such as yourself, peruse the selection. Shop away! Mishka


[> [> [> Thank you, Sweetie...what a lovely thing to say! -- Wisewoman, 18:54:04 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Brian, 03:37:56 06/08/01 Fri

Hey, Wisewoman, I'm 57, and I hang out in a comic book store. It's the center of my social life, excluding this board, of course. Most comic book shops are friendly, warm places with a very liberal attitude to all their customers. I don't think that you would have any problem making an appearence to pick up Fray. Just ask for help. You'll be surprised how warm the response.

Fray is a delightful read. A fitting extension of the Buffyverse, and being written by Joss is just the anchovies on the pizza. (I confess I love the little devils on mine.)

The comic has lots of adventure, cool characters, humor, great lines, and where else are you going to find a character who I think calls "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" Mom.

Fray is a nice tie over until the new Buffy season starts.

An English friend of mine told me that when in England always eat foreign. Upon my visit there I ate Indian, Greek, and French. British food really is a contradiction in terms.

Go Brits! Go Joss! Go Fray! Go Anchovies! :)


[> [> [> I think I can, I think I can, I... -- Wisewoman, 22:52:05 06/08/01 Fri

I gotta say, you guys are great for instilling confidence and courage. I mean, after all, I do all kinds of *way* scarier stuff than going into comic stores (negotiating union contracts, for instance!)

Buffy Newswire even provided a list of stores in Canada where Fray is available, and hey, I'm darn well gonna DO it! I'm goin' into that store, and I'm gonna get me a comic!!! GO ME!!!



[> Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- rowan, 19:24:05 06/06/01 Wed

Just remember, everyone, that I'm the one with the Lord of the Rings obsession and I turned the thread in that direction, so much of its success must go to me! ;)

But now I'll make up for that distraction by actually commenting on this topic. However, my comments are more in the way of shameless unsupported speculation.


I was waiting for someone to go over this point about it being 200 years since a Slayer was called. I haven't bought the comic book yet (Same problem as Wisewoman -- I'm afraid of buying comic books at the advanced age of 35. The men with the nets may come for me. Although I do watch Batman Beyond, but that's in the privacy of my own home, so only my Significant Other -- He Who Shall Not Be Named -- knows my secret and he already knows I'm bonkers).

But I digress.

Do you think it's possible that before Joss rings down the curtain on BtVS that we will see that The Key can be put to the good use the monks hoped for it. Will the good use be to somehow suck the demonic element out of the Buffyverse dimension, thereby negating the need for a new Slayer to be called? (and as a side benefit, allow Buffy to experience some type of normal life with husband and kids?).

This would be sort of like (yes, she's going to say it) The Lord of the Rings, where the Last Alliance of Men and Elves overthrows Sauron at the end of the Second Age. But because the ring was only cut from his hand & lost, not destroyed in the fires of Orodruin, peace has an expiration date and the shadows once again takes form, requiring a new alliance of all free peoples....just like in Fray, where suddenly the evil creeps back and must be fought again.


[> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- Dedalus, 19:31:08 06/06/01 Wed

Excellent, rowan. Back on target, all thanks to you. And personally, I have yet to read TLOTR. Actually, I read the Hobbit way back when, and wasn't all that impressed. I'm more of a Narnia guy. And Terry Brooks rules. I prefer his stuff over TLOTR. I realize, with that last statement, you will probably disregard every future comment I will ever have, but them are the breaks.

In regards to FRAY, in this, the OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD, I can't believe more people haven't commented on the fact that all the demons up and disappear in the Buffyverse, and Joss himself said so. Since he's doing it, I assume it is not apocryphal. I mean, this is major stuff. With drastic repercussions. It is going to have something to do with Dawn, or resurrected Buffy, or both.


[> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- rowan, 19:53:43 06/06/01 Wed

Dedalus, I say this to you from the bottom of my heart: don't judge by The Hobbit. I too, read The Hobbit first. While it's a pleasant enough story, it's mostly just about a quest to kill a dragon. It only hints at the big story underneath. I waited a few years before I went back and tried The Lord of the Rings, and later, I was sorry I had waited so long.

Try this. Read the first 250 pages of The Fellowship of the Ring, which is the first volume of the three. I sincerely believe you will be hooked. Tolkien was, among his many accomplishments, expert in Christian theology, Celtic & Nordic myth, as well as linguistics. These books are so rich with so many levels of meaning.

I can almost guarantee you will want to read the rest of the LOTR, as well as the Silmarillion and The Lost Tales.

I will now proceed to whet your appetite with a small poetical excerpt from The Fellowship of the Ring:

"Gil-galad was an Elven-king. Of him the harpers sadly sing: the last whose realm was fair and free between the Mountains and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen, his shining helm afar was seen; the countless stars of heaven's field were mirrored in his silver shield.

But long ago he rode away, and where he dwelleth, none can say; for into darkness fell his star in Mordor where the shadows are."


[> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- AK-UK, 20:36:17 06/06/01 Wed

Man, I thought me and Dedalus had this whole credit thing settled. A nice, simple 50/50 split. And then Rowan has to go and stick her oar in :P

Dedalus, do yourself a BIG favour and read LOTR. Seriously. The Hobbit is a kids book. a lovely story, but aimed at the younger reader. LOTR is High Fantasy at it's very best. In scope, depth, detail, and execution it surpasses virtually every fantasy story written before or since (I would rank The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever, higher than LOTR, but I guess that because "The Chronicles....." appeal to my dark and gritty side).

And FINALLY, on to the actual thread topic. I find the information about lack of demon activity very interesting.

I've had this silly theory for quite some time that, at some point, the scooby gang were going to go on the offensive. Instead of constantly reacting to some Major bad guy, the SG's were gonna take the battle to the bad guys. This season has only added to this belief. Willow is now a butt kicking wicca, Buffy, though dead, will surely come back stronger, and most importantly of all, we have Dawn. Dawn is the key, a key that can open AND CLOSE the gateways between dimensions. And what is the hellmouth? A gateway between our dimension and a demon dimension. I really think that Dawn could shut the hellmouth, maybe shut ALL the hellmouths, thus providing the world with a 200 year respite from demon attacks.

Or maybe I'm just being silly. What d'ya think?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- rowan, 22:12:29 06/06/01 Wed

I've had this silly theory for quite some time that, at some point, the scooby gang were going to go on the offensive. Instead of constantly reacting to some Major bad guy, the SG's were gonna take the battle to the bad guys. "This season has only added to this belief. Willow is now a butt kicking wicca, Buffy, though dead, will surely come back stronger, and most importantly of all, we have Dawn. Dawn is the key, a key that can open AND CLOSE the gateways between dimensions. And what is the hellmouth? A gateway between our dimension and a demon dimension. I really think that Dawn could shut the hellmouth, maybe shut ALL the hellmouths, thus providing the world with a 200 year respite from demon attacks."

I agree! That's what I was trying to say, but you said it better. Last season left us with an unresolved plot thread -- can Dawn be used for good, as thought by the monks? and what would that good be?

Let the games begin...


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- Rufus, 22:24:54 06/06/01 Wed

There may be plots that are unresolved but this one is for a good reason. The key is absolute power, but we don't know exactly what for. It is only known one function that she can do, is there more? I think the monks were smart guys and that there is a very good reason they were willing to die to let the key live.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- Scout, 02:46:28 06/07/01 Thu

"Last season left us with an unresolved plot thread -- can Dawn be used for good, as thought by the monks? and what would that good be?"

I'm new to this board, but I'm wondering: Did you long-term posters here hear that spoiler going around months and months ago (before it became clear what she was) that Dawn would (hope I'm remembering this correctly) discover that she could "channel evil spirits"? We now know, of course that it was a totally false spoiler for S5, but it does lead me to wonder if next season is going to be - partly - about Dawn discovering the extent of her power as the Key, and possibly running into some difficulties learning how to use/control that power.

The monks believed the Key's power could be harnessed for good; the Knights didn't want to wait around to find out if that was true or not. Glory had her own agenda. Dawn herself doesn't know what she's capable of. It's not outside the realm of possibility that somebody else in the Buffyverse might want to find out.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup,heard that one........:):):) -- Rufus, 04:32:13 06/07/01 Thu

It makes sense that there would be something more to the story of the key than Dawn just turning human. There are lots of people out there that worship chaos and two of them used to be Giles and Ethan. So there could be a whole bunch of characters that can come forward to attempt to figure out a new way to fit the key into a new type of lock. Welcome to the board.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yup,heard that one........:):):) -- Dedalus, 17:50:34 06/07/01 Thu

Those Dawn rumors were really stupid in retrospect. People thought Whedon was going to totally screw the pooch with this, and look at the storyline we got!

Now we're getting somewhere. I am sure there is more to Dawn than we know. Surely she will be very instrumental. Also, Whedon did use the word "eradication" in terms of vamps, so you know something big is coming.

Backtracking to LOTR, I tried to read the first one, but there was so much about the lifecycle of Hobbits and maps and everything else that I don't think I ever made it to the actual story.

For you Buffy fans (and I guess that's everyone within earshot), you should check out Terry Brooks' Word and Void trilogy. Amazing stuff.


[> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Tanker, 02:42:26 06/07/01 Thu

Sure, I'll delurk. I'll even try to avoid all the LOTR discussion in the rest of the thread (God, I can't wait for that movie! Oops...)

First impression: this baby rocks. That's also my second, third, and all subsequent impressions.

Start with the writing. I like Joss' dialogue and use of captions. I thought the conversation between the two demons on the opening 3 pages, done as we see events that lead up to that conversation, was particularly effective. It appears that all those years of reading comics actually taught Joss something about how to write them. You'd think he'd been doing this all along.

Joss also works the necessary exposition into scenes that are interesting in their own right (i.e. they have a function beyond simply explaining the plot to the reader). We're left to figure out a lot of the background on our own, but we have enough to work with so that it's not too difficult.

I've read that this in penciler Karl Moline's first job. Darned impressive, if you ask me. His action panels have a lot of energy, and the whole thing is filled with lots of detail. I like his use of manga-style motion lines, extreme foreshortening, and the slight cartooniness. He does facial expressions very well. I also love the world he's created. You can't go wrong with flying cars and zap guns (well, except for "5th Element." Which I enjoyed on some levels. But I digress).

Andy Ownens' inking is also to my liking (I'm a fan of the heavy outline), as are Dave Stewart's colors.

I got a kick out of the sound effects, both from the fonts used and their basicness (especially "smash" as Melaka does the face-plant on the street. p.s. ouch). The most innovative was the sound effect for Melaka's blaster when she zapped the guy in the face (which is hard to make out, but it starts with a K and ends in a bunch of Z's). The Z's blend in with the zig-zag effect of the energy beam. I just thought that was cool.

That's the bottom line. This comic is cool. Buy it. Buy some for your friends.


[> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Rob, 09:12:52 06/07/01 Thu

I'm 20, and haven't read comics since I was about 14 or 15, but when I heard about "Fray," I just had to get it. And let me tell you, I was not disappointed. It just smacked of pure Whedon brilliance from the first page through to the end...with that damn cliffhanger! LOL. The dialogue was crisp and realistic, the character interaction very interesting, and the terminology great too. My favorite thing about future stories is how the future terms are used, but not explained, at least right away, leaving the reader to figure out what they mean. I think "Lurk" is a particuarly brilliant one. For you poor souls who have not yet read "Fray," Lurks are Vamps. This comic was also a perfect introduction to the story, because it brought you right into the action, but also managed to sneak in a bit of exposition here and there, and leave you hungry for more information of the back story. There are tons of questions to be answered: When did the nuclear radiation disaster occur? Was the guy who set himself on fire really Mel's Watcher? If he is, how will she be trained now? What happened in Mel and her sister's past to split them apart? What are Gunther's intentions with Mel? When the hell is Mel gonna turn around and see that huge demon in her apartment?!? LOL. I loved the fight scenes, loved the dialogue. Love the story. Joss is a genius, pure and simple. I devoured this comic in under 10 minutes...and now I have to wait a month for the next one!!! Aarrgh!!!


[> [> [> Re: Great OFFICIAL FRAY Comments -- Dedalus, 17:55:47 06/07/01 Thu

I'm with you. And extra kudos to staying on topic. Imagine, actually discussing Fray in the OFFICIAL FRAY DISCUSSION thread! What will you guys think of next? No anchovies, Lord of the Rings, just pure Fray!

And man, I am counting the days till next issue. As well as the days till the UPN premiere ... that's a lot of days to count.


[> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Sam I Am, 01:25:27 06/08/01 Fri

Pure Joss brilliance? Man, gag me please. I love Buffy but this whole Joss worshiping is silly. Pick up some real comics like Preacher or The Authority for good story telling, not just related merchandise tie ins.


[> [> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Tanker, 10:15:54 06/08/01 Fri

Yes, pick up "Preacher" if you feel like being utterly disgusted. I like Ennis' other work, though. Especially "Punisher," and the recent "Enemy Ace." "The Authority" is pretty good, although I already spend too much on comics to get into the Wildstorm Universe. I liked "Planetary," for example, but had to drop it.

See, I read "real comics." "Fray" is a "real comic." It has good story telling. No merchandizing tie-ins to be seen. Not that there's anything wrong with merchandizing. I like my "Buffy" action figures, and wish I could afford all the DC Direct stuff. I wouldn't mind seeing a Melaka Fray action figure. But I digress. To dismiss it just because it's written by Joss Whedon is stupid, IMNSHO. Criticize it on its merits, not on the fact that its creator is a tv guy.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Andy, 11:28:21 06/08/01 Fri

I like Preacher just fine because while it is disgusting, I also like Ennis's approach to characters and his themes (although I admit that I still have to finish Preacher, since I've only got up through the first four books or so). I wonder if Whedon's a Preacher fan, since I see a bit of Ennis in the way Spike is progressing, and I couldn't help thinking that his "until the end of the world" line was a little homage to Ennis :)

Authority is okay, but it's just about worn out its welcome. All style and no substance can only take you so far...

I'm looking forward to the rest of Fray. It's a nice, solid debut by guys who have never done comics before, and as a Buffy fan I can't help being intrigued by the implications of the story.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- Sam I Am, 12:26:56 06/08/01 Fri

And yet Tanker, you bought Fray because it was written by Joss, and no matter that the art is second rate, and its an ok effort for a first book, and there are tons of better books in my opinion, you won't admit it, because well, Joss wrote it. As for Preacher being sick isn't that your problem? Yes, I'll take Preacher over a laser gun wielding slayer this time.


[> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers) -- fresne, 10:35:10 06/08/01 Fri

Okay, so I just picked up Fray. And on first impression, pretty good.

I would have to agree that at this stage it raises more questions than it answers. Well it is issue one.

I'd add to Rob's questions: Why is the sun black? What does that mean for vampires/lurkers? If there are posters warning people about lurkers, is there general knowledge that they exist? Do people think they are mutants? What's up with amulet? What's with the ceremonial pile of bodies? Are the demons preparing for something? Why do they want to kill the Slayer? Won't that just call another one? Who is the boy from Mel's flashback?

Anyway, I liked the art. They made good use of the medium. The art was well, pretty, but still clearly comic book in style (as opposed to say the Dream Hunters. Sigh, as I contemplate a truly beautiful comic. Anyway...) Vertical, rather than purely horizontal dialog. Images on a page lending significance, via layout to other images. And I'm not sure what influence Joss had here, but there were some fairly clear cinematic touches to angles. Cells of Mel from a low camera angle, reaction shots when Mel hears of her good financial fortune, etc. Very movie storyboardish.

The dialog was crisp and clearly established characterization. But really, I wouldn't expect less of Joss. As someone else mentioned, a nice use of unsaid silences conveying meaning. I definitely look forward to the rest of the series.

I should probably mention that I read some but not many comics. Mostly Vertigo. Basically, anything Neil Gaiman writes, because he is a god. If you want to contemplate a nice rich mythology over the summer, go to any bigish bookstore and get one of the Sandman Graphic Novels. Beautiful stuff.

Oh, and make my pizza spinach, lamb, feta cheese, and artichoke hearts. Perhaps with a dry champagne on the side. It's a meal that I generally reserve for my first read of a new (long awaited) book by a favorite author, but what they hey.


[> [> [> [> Woah! Pizza-mate! -- Wisewoman, 10:54:53 06/09/01 Sat

I can't really believe someone else out there likes artichoke, spinach, and feta pizza! That's my absolute fave. I've never tried it with lamb, but I actually don't think you can *get* lamb on pizza in Canada...


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Woah! Pizza-mate! -- fresne, 11:36:07 06/11/01 Mon

Well, you have excellent taste. But then again, of course you do, because here we are...

Re: lamb, I must admit that technically speaking you can't get it in California either. I only discovered the combo after I had a very large amount of leg of lamb leftovers. Lamb sandwiches, lamb casserole, and lamb on my spinach pizza.

And just so I can pretend to be on topic, what flavors of pizza would Buffy and crew like (or Fray cause this is the official Fray discussion thread) and what are the philosophical implications.
I think the big bad should be a vampire again -- Seraph, 19:40:26 06/06/01 Wed

I know this probably sounds pretty dumb but I think the Season 6 Big Bad should be a Vamp. What creature would be better at recentering the Slayer when she returns from the dead? Actually most of the people who respond to this will say Doc but I think the Vampire Slayer should start slaying vampires again. I think it would be pretty cool if he (or she as the case goes) were a powerful Sorceror (bad spelling I know!) Vamp. Maybe some Wicca-wanna-be could accidently resurrect Aurileus, or St. Vigeous. and wackiness can ensue.


[> I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer who'd been vamped. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:15:03 06/06/01 Wed

I think it would give more of a chance to delve into Buffy's slayer roots, answer once and for all if that was even possible, and just be generally interesting while returning to the show's premise- Buffy the *Vampire* Slayer.

The other interesting possibility might be one of the Scoobs gone bad (Will's magic getting out of control, Anya as a vengeance demon, Giles being vamped), but I'm thinking that'd be best for the final season.


[> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer who'd been vamped. -- rowan, 20:26:38 06/06/01 Wed

"The other interesting possibility might be one of the Scoobs gone bad (Will's magic getting out of control..."

I can't remember with whom she did the interview, but very recently, Marti Noxon commented on Willow facing consequences (serious ones) to her magic through S6 & S7.


[> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer who'd been vamped. -- Nina, 20:26:50 06/06/01 Wed

You'll say I don't make sense, but I totally agree! I want to see Doc, but he could stay for the beginning of the season and then we could have some big vampire coming around. Personally I'd love for Dracula to come back. He already has a link with Spike and it could make some great action. I know some people didn't like him, but I really did.


[> [> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer who'd been vamped. -- rowan, 20:27:44 06/06/01 Wed

Remember, Nina, we're not allowed to rant and rave about Doc. ;)


[> [> [> Well, there is usually a "decoy" big bad. That could be Doc. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:30:23 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> More Doc can only be a good thing, IMHO. Let him be the power behind the Big Bad again. -- rowan, 20:34:28 06/06/01 Wed


[> [> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer who'd been vamped. -- Morgane, 06:07:05 06/07/01 Thu

I agree that could be pretty cool because I liked Dracula too, but I just think it's too late. She had deal with him to much easily, I mean, it took her only one episode and everything was over so I believe he's not enough strong to be a season big bad! He had some special powers that's sure but doesn't seem really strong. I think he's like Spike said :

"RILEY: But he's not just a regular vampire. I mean, he has special powers, right? SPIKE: Nothing but showy gypsy stuff. What's it to you, anyway?"

and anyway, I'm not so sure he really knew him!! I like Spike very much but he kinda like to brag a little ya know!

Jumping the Shark? -- Shiver, 20:00:54 06/06/01 Wed

Old fogeys like me will remember when Arthur Fonzerelli, wearing his leather jacket on water skiis, jumped over a shark. We also agree that Scrappy Doo was the ruination of a good thing.

At what point during a TV show - movie - etc do you say to yourself, "It's all downhill from here?"

This website asks that question about our favorite TV shows and Buffy is right up there on the list:


Also a good review of some shark-jumping moments in history are here:


My question is - with the death of Buffy, but us all knowing she is coming back next season - has BtVS "jumped the shark?"

Will Buffy be frozen for 30 years and come back awake so she can interact with her own daughter now grown? (Oh wait ... that was Xena ...)


[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- AK-UK, 21:27:33 06/06/01 Wed

Buffy v Dracula was perilously close to being a shark jumping moment. Riley and the Initiative had Jaws licking his lips too.

Depending on how it's handled, Buffy's ressurection could be THE turning point for this show. Lets hope Buffy never learnt how to water ski


[> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Wiccagrrl, 21:33:24 06/06/01 Wed

Joss has a real way of taking what seem like impossible, kinda cheesy storylines and making them work. The introduction of Dawn coulda been a classic shark-jumping moment. But it wasn't, IMO- mostly because MT is one heck of a talented actress, as is SMG. The Buffybot also had potential disaster written all over it. But, again, at least IMO, it worked.


[> [> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- AK-UK, 21:53:10 06/06/01 Wed

It's funny, but I never saw either Dawn or the Buffybot as being potential SJ moments, which is stupid cos they both could have ruined the show. You're right about Dawn, she works because of MT's excellent acting and great (non-sexual, totally platonic etc etc) chemistry with JM.

The Buffybot works (for me at least) because it is fun to see "Buffy" enjoying guilt free sex for once in her life.

Plus the Buffybot got the best lines of Season 5 "Angel's lame. His hair goes straight up and he's bloody stupid" :) :)


[> [> [> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Anthony8, 22:21:48 06/06/01 Wed

I agree with you about 'Buffy v. Dracula.' It didn't bode well for Season 5. Fortunately for me, the rest of the Seson redeemed itself well. Consequently, I don't think 'B.v D.' would be missed at all. If anything, it would have made a good Halloween episode--a bit of comic relief to lighten up the dark mood of the season. It was kind of a strange episode to start the season though. I still think that the "jumping the shark" episode hasn't happened yet, and hopefully the series will end before the writing ever sinks to shark jumping depths.



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Devours Sharks -- Dedalus, 18:02:16 06/07/01 Thu

Okay, I can see the JTS thoughts on the Initiative, or Dawn, or even the Buffybot, but what about Buffy vs. Dracula? That was fabulous. Got great reviews, too, as far as I know. Is it because it played too loosely with the Dracula myth or something?

I really love that eppy and it gets bashed and I feel like I'm missing something ...


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Devours Sharks -- Anthony8, 18:35:18 06/07/01 Thu

I'm relatively new to this board (actually this is the only board) so I wasn't participating when 'B v. D.' first aired. What was the consensus here? If people really liked it, maybe I was really missing something that was there but I couldn't see. Like I said, it just seemed kind of off for a season opener--especially after 'Restless.' All the characters seemed a little goofier than within my standard suspension of disbelief, although perfect for a campy Halloween episode or even more consistent with an early Season 1 episode (disregarding all the Slayer destiny dialogue between B and D). But maybe that was the intent altogether. Set me straight and maybe I can view it with fresh eyes.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Devours Sharks -- Shiver, 16:14:24 06/08/01 Fri

I thought about it for a while this morning in the shower.

BVD never made much sense to me until the last few episodes aired. When I began to think of BvD not as a single episode separate from the rest - as I had been - but as a little piece of the Dawn puzzle that I had never noticed (because we didn't know Dawn was coming).

I think BvD was totally a "planted memory" in the Scoobies heads by the monks. To distract them while they were making Dawn. A castle appeared in the middle of Sunnydale no one ever noticed before? Clearly a spell. And where did it go at the end of the eppy? They never went back to it. Drac turns into a mist and blows away. Very campy, think the monks were watching too many B movies.


[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- cjc36, 01:24:20 06/07/01 Thu

I always referred to moments like that as a "Spock's Brain," Which was a Shark Jumper, what, eight years before Fonzi did the deed?

Anyway, BvTS has had some stinkers: Beer Bad, Bad Eggs, Where the Wild Things Are. But never an episode so bad that it indicated that a downward spiral was imminent.


[> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Brian, 06:16:57 06/07/01 Thu

Hey, how can you not like an episode where Xander gets to say: "Giles, don't make caveslayer unhappy..."?


[> [> [> Beer bad good -- Masquerade, 18:39:53 06/09/01 Sat

I agree. I remember not liking the first four episodes of Season 4. They each seemed awkwardly done to me. Then "Beer Bad" aired. When the pseudo-intellectual frat guys started running across campus as cavemen I just laughed. I thought with relief, "this is classic BtVS allegory" worthy of many Season 1 episodes.


[> [> [> [> Masquerade I think of you when..... -- Rufus, 18:53:25 06/09/01 Sat

The frat boys are speaking and then someone says there will be no Thomas Aquinas at the table.....it's the reason I always remember the ep.


[> [> [> [> [> I don't know if that's a compliment or an insult. Hmmm... ;) -- Masquerade, 11:20:46 06/10/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually it's always a giggle moment for me when I see the ep.....:):) -- Rufus, 14:55:26 06/10/01 Sun

I don't know why but when I see those frat boys sloshed going on about their studies when they tell the one to can it about Aquinas I think the the spot on your site where you say the same thing(I thought you were using that ep as a reference). When they turn into cavemen philosophers I just crack up. My fav moment is both times Buffy bashes Parker on the head...he did deserve it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rewatching Season 4 -- OnM, 20:58:53 06/10/01 Sun

In preparation for doing my Riley character essay later on this summer, I've started rewatching Season 4. As of tonight, I'm up to the Halloween Ep. I believe 'Beer Bad' is up next. I haven't seen it for over a year now, and it should be interesting so see it with a new perspective. Previously, I would have agreed that it was a 'weak' episode, but as I posted earlier in another thread, I watched BvsD again just last week-- an ep I also thought was weak-- and came away impressed, very highly, in fact.

One thing I have noticed already is that looking at S4 so far, the show now is starting to appear to me like chapters in a long novel, not like they were individual eps. So far, Riley has had only a few minutes of on-screen time, I had thought that it was more. I've also just begun to realize that the relationship of Buffy & Parker was an enabling factor in Buffy's eventual relationship with Riley, and that this is another case where an evil action on one character's part leads to something good happening further down the line. (Also a counterpoint to Faith-in-Buffy seducing Riley, but being changed by the experience and eventually seeking redemption for her deeds. A leads to B leads to C leads to D etc. etc. Fascinating stuff).

My plan is to eventually re-watch all of S4 & S5, which is going to take several weeks worth of spare time, but it it already paying off. I would respectfully suggest to anyone out there who has thoughts about the value of any given ep to watch it at least one or two more times. You may come away with exactly your original opinion-- or not.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, I told you to watch BvD again...... -- Rufus, 21:08:17 06/10/01 Sun

Those clever people gave us lots to work with in that ep. In Beer bad just think it's a representation of our board on a drunken pub crawl, and Masquerade is giving that Aquinas fellow the toss for being too verbose. Can I be the one that hits Parker??????Or the metaphorical Parker?????


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, you did, and I was thinking of that when I was re-watching it. ;) -- OnM, 07:08:32 06/11/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Enjoying some iced tea while watching I'll wager....:):) -- Rufus, 07:11:50 06/11/01 Mon


[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Scout, 02:26:19 06/07/01 Thu

I've been a regular visitor to jumpingtheshark.com over the last few years and it's always a good laugh.

Until about two weeks ago, BtVS was one of the lucky few series firmly placed in the "never jumped" category because it had far more than the 50 percent of votes needed to place it there (alongside such classics as "The Dick van Dyke Show", "WKRP in Cincinnati" and "Fawlty Towers"). Unfortunately, since the S5 finale, BtVS is no longer in the "never jumped" category. The reason? Under "Jumped the Shark when...", the category "New Kid in Town (Dawn)" leads the BtVS shark-jumping poll.

Now, if Ted McGinley ever makes an appearance on Buffy, that's when we'll know for sure.


[> [> I hate "Jumping the Shark"! -- Rob, 09:03:01 06/07/01 Thu

Personally, I think that "Jumping the Shark" is the stupidest website I've been to (and there are a great deal of stupid ones), mostly due to the fact that they judge shows that are still on the air. To proclaim that a show has reached its peak with no way of return is absolutely ridiculous when a show is still on. Many shows go through weaker periods and recover. And as far as "Buffy" jumping the shark...it ain't never gonna happen. Just b/c a main character dies, a younger character is added, etc does not mean that "Buffy" will follow the regular television conventions. It never has before. If Joss kills a main character or adds one, he has a reason. Joss specializes in taking possible TV cliches and turning them on their head. He did not add Dawn to have a cute younger character like Scrappy Doo...He added Dawn as an integral part to the show's overall mythology arcs, and in so doing created a character who fits in seemlessly with the show. This character also helps further define the character of Buffy for the audience. He killed Joyce, not for dramatic effect but as an examination of what people do when they grieve. The characters on "Buffy" are so used to "fantasy" death, in other words, vampires, demons, etc, that when a beloved person dies of naturally caused events and is really gone, we really get to see deeper into the characters' souls. Buffy's sacrifice in "The Gift" was not a stunt, either...Joss has had it planned for years now, and foreshadowing can be seen in "Graduation Day," or even as far back as "Becoming". I believe we've already discussed on this board how Buffy has grown as a character, how in "Becoming" she had to sacrifice her happiness (Angel). But in this case, she saved her "human" side (Dawn) and sacrificed the Slayer. And a turning point also does not have to be a bad thing. I believe that Buffy's death and rebirth could be a turning point: one that will redefine this show in it move to UPN and make it even more brilliant than it is now.


[> [> [> Re: I hate "Jumping the Shark"! -- Scout, 09:28:29 06/07/01 Thu

Hey, don't kill the messenger.

I love Buffy too. I was merely stating what's happened on jumpingtheshark.com within the last couple of weeks re BtVS. Just because you're happy with the way Joss is doing things doesn't mean everyone else is (as for me, while I quibble with some things doesn't mean I don't trust him in the long run), and it's an undeniable truth that not all viewers love Dawn. For me personally, I can take her or leave her, although I do think she will add to cast bloat once the inevitable younger "friends of Dawn" are added to give her a life apart from Buffy and the other Scoobies.

Who is the "they" you're referring to? It's not a mysterious "they" judging shows, it's the people who write in to give their opinions and vote doing the judging. If some viewers think a program has jumped, then to them it has. It's purely a subjective thing. If you disagree, then go there and vote otherwise. It's not like the site is an official arbiter of a television program's popularity. It *is* interesting to read what people have to say though.


[> [> [> [> Re: I hate "Jumping the Shark"! -- Rob, 12:55:02 06/07/01 Thu

"Hey don't kill the messenger"

I didn't mean for you to take my comments personally. I was not speaking about your comments in particular, just the entire "Jumping the Shark" concept.

And, in response to your question of who the mysterious "they" is, it is in particular, the people who run the website, who are the ones endorsing these ideas and encouraging people to vote about when a show has gone bad. I've always found this to be a very pessimistic point of view. While not all television shows are works of art, a select few, such as "Buffy," I do regard as such, and I do not believe in the website's encouragement in classifying something as "over" or "dead" just because a similar plot happens in one show as happened to other shows. Just because a familiar plot might be used that led to one show's downfall doesn't mean it is for all. Some people have voted "First episode" for some shows. That is absolutely ridiculous and small-minded. Give a show time to grow before you tear it apart.

"They," the webmasters, have made classifications and lists for different kinds of "jumping the shark". When you vote on that site, you are first given the option of one of their previously chosen moments before adding your own. By declaring "death," "birth," "addition of young cast member," "they did it," "live," etc it is like putting headlights on a show any time a new episode comes on. Uh oh...a new character is added! The show jumped the shark! Uh oh! A main character dies and is ressurrected! The show jumped the shark! Uh-oh! A character gave birth to a baby! The show jumped the shark!

I was just commenting on how disheartening a site like this can be to the creative teams who work on such great shows as "Buffy".

You may enjoy going to this site, voting, etc. I am not targetting you, or calling you "dumb" or anything like that. I was just saying my opinion of this site. I'm sorry if you took my comments the wrong way.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nicely said Rob -- Dedalus, 18:12:28 06/07/01 Thu

I agree it is a little pessimistic ... actually, it's sort of like being a rubbernecker on the freeways, leaning out the window trying to get a look at the cars that are now crushed like soda cans via some bad accident. The site is kinda funny from a certain perspective I suppose, but, you know, I gotta say, for me Buffy will never jump the shark.

And I don't say that just as a mindless fanboy, it's just that it has earned so much respect from me. With the continual success of Buffy, and now Angel ... I think Joss can do anything in this universe he's breathed into existence.

And that the Gift isn't getting the accolades it deserves is disheartening, personally. Yes, if it were any show, it would be a stunt, and in season six we would find out it was really the Buffybot or Dawn had dreamed it or something. But the death of Buffy was done so well, and her imminent return will be also. This is a myth, and one that resurrection is crucial to.

I just got a vision of Joss sitting down at a picnic table, a checkered napkin stuck in his shirt, a fork in one hand and a knife in the other, facing down a shark steak.


[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Cleanthes, 11:15:03 06/07/01 Thu

I've visited the 'jumptheshark' website off and on for years - longer than I've been an avid fan of BtVS.

I think the 'jumptheshark' website jumped the shark two or three years ago now. It's a dated concept, and thoroughly unwilling to allow recursively postmodern hermenuetics.

Just thinking about it idly - some things go up-up-up and then down-down-down. Other things have some highs and then some lows and then more highs. Still others have some extremely high goodies and then a bunch of very good moments, but not quite so high. For example, Gustav Mahler's 2nd Symphony was a humdinger. So, his music "jumped the shark" with that symphony, because his later works, though great, were not quite as outlandishly terrific?

The jumptheshark site has slowly developed a whiney self-importance that, IMO, is the very mark of true "jump-the-shark"ing, because once the habit of whiney self-importance has crept into one's thinking, it's enormously difficult to break such a trend.


[> [> Brilliantly stated, Cleanthes! -- Rob, 12:42:42 06/07/01 Thu

Couldn't have said it better myself! It's sad when a site that claims to be "with the times" is so far behind it...


[> [> [> Oh come on! -- AK-UK, 15:13:33 06/07/01 Thu

It's a joke site. It's called Jumping the shark, for love's sake! It's a lighthearted poke at the pomposity of over-intellectual sites that try to examine the nuancies of the A-Team! And, lets face it, many of the criticisms levelled at BtVS have been echoed on this board (The Iniative, Tara, Riley, the problems inherent with killing and ressurecting your leading character).


[> [> [> [> Re: Oh come on! -- Cleanthes, 15:54:30 06/07/01 Thu

It's *supposed* to be a joke site, true. The question really is whether it still is.

There's a creeping puritanism all over the place. You know, a puritan is a person who fears that someone somewhere is having a good time. This is a trend to much in evidence over there, IMO.

Most _individuals_ follow a thought process of "like it", "like it more", "love it", "become disillusioned", "hate it". This is a single inflection point function, which is what the "jumptheshark" concept adopts.

I wouldn't say that groups (such as the group of fans in the aggregate of any TV show) or aesthetic appreciation need to follow this single inflection model.

Of course, I don't want to take myself and my criticism too seriously either, because THAT would be doing exactly what I'm criticizing. So, hey, I'll come on wherever!


[> [> [> [> [> Still, if Ted McGinley appears in an ep in S6, I'm heading for the hills! ;) -- rowan, 20:07:57 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> That would be a wonderfully evil spoiler rumor, wouldn't it??? -- Scout, 03:15:29 06/08/01 Fri

You know, along the lines of "Giles is going to return to England and Buffy is going to get a new Watcher played by Ted McGinley".

The scariest part of all is that if such a silly idea got going on any one board, any BtVS board at all, it would spread like wildfire and have additional "facts" added to it along the way. Then, next thing you know, Wanda would be leaking it at EOnline...


[> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Malandanza, 18:29:27 06/09/01 Sat

"Just thinking about it idly - some things go up-up-up and then down-down-down. Other things have some highs and then some lows and then more highs. Still others have some extremely high goodies and then a bunch of very good moments, but not quite so high."

I think you're right. the "Jumping the Shark" moment is even always clear in retrospect, let alone at the moment the episode airs. For some shows (like Moonlighting) the moment the show has been ruined is clear; in others (like Happy Days), JTS is a misnomer -- there was no single defining moment -- merely a gradual decline. Those of us who remember the old episodes of Happy Days remember when Henry Winkler played a scary thug -- and we remember in the last episodes when he played a goofy high school teacher. The transition did not occur in a moment -- it was almost unnoticeable. The early episodes dealt with adult content (Richie coming home completely drunk, Potsie coming near to date raping a girl while pretending to be Richie, etc.), the final episodes were aimed at a very young audience with almost all sexual material completely expurgated.

I remember hearing that advertisers spend more money on BtVS with its relatively small audience than on shows like 7th Heaven or Touched by an Angel with their enormous audiences -- because of the demographics involved. Older people are set in their ways and cannot be tempted to try new products in spite of all the comercials. Younger people are easily influenced, having no set preferences. Hence, advertisers get more for their money when supporting shows with a young set of viewers. As the shows age, the stars get paid more -- so the need for revenue increases -- so a younger audience is needed. The older, loyal viewers drift off as the show becomes a series of gimmicks and guest stars to attract younger viewers. Unfortunately, the younger viewers do have the devotion of the older ones and as their attention drifts from one gimmicky new show to another, the series dies.

I see the same pattern in the Xanth novels -- originally swords and sorcery fantasy novels for adults -- but Piers Anthony discovered that children were reading his books so began dumbing them down until it got to the point that they were insipid.

There have been many bad episodes on BtVS going all the way back to episodes like Teadher's Pet and Go Fish, and recent episodes (like the one with the Buffybot) but particularly in the latter half of season 4. However, it seems to me that every time Buffy was very bad, Angel was very good -- and I think that this contrast has helped to keep both shows alive -- BtVS has been very good at (eventually) rebounding and Angel has kept viewers from drifting during the bad times.

Do they exist -- Mav, 03:21:10 06/07/01 Thu

Ok, now Anya said Santa Clause exists (all be it as a child disembowler) But do you think she was lying or not? if she wasn't do you think we'll ever see Santa Clause in Buffy? Or even better yet the Easter Bunny! That could be a great Anya episode if that exists.


[> Easter Bunny -- Little One, 08:54:25 06/07/01 Thu

Perhaps the evil Easter Bunny is where Anya's fear stems from. Peter Cottontail could actually be a crazed egg-addicted psychopath. Perhaps Anya's phobia orginated in the deep-seeded childhood trauma of seeing the benevolent Easter Bunny on a raged chocolate-induced rampage with his posse of machete-toting chicks. Or then again, I could perhaps need a nap...


[> [> Re: Easter Bunny & Shrimp -- Anthony8, 13:37:30 06/07/01 Thu

Maybe the Eater Bunny brought her a basket of vicious shrimp. Or maybe it's actually a shrimp in bunny clothing. That would explain quite a bit.


[> [> [> I think you are on to something... -- Little One, 13:47:48 06/07/01 Thu

Or perhaps an army of crime-fighting vigilante shrimp saved her from the Easter bunny...Can't you just see it?

Anya backed into a brick-walled corner, huddled, too terrified to quip. Looming over her is a ragged-furred rabbit, eyes gleaming with malevolence, fangs drooling, shattered remains of eggshells crunching underfoot. Suddenly (insert inspirational music), they appear. Hordes of them. Each wearing tiny army helmets, artillery shells flung over one shoulder. Ok, so shrimp don't have shoulders...


[> [> [> [> What have I done (NT) -- Mav, 13:56:25 06/07/01 Thu

Stranger and stranger.


[> [> [> [> [> Well you know what they (they who?) say... -- Anthony8, 16:28:04 06/07/01 Thu

No good deed goes unpunished. Curiouser and curiouser.

What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- abt, 06:53:52 05/07/01 Mon

I know that effectively it's a prison. It's not a conscience or a soul. What it does seem to do is force Spike down another path altogether, off the beaten track. Where is that? Normally when people say 'it's not a obstacle, it's an opportunity', I want to smack them in the mouth. Maybe in the case of the chip it's true however, in that it gives a breathing space to stop and think, perhaps even grow.


[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish, some spoilers -- verdantheart, 14:07:47 05/07/01 Mon

The way I see it, the chip does not change what Spike is. However, the limitations that it placed on Spike started to break him down. Without the ability to prey upon humans, he feels less powerful, less of a vampire. He was called "harmless" by the SG, who let him live for this reason (ultimate insult?). He was no longer the Big Bad.

Then he discovered that he could fight and kill demons. This allowed him to work out some of his frustrations, but brought him into more frequent contact with Buffy. I believe that it was these two factors (the erosion of his self-image and his growing contact with Buffy) that led his subconscious mind to show him that his feelings for Buffy weren't hate, but, in fact, love.

Well, that hardly makes him a good guy, and the ways in which his feelings for Buffy were expressed were frequently negative (stalking, groping, baiting/tormenting). But the situation put him at a further disadvantage because he knew his chances with Buffy were nil. He couldn't admit he loved her; her power to hurt him was too strong as it was ("Fool for Love"). When she confronted him, he couldn't help but blurt out his feelings, but was completely crushed ("Crush"). Her rejection further tore down what few defenses he had left, but he was still resilient enough to pretend that he thought he had a chance ("I Was Made To Love You").

Even this has seemed to have been removed now. The events of "Intervention" left him beaten and completely exposed. He was actually honest about his feelings -- although he thought it was the Buffybot he was talking to.

Now, in "Tough Love" he seems quite fully ashamed of his actions and was barely able to look Buffy or Dawn in the eye. He seems to want to behave in human ways (reaching out to pat Dawn's head), but is afraid to (covering that action). Does he feel unworthy, or unable to help, or afraid of exposing his emotions even further, opening himself to further ridicule?

Little by little, his facades (masks?) have been torn away. Getting back to the chip: I see the chip as a catalyst that allowed potential change to take place. To continue the chemical analogy, the reaction hasn't completed and we can only guess where Spike will regain equilibrium -- if in fact he can.

I suspect that he is near bottom and will have to start rebuilding himself, for better or worse.

The question is, if the chip were removed now, could he ever revert to what he was? At this point, would he want to?

- vh


[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish, some spoilers -- Cynthia, 15:22:02 06/03/01 Sun

Just a thought: when I read the questions about this it hit me that these are the same issues that a recovering addict would have to deal with. If vampires do not need blood to actually exist on a day-to-day level, do they drink it because its addictive and they have a biological predisposition (like some people have for liquor)that leads to easy addition. After all, it does seem to give a rush. And its a easy addiction in that supply is plentiful.


[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish, some spoilers -- rowan, 05:03:36 06/05/01 Tue

I like this interpretation. Spike's identity has been eroding over the course of S5. Slowly, he has been stripped of what he felt he was, of his identity as a vampire (not just the feeding, but the reputation, the aura of evilness, etc.). In fact, perhaps this erosion really started with Drusilla's desertion (the infamous chaos demon).

As that identity peels away (in layers, like an onion), we begin to see unveiled elements of what perhaps might be Spike's next identity in his love for Buffy and Dawn, as well as his desire to do good for them. In The Gift, Spike hits rock bottom in more than one way: he loses both his dream of new identity as lover (albeit platonic) of Buffy and he also fails in his identity as protector of Dawn (Doc wipes the floor with him).

Presumably, this might be because Spike attempted to define himself too much based on his relationship to others and not from a core of self. Possibly he's on the right path, but without enough of a reason to be on it. The question now is "whither Spike?" Will S6 be about the development of a real or true identity for Spike beyond vampire?


[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Justin, 14:32:11 05/07/01 Mon

I love so many of the analogies Buffy makes for real life. A demon, or a robot, never seems to me to be really a demon or a robot.

In this case... well I don't know if I can think of one for the chip.

But I think it's a great device to use to accomplish this:

Spike got to interact in a real way with Buffy and the rest of the gang. Because he couldn't hurt them, he had to talk to them. The way Spike's character was built, we couldn't have had this happen otherwise. I don't think the chip is really so much about the effects of behavioral psychology, or the reality of a mechanical soul....

I think that it merely makes Spike more real. And what a great idea it was.


[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- LURKER, 15:03:46 05/07/01 Mon

This might be slightly off topic, but I have to believe that at some point the chip will be removed or else, what's the point? It will have proven nothing except electric shock therapy might work if used regularly in a Pavlov's dog-type scenario. Actually, I often wonder if it's there at all or if it was ever there. The doctor couldn't find it when he operated--or maybe the chip looked like a penny and really was removed.


[> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Rufus, 15:36:34 05/07/01 Mon

When was the last time that Spike tested the chip? He did feed off that murdered girl in Crush, but when has he done anything as of late to set the chip off? Has he even wanted to? Is the chip a factor in his actions at this time?


[> [> [> [> Really excellent point! -- rowan, 17:22:58 05/07/01 Mon

First, as I've said before, when does government issue anything work forever? That chip has to be close to having its warranty expire.

I don't know when Spike last tested the chip (I think you're right and it was Crush), but do you notice that Crush was the last time he lamented his state? Since then, he's moved on to another level of acceptance.

I think the scenes with Dawn are the key (pun definitely intended!). I said this below, so I won't bore you again, but he's gone from being horrified that Dawn felt safe with him (in Crush) to attempting to stroke her hair to comfort her (in Tough Love) -- plus, did you see the look on his face when Dawn tried to take responsibility for his bruises & limp? Spike's whole relationship to the SG and even to himself changed in Intervention when he took that beating.

It's time (early next season) for that chip to come out so that we can see what's to be seen. Spike is missing a soul, so he doesn't have that shining star, that internal compass to point him to true north. So, how does he know what right behavior is? He has to see it to learn it. The more he sees it from the SG and the more they reinforce his good behavior, the more likely it is he can repeat it. Plus, we know that Spike is capable of love & devotion. That's never been in question. If he forms real attachments to Dawn and Buffy, would the removal of the chip change that? I'm not sure, but I don't think it would.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point! -- Lyn, 18:00:13 05/07/01 Mon

I have often wondered if there really was a chip. It did seem to me that the initiative doctor couldn't find it and so substituted the penny. Could Spike have been so brain washed by his short time in the lab that he truly believed there was a chip. But didn't Dru "see" the chip? She's insane so I couldn't tell if she really "imagined" the chip in his head or not. I think it would be great if there was no chip. However, what could push him back to the dark side now so that he would test the chip? He wouldn't test the chip when Dru came for a visit, he told her the pain was too bad. I do remember him willing to endure the pain of the chip when he was going to shoot Buffy with a shotgun! I loved that whole scene!


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point! -- rowan, 18:07:27 05/07/01 Mon

You definitely have to feel a little something for a guy who's confused enough to fall in love with his sworn enemy!


[> [> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Boxdman, 15:11:58 06/03/01 Sun

The last time for sure that we all can agree that Spike's chip worked was when they were fighting the knights in "Spiral".


[> [> [> [> FYI -- rowan, 05:09:23 06/05/01 Tue

I saw a reference in the shooting script for The Gift that said Spike accidentally hits a "crazy" (brainsuck victim) and that it activates the chip. I couldn't pick it out on the ep, though (maybe fight scenes were cut or changed).


[> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- rowan, 05:07:14 06/05/01 Tue

Yes, I've often thought that chip will come out at a moment when everyone (the SG) will have subsided into a status quo of accepting Spike's change. Then, the chip's removal or malfunction will perhaps prove a moment of epiphany for both Spike and the SG, as it will present an occasion where Spike's change can be 'tested' so to speak -- will he continue to abstain from feeding when the pain inhibitor is gone, and will he relationship to the SG change (by reverting them to Happy Meals with legs) or will he struggle against the desire to feed?


[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Jarrod Harmier, 13:51:57 06/03/01 Sun

You mention that you view the chip as a prison. It could be seen as a prison if it is seen as something that takes away Spike's ability to choose. This is probably accurate if you talk about his capacity for violence. I do think next season he should be given the option of having his chip removed. However, I think it is important that none of the Scoobies know that Spike has this option because of what I think should happen. This chip removal would be a real option, not like the fake chip removal that occured in "Out of My Mind". This is a very tempting offer for Spike. However, several questions enter his mind: "Will I be the same?", "Will I go back to being to feeding humans", and, the most important one, "Will I still love Buffy?" He has an offer that appears to be everything he could ever hope for and then realizes it may not be all that it seems and it may not be what he needs. He refuses to have it removed. Later, when he has the option to tell the group that he had the option nd refused it, he doesn't. These actions taken together would be integral in his path to redemption because they show that has built character far beyond just keeping a promise.


[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul, but something else? -- Liquidram, 11:51:29 06/05/01 Tue

I have been keeping an eye on this board for quite some time. I love the logical and thoughtful discussion here vs. the fandom of most BtVS boards ("Angel is such a BABE!!!!", etc.) and would love to become a part of it. Please forgive any redundancy here with previous posts that I may not have read yet.

Yes, Angel is a babe, but I have always been far more intrigued with the many nuance layers of Spike. Since learning what "William the Bloody" truly stood for confirmed what I already suspected of him. Has anyone else noticed that since he has become an integral part of the group, trying so hard to earn trust and voice his feelings, he has become more physically beautiful? The harsh angles, scowls and Sid Vicious camera angles have all but disappeared. I echo anyone who commends the extraordinary acting chops of James Marsters. His mastery of subtlety is a joy to experience.

The way I understand it, the chip hurts Spike only if he attempts to harm a human being physically. It does not stop him from causing psychological harm, so we cannot "blame" his evolution on it. In no way does it change his personal make-up, opinions, feelings (with the exception of causing severe frustration to him - remember him whacking Zander's head when they are walking down a hallway. "This is gonna be worth it" as they both yell in pain and surprise.) He was lonely and alone. Now that he has acknowledged his feelings for Buffy, as well as Dawn, he has new purpose, which allows the true William to emerge. His previous evil deeds are not diminished or forgiven, but surely, he must be given the same opportunity to rehabilitate as anyone else in Buffyverse. (Anya, and Giles come to mind, and Angel - who was far more evil.)

Why would anyone think that having the chip removed would give Spike the sudden urge to harm the people that he has proven he now cares for when he has shown time after time this season that he is willing to give his life for them?

We saw him work through the pain to fight the knights at the gas station, not to mention Glory's torture. Bottom line is that if Spike wants to take you out, he will, regardless of the pain it causes him.

I think that the pressures of not having to be the Big Bad is giving the true William the opportunity to push back his demon and exert his true personality. There has never been a question to me regarding Spike's ability to love (Dru). I don't remember the episode or exact quote, but didn't someone(thing) say that Spike and Dru "reeked of humanity"?

A point in case - immediately after Spike escaped from the Initiative, he went to Buffy's dorm room. When he learned that he could not harm Willow, he actually tried to console her when she made the comment about not "being the kind of girl that vamps usually want to sink their teeth into" by telling her that he had thought about biting her "a few times". He seemed to be more concerned about reassuring Willow than thinking about his own immediate problem.

Well, I've rambled on long enough. Regardless of what Season 6 brings, I personally will be happy to see the continued transformation of Spike. Chemistry and respect between he, Buffy and the other members of the SG, plus a vampire who chooses to do good because of caring and love vs. guilt? Good enough for me. Yep, I love that beautiful, brooding babe Angel, but give me a volatile, confused, and emotional Spike any day.


[> [> Welcome to the board -- Rufus, 16:45:32 06/05/01 Tue

Joss has used Vampirism as an analogy for alcoholism. That being the case it would make sense why Spike has evolved in the way he has post chip. First he isn't "drunk" on the killing and feeding off of humans. This does allow the host personality the chance to surface more and more. Angel said that being a vampire is simple in that they don't have to worry about pesky emotions such as guilt. I think of vampires as being on a big bender of killing and feeding, not stopping or caring about what they are doing. Now with the chip, it activates when Spike attempts to hurt a human, now he has had the chance to detox a bit and consider his life. The big complication that motivates him is his love for Buffy. If he were never chipped he wouldn't have stopped long enough to figure out his true feelings for Buffy, he would have been concentrating on being the big bad. With the chip he has first acted out in an obvious way by attempting to get the chip out, now he doesn't seem to care, his love being his chief motivation now. It also brings us to the question of why some vampires are as violent as they are....Angel being the worst vampires had to offer. The only thing that makes sense is that there is something about the host that the vampire infection captializes on to do the most evil acts. If you have a person who was not troubled or naturally evil, you won't get as violent a vampire. With William his last memories were of rejection and humiliation turning into anger, when Dru turned him he had a chance to act out revenge fantasies for real. Spike is now more interesting because he shows that vampires are more complex than the Watchers or anyone else had considered. This doesn't mean we can't destroy a threat to mankind, but we do have wonder how much of the vampire is the former host.


[> [> [> Re: Welcome to the board - Good post! - Like your NetName -- OnM, 22:58:27 06/05/01 Tue

You aren't foreshadowing a soon-to-be-replacement of the regular solid-state variety, are you?

Inquiring minds... ;)

Pleased to have you join us!


[> [> [> [> Re: Welcome to the board - Good post! - Like your NetName -- Liquidram, 23:49:18 06/05/01 Tue

So glad to be here too! This board has been my new late night obsession .... how frustrating to read old posts that have died when I have soooo much to say :0)

LiquidRAM is actually my roleplaying character's name in a game my son created.

I look forward to a long rewarding relationship here and hope to get to know you all!


[> [> [> [> [> Don't be frustrated - if you see an older post you want to comment on... -- OnM, 09:50:46 06/06/01 Wed

...cut and paste some text, give it a title and start a thread. If you have something new to add, please do. The archives on this board are huge, they run back over 9 months. Lotsa good stuff to mine from it!

Feel free to do so!


[> [> Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You be the judge) -- verdantheart, 08:29:39 06/06/01 Wed

I've noticed that in the last several eps Spike has often appeared with a bit of "bedhead", that is, hair spiked/mussed rather than slicked back. This, of course, gives the character a much softer look, which contrasts with Marsters' naturally defined and angled features (OK, I like to draw faces, so I notice these things). This has come hand-in-hand with a softening of Spike, who has gotten out of Buffy's face and become strikingly William-like (diffident).

On another note: I don't get out much. Is there a controversy over whether Angel or Spike is more babelicious? To concentrate on that would be to miss out on the other qualities of the actors, for example their acting ability (I won't state my opionion on that, since you all probably know where I stand on that!).

- vh


[> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You be the judge) -- Liquidram, 08:53:57 06/06/01 Wed

"On another note: I don't get out much. Is there a controversy over whether Angel or Spike is more babelicious? To concentrate on that would be to miss out on the other qualities of the actors, for example their acting ability (I won't state my opionion on that, since you all probably know where I stand on that!)."

I haven't seen any discussions of this sort on this board which was my point. I was looking for serious discussion of the series' vs. a typical fan-type board. I totally agree with your last statement.


[> [> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You be the judge) -- verdantheart, 06:35:47 06/07/01 Thu

And why I'm here too. Just joking, saying I don't get out much (to other boards) and so am unaware of any raging controversies of the "Would Kirk beat Picard in a fair fight?" variety.


[> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You be the judge) -- rowan, 16:46:58 06/06/01 Wed

I think the bedhead has been deliberate to soften Spike (and not just to increase the babelicious factor, which has been a great side benefit, BTW). Have you also noticed that Spike's English accent changes depending on mood, and his tone has softened when dealing with the SG.

Next season, look for clothing changes, IMO.


[> [> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You be the judge) -- bess, 18:52:59 06/06/01 Wed

how true... spike's jibes have definately toned down - it's like your average teenager, (chip on the shoulder in this case), joking around with friends, rather than the caged-animal-with-only-nasty-words-for-bite we saw after "the initiative".... him finishing Giles' "we few, we happy few..." was precious, and in a strange way rather revealing.

clothing changes ! gasp ! GAP sweaters ! perhaps a guest appearance by the hawaiian shirt... hee hee ;)

Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Rob, 08:52:25 06/07/01 Thu

Here's a link to a GREAT Joss interview. You have to read it--it has tons of cool tidbits, including how he came to write "Family" and "The Body"



[> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Dedalus, 18:21:13 06/07/01 Thu

Thanks for posting. That is a great interview. Sarah Kuhn over at IGN is getting really good at that. And the reviews she writes mimic pretty impressively the language/tone of the show.

I had no idea about Joss being in that Angel episode. LOL. Oh man. That was good stuff.


[> [> Dedalus! Do the "Dance of Shame!" ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:33:35 06/07/01 Thu


[> [> [> Are you ment to do the dance of shame for yourself then?? -- Emcee003, 14:49:00 06/08/01 Fri


[> [> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Sam I Am, 01:21:04 06/08/01 Fri

Sorry but Sarah is a butt kisser to the 10th degree. Can't she do an interview where she doesn't act like Glory's minions?


[> [> [> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Dedalus, 09:28:29 06/08/01 Fri

Personally I would rather have a reviewer that is a fan. At least they know what's going on. It's not like - "Oh, so in this show - what's it called - Fluffy the Umpire Slayer? - I guess there's this girl, and does she like kill umpires or something? Aren't you guys on after Dawson's Tributary?"


[> [> [> [> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Sam I Am, 12:23:36 06/08/01 Fri

I agree with having a fan do the interview, but I want one who doesn't slobber over the person. That's as bad as the non-fan interview. Her interviews are pretty much for sheeple.

Coffee & Conversation -- Brian, 09:34:55 06/07/01 Thu

This is really a two part concept:

Who in the Buffyverse would you like to have a cup of coffee with, and what kind would they be drinking?

I think Willow would be fun to converse with. She's funny, knows lots of computer stuff, is easy on the eyes, and she has lots of backbone. I imagine she likes strong coffee with lots of cream and sugar.


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- purplegrrl, 10:42:44 06/07/01 Thu

I think I'd like to have coffee with Giles. Although he might like to have tea instead (hey, I'm flexible just so long as it's not Tasters Choice - although I did like those commercials!).

We could discuss books and research. Possibly movies and wild things we did when we were younger.

Maybe I'd invite Spike and/or Angel to join us - if they promised to behave.


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Liam, 10:44:57 06/07/01 Thu

I would like to talk to Giles, as he's very clever, and I feel that there are a _lot_ of topics that we could talk about.

Secondly, I feel that he would be drinking tea. He would possibly be drinking it with a little milk and no sugar, so as to get the proper taste.


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Mav, 11:55:45 06/07/01 Thu

Hmm, Being English, I'd love to have tea with Giles, Wesley and spike, that could be really fun(Please note afternoon tea does not exist!!!!) We could talk about England beating greece, why were more understated than americans, how awfull it must be to live in "the colonies" :)

Or Willow, that'yd be fun, Really sweet, no milk probably, and it'd be a really wierd yet amusing conversation.


[> Great thread! -- Rob, 12:40:51 06/07/01 Thu

Just had to let you know I love this thread. Very creative and fun! My choice for coffee and conversation would have to be, without a doubt, Anya. She has a great sense of humor, but doesn't realize it, LOL, and I find her view of the world really refreshing. I'd love to speak to her about patriotism, alternate dimensions...but of course not bunnies! And if Buffy, Giles, Willow, Xander, Spike, and Tara could drop by too, I wouldn't complain!


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Little One, 13:00:13 06/07/01 Thu

I agree, this is a great question. Personally I would want to have coffee with Spike, to buck up his spirits a bit after buffy's demise. I'm sure he would be apt to retire to his crypt and become a hermit in his grief and an outing could only do him good. Get him out into the fresh air, surrounded by 'Happy Meals on legs'...it would probably do wonders in perking him up. Not to mention I think Spike on a caffeine high would be highly amusing.

I think Spike would drink Espresso. Why drink regular coffee when you can get the hard stuff?


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 13:08:13 06/07/01 Thu

I don't drink coffee myself, so I'd have iced tea (summmer you know). I have a laundry list of who I'd like to have a chat with. I'll start with Giles, I'd give the man a scotch and get him to loosen up a bit and get him to spill on those Ripper days, and why the heck he hung out with that Ethan guy. I would like to get him to tell me what the Watchers trained for, or if he got his special skills when he was into his rebel phase. Then there is Riley, I'm sorry but the temptation is to give him some milk and cookies and tell him not to worry that there are lots of nice girls out there for him. Wesley I think I'd give a pint to, the idea of getting him to giggle like a girl would brighten my day. Spike would definately be the cocoa with little marshmallows guy, but I don't know if he will have stopped crying as of yet, he may need a little anti-depressant as well. Anya and Xander would be a nice couple to have coffee with, I see them as one of the frothy concoction types. I could just sit back and watch them argue about bleach, bunnies, and vengeance. Willow and Tara would be the herbal tea sort. We could go over recipies(spells) and figure out just how to get that ball of sunshine working. Dawn, I'd have her over to eat cookie dough and talk about boys and eventually drift into her loss of her mother and sister. Of course I would be planning to have Doc over another time just to kill him again and make sure the job was done right, how dare he cut a sweet little girl.


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Wisewoman, 18:36:45 06/07/01 Thu

Iced tea!? Rufus, I know where you live, and we haven't even had SPRING yet, never mind Summer...LOL!


[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 20:59:57 06/07/01 Thu

I like cold drinks and where I am it's been quite toasty, I get the afternoon sun. I notice no one has commented on the fact that I plan to murder at least one of my guests. That must mean that it's okay........:):)


[> [> I forgot the Host............. -- Rufus, 21:04:16 06/07/01 Thu

He could have any of the fussy drinks he wanted....he would be a hoot. He could tell me what it's like to know someones destiny and be unable to help them get there. Then he could explain the animated head bit.


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Mishka, 13:15:51 06/07/01 Thu

That`s a toughy. Um...if I could only choose one person, hmmmm...lets see....I`m an upfront, honest type of person. So I think I`ll hang out with the girls. Anya and Cordelia. Both have a complete lack of artifice. What they say is what they mean. It is refreshing in a non-cutsey sort of way. (cutesy being what made me not invite Tara or Willow) Maybe Spike too, for the same reasons. Plus, they more than make up for lack of academic intelligence by their worldiness and common sense. Anya, coffee, cream and sugar. Cordy cappuchino. Spike, coffee with a bit of whiskey in the bottom. And it would definately be late at night.


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- SingedCat, 16:46:50 06/07/01 Thu

Hey, everybody stop taking Giles, he's supposed to be my choice, the eclectic favorite that no one else is into!

(Not on *this* board, I guess..)

OK, Giles is out, we want coffee, not tea (Unless Giles wishes to be tense, then he drinks that awful stuff in little strofoam cups). If I wanted coffee I'd have it with Spike-- double espresso, and be sure you get that black froth goin' on the top, mate; that's the best part. I'd get him all hyped up on caffeine and flattery and get him to tell me stories about the good old days when he was a conscienceless bloodsucker.

Or better yet, Faith-- cappucino, almost no cinnamon, skip the sugar, pretty boy, I'm sweet enough as it is, thanks. We'd sit on the outside watching the people go by, making up stories about them.

But I'd much rather have tea with Giles. I'd get him going on the museums he's worked for-- does anybody else remember he's a world authority on ancient relics?

Great idea, by the way! Was I the only one in high school who fantasized about people I would love to have lunch with? (Hitchcock was my first choice at the time-- crazy me..)


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- bess, 13:44:50 06/07/01 Thu

spike, definitely... i think, secretly, he'd go for the fancy stuff, the whole irish cream dairy-less creamer shebang. like the onion flower, one of the finer things in life. it'd be interesting to get the perspective of someone who lived through things like the boxer rebellion and the reconstruction, y'know ? plus we could argue over punk rock and make crude jokes. tons of fun.... ;)


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Humanitas, 15:25:03 06/07/01 Thu

I would love to sit and talk with Spike about poetry and love from a vampire's perspective. (I'm having visions of "necks effulgent.") He would probably be drinking cocoa spiked with whiskey.


[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Wisewoman, 18:31:11 06/07/01 Thu

Well, good gosh almighty, am I the only one who wants to have coffee and a chat with Buffy?!?! (Or are we assuming she's not into caffeinated beverages in her current non-living state?)

Seriously, were she still in a chattable state, I'd probably bore her silly by trying to impress upon her the fact that she's still so *young,* and that things will look so much different when she's older, and she should lighten up and enjoy herself more, and everything will work out and...well, you get my drift ;o)

And the coffee would be black and unsweetened, and Tim Horton's rather than Starbuck's (okay, Canadian reference there). Doesn't anyone else think Starbuck's smells like rotting fish?


[> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation/with Buffy -- Aquitaine, 20:12:28 06/07/01 Thu

I'm glad I read all the posts before responding... Now, those who know me might think that Spike would be my choice, hands down, but given the chance I'd rather have a convo with Buffy. I understand Spike. Buffy is an enigma as far as I'm concerned. She intrigues me... I want to know more. The show is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer and I wish I knew more about what was going on in her head at times. The Season-5 blank-expression Buffy wasn't exactly a wellspring of knowledge.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation/with Buffy -- Rufus, 21:02:01 06/07/01 Thu

I didn't say her because she is dead and I'm trying to get used to the fact. I did offer to have Dawn over though.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Bad!Aquitaine, 09:41:10 06/08/01 Fri

Dawn, huh, Rufus? You are such a comfortador:)

Well, I'd invite Wesley and Spike over at the drop of a hat, myself. Except not for coffee and conversation would be strictly optional


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Optional Conversation...ROTGLMAO! ;-) -- Little One, 10:20:08 06/08/01 Fri

That was hilarious! Mmmmm....Spike....


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 15:23:01 06/08/01 Fri

My list just kept expanding......I think I shall have to hire help just to fit everyone in and keep the drinks coming. And since I don't want everyone there at the same time...(I could leave Doc in the room alone with Giles and Spike though).....I think a social secretary would have to set up some appointments. Dawn deserves special attention cause she is young and has lost most of her family in the past few months.

As for your "coffee", with Spike and Wesley hmmmmmmmm, no talking, what ever else would you do then?????

You will note I failed to mention Angel in my wish list....I think I could fit him in somewhere(I'm sorry I do insist he keep his shirt on).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- purplegrrl, 08:19:22 06/12/01 Tue

***You will note I failed to mention Angel in my wish list....I think I could fit him in somewhere(I'm sorry I do insist he keep his shirt on).***

Ah, Rufus, you're no fun. I guess Angel will just be getting imperfect happies from you!! ;-) (just teasing)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 16:51:45 06/12/01 Tue

You are just trying to get me a divorce aren't you......LOL.......Now you have me thinking....exactly how do I explain the convention of people and demons that I'm having over for tea? And, the little matter of the dead body of Doc? Makes the shirtless Angel a little less conspicuous. I do still insist on a no shirt no tea rule, I blush easily and would get all uncomfortable with a half naked guy in the house. I can however send any of the guests that arrive in an uncloathed state over to yours...:):):):)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- purplegrrl, 09:50:27 06/13/01 Wed

***I can however send any of the guests that arrive in an unclothed state over to yours***

Sounds like a plan - particularly the male guests. ("Tea" may be the last thing on our minds!)



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I always have a plan........:):):) -- Rufus, 14:51:39 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation/with Buffy -- Nina, 12:38:20 06/08/01 Fri

Well I am a little late it seems Aquitaine. I wanted to have a conversation with Buffy too for the exact same reason! (great minds think alike?;)

I don't drink coffee or tea. I'd go for orange juice and Buffy well if I get that conversation with her in whatever place she is right now, I don't think she'd need anything to drink. :)


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- rowan, 20:24:17 06/07/01 Thu

Tea with Giles, I think (very milky, like nursery tea) so that we could discuss all the wonderful things he knows about ancient times and places.

Also, cocoa with Spike (from scratch with real marshmellows, no stuff from a packet), so that I could lure him into discussing poetry.


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 21:06:32 06/07/01 Thu

Oh god, give Spike a spiked drink then he will talk poetry for hours...all about lost love.....sob....I still say give Giles a scotch....get Giles, Wesley, and Spike together and you just may have a party...throw in Ethan and they can have their own scapegoat party.


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- OnM, 21:48:45 06/07/01 Thu

Tea with Giles. I'm equally at home with either tea or coffee, so orange herbal or Earl Grey would be OK down my way. BTW, Rufus, I can drink iced tea any time of year. Have to watch the caffeine, but otherwise love the stuff. Orange, lemon and mint are nice variations.

Why Giles? Two main reasons:

1 > He's about my age. 2 > He has good taste in music.

Female character? Anne. Don't get a chance to talk to many normal humans who went to hell and then got a life. She has a solidity to her that I like, kind of where Cordy is getting to of late.


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- AK-UK, 03:15:20 06/08/01 Fri

Call me a big soppy git, but I'd want to have a hot chocolate with Joyce. She seemed like such a good person, and I never really got to know her.


[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Liquidram, 11:48:03 06/08/01 Fri

"Call me a big soppy git, but I'd want to have a hot chocolate with Joyce. She seemed like such a good person, and I never really got to know her."

I would add Dawn, Buffy (leaving her attitude at the door) and Spike into this mix, along with tiny little marshmallows and see how the chemistry plays out with them together in the same room.


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- cuda8483, 07:52:48 06/08/01 Fri

Tequila shots with Faith. Just make sure that you have great health insurance. And probably life insurance.


[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Humanitas, 08:28:40 06/08/01 Fri

Those body shots? ;> (ack, OnM! Help! The Evil Clones are spreading! They must feed on brains addled by summer re-runs!)


[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 15:29:00 06/08/01 Fri

OnM, I raise my glass of iced tea to you. I did have to laugh at the thought of you having Dawn over to listen to boy bands, eat cookie dough, and talk about boys. Caffeine would be the least of your worries.


[> additional thoughts on coffee & conversation -- purplegrrl, 12:43:03 06/08/01 Fri

After reading all these posts (especially Rufus), I figured that what we really need is someplace where we could all drink and chat with all the characters (or as many as we pleased) either singly or in groups. Someplace out of time and space where we would have this great evolving, revolving conversation with everyone's drink of choice. No one would get tired. Nor would alcohol or caffiene have adverse affects on anyone. (And Aquitaine's idea of no drinking and optional conversation would be discussed on a strictly one-to-one basis between willing participants!)

I also thought that maybe we could just hang out with some of the characters. Such as: * shoe shopping with Glory and Cordelia, and maybe the Host * dancing with Wesley, Xander, and Angel * Wicca convention with Willow and Tara * museum opening with Joyce and Giles * clothes shopping with Darla and Drusilla (they'd have to promise not to eat the clerks, or us) * baking cookies with Dawn and Riley, and maybe Anya * tai chi lessons with Buffy and Angel * bar hopping with Doyle * jamming with Oz and Lindsey

And then drag everyone over to Caritas for a big karaoke fun-fest.


[> [> Re: additional thoughts on coffee & conversation -- Brian, 13:17:28 06/08/01 Fri

And end with a drive to Venice (we can use that RV)for a moonlight stroll on the beach with Gerwin's Rhapsody in Blue on the radio, and Spike can thrill us with some just-right poetry.


[> [> Can we invite Joss, too? Then it would be perfect... -- Wisewoman, 18:40:15 06/08/01 Fri


[> [> Re: additional thoughts on coffee & conversation -- thisbe, 01:23:06 06/14/01 Thu

That list is great, purplegrrl! You really do inhabit the Buffyverse. My mind races:

* drink warm saki and talk historical perspective with Angel * get my hair cut with Spike * take that drive with Riley * ask Willow if Feng shui is real * henna Tara's feet and talk about her mom * eat Crispy Creams with Xander * get a facial and gossip with Cordelia * make Giles blush

It's all fun. Oh yeah, and hug Josh for giving them to us.


[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Javoher, 17:25:23 06/08/01 Fri

Irish coffee with Wesley to pick his brain about demons, and cappuchinos with Cordelia on Rodeo Drive to talk girl stuff. Then I'd like to have milk and chocolate chip cookies with Fred (her stomach might not be ready for stronger stuff yet). I like her, she probably has a good brain on her. And some insight into survival.
Joyce Millman review of 'The Gift' -- Anthony8, 17:36:23 06/07/01 Thu

As a general point of interest, I would direct anyone to Joyce Millman's Salon.com article reviewing this season's tv series finales, including BtVS. The BtVS section reads like it would have a comfortable place as a post on this board.

The article can be found at http://www.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2001/05/29/finales_2001/index4.html


[> Re: Joyce Millman review of 'The Gift' -- Dedalus, 18:17:51 06/07/01 Thu

That was a good review. Millman was one of the few critics to praise the second half of season four.

Still, I have a bone to pick with Salon. I write freelance occasionally, had a great idea for a Buffy article, queried Salon, they said it was an excellent query and idea, but Millman is so territorial about Buffy they don't let anyone else write about it. That is a bit bogus. Buffy is a big topic, and you know ... essentially all she writes is reviews. And only about Buffy like three times a year.

Sigh. Feel my pain.


[> [> I know the feeling... -- Anthony8, 18:25:36 06/07/01 Thu

Sometimes I feel like Spike on Thanksgiving, on the outside, watching all the vampires having a communal meal in the comfort of their crypts...

A really dumb question... -- Stupidwoman (Evil Clone of Wisewoman), 19:18:02 06/07/01 Thu

Why is it called the "First Anniversary" party? What is it the first anniversary of? Gee, maybe I should have figured that out before I volunteered to do Anya...or maybe it just means I'm the right person for the role!


[> Re: Only a dumb question if you don't ask it -- Aquitaine, 20:05:10 06/07/01 Thu

It's the first anniversary of this message board:)


[> Re: A really dumb question... -- rowan, 20:06:07 06/07/01 Thu

This board is apparently one year old on 6/14. So it's a birthday party! I suggested we do something special to celebrate, i.e. do a special posting on each character.


[> [> OMG!! I'd thought you guys had been doing this for YEARS! -- Wisewoman, 20:24:15 06/07/01 Thu


[> The ATPoBtVS Website itself is older, but the discussion board is a year now, almost. -- OnM, 20:59:56 06/07/01 Thu

Question to Masq-- Do you have copies of the first day's posts? Might be a hoot to see them if you do. And who was the very first poster?

(No, it wasn't me! I lurked for quite a long, long time before venturing to say anything, some of the posts were pretty intelligent and I wasn't sure I could keep up. After a while, I figured, ah, what the hell... Go for it! Other than abject humiliation, what could go wrong?)



[> [> Re: The ATPoBtVS Website itself is older, but the discussion board is a year now, almost. -- Cynthia, 04:27:25 06/08/01 Fri

My sentiments exactly about de-lurking. This board as definitely made me realize that I haven't been reading nearly enough.


[> [> Re: The ATPoBtVS Website itself is older, but the discussion board is a year now, almost. -- Masquerade, 05:21:45 06/08/01 Fri

I can dig up a copy of the first post,*maybe* the first day. I fly home to San Francisco where my hard drive is today. Nearly all the posts between June 2000 and Oct 2000 are gone with the cyberspace wind--eaten by InsideTheWeb.

The first "poster" was yours truly trying to get her new board kicking by getting visitors to ATPoBtVS to talk about the BIG topic of June 2000--What the heck does "Restless" mean, anyway? (and if ANY of you start talking about that again I'll... I'll... probably read it!)

ATPoBtVS started on Jan 1, 1999. So it took me a year and a half to attach a posting board to it.

Damn, Alyson looked Hot! -- Jack_McCoy, 07:46:57 06/08/01 Fri

Did ya'll see the MTV movie awards last night? Man, Alyson looked incredible. If they do decide to make her darker and more forcful next year, I hope they start dressing her that way.


[> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot - Philosophically speaking, of course! ;) -- OnM, 08:12:48 06/08/01 Fri


[> [> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot - Philosophically speaking, of course! ;) -- Brian, 10:13:41 06/08/01 Fri

At least she didn't look like the rest of the hos that populated that MTV event - or am I being too harsh - Naaah

I was shocked at just how crude and lewd nearly all the performers were. And somewhere along the line humor got devolved to - Nope, forget it, I'm just not going there.


[> [> [> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot - Philosophically speaking, of course! ;) -- Sebastian, 11:12:28 06/08/01 Fri

She reminded me of VampWillow from "The Wish" and "Dopplegangland."

But she did look pretty cool on the Award Show. And yeah, Brian - I agree the performances on the MTV Movie Awards were pretty lame. With the exception of the "Lady Marmalade" performance.

It does seem as if they have been putting Willow in more edgier type clothes. She dresses more experimentally than Buffy, Anya or Tara. There's been a noticable transition in both S4 and S5. In S4, her dress style was much more relaxed - jeans/baby-tees, etc. This season her outifts have been pretty distinctive - but very stylish.

An outfit in particular that comes to mind was in "Tough Love" when she confronted Glory. The high heel boots, long coat - it was all very fashionista. ;-)

But then again, all the females on the show seem to have a very distinct dress style.

Sorry....its Friday and I have tons of free time to contemplate the characters outfits. :-) I've been tempted to start a thread on clothing and hairstyles of the characters and it seems to tie into specific storylines.....


[> [> [> [> Fashion and Philosophy -- Humanitas, 13:09:10 06/08/01 Fri

Ooo, please! There are a bunch of us who enjoy fashion and costumeing, and such an analysi would be welcome!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fashion and Philosophy -- fresne, 14:15:53 06/08/01 Fri

Seconding that motion. It would certainly be a different spin on ye'old "Did you see what she was wearing" thread.

It could be the "Did you notice the philosophical implications of what he/she/it was wearing" thread instead.


[> [> [> Ah-ha! Proof that philosophically-inclined men have discerning tastes -- Aquitaine, 11:12:58 06/08/01 Fri

Gives us, non-surgically- or silicone-enhanced women hope;)


[> [> [> [> D'uh! -- OnM, 22:06:26 06/08/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Such eloquence! ROFL! -- Aquitaine, 12:31:25 06/09/01 Sat


[> Must . . . have . . . video captures!!! -- Rosenberg, 11:28:39 06/08/01 Fri


[> [> Here you go:) -- Aquitaine, 12:02:52 06/08/01 Fri

Caroline posted these links on the BAPS message board...

*** Alyson Hannigan Stuff:

3 clips available from the MTV awards 2001 ...clips made by legend65




3 new video clips of out takes from Buffy The Vampire Slayer...





[> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot! -- Lazarus, 18:28:31 06/09/01 Sat

I've got to agree with you, Jack... If you want an archive of what has to be just about every Alyson shot in existence go here:


One of my absolute favoutites (aside from those FHM shots that could melt the polar icecaps!) is this one:


I cropped it a bit and use it for my wallpaper at the moment... ;) What a beautiful face to have to stare at all day...

Where is Glory now? -- Virgill Reality, 07:58:28 06/08/01 Fri

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but couldn't Glory have just committed suicide in order to get back to her world?

It seems to me that everyone is taking for granted the fact that because Giles killed Ben, Glory is now no more, but it has been long established that any living creature that dies in the buffyverse can only die in its form on the earth dimension. When something dies, its body is left behind as an empty shell while its spirit moves on to wherever its headed.

We never saw Glorificus in her purest form; what we did see was a human manifestation which greatly weakened her power (comparatively). My question is, now that Glory is assumedly in spirit, where will she go? She is still a god, but does that mean she is capable of being judged, and therefore has a specific designated hell to be condemned to?

My mind goes back to what the knight was saying in Spiral, that Glory was banished from her dimension only because the other two hellgods battled against her and were only just able to overpower her(I also find it interesting that where conventional metaphysics would have it that any divine being who rebels agianst its order is condemned to hell as punishment, Glory was condemned to this dimension. Kinda makes you wonder about Angel's conversation with Hollund Manners in the lift, doesn't it?).

What this means is that since no higher divine power in the thearchy seemed to have intervened in Glory's perdition, should that be the case now that her spirit is free to roam to a higher plane? Or, being free from divine judgement because of her hellgod status, will she be able to simply return to her dimension and attempt to regain control?

I don't know about you, but this makes me wonder why she bothered with the Key at all.



[> Re: Where is Glory now? -- spotjon, 09:01:02 06/08/01 Fri

Here's a recap of the conversation between Buffy and the captured General, from the shooting script.

GREGOR (cont'd) What do you know of the Beast?

BUFFY Strong. Fast. Hellgod.

GREGOR From a dimension of unspeakable torment.

BUFFY A demon dimension, I know. There were two other Hellgods that ruled with her, weren't there?

GREGOR Along with the Beast, they were a triumvirate of suffering and despair, ruling with equal vengeance. But the power of the Beast grew beyond even what they could conceive -- as did her lust for pain and misery. They looked upon her, what she had become... and trembled.

BUFFY A god afraid?

GREGOR Such was her power. They feared she would attempt to seize the dimension for herself, and decided to strike first. A great battle erupted. The very bowels of Hell trembled as the war of the gods spanned a thousand years. In the end, they stood victorious over the Beast - barely. She was cast out, banished to this "lower" plane of existence, forced to live and ultimately die trapped within the body of a mortal, a newborn male, created as her prison. Her own living Hell.

BUFFY Wait -- male?

GREGOR That was her punishment. To finish an ageless existence buried deep inside the flesh tomb of a normal average human man. A man that would grow, age, and eventually die, like all the rest of us. That is the Beast's only weakness.

BUFFY (getting it) Kill the man, and the god dies.

Assuming that Gregor was right-and I believe he was-whatever the other two hellgods did to Glorificus was to ensure that she could never come back. They didn't stuff her into a mortal's body with the possibility of her being released once Ben was dead. When Ben died, Glory died with him. Glory is not free, but gone, caput, pushing up the daisies. I believe Joss said as much himself:

TVGO: Does Ben's death mean Glory is dead too? Whedon: Yeah, it does (Joss, as told to M. Ausiello, tvguide.com, May 24, 2001).

One of the oddities of the Buffy/Angel universe is that so little is known about the afterlife. Sure, we see zombies and vampires and restless spirits haunting places, but we never actually see what the afterlife is like. All of these creatures we see are those who have failed to totally move on into the great beyond. What do those such as Joyce experience upon death, aside from the occasional resurrection spell? Is there a place where the spirits of the dead go, either to pain or to bliss? We just don't know. We don't know what Glory's hell was like, or who it was for. We don't know for sure that is was designed for tormenting the hapless souls of humans. Perhaps it was a place where demons conquered other demons and tortured them. Giles mentions Glory's dimension in Blood Ties:

GILES That might pose some difficulty. From what the Council has been able to discover from the Book of Tarnis and other sources, Glory and two of her fellow Hellgods ruled one of the particularly nastier demon dimensions.

BUFFY There's more than one?

ANYA There are thousands of demon dimensions. All different.

GILES And all pushing at the edges of this reality, trying to find a way in.

I think that we will find out a little more about the afterlife when Buffy makes her way back to the living. I'm sure that the spirits of the dead go somewhere in the Buffyverse, but we just don't know where. I assume that Ben has moved on to wherever he's going, but I get the distinct impression that Glory is as dead as Ben's corpse right now. There is no afterlife for her, only nothingness.

There is also the possibility of her being still in existence, but at the mercy of an even higher power than herself. If you've ever watched Xena, there's one character named Callisto who came back from the dead a number of times, a few of them as a god (don't ask me to explain, it's too stupid). Anyway, at the end of one of the seasons, where Gabrielle dies for about the third time, Callisto goads Xena into stabbing her with a knife covered in the only blood that can kill a god. Callisto was tired of life, and wanted to die, but she couldn't kill herself, being immortal and all. Most mortals would go to Hades, but who knows where gods go when they die? She assumed that it was into nothingness. Unfortunately, she ends up in a place called "Hell"...

Callisto: "Don't bother. You've already done all the damage you can to me. Thanks, by the way."

Xena: "For what?"

Callisto: "I wanted to cease existing, and you did your best to help - but as you can see, it didn't take. They wouldn't let me off the hook that easy."

Xena: "Who's 'they'?"

Callisto: "I don't know - whoever it is that does the final judging. They sent me to a place that makes Tartarus look like - the Elysian Fields. They call it Hell."

from the episode Ides of March

Perhaps Glory is now in a place far worse than she could ever imagine, in torment at the hands of beings far greater than herself. However, I don't think that we'll ever know where she ended up. We can only hope it is a place that makes hell look like, well, heaven.


[> [> Complete agreement -- Little One, 09:44:04 06/08/01 Fri

Those are all great points, spotjon. Exactly what I was thinking (though you put it much better than I could have).

Thanks for the link to the shooting scripts as well. It looks like a great resource to back up my fickle memory (as they say, memory is the second thing to go....can't remember the first ;-)


[> [> [> Re: Complete agreement -- spotjon, 10:48:36 06/08/01 Fri

Thanks for the kind words. If you're interested in a detailed look at the world of memory and record-keeping, I'd suggest seeing the movie Memento, which I believe is still in theatres. It's definitely a movie that will make you think really hard about how good our memories really are.


[> [> [> [> Re: Complete agreement -- Scout, 14:22:56 06/08/01 Fri

Yeah, I remember within the first 5 or so minutes, the character played by Guy Pearce says in a voiceover, "You know who you are and you kind of know all about yourself", but of course he doesn't because of his injury. Boy, just the opposite of "you don't know who you are, etc.", right?

My memories help me to define who I am. I would hate to discover (e.g. in the Buffyverse) that they were false.

S6 Ideas Wanted -- Little One, 10:09:00 06/08/01 Fri

Wanda has posted (http://msn.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive/010608.html) that she is accepting story ideas for how to start the next season of Buffy (among other programs) which she is then going to send off to TPTB at the various networks. I'm sure many of us can come up with some fabulous ideas and, though I'm certain Joss already has the episode written, I know I would be gratified to know that my ideas were being read and taken into consideration. Is anybody interested in creating some answers to the preseason puzzler of how to bring buffy back along with various other threads which were left dangling? My suggestion is that we could post our suggestions which would then be compiled into an episode to send to Wanda? Who's with me?


[> Re: S6 Ideas Wanted -- Nina, 12:32:47 06/08/01 Fri

I have no idea what JW will do and even though I like to speculate I surely hope to be wrong so I can be surprised!

Act one, if other seasons are any indicator, should deal with the aftermath of Buffy's death. I don't know how it will be written though. But somehow we should see how it affected each and everyone of the SG. We'll get a glimpse of what the summer has been like.

Sorry that's all I'm coming up with. It's pretty basic and I'm pretty sure that somehow we'll see it.


[> Re: S6 Ideas Wanted -- vampire hunter D, 15:32:59 06/08/01 Fri

I've actually been working on a story for Buffy's return (I have a very boring job that gives me lots of time to think about stufflike this). Unforunately, one of the key elements of my story would have been the introduction of a new Slayer. But Joss and some other writers have already said that that's not a possibility, so I guess I have to start over again (which sucks, since I already had a specific girl in mind to be Buffy's replacement).


[> Re: S6 Ideas Wanted -- Sssaaammm, 11:16:40 06/09/01 Sat

Perhaps Doyle, as the new TPTB's chosen oracle (after the Angel 1:22 massacre of the originals), could send Buffy back in either a "Zombied new look" or a "take back the day" (as in "I will remember you"). TPTB's motivation for sending Buffy back could also be elaborated on to give an insight into why Angel was sent back in Season 3.

Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- The Godfather, 13:45:04 06/08/01 Fri

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and so I decided to bring into the board who does more thinking than most computers..;)

At the end of season 2, Buffy ran away to Los Angeles. Heartbroken and devastated, she gave up the game. In her absense, the gang continued fighting the good fight. They made it into almost a game that only kids could do. They were a group of HS seniors, all around 17 years of age and they had cool nicknames. It was fun even in the danger. And Buffy was still alive. And out there somewhere. And they all believed that eventually she'd come home. Eventually.

At the end of season 5, Buffy died. She decided to give up the fight by winning the fight for innocence. She laid down her life for her baby sister, the one tie to her heart who couldn't defend herself. And Buffy was lost. Now what do the Scoobs do?

Times have changed. Things have changed. The Scoobs have changed. They're not the same rag-time bunch of misfit kids and they've really come a long long way.

Consider Xander. As of the beginning of third season, he was still an innocent sheltered if not opinionated boy. He never really understood what had happened that made Buffy run. He never really grasped the Buffy/Angel thing. He was in a playful if not combative but not terribly sexual relationship. They kissed and made out and made each other pissed..it was a HS romance in the truest form. Times have changed. He's still opinionated by he's much more experienced in so many things. He's taken a long trip, worked a series of jobs and finally found the one that worked for him. And damn but he's good at it. Real good and he's proud of his work. And Xand has fallen in love with someone who's not so different from Angel..Xander has his whole life in front of him...

Let's look at Wills. At the end of season two she was still mostly a nerdy hacker. She has JUST started dabbling with magic. She was dating Oz who was the first love of her life. She had an overly romanticized view of B/A and she really was little more than Buffy's absoloute side-kick. Things have changed. Willow is something of a master at magic..in a very frightening manner. She may have even surpassed her teachers. She has moved succesfully on in the love department and may have even found her true love. Willow's got her own life now..she's in school and about to start her junior year..yes the magic keeps her in Buffy's world but she has her own life stretched before her also..

And Giles..at the end of season two he was Buffy's absoloute protector and guardian. He took the harsh lumps she laid out for him emotionally in stride but her loss that summer took a heavy toll on her. In fourth season he seemed to realize that he has lost his place with her and thus in the beginning of 5th was planning on returning to his home. Buffy convinced him to stay. It was in this season that their relationship grew to it's deepest depths(yikes). Could he really stay in the city that took his daughter from him?

These are the core players. There are also of course Spike and Dawn. Dawn will have to be guardianed by someone...and Spike..there's simply too much up in the air to make any really good guesses(at least from my perspective) about what he would do.

So Buffy died. Lonely and lost. Still reeling from the loss of her mother. She has decided that if Dawn died, her time was done. She would give up the fight. But could she have? Xander told Anya in a line cut from the script that everyhing heroic he has ever done has been because he learned it from Buffy..I thought that was very telling and poignant. Just the same, she still died. Age 20. Dead without goodbye. The VO at the end wasn't real..or maybe she had left a letter behind for them..I don't know..

I guess what I'm wondering is if you guys really think they would keep up the fight. For today, tommorow, a week or a month. I know if it were me, cowardly though I'd be, I'd want more in my life than to die at 20 years old. Her friends don't have to do this anymore..they don't have the real weapons to do it effieciently and they don't have a leader..why would the continue putting themselves in the line of a fire? As a tribute to their fallen leader? I can see that but how long until they have to realize that sadly horribly, she's still dead and the world does go on..

What do you guys thing..

Sorry for rambling..



[> Re: "Yes with an if/No with a but...." -- mundusmundi, 14:44:44 06/08/01 Fri

Great post, very reflective of some of my own thoughts ping-ponging around in my subconscious somewhere.

You touched on an issue that I think will be paramount early next season: potential disunity. Yes, we've seen this before, in B4, with the college stuff pulling apart the SG and then seeing them slowly brought back together. I don't mean disunity in that sense; emotionally, B's death will likely bring them closer. I mean it in the sense of them growing older and moving on to other things, what with the glue (i.e., Buffy) now gone. Assuming none of the SG watch the WB or read Entertainment Weekly, in their minds, her death is permanent. It would be understandable if they no longer wanted to "fight the good fight."

On the other hand, a Slayerless Sunnydale is a frightening notion. We may see B6 open with Vamps, Inc. ruling the roost, forcing the SG to take action. We may also see varying reactions from the core group -- Xander out of the game and Willow still in it, or vice versa. As we've often seen in the Buffyverse, if you refuse to take up the fight, the fight often comes to you.


[> "The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in it......." -- Rufus, 15:04:00 06/08/01 Fri

Despite the fact that Buffy died, The Gift reenforced the value and joy of life. When Buffy killed the vampire in the beginning of the show she was clearly burnt out by her obligations and was questioning the value of her "work". On the platform with Dawn, trying to decide what to do Buffy had her Epiphany, she figured out why her "work" was so valuable. Dawn is the flesh and bone representation of life, life that is worth living and preserving. When you battle monsters every day you begin to see the world as only containing monsters. Dawn is the embodiment of the humanity that Buffy has strived to protect but became disconnected from as a result of her work slaying, killing, destroying. Because of Buffy, Dawn valued the world enough to die to protect it. Because of Dawn, Buffy saw the value of life and her work. To have killed Dawn would have destroyed Buffy, to sacrifice herself for the chance of the best part of her, Dawn, to live gave Buffy peace. She understood her gift of death was for the best part of her, Dawn, humanity, to live.

Buffy: "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."

I think that the gang will continue as they are all each other has. The monsters won't go away because Buffy is dead, the gang knows that. But they also will have to live in this world where they have to go to school, work, live. It will be interesting to see if they do drift apart as a result of their grief. But they are first, family and if they do drift they will find their way back to each other. The Slayer may be gone but the battle with evil will continue as always.


[> [> Re: "The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in it......." -- The Godfather, 15:13:13 06/08/01 Fri

But will they see that they have paid enough for being on the front line and decide maybe it's both the time and their right to step back and away from every day duty..to maybe go to reserve status?



[> [> [> Re: "The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in it......." -- Rufus, 15:26:44 06/08/01 Fri

Sometimes there is no choice as to how long your service will be. If the monster activity increases so would their feeling of obligation. Remember, they are family who will someday have little ones of their own, they would feel the need to make the world a safer place for their future families. They have put in their time at the front lines but they also know that they may be the only ones that understand the nature of the threat in Sunnydale. Life isn't always fair.


[> [> [> [> Re: "The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in it......." -- The Godfather, 15:38:24 06/08/01 Fri

Obligation gets you dead and burnt out..I am obligated to keep working because I pay a huge rent but enjoy my peace and quiet but I am restless and dissatisfied with the work so it's likely that I make a few careless errors. My point is that it's not their burden and eventually they will realize that. They are still 20 year old kids..who could blame them if they wanted to step away and try an ordinary life?

-Shawn AIM?


[> [> [> [> [> WILLOW AND SPIKE -- cknight, 17:41:13 06/08/01 Fri

I think the new season will begin with Willow and Spike leading the charge, while Giles prepares to return home to England. I think in a twist he will actually leave before Buffy returns.

Spike will be watching over Dawn and doing most of the slaying to prove his continuing love for Buffy. Xander will spend a lot of time worrying just how far Willow has gone into the Dark Arts. He's going to try and Giles to help but Giles wants out of Sunnydale and will just leave. prehaps trying to take dawn with him. I think Giles is the only one Spike would allow Dawn to leave with. Spike, I think feels after himself Giles has the knowledge and forsight to truly watch over Dawn. YES...the SG are all growing up but they're still in the early twenties and are not ready to rise a child.

Some of you may say hey Willow and Tara could watch her... But I feel that Willow by mid-season will be the big bad this season. She's been calling on Dark Magic for a while now and you all know there's going to be a price to pay.

In the Middle of all this Buffy will be reborn.

If I'm right I hope someone buys me pint at the pub.


[> [> [> [> [> The speech at the end was real -- SingedCat, 19:39:31 06/08/01 Fri

This may enhance your enjoyment of the episode, Shawn--

Someone else may have fielded this, but the speech Buffy makes at the end is real-- they played it out of place for effect. She looks at the situation and decides to jump, Dawn tries to stop her, Buffy refuses--then there is a scene of Buffy talking to her sister-- you can't hear what she's saying. Then she turns and jumps-- and as she's dying, you're hearing what she said to Dawn.

She didn't die lost, Shawn. She figured it out. It was a resolution-- an act of love and hope, not despair. She resolved her life and her destiny and her love all in one swell foop, and she knew it would hurt the ones who loved her, but she had to do it-- the way some of us have to live our own lives even if it hurts.




[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Wisewoman, 18:26:00 06/08/01 Fri

*Should* the Scoobs keep fighting? I would say yes. What better role model could they have than their fallen friend? It may have seemed like a game to them back when Buffy disappeared for a while, but it's deadly serious now, and they all know that. Yes, with the passing of time and their increased maturity they, perhaps, have more to lose now, but surely that makes championing life all that more crucial?

During The Wish (S3) we got to see what life in Sunnydale would have been like had Buffy never arrived. Xander and Willow were vamped, and Giles and Oz (hmmmm, how did that happen?) led a gang of fearless vampire hunters. They did the best the could, but we could see that ultimately they would fail without Buffy. Now Oz is gone, but we have Spike, Anya, Tara, and Dawn instead--and Willow and Xander are not vamped and are much stronger in their own ways than they were back then. And they've had 2 more years of supporting Buffy through various battles to train and season them.

That's my $0.02 (Canadian) worth (which I think is actually a negative amount in American money!)


[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Wiccagrrl, 18:42:30 06/08/01 Fri

I don't see this as so much a "should" as "what will they feel compelled to do". Everyone reacts to loss differently. And it's going to be a combination of the reaction to Buffy's death and their feelings about fighting the good fight that are going to determine this. I think the three remaining core Scoobs are gonna have very different reactions.

I actually see Giles as being the first one to say "The hell with this" and decide the price is too high, and that it is just too painful to stay in Sunnydale and continue fighting the good fight now that Buffy's gone. I think it's likely he'll go back to England for a while. If he stays, it'll be out of concern for the others.

As for Willow, I think she's the most likely to continue fighting the fight because she feels it's the right thing to do- that she can make a true difference. Might be naive on her part, but that's my take on how she'll react. It might be a little about Buffy, but not in large part.

Xander, on the other hand, if he continues to slay/patrol will be all about Buffy. He's always been led by his heart when it comes to the slayer. He truly is the heart of the group. And I think this could be a real tension spot between him and his oh-so-practical fiance, who would probably going to be very concerned- feeling it's dangerous and pointless, especially without Buffy. And while that's probably true, I doubt that'd sit well with a heartbroken Xander.


[> [> Re: The need to fight the good fight -- Brian, 19:33:28 06/08/01 Fri

How you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Pa-ree? When you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks back. Knowing that there are things that really do go bump in the night will make the Scoobies continue the fight. It will be hard. There will be sacrifices, and pain, external and internal, will be with them constantly. But a life without the battle to do good would destroy them. Over the last five years they have lost their innocence, their naivete, but they have gained invaluable knowledge of the mystery and wonders of the nether world. They can not turn their backs on Sunnydale. They can not ignore the battle. They have taken up the Slayer's cause. There is no returning to an uninformed status quo; there is only the joy of battle and sudden death (or worse). You have to imagine them as embattled Sampsons. A smile on their lips, and a song in their hearts, as the walls come crashing down.


[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Trelane, 20:02:56 06/08/01 Fri

if you need an answer look no further than Gunn---he's never met a slayer, never been around one, and doesn't need one to fight the good fight. He and his crew and have been doing it pretty well by their selves.


[> Good post, Shawn. Not a ramble, well thought out. -- OnM, 22:18:49 06/08/01 Fri

Pretty tired now, so I won't comment, have to gather my thoughts first. Very thought-provoking, though.

Good to see you here again!


[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- change, 04:30:27 06/09/01 Sat

I know I should come up with some sort of deeply philosophical reason why the SG should or should not continue the fight, but that's not how my mind works. I'm too much of a pragmatist. I should probably find a "Everything Pragmatic about BtVS". Anyway, my pragmatic mind says that the SG has had to stop 6 world ending apocolypses in the last 5 years. All six times, they were they only ones there to stop it. The SG has to assume that a seventh one will be on the way next year, and if they aren't there to fight it, everyone will die, become food for some uber vampire, or some other horrible thing. For the SG, their choices are: Fight the forces of darkness and possibly die at the sweet young age of 20, or don't fight the forces of darkness and die at the sweet young age 21. Not much of a choice really.

So, they are doomed to carry on the fight until they die. Kinda depressing isn't it.


[> [> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Rufus, 13:51:03 06/09/01 Sat

It's a case of once your eyes are open, it's rather hard to close them again. This is the town that these people the SG live in and how could they look in the newspaper and see vague death reports, knowing what they really are, and not do something?


[> [> [> *Will* The Scoobs Keep Fighting-- -- SingedCat, 14:09:05 06/09/01 Sat

I guess it really depends on whether they were doing it because they thought it was a good thing to do, or more because the were Buffy's friends.

I just can't believe it was all about Buffy. Maybe that's why they started, but it's not why they've continued. As I recall even our relatively uninvolved Cordelia couldn't pass up her chance to make a difference, even after moving out of Sunnydale.

Remember when Willow was choosing colleges, and she said to Buffy she wanted to stay in Sunnydale? She said she had the grades to go anywhere, be anything, and this is what she wanted to do-- fighting evil was what she wanted to do, free choice.

Now before this year they might not have been able to continue, but now Willow is a powerful witch, even more so with Tara, and they've all worked together for years.

Now it's true Joss said the theme this coming year will be "Oh, grow up!" That is to say, the gang will be entering into adulthood, dealing with more adult problems than schoolwork. Xander and Anya will probably buy a house, Willow and Tara will move off-campus, Spike-- well, who knows, maybe he'll get a night job as a bouncer at the Bronze. (He can throw out anyone who's not human.;-)--they sure seem to need that..) So maybe in fact there will be a tension that way, as to whether they can or want to continue. But it seems to me the slayage aspect isn't just a kid secret-- it's deadly earnest, a public service, if you like.

But if I may take the logic from the other end of the leap-- at the end of the day, there's at least 2 more seasons. They're *going* to continue.


[> [> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Anthony8, 19:37:25 06/10/01 Sun

All along, BtVS has been a metaphor for the various stages of our lives. JW has said as much in the interviews that supplement the commercially available VHS tapes to date. In fact, at first, the show employed vampire slaying as a metaphor for fighting all the psychological (and physical) battles while trying to survive high school. Cliques, new friends, past mistakes, first loves, and all the geeky, painful awkwardness of getting by during post-adolescence were examined and confronted with each new episode in the first three seasons. The Slayer, the forces of evil, The Powers That Be, and all the various friends and acquaintances that came and went were projections of similar internal and external forces we encounter in our own lives. After all the Hero's Journey is really our own. The myth is supposed to resonate in our own lives and prompt us to take action rather than be spectators. It teaches us that while life is harsh, we have a choice to jump in head first and revel in the whole experience or hide. Either way, our destination is the same, the wormheap, and ultimately unimportant if we were asleep during the journey. As John Lennon once sang, "last night the wife said, 'oh boy when your dead, you don't take nothing with you but your soul'--think!"

As for whether they should continue The Fight, the answer is obvious. They have no choice because The Fight is as integrated into their lives as it was in Buffy's. It is their normality. Everything they've done in the past five years has made them who they are today, and any retreat into the world of the mundane would be temporary at best. Even were they to give up The Fight, at one point or another, one or more aspects of their past would come back to haunt them in the form of old enemies. No matter what we do in life, we never really get a clean slate.

One of the big lessons of Season 5 ('The Body') was that mortality is random and senseless. It can happen to anyone at any age with or without warning and without any aid from supernatural forces. My circle of friends in college had our first real brush with mortality when, during our sophomore year, one of our group died as the result of any extremely stupid accident. Up until that time, none of us, all under the age of 20, ever much thought of our own mortality. And yet there it was. To this day, news of the death, the funeral and the following academic year all seem like a strange dream. However, once you've lost your innocence you never quite view the world in the same way. You can live a life of denial or you can press on and use any lessons learned to fortify your personal arsenal so that you are better equipped to face the many battles life has in store for you, however long that may be. There really is no such thing as blissful ignorance.

A hero's journey is never easy. Remember, Buffy is not the only hero in the SG. Each member of the SG is on their own personal journey. Theirs is not a curse or a burden to carry. If they embrace their roles in The Fight, as we should ours, then its The Fight itself where the joy is experienced, not whether they (we) win or lose in the end. They've already won by joining in the battle.

Did that make any sense, or was it a babble? If a babble, maybe someone who gets the gist of what I'm saying could clarify for me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... should be interesting ...(spoilers for The Gift) -- John Burwood, 09:18:34 06/09/01 Sat

... said Doc as Buffy approached. He had expected Glory to approach after killing Buffy. He had prepared the portal for Glory to dive and split in two - Glory passing through to the hellfires of home, leaving her mortal meat sack (Ben) behind, and dead as far as Doc knew. But Buffy jumped instead. Did it split her, Replacement style, sending Slayer-Buffy through and leaving the mortal meat-sack (Buffy-Buffy) behind and dead? If Buffy's souland mind went through into hell with the SLAYER it would counterpoint Angel being sent to hell in B2 (very Joss-like) and provide an opening for a Buffyish character to return just as Angel did. Does this make sense? Any comments, suggestions, brickbats?


[> Re: ... should be interesting ...(spoilers for The Gift) -- cjc36, 09:29:55 06/09/01 Sat

I'm thinking--though Joss has denied it--that the Portal has something to do with her rebirth. What you said is as good a theory as any I've come across.

I'm wondering if he'll fake us all out and come up with something so off the wall we'll talk about it till the Christmas break (assuming B is back by the 2part UPN premere)


[> [> Re: ... should be interesting ...(spoilers for The Gift) -- Dedalus, 17:55:39 06/10/01 Sun

Well, that is a good theory. One of the problems is, we have no idea what happens to a soul once the body dies. We have Hell, but hell as an alternate dimension, not as a place you go to after you die. I was thinking about what Angel said, "The vampire gets your body, but it doesn't get your soul. That's gone."

But where? I can see Buffy making it to The Powers That Be versions of Vahalla or something, but I have no idea how it will come out in the end. We have ghosts and spirits in the Buffyverse, but I doubt there is any fixed afterlife. Dimensions make things more interesting ...

I like that thinking though.

New Good Guy -- ALLFORBUFFY, 16:05:01 06/08/01 Fri

After Giles leaves the rest of the gang gets a visit from a ex-watcher giles knows. Along with him is his protege who himself helps the gang find a way to bring buffy back. This guy is a necromancer: in short terms he has powers to raise the dead but that are close to buffy/willow combination but not as powerful. With combination of his magic and dawns special connection with buffy they bring her back. Also in this episode they have to fight a couple of demons who don't want to see the slayers return. Near the end of the episode they are all fighting in and near the magic shop to perform this life giving magic while hold off those demons and then buffy, spike, and the necromancer finishes them. After all that buffy is back and should return almost to normal? or should it?

James Marsters Interview -- Cynthia, 20:13:21 06/08/01 Fri

Found something I thought you all might enjoy.

James Marsters did a short interview at the Univ. of Adelaide in Australia yesterday (well their's anyway. I always get confused with time zones).

It's at www.adelaide.edu.au/5UV/buffy/

Note, he's speaking with his own accent, not Spike's.


[> Spike bites... -- Wisewoman, 22:25:21 06/08/01 Fri

...*sound* bites, that is. For all you Spike groupies...do you know you can download audio files of Spike's most memorable lines at www.spikespotting.com ? Just thought I'd mention it.

Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- OnM, 21:55:15 06/08/01 Fri


"Uhmmm, you've got kind of a dark side, don't you?"

"No darker than yours, Bruce."




One of the general guidelines that I set for myself when I first started doing this column was to try to avoid the obvious. This isn't always easy to do.

Just what makes a movie a 'classic' in the first place? Is it a timeless theme, or great writing, or talented actors? Is the cinematography striking, beautiful or audacious? Some conbination of the above, is what I would suspect that most moviegoers would venture, and they are right of course-- those are the obvious choices for a given work rising to classic status. What I personally look for, though, is something more than that, especially in the cinema of today.

From a technical standpoint, modern moviemaking has never been better. Compared to what our forefathers and foremothers worked with just a half-century ago, we have far, far better film, cameras, lights, processing technologies, editing machines, sound equipment, and on and on. Actors have a whole century's worth of talented predecessors whose work can be carefully studied, and so utilized to finely hone their own more contemporary craft.

We even have computer technology, the use of which could (possibly) present us with 'virtual actors', maybe in the not too distant future. Even if things never go that far-- after all, just because you could, doesn't mean you should-- all one has to do is watch a flick like *The Matrix* or *The Cell*, or even *The Legend of Sleepy Hollow* to see that cyber-cinema has changed what we expect from the film-going experience.

When I was in my late teens, and working at the food service at a local college, one of the perks that made up for the lousy pay, (besides the free food, that is ;) was the luxury of being able to hang out with talented and intelligent people. I'd learn cool things from just talking to them, just like I hang out and learn here, at this board, now. I have always had a fascination with photography, and an interest in trying it for myself. Since there were several guys who frequented our dining halls and coffee shop who were serious amateurs and/or semi-pros, I started showing them some snaps I had taken with my mother's old Polaroid. I was somewhat surprised in a rather pleasant fashion when they suggested I had some possible talent, and urged me to get a better camera, and see what I could do.

So started about a ten year hobby interest that I derived a great deal of enjoyment from. I did mostly black & white film, since I could develop and print it myself, which was even more fun than taking the shots! I bought books, some on technique, many more the works of the greats who had gone before-- Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, Ernst Haas, lots of others, old and new. I collected darkroom equipment and supplies. I pretty much had one hell of a good time.

Time marches on, and the drummer starts wishing for different tunes. I got involved in working a lot of long hours-- house, car to pay for, all that annoying stuff. The photography toy kind of got pushed into the background, finally settling onto an increasingly dusty shelf with my other hobby interests. It did leave me with one still-active aspect of its former presence, though-- I had learned how to 'see' things. See them, that is, in a way most people didn't. I saw light, shadow and color, form and texture, movement and stillness as more than a surface. Looking at the world through a lens made me aware of layers to reality.

Then I discovered movies. Oh, I had always watched them, ever since early childhood, mostly on TV to be sure. My folks weren't big-time movie-goers, although we had a cornucopia of wonderful old-timey downtown theaters in my hometown. (Torn down for the sake of 'progress' right around my pre-teen years, replaced by 'modern' concrete ugliness, parking lots and the occasional prosaic suburban muliplex). My interest grew because of a progression that started with this show on PBS called 'At The Movies', hosted by these two dudes from Chicago. An interesting idea, not one movie critic, but two. They'd review 3 or 4 current box-office releases, sometimes they'd agree, sometimes not. They eventually distilled their thoughts into a thumbs up/thumbs down evaluation of merit, but the discussions beforehand had a quality I hadn't witnessed before in movie-review land-- they were intelligent, and passionate. These guys didn't just do a 'Consumer Reports'-ish good/bad pass/fail schtick, they acted like they were discussing *art*. They began to introduce me to a 'Language of Cinema'. I started actually going out to movie theaters. I started collecting videotapes of movies from pay-cable services. I hung out with my friends (all 2 or 3 of them) and we talked for hours about Bergman's 'Scenes from a Marriage', Allen's 'Sleeper', Kubrick's '2001'.

Then my friends moved out of town-- like, several hundred miles out of town!-- and PBS dumped 'At the Movies', and I also started working long ridiculous hours for a long long time-- again. Back to watching flicks on pay cable again, pretty much until the late 80's, early 90's, when two things came together again. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert came back on the air in my locale, and they were not only doing there same-ol' way cool thang, they were excitedly talking up this thing called 'Laserdisc', and how much better it was than crappy old lo-fi VHS tapes. They were talking about movies being originally made in widescreen format, and how traditionally they were visually butchered to force-fit onto our very squarish TV screens.

Hummm, thought I. This bears investigating. And so I did, and then suddenly there was this thing being called 'home theater' that was showing up at the electronic trade shows. Surround sound, big screens, scan converters, data-grade video projectors, all sourced with the pristine visual quality and digital soundtracks of laserdisc. I came, I saw, I listened. And there it was-- light, shadow and color, form and texture, movement and stillness as more than a surface. Again. It was like going home to those glory days when I rambled the locality with camera in hand, seeing.

So you see, I have no real formal educational background in the study or appreciation of cinema. Things just sort of happened, as they sometime do. If you are reading this, and are thinking that 'This is all very interesting, and I even kinda like it, but I have *no* idea just *what the hell he's talking about*', this is OK. It isn't a requirement. It took me literally decades of learning by osmosis to get where I am now, which is still pretty ignorant compared to the people who really know this art. I don't worry about it, I just enjoy, and so should you. That's what it's all about.

Which brings us to this week's Classic Movie, which is a good example of how to learn by paying attention to the works of 'The Masters', since while he's still pretty young, I certainly consider him to be a master at his craft. Even when his work has flaws, as this film surely does, those flaws still leave you with a better experience than a 'perfect' but far lesser attempt at originality.

Comic books have been the inspiration for quite a few films in the past several years. Translating the 2 dimensional, 'still-frame' art of the graphic novel to the 24 frame/sec motion picture medium while still retaining the intent of the original is a challenge of the first order, and quite frankly, it often fails miserably. As you know, our beloved JW is doing the reverse at the moment, taking the movie-mode Buffyverse and reforming it in pen and ink. Early reports are that he is doing pretty well so far. Joss has stated his love for the comics on many an occasion, and he has a lot of creative kinsmen in the entertainment community who have made their obsession into reality, movie wise. One of those kinsmen, and an auteur of similar brilliance to our Joss, is the eminently original Mr. Tim Burton-- and among other things, Mr. Burton has a thing for Batman.

Tim made two Batman films, the first very good, the second one better. That film, *Batman Returns*, is both a traditional honoring of the Batman legacy, and a new twist that changes the conventions of comics as movies. It's visually/stylistically brilliant, and the story-- another visit to the theme of the inherent duality that exists in us all-- is layered on top of a statement on the nature of gender roles, and of the duality of good and evil in society as a whole.

Normally, one expects that a film about Batman will primarily involve, well, Batman. Burton cheerfully turns this convention on it's head, and uses the Batman character (played here by Michael Keaton) as a mirror to reflect the other major players in the film, who actually are what the story is about. One, the evil Penguin (Danny DeVito in some of the freakiest makeup in the entire Burton oeuvre), is a case study in monster from the id, while the other, Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), could be what a monster of the superego might look like if there is such a thing.

DeVito and Peiffer pretty much steal the show here, and Burton seems to want it that way. Both villians are intelligent, a prerequisite for an involving story. The supposed plot-- the efforts of Penguin, Catwoman and 'the odious' Max Schreck (Christopher Walken), Gotham City's criminal entrepreneur par excellance, all attempt to do in the caped crusader-- is pretty thin, but the plot isn't the point. We pretty much know that Batman will eventually defeat Max and the Penguin.

Catwoman, on the other hand, or maybe paw, is another matter entirely. She didn't start life as a criminal, in fact she was the victim of attempted murder. She mostly wants revenge against Max Schreck, the responsible party in pushing her more 'normal' alter ego, Selena Kyle, out of a rather high office window. Her subsequent transformation into the Catwoman persona allows her the freedom to tap into her darker side, and the rage boiling away there. (Leading to that immortal line, "Life's a bitch, now so am I!") Batman turns into both a desire for passion and a passionate reminder of her duality when he reveals his own to her in a number of gradual steps as the movie progresses. In the end, we are left with ambiguity, though resolution is suggested at-- perhaps in the sequel that has yet to appear?

The sequels that *did* appear were not directed by Burton, and if ever there was a contrast in how to make a comic charcacter come to life-- and how emphatically *not* to do it-- feel free to study aas much as you wish. I've seen *Batman Returns* about 7 or 8 times by now, it's still a classic, painted by a master, and I still manage to see and feel new things with it. I was barely able to even sit through the sound and fury, but signifying nothing, sequels even once. Max dreck, methinks.

Such is not the case, nor is it ever, when Burton visits Gotham. It's probably been a while since you've seen a good catfight. Now's your chance.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



Technical erotica:

*Batman Returns* is available on DVD. The film was released in 1992, running time is 2 hours and 6 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, and is presented as such on the DVD. Sound is Dolby Digital 5.1. The musical score is by regular Burton right-hand man Danny Elfman, and is his typically intense atmospheric/dynamic work. (The score plays throughout nearly the entire film). The screenplay is by Daniel Waters. Production designer is Bo Welch, and director of photography is Stefan Czapsky. Additional acting talent includes Michael Gough, Pat Hingle and Michael Murphy.


OK, went on a little long this week, but s**t happens! I did want to take the time to point out that I'm *not* an expert on this stuff, I'm just a passionate amateur, and provide a little backstory on how I got that way. I'm hoping this admission will give perspective to all those of you who sometimes don't 'get it'. This is cool... I aim to entertain first, educate maybe second or third. Mostly, I educate myself by writing this column, and taking you all along for the ride while I do it.

Speaking of which, I am simply overwhelmed by your many positive thoughts about what I do here. I am taking into consideration some of your suggestions, and I'm already conjuring up some hopefully interesting material to keep you occupied cinema-wise throughout the summer months. Next week, I'm planning a really bizarre little turn-- I'm going to *not* recommend a really bad, soul-less movie, and use it to point you to one of my favorite DVD releases of the past year instead.

Stay tuned-- and Thanks Again!


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Rufus, 22:08:35 06/08/01 Fri

I've actually seen this one.....can't believe I remember it...of course with that bitch line who could forget it. When you said you were chosing this movie with Aquitaine and I, I thought, hmmmmmmm Oh dear lord he is going to pick something like "Dead Ringers". But you picked a nice dark movie with cats in it. I find it interesting you picture the superego as the Catwoman. Our fixation with cats must be doing something to your mind.


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- OnM, 22:33:16 06/08/01 Fri

The 'Life's a bitch' line is the one people remember, but my very, very favorite Catwoman scene in the film is the one where Batman and Penguin have just finished their 'things change' exchange, and they hear this strange sound, and turn to see Catwoman/Selena doing the tumbling run towards them with Shreck's Dept. Store in the background. She finishes the run, stands up, breathing hard at first, then calms herself, staring right at them.


A beat, long enough for her to blink her eyes, and Shreck's explodes in a giant fireball behinds her.

Just one word, and a world of flaming implications. Language of cinema, indeed.

G'nite, Rufus-- take care. Back tomorrow!



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 22:38:38 06/08/01 Fri

Loved the "bitch" line. One of my favourite moments is when she smashes the neon sign in her apartment so that, instead of "Hello There," it says, "Hell here!"

Catwoman is right up there with Ripley, Sarah Connor, and Mace (Strange Days) IMHO ;o)


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Andy, 06:09:43 06/09/01 Sat

Heh, I've got to agree with that. While I'm not a huge fan of Batman Returns, it is my favorite of the live action Batman films precisely because of Michelle Pfeiffer's performance. Actually, I loved the whole defacing of her pink apartment, like when she mashed her cute stuffed animals into the garbage disposal. It still makes me laugh that parents groups actually protested the film because of that image :)


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Andy, 06:15:34 06/09/01 Sat

> OK, went on a little long this week, but s**t happens! I did want to take the time to point out that I'm *not* an expert on this stuff, I'm just a passionate amateur, and provide a little backstory on how I got that way. I'm hoping this admission will give perspective to all those of you who sometimes don't 'get it'. This is cool... I aim to entertain first, educate maybe second or third. Mostly, I educate myself by writing this column, and taking you all along for the ride while I do it.

That's okay. Speaking as someone who spent a couple of years at film school, I can assure you that that's basically how you learn about film (mostly because they don't teach you anything at film school that you can't figure out for yourself) :) Barring actually using a film camera, nothing compares to actually watching movies and pondering them afterward. Or, in the case of dvd's, listening to commentaries helps too :)


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Aquitaine, 10:18:10 06/09/01 Sat

*** I saw light, shadow and color, form and texture, movement and stillness as more than a surface. Looking at the world through a lens made me aware of layers to reality... ***

That was a lovely and quite poetic feature, OnM.

I really enjoyed "Batman Returns" because of Michael Keaton's absolutely mind-bogglingly restrained portrayal of what *could* be a very static character. He conveyed the complexity and ambiguity of Batman. None of his successors have even come close to equaling him. And, of course, there is Michelle Pfeiffer's stand-out performance. I also have a clear remembrance of nightmare/faery tale landscapes/cityscapes...

Being a Canadian Demon Cat Worshipper , I believe that the movie really is all about Pfeiffer's character (her clarity of vision, her strength, her desperation, her pain) in the long run and I have to admit to having identified with her in a way that made me a bit uneasy. Certainly the 'drama' of the film revolves around her as a foil for Batman (games people play and the roles they adopt to survive) more than around the 'will Batman defeat Penguin/Walden:)'...


Question for you OnM: Can you explain how Tim Burton creates what I call the 'blue sepia' look in this films? Does that even make sense to you? LOL.

- Aquitaine


[> [> Re: 'Blue sepia' -- OnM, 20:02:02 06/09/01 Sat

I don't know for sure, but usually the director and/or cinematographer will make a choice of a particular film stock and processing in order to produce a certain look. The subtle color shadings you describe are likely due to this.

This has been done in other films, *Three Kings* is one that comes to mind. I'd have to cue up my DVD copy of this and find the part of the commentary track where they describe exactly what was done, but the visual look of the film was very deliberate and done through manipulating the film chemical processing during development, as I recall.

Of course, you can also use computer technology to impart pretty nearly any look you want, but this process is still more expensive at this point than chemical manipulation of the film stock.

Glad you liked my choice this week. See, you were probably concerned I'd pick something weird, and of course I did, but pretty conventionally weird, as Rufus said, a 'nice dark movie about cats'. (~grin~)

So you are unsure whether some of my prior picks are a bit too intense for your sensibilities? 's'OK, you go where you want to. A nice safe choice would be *L.A. Story*, I think you would find it extremely clever and charming. Trust me on this!

Thanks also for your kind words, they are much appreciated.



[> [> [> Re: 'Blue sepia' -- Aquitaine, 08:31:33 06/10/01 Sun

Thank you for the information, luv. Big kiss.

To my credit, and having become employment-challenged about a month ago, I had some time this week to seek out the films you recommended with the full intention of renting Altered States and LA Story. However, my newfangled video store had none of the films. NONE! They didn't even have The Road Warrior. The pimply youth behind the cash looked at me like I was from Mars and, like, totally ancient and asked: "What kinda movie is it?" Sheesh. "You know... Mel Gibson... action-adventure... he's still alive. Makes movies sometimes..."


------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Returning" theories-- yours & mine -- SingedCat, 16:53:46 06/09/01 Sat

It's clear that when it comes to Buffy's resurrection everybody's got their own theory. With the understanding that no one else can get in the Big J's head, I'm taking a moment to put forth my concepts and thoughts on the matter.

First off, I don't think it will be initiated by any member of the gang (except *maybe* Spike, but I don't think so). They knew this day was coming , October will find them dealing.

That leaves the idea of initiation from an outside source, possibly info from the Watcher's Council (I hate calling them the WC..), the PTB(via Cordyvision? Joss didn't encourage much crossover hope...), or information discovered by Giles or Willow (or Spike?) while bent on another task. My pet idea is that, dying at the gate between several hundred universes, her soul is in a state of flux, unable to move on. Any such information that makes it to the gang will have a galvanizing effect, I imagine.

It does stike me that, as suggested before, a trip back in time to deliver a well-timed shove to Doc would pretty much do the trick, but that would negate Buffy's sacrifice, her epiphany and her closure. I'm forced to conclude that this will not happen; Joss is too fond of what he did with that arc, and rightly so. While we have Doc here, let me say that I would love to see a return of Joel Gray as that wonderfully creepy bibliophile, but I have to agree with the idea (Not the tone!) of the guy down the list there who said there was no way he'd be the Big Bad next year.

The Watcher's Council may have a bit to do with the matter--they're the ones down with all things Slayerish. They may want Buffy over Faith, since Faith is in rehabilitation. (Or would they see it that way? Do they even know what their position on Faith is?...)

And/Or there may be a culminating need, or event, generated by the influx of the season6 Big Bad,-- which is my best guess.

OK, your turn-- anyone else out there with a pet theory they've been to shy to share yet?


[> A return of a Vampire Riley doing resurrection for revenge on B. -- Akdov Dik, 02:11:30 06/10/01 Sun
In S6 will Riley or Oz make any kind of a return??? -- Emcee003, 01:05:24 06/09/01 Sat


[> Re: In S6 will Riley or Oz make any kind of a return??? -- Q, 03:13:36 06/09/01 Sat

I pray to God I never see Riley again. Thank you.


[> [> Re: In S6 will Riley or Oz make any kind of a return??? -- cknight, 07:59:50 06/09/01 Sat

I hope Oz returns at some point. Riley? I can take or leave. I did think he was a good character though. Everyone's saying Xander is the everyman on the show but I felt Riley was truly the everyman because even though he captured or destroyed monsters...he just though they were genetic offshoots. It was interesting watching through his eyes as he discovered just how big the world of the supernatural is


[> [> [> It's my understanding that both Green and Blucas have been making movies.... -- Rosemary, 09:07:17 06/09/01 Sat

and are too busy to schedule in some Buffy time.


[> [> I agree, unless he returns as Riley Vampire. Wot do u think?? -- Emcee003, 10:27:07 06/09/01 Sat

More "Joss speaks" stuff -- Scout, 05:26:35 06/09/01 Sat

Apologies if this has already been posted, but JW has been talking to IGN Sci-Fi Online, at




Joss has intriguing things to say about next season's developments on both Buffy and Angel. He also gives a bit of insight into how an idea might start out one way but mutate into something altogether different by the time it hits the screen (the example given being the plan to make Tara half-demon originally but instead giving her some weird family issues). Altogether an enjoyable glimpse into the great one's head.

New slayer -- Virgill Reality, 06:41:53 06/09/01 Sat

I was intrigued by Godfather's posting below about whether or not the Scoobies should keep fighting now the Buffy is gone. I realise I'm probably a bit late to be jumping onto this bandwagon and that all that can be said on the issue has pretty much been said, but...

Has it slipped everyone's mind that now Buffy is gone, a new slayer will have been called? When Buffy died at the end of season 1, she was dead only for a matter of minutes before Kendra was summoned by the Powers. Going on this, it can be assumed that a new slayer will be in combat form by the time S6 starts, and as we all know, all slayers nowadays are led in some form or other to Sunnydale, the Hellmouth.

Faith was given a warm welcome into the Scooby gang when she appeard mid-S3, but I think introducing a new slayer to the group in the aftermath of Buffy's death would be a very volatile situation indeed. We all remember the frosty reception Wesley got when he was appointed as Sunydale's watcher for the simple reason that his sole purpose of being there was to replace Giles... and remember, Giles was still walking, talking, alive! Think how the gang would react to a Buffy replacement! And as a LEADER too!

I suppose it all depends on whether or not Joss feels he is introduced enough characters into the Scoobies, but you never know. Given that Joss must be bound by his own central rules, I think it might be safe to assume we will see a brand new slayer *sometime* during S6.

Granted, I am making a lot of assumptions here, such as the prospect that we will actually get to see this new slayer before Buffy is "reborn," but it would make for some interesting storyline, do you not think?



[> Re: New slayer -- LadyStarlight, 06:47:19 06/09/01 Sat

Just a question, wouldn't Faith have to die to call a new slayer?


[> [> Re: New slayer -- Wisewoman, 08:39:57 06/09/01 Sat

I think we kinda hashed this out some time ago...wasn't the deal that Kendra was called when Buffy (briefly) died. When Kendra died, Faith was called. This leaves Buffy out of the loop, so to speak, and her (second) death shouldn't trigger a new slayer, but Faith's *first* death should? Maybe that's why Faith is still alive and in jail in LA, even though ED is off having a burgeoning film career. Though we may never see her again, her continuing presence makes it unnecessary to call another slayer.


[> [> [> Re: New slayer -- Virgill Reality, 09:35:48 06/09/01 Sat

**Maybe that's why Faith is still alive and in jail in LA, even though ED is off having a burgeoning film career. Though we may never see her again, her continuing presence makes it unnecessary to call another slayer.**

I don't understand your logic. Now I don't pretend to be any expert on the Buffyverse, I leave that to Masquerade, but as I understand it: when a slayer dies, another is called. The books say there is only meant to be one slayer, but Buffy's death screwed the whole thing up, so now there are two. When Kendra died, Buffy's "continuing presence" didn't stop the Powers from calling Faith, so I don't see any reason why Buffy's second death should stop them from calling another to replace her.


[> [> [> [> Re: New slayer -- Wiccagrrl, 11:28:09 06/09/01 Sat

Pretty sure Joss has said that the Slayer line now goes through Faith. My take is that Buffy has used up her "one slayer dies, the next one's called" clause. I don't think another will be called.


[> Re: New slayer -- Malandanza, 13:25:47 06/09/01 Sat

"Has it slipped everyone's mind that now Buffy is gone, a new slayer will have been called? When Buffy died at the end of season 1, she was dead only for a matter of minutes before Kendra was summoned by the Powers. Going on this, it can be assumed that a new slayer will be in combat form by the time S6 starts, and as we all know, all slayers nowadays are led in some form or other to Sunnydale, the Hellmouth."

"Faith was given a warm welcome into the Scooby gang when she appeard mid-S3, but I think introducing a new slayer to the group in the aftermath of Buffy's death would be a very volatile situation indeed. We all remember the frosty reception Wesley got when he was appointed as Sunydale's watcher for the simple reason that his sole purpose of being there was to replace Giles... and remember, Giles was still walking, talking, alive! Think how the gang would react to a Buffy replacement! And as a LEADER too!"

While it has already been pointed out that Joss has said that the slayer line now descends from Faith exclusively, this does not preclude the possibility that a new slayer will enter the show. Consider that Faith is locked away in prison without any weapons, without friends and without any place to flee. the WC has tried to kill her before -- if they choose to do so again, Faith will be more vulnerable than she has ever been before. Evil creatures wanting the slayer dead might also find an imprisoned slayer easier to handle. If ED chooses not to return to Buffy/Angel, the writers may just kill her off to add a new slayer to the series.

I'm not sure a new slayer would automatically find herself in a leadership role (the slayer was never supposed to be a leader -- she was supposed to blindly follow her watcher's orders). All the Scoobies are more experienced. A 16-year old girl coming to terms with vampires and demons might allow herself to be guided by these older and wiser people (and might be a little intimidated by meeting two experienced witches and an ex-demon). From the very beginning, Buffy had the weight of the world on her shoulders -- she had to come up with the plans and make the difficult decisions. Any mistake by Buffy would have meant, not just her own death, but the deaths of her closest friends. The new slayer would be told what to do and would be rescued when she made a mistake. As for a frosty reception from the Scoobies, I think the opposite would be true -- the slayer would not be a replacement for a disgraced friend, but a scared and timid little girl in need of friendship and guidance -- and a reminder of their larger than life heroine, Buffy.

But would the WC place a new slayer with the Scoobies and Giles in Sunnydale? Their agreement to reinstate Giles was an agreement with Buffy -- she's dead, so why do they need Giles? Perhaps they will honor their agreement, in letter, since they are English Gentlemen, but I doubt that Giles will ever see active service again. As for the Scoobies, they are uncontrollable. Better a dozen slayers die early, futile deaths than allow a single slayer to be misled. So, unless Dawn becomes the new slayer (which would indicate so sort of genetic predisposition to be a slayer), I doubt we'll see any new blood with the Scoobies or Giles.

A more interesting group dynamic would be to have Faith return, penitent, to the fold and try to work with the group. Buffy & Angel were the only people who gave Faith any sympathy (Willow hates her with as vindictive a passion as we have seen from her, Xander has the sex issues, Anya isn't likely to warm up to her, Giles was willing to let the WC deal with her, and Faith made a very bad impression on Tara). Think of the resentment of having Faith replace Saint Buffy...

Family Redefined? (With Apologies to The Sopranos) -- mundusmundi, 08:43:02 06/09/01 Sat

First, thanks to those below for the links to the Joss interviews. One in particular caught my attention -- his comments on the inspiration for "Family." Joss mentions that the point of the episode was to show the families we create for ourselves, that true families are about "more than blood." (Not his exact words, but that's the gist.)

This is an interesting comment, particularly when compared to what seems to be the theme of "The Gift," which is all about the importance of blood (and blood, blood, and more blood). If we analyze these two threads t/out the entire season, on one hand A) the claim that blood doesn't matter, and B) the claim that blood matters above all (energy-orbed sister or not), what are we to make of this apparent contradiction? Moreover, is Joss now saying that blood ties matter most? Or, is this just a good example of the show reflecting the messy paradoxes of life? (I'm geared toward the last, but other thoughts happily welcome.)


[> Re: Family Redefined? (With Apologies to The Sopranos) -- cjc36, 09:10:20 06/09/01 Sat

An example of "Blood mattering": Buffy tells all the Scoobies she'll stop (kill?) anybody who tries to hurt Dawn.

Not mattering: Willow caring for Tara/All of the Scoobies willing to die to stop the end of the world.

The reason "blood" mattered so much in "The Gift" was to underline the fact Buffy now realized Dawn *was* in fact her kin (child, sister, her own humanity personified). Buffy died right after she realized Dawn's legitimacy as her own. "They made her out of me, Giles."

Which to me makes "The Gift" all the more touching.


[> [> Re: Family Redefined? (With Apologies to The Sopranos) -- mundusmundi, 12:41:32 06/11/01 Mon

Well said. Though here's another question: Would Buffy have saved Dawn if she wasn't a part of her? Or if it was Xander or Willow's blood? Are there any limitations to this notion of "family?"


[> [> [> Re: Family Redefined? -- OnM, 09:20:01 06/13/01 Wed

This is a great, and probably unanswerable question. One difference I see that could have some bearing on any conjecture is that Buffy saw Dawn as an innocent.

By this, I mean that Dawn had absolutely no choice in being 'The Key', it was a duty thrust upon her by others. This resonates with Buffy for several reasons, but of course the main one being that she found herself in exactly the same position-- she never actively chose to be the Slayer.

The SG on the other hand, she tends to see as 'soldiers' in the battle against evil, but soldiers who have *enlisted*. They *choose* to fight beside her, and willingly. Go way back to S1, *Never Kill a Boy...*, when Buffy decides to deal Owen out of the loop, because he doesn't truly understand what's involved in associating himself with her cause-- he's just an adrenaline junkie who doesn't really understand that the danger is real, and often fatal. He expects the roller coaster ride to end happily, not plummet into the hellmouth. The SG understands this, so they aren't innocent in the way that Dawn is, or was.

Scoobies dealing with Buffy's return -- cjc36, 09:23:25 06/09/01 Sat

How will The Scoobies react when Buffy is back, alive and in their lives? I'm thinking, and Joss has said as much, that it will be awkward and weird and not as welcoming of a homecoming as one would think.

After my own father died years ago, I remember an emotional 'lift' happening about three months afterwards. I had finally accepted his death, still missed him and dreamed about him, but realized that I was still alive and that was the way life is. At this period, when I dreamed about him, they were nightmarish-I knew my dad was gone and what was in the dreams shouldn't be there.

If story time stays close to 'real' time, it will be about three or four months after Buffy's death when she comes back. Okay, how does one react? If the awkwardness in "Dead Man's Party" happened after Buffy just left town, think about how torn and angry and sad and difficult the emotions will be when Buffy returns. They've already mourned for her! Perhaps they have no tears left to cry over her next death, and that would be my own reaction if I were a Scooby. On the surface, I'd be glad to see my friend again, but I've just been forced to deal with a world that-sad as it may be-should never contain my friend anymore. Now I have to 'reset' these emotions and fear letting my guard down and letting her into my heart again as a living person, only to have to grieve all over again in some future month of May.



[> Re: Scoobies dealing with Buffy's return -- mundusmundi, 12:12:18 06/09/01 Sat

"Dead Man's Party" may be the most blistering episode I've seen, with Xander and Buffy nearly coming to blows the peak intensity point. The difference there, of course, was that she chose to leave when she didn't have to, neglecting her mother, friends and responsibilities. In a sense, she also *chose* to leave at the end of "The Gift," but it was a choice with very few options. (The selflessness vs. selfishness of the act has been debated in other threads, so I'll avoid that here.) Certainly I don't see her friends reacting to her like they did in DMP. But you raise some interesting questions about their adjustment to B's return, not to mention her own.


[> [> Re: Scoobies dealing with Buffy's return -- SingedCat, 16:10:36 06/09/01 Sat

Very well put, cjc! I don't think a lot of people are giving that enough thought-- and I'm pretty suire Joss is. I agree, the reunion won't be as teary as they thought it would be-- I bet there'll be at least one episode (possibly a small arc) dealing with the fact that, well, no one's dealing. I bet there will be some serious seperation for a while, I think especially from Xander, and second from Giles.

That's my $.02.

Symbolic Look at 'Buffy' fifth season; Spoilers; Long: Part One of Three -- Age, 10:11:33 06/09/01 Sat

This posting looks at some of the symbolism of this year's 'Buffy.' Spoilers. It is Long and in Three Parts. Spoilers also for part of the 'Angel' arc. Part One.

The big bads are metaphorical representations of what's going on with the Scooby gang, but especially with Buffy. The use of metaphor in the series is meant to suggest the deconstruction of childhood myth, (even patriarchal fairy-tale myth), giving a metaphorical content to imagery that children take literally. For example, Glory and Ben represent three things for Buffy:

firstly, the split psyche; Buffy attempts to repress her own mortality/fertility/kinship, and splits herself off symbolically into Dawn, at the beginning of the season, the girl Buffy believes she can remain, having been made aware of her mortality, metaphorically, by licking Dracula's blood in ep one;

secondly, illusions or myths that Buffy is contemplating(this is one reason why Ben and Glory occupy the same space, this is symbolic of Buffy's conflict over how to run away from her own fertility/mortality; also the conflict is between Buffy's thought of whether to deny her sexuality completely(the patriarchal way) or give into it completely(Glory, the beast's way.);

finally, the animal instinct responses to the notion of death which is inherent in Buffy's fertility/kinship etc: to either fight or flee: Glory is the predator instinct, to become the consummate predator, powerful enough to defeat even death and be the immortal child; while Ben is the herd animal which flees into the crowd, assuming a career(it is this fleeing into the crowd of career people that would keep Buffy from having a baby, hence denying her sexuality/fertility and therefore mortality.) Ben also as med intern represents the fight against death as an externalized enemy.

The dichotomy between Buffy/Dawn and Ben/Glory is thus between the acceptance of the concealed fertility/mortality/kinship which Buffy has repressed in Dawn(the key is hidden) out of fear of death, and those childhood myths(Ben/Glory) that we can live forever and be looked after as Glory is, or simply live for oneself as Ben seeks to do.

If Buffy chooses either Ben's or Glory's way she will lose two things: the human race because the next generation will not be born(the link will be severed); or she will lose her own humanity by giving into her slayer/predatory or herd animal instincts for self preservation. By giving up Dawn or not protecting her, Buffy will give up both the human race and her own humanity, which Dawn represents as the key, the reproductive link, and as an individual human being. This is why the apocalypse would turn everything to demon/animal. Dawn starts off as the illusion that Buffy can stay a girl forever, but she becomes, as Buffy takes on the mother role, and starts to accept her own mortality/fertility/kinship more 'real' until at the end of the season finale, she comes to symbolize reality and wholeness and life and the next generation and the individual.

(Note that when Buffy learns from the monk that Dawn is the key, he is sitting by a link fence symbolizing the reproductive links in the chain of the human race and our interconnectedness. The dagon's sphere in that same ep represents wholeness and the womb, hence Buffy's full nature and female fertility which she's repressed because that also would mean that Buffy is mortal. When Buffy finds out that Dawn is the key, she is wearing a top that has a skull on it to symbolize her own mortality. In ep two Dawn laments that no one knows the 'Real Me' because Buffy has repressed her own kinship/fertility/mortality and it gets represented as the Key(the link) which Buffy later uncovers as what she's repressed begins to emerge from her subconscious.)

The season arc has been about the movement from illusion/childhood myth as symbolized by the rewrite of history, the sister Buffy doesn't have, to a state of reality, where the barrier between opposites has been deconstructed, black and white becoming gray.

Buffy has been divided against herself, trying to fight a particular manifestation of her animal nature: mortality/fertility. Buffy doesn't defeat Glory because she's really fighting an aspect of herself she can't escape.

The 'Angel' arc is very similar in that the title character is divided against himself, ashamed of his animal nature because of his past; and, I think that the two series' arcs are connected, and that each week their episodes are coordinated with each other for content, such that they are similar or share major elements in common as the two title characters share a similar journey: for example, both Buffy and Angel move into premises representing their problems at the end of their ep twos; or the mother figures of both shows, Darla and Joyce undergo 'operations' to clear their heads, one of humanity, the other of death, becoming the very things the title characters are trying to be rid of, the vampire, and later, death as the aneurysm kills Joyce. However, I'm not getting into this in this posting.

Buffy, out of fear of death, has externalized her own mortality as the vilified other, the enemy that she thinks she can destroy. She comes to accept her animal nature, i.e. dying to make way for the next generation. The split psyche and the fusion into one, the two becoming one is the central motif. It is the deconstruction of the binary opposition between the valued good and devalued bad as Buffy comes to accept all of herself. The split psyche and/or idea of splitting in two gets expressed in the 'Buffy' arc as: Buffy/Dawn, Buffy/Joyce as two mother figures; the two Xanders, Buffy's two suitors, Riley and Spike; Anya and Willow's fight; the split between Watcher's Council and Scoobies; Ben and Glory.; Tara and Willow towards the end; Buffy/Buffybot.

The fusion of these characters and the deconstruction of opposites are the main thrust of the arc: the two Xanders get put back together, with an allusion to the Star Trek episode in which the 'good' Kirk and the 'bad' Kirk are put back together following a transporter malfunction. If nothing else this allusion sums up the theme of the arc. The good and the bad need each other to be human and we must accept both in us because they are not really good and bad at all, but simply different aspects of our whole nature. In this episode the two Xanders think they are saving Anya from a demon(from the vilified externalized other) when in fact they are really saving her from each other. Hence the deconstruction of the binary opposition.

The two Xanders get back together: two become one; Riley leaves, and so Buffy's suitors become one, Spike; Joyce dies, and the two mother figures become one, Buffy; Ben and Glory fuse together to represent that their ways are really the same, predator and herd animal; Anya and Willow fight and try to split up Xander, but he doesn't pick one or the other, the two become one; Buffy gets the Scoobies together with the WC; Willow and Tara fight, then get back together; Xander proposes to Anya in the season finale, symbolically the two becoming one; the unicorn symbol seen when Dawn is around is a fusion of Buffy the slayer(horn/stake) and animal, the two become one; the Buffybot gains more of Buffy's character and then dies, the two becoming one, ie Buffy; Buffy dies in a cross position representing the two become one; Buffy dies leaving Dawn to symbolize her, thus the two become one.

In fact if you notice the table the Scoobies sit at in the magic shop is a combination of two circles, one within the other, representing the idea of the two become one. The central circle, lit up, represents wholeness as well. It is also, like the dagon's sphere a symbol of wholeness and the womb, female sexuality/fertility(and this is why the table, womb, is housed within the shop that symbolizes mortality, as all the other shopkeepers have died: fertility and mortality are one. This is why the dagon's sphere is associated with discovering that Dawn is the Key(the key represents Buffy's fertility/mortality that she's tried to deny, and has externalized.) Incidentally the magic shop also has a death mask on one of the walls. It is the place of death, symbolizing Buffy's mortality which she moves into at the end of ep two to symbolize her concern with death.

The ultimate fusion in the 'Buffy' arc takes place at the end of the season finale. Buffy fuses with the undefeated symbolic aspect of Glory(her intention to open the portal is not thwarted, therefore she remains in a limited sense undefeated, as she has done throughout the arc to symbolize the idea that Buffy's fighting against herself.) This undefeated aspect of the beast, Glory's intention is, of course, the journey; it is the journey of death(the mortal, animal part of ourselves we cannot escape) which Buffy takes willingly so that the next generation may have its time, and so that the human race may continue(Buffy's choice humanizes what would simply be the act of an animal. This is contrasted to the death of the two slayers who do die like animals slaughtered by a predator(ie a human being who has given into his animal instincts, his humanity killed off. I see vampires also as perpetual teenagers, symbolizing the desire to escape life and death by staying forever young. They are the adolescent rebellion against the natural course of life and death.)

End of Part One.


[> Re: Symbolic Look at 'Buffy' fifth season; Spoilers; Long: Part Two of Three -- Age, 10:17:57 06/09/01 Sat

Part Two: Spoilers for Fifth Season 'Buffy.' Part of the undefeated aspect of Glory's intention is the Key, and Buffy fuses with it too(thus an aspect of Glory and Dawn fuse, two becoming one: animal symbol(the beast, Glory) and fertility/mortality/kinship become one.) In ep one Buffy tasted the blood of Dracula; this represented three things: death, as Drac was physically made up pale to represent Buffy's mortality; kinship/family, as he stated that he and she were of the same root; and fertility as the blood that Drac would have inside him would be female in origin by his reputation as seducer of women, and because as symbol of the male dominant fear of female sexuality as an emasculating force, Drac would suck out women's sexuality/fertility in sexual conquest in order to conquer them before they, the women, conquer him with feelings. Male dominated male/female relationships are simply power struggles.

Thus, this is the blood associated with menstruation, with female fertility/sexuality. It is repeated in the clothing that Glory wears, mostly red; it is repeated in the allusion to the 'Wizard of Oz' in the titles 'There's No Place Like Home' and 'Spiral'(tornado) (as this film centres on the journey from girl to woman through the menstrual symbol of the ruby slippers) when Buffy finds out that Dawn is the key or when, like Dorothy Gail, Buffy tries to run away ; and is seen in the Little Red Riding Hood name that Spike calls Dawn when she finds out she's the key and in the blood that we see when she comes back to ask if she is the key. It is therefore the blood of fertility, of menstruation that is being released into the portal in the season finale to open it up, and which Buffy becomes one with, accepting all of herself, accepting her fertility, kinship, and mortality(it's all about blood) accepting but not giving into her animal nature, the beast that Buffy cannot defeat because its part of her.

(Note Drac does not stay dead when Buffy stakes him at the end of the first ep to begin the idea of Buffy not being able to defeat her 'enemy' which is really herself(Drac as animal becomes Glory the beast.). Also ep one starts off with the carefree childhood days of frolicking on the beach, the period of innocence before the fall into the knowledge of fertility/kinship/mortality, before we fully realize that our role in the reproductive chain of the human race means we have to sacrifice ourselves in death as Buffy does in the season finale. We cannot escape it; Buffy realizes this at the end, and makes her death her own(which it is anyway), part of her, not the vilified, repressed other, but the gift that she as human brings to the next generation...she humanizes it through her choice.

In fact using Drac in the first place is an allusion to the past in which men dominated society and women's sexuality was feared as an emasculating force. The vampire 'penetrates' the woman, sexual conquest, before she can get him to have feelings for her, drinking her blood to symbolize that he's drained her power over him, ie female sexuality and blood are paired, hence the draining of women's sexuality because it's a threat to male dominance and because it is a reminder that men are mortal, that they are only half of a sexual partnership; and to symbolize that he has drained the selfhood(life) out of her.)

This theme of female sexuality is the reason for the dichotomy between male and female characters: Ben and the Knights, the males, represent the herd mentality. This mentality would allow the predator to take the weaker members of the herd while the individual is safe looking out only for himself in the crowd; this can be generalized to mean not looking after children or ultimately having children as they would be the weaker ones that such a mentality would simply throw to the dogs, so to speak(or as it's 'Buffy' throw to the vampires.) Ben represents the single life which would take away female sexuality in the sense that a career would not entail the woman giving birth, but losing herself in the crowd of individuals doing her own thing, i.e. not becoming a parent; while the Knights of Byzantium as patriarchal agents would want to take away female sexuality anyway. (The Knights go one further...they are willing to do the job for the predator and sacrifice the weak.)

Dawn, as female, represents Buffy's attempt to stay a child, and then as Buffy accepts more her nature, this dream of being an immortal perpetual child gets transferred to Glory. Both Dawn the Key and Glory are female because they represent female sexuality, Glory the beast/animal nature that Buffy cannot defeat but which she cannot give into fully either or she'll lose her humanity as symbolized by Dawn. Glory is the powerful female to represent the power that Buffy herself is amassing.

I would also suggest that the female is powerful as a way of deconstructing the patriarchal notion of the weaker sex; otherwise the concentration on the human woman as mother of the next generation may be misconstrued to mean that women may only play that role as is the patriarchal belief. Whedon through Buffy is deconstructing the myths of male dominance, and has been from the beginning of the series. I think he's simply using his title character to illustrate the connection between kinship/fertility and death. As the latter applies to both men and women, this has been one of the reasons for the vilification of women in the past as daughters of Eve(ie in a male dominated society, women have been the vilified half of the binary opposition as men seek to deny in themselves their mortality by projecting it onto women.) Whedon attempts to rehabilitate this view of women by fusing Buffy's fertility/kinship and mortality with that of the Christ figure sacrifice; men and women are equally valued natural human partners.

In fact the deconstruction for Buffy of her animal nature, of her sexuality from being the vilified other can be generalized to representing the rehabilitation of female sexuality as a whole from its 'evil' devalued state.

I might want to add that I don't believe that Whedon is suggesting that male and females have absolute roles to play, nor that traditional male traits or female traits are limited to each sex separately. In fact he's arguing opposite to this by deconstructing the line between opposites. Buffy's strength and Willow's prowess in math and computer science are meant to be part of an argument that dismisses the notion that maleness is simply the province of men, and femaleness the province of women. We all share traits that may be described as male and female. Tara and Willow's relationship, metaphorically only, can be seen as the female taking the role of the male, hence a symbol of the distribution of male/female traits. It can also, metaphorically only, be seen, because it's a lesbian relationship, as a rehabilitation of the female in our society in two ways: by taking the male's role, ie what a man can do a woman can also, women are not less than men; and because both are female this is the display of the female principle being valued again in our society. Of course literally the two characters are simply in love with one another, being themselves. Their relationship is therefore a symbol of accepting ourselves.

In that final scene of the season finale when Buffy goes up the tower to save Dawn, Whedon is representing the rise to adulthood, the rise towards ones life, but at the same time the movement towards ones death, as both are really the same: we are always moving towards our life, towards growth, until the end which is death. The dive also symbolizes that life is not a thing, but an activity. We are moving, living creatures.

This is very buddhist in its thought, and buddhist imagery is used at key moments in both series to underscore the connection: the demon that Angel kills in ep one is a buddhist, and Angel must take his place; the three props in the scene where Dawn discovers she's the key are the unicorn, the Buddha statuette and the troll's hammer. Buddhism represents impermanence, deconstruction of opposites, compassion, insight and the middle way, i.e. not giving into our animal nature and not denying it either.When Buffy goes through the portal, takes the journey that Glory should have, she dies, accepting all that Drac symbolized in ep one: kinship: Dawn is her daughter, and kinship with the whole world, Buffy and the world are one as we all are; fertility: the blood of menstruation; and mortality. The only living representation of Buffy left is Dawn(as Buffy says, Dawn is me), hence the two become one.

However, the Buffy in the ground becomes a symbol of death as Dawn remains a symbol of life, hence together a symbol of wholeness accepting all of Buffy's nature. Dawn as living individual also represents the individual aspect of ourselves, while the dead Buffy represents the oneness with the world: individuality and oneness with the world happen at the same time. The idea of living wholeness is left in Dawn, the last living symbol of Buffy.

Of course the scene also symbolizes the natural course of events where the previous generation dies to make way for the next. Life comes not only from life, but from death too. Thus Buffy in accepting her fertility, and her kinship, also accepts her mortality, because they are in the end one and the same. (I think Whedon is using buddhist imagery and ideas to state his own concepts; I don't believe he's advocating it.)

Note that the deconstruction of opposites has its imagery in 'Buffy' in the Troll's hammer, the Buddhist statuette and the unicorn; not to mention the wrecking ball. The hammer is usually associated with construction, but Whedon takes pains to have this hammer associated with deconstruction of the structure of oppositional thinking, of the binary opposition between the valued good and the vilified bad. In the episode with the troll Whedon has the character destroy everything in its path, hence destruction and deconstruction. This is also associated with Xander not being split between saying which of Anya or Willow was right or wrong; and so when Buffy uses the troll's hammer in the season finale to fight Glory, she's actually symbolically deconstructing the line between opposites that is inside herself, as represented by Ben/Glory. End of Part Two.


[> [> Re: Symbolic Look at 'Buffy' fifth season; Spoilers; Long: Part Three of Three -- Age, 10:34:19 06/09/01 Sat

Part Three: Spoilers for Fifth Season 'Buffy.' This deconstruction is reinforced by Xander using a wrecking ball(symbol of wholeness) as he breaks down a wall, the wall between opposites. And the unicorn is a fusion of Buffy and her animal nature(the unicorn also represents the animal that would not get on the ark, hence not becoming a herd animal to save himself or gain the world; also through the sea imagery the unicorn suggests also a creature who will plumb all the depths of her being even if this means death.)

The deconstruction meaning of the troll's hammer is the reason why Spike cannot lift it in the scene with Dawn as she discovers she is the key; as a vampire(perpetual teenager and metaphor for the illusion that you can remain human and run away from life and death) Spike is still too much of a child, still too attached to his oppositional thinking to deconstruct it. This is why Buffy lifts the hammer so easily in the season finale: she's ready to deconstruct the opposites thinking and accept all of her, and perhaps have an experience of oneness.

This is also the reason why Whedon sends Spike up to rescue Dawn on the tower in the season finale and fail: as Spike, his intention is to help, but as a vampire, he represents the desire to run away from life and death. Whedon sends Spike up to show symbolically that Buffy(as represented by Dawn) cannot be gotten to or touched any longer by the desire to flee either life or death. This is contrasted with the two slayers that Spike killed who didn't embrace either life or death, but simply tried to escape from life. Their blood got sucked in by Spike; they thus symbolically became him, became the metaphor for the desire to run away from life and death. Buffy however in her dive keeps her blood, and in some sense it goes on flowing in the living representative of her, the symbol of the whole living human, Dawn. Buffy thus embraces all of herself, while the other slayers did not.(The two slayers fled life, becoming thus herd animals.)

The deconstruction of opposites also occurs in the season finale as Buffy lowers the barrier to her house for Spike. The barrier came up because Spike was acting like a patriarchal male stalking a female in a war of conquest. The basic relationship in patriarchy is one of being split apart in the illusion that one sex has more value than the other, and of males taking selfhood away from females in sexual conquest; the woman reacts and/or is conceived of in terms of power only as an emasculator/mother. Power, rather than love and respect, is what is valued in this type of relationship: males having it and women having it denied in them. Anger usually gets to be the emotion that dominates in both the male and female as reactions to both having their humanity repressed.

Once Buffy realizes that Spike is no longer this type of male, that he respects her and actually loves her, then she lowers the barrier. This is symbolic of lowering the binary opposition between men(the boy/sexual predator/vampire) and women(the mother/emasculator/slayer, phallic symbol stake in hand) in a male dominated society, such that both are valued equally. It also symbolizes that the two really cannot be separated, one sex is meaningless without the other. Just as Spike values Buffy as a person and woman(the vampire has become human in this particular instance), she values him as a man(the emasculator/slayer not needed, carrying the phallic symbol(also a symbol of modern women taking back their own sexuality as Buffy as slayer acts as deconstructor of the sexual predator/emasculator roles). I may be a monster, Spike says, but you treat me like a man.

The season arc is a representation of birth, growth, and death: Dawn is 'born'; she falls from childhood to adolescence when she discovers she's the key; Riley falls from adolescence into adulthood when he discovers that all endings are not happy; and Joyce falls from adulthood into death. Note that I say fall because in one of the episodes, the one with the snake, there is an allusion made through the snake to the garden of Eden fall into death. This fall is reproduced in Buffy's dive in the season finale; but I think that's only half of it. Buffy's climb up the tower also could symbolize the idea of raising oneself to adulthood. There are thus two movements, up and down, which are one: we are moving towards our death and to our adulthood at the same time. I think that Buffy herself moves from hankering for childhood, for that 'No place like home,' because of fear of death to the perspective of a parent.

In fact the whole season is the depiction of very thing that vampires(as perpetual teenagers)are trying to escape: the round of birth and death. There's a movement from hankering for the past, hankering for childhood, to accepting oneself completely and ones role as parent which includes obviously our mortality.(Note that this fall happens to Buffy too: she learns about the key, she has the unhappy ending and she dies as well.) Joyce's death occurs when she's home alone to show that we are not safe anywhere; that all is impermanence; we cannot escape death because it is part of us; Joyce dies at home because no matter where you are, you are there. In fact when we are watching April the robot die, we are symbolically watching Joyce's death.

If you notice, both Buffy and Cordelia act as messiahs to deconstruct patriarchy. Cordelia is the political messiah, the deliverer of a population; while Buffy is the spiritual messiah with her vision of oneness. If women are evil, then how can they be messiahs? Hence the deconstruction of patriarchal myth. In fact, Glory as Buffy's temptation to give into the predatory power of the slayer, is the logical conclusion of what Buffy would become if she gave into this power: top of the food chain(as symbolized by her going to the top of the tower.) But Buffy then jumps off to give up her life for others, rather than like a predatory animal, devour those 'below' her. Her dive in a sense is a deconstruction of patriarchy, the top down mentality that would keep people as children, devouring, as it were, the human opportunity to grow to adulthood.

The motif of opposites comes with a season of madness. Opposites thought is perhaps as a kind of madness, a splitting of the human psyche, a splitting up of the world which is one organic whole. This splitting up is part of the isolation aspect of the season arcs. We abstract ourselves from the world and others, and tend not to cope as well as we could, like Riley or Angel. This abstraction allows us to deny a basic kinship or oneness with everything. Let the person die or kill the person, he or she has nothing to do with me. But this 'me' is just in part an abstraction.

What Whedon may be suggesting is that we are all on the same side because there are no sides except that thinking makes. Hence the movement from the self centred child perspective. Or perhaps its more fundamental than this: if we experience others and the world as ourselves literally, an experience of selflessness, then we could no more hurt others than Buffy could let Dawn be killed, ie Dawn is me. This is the kind of experience perhaps that only a human consciousness could have. This is why Whedon is saying that while we accept our animal nature, we don't give into it fully, but manage it, and remain human. Of course if Buffy cannot hurt anyone, how can she be the slayer? Well, she may not conceive others as the enemy, but she can still try to stop pain and suffering.

While Buffy's dive is an act of becoming one with her animal nature, it is a human act of sacrifice to save the world, seeking to preserve human consciousness, not let it become demonic/animal. It is a choice she makes. In this way we as humans neither give into our animal programming nor simply follow the dictates of a paternalistic moral code whose premise is that we are all either sinners, morons or animals, but base our morality on the experience of selflessness as knowledge of our fundamental condition(the library for three seasons represented the value of knowledge and insight over myth) such that we remain human and do not allow ourselves to be animal or human robots like the Buffybot or Adam.

What Whedon may be getting at is that if we only follow a moral code, we as humans lose the opportunity to have insight into where that code comes from. It would be like limiting ourselves to following the results of insight as a dog follows the dictates of the alpha male or as the herd follows. We would lose the opportunity to be human, to exercise our human consciousness.(I'm not suggesting that Whedon is being naive by possibly presenting the theme of insight, thinking that a vision of oneness is going to solve all our problems; Buffy's speech to Dawn about how hard living in this world shows that one with the world or not, it's a hard place to live in or remain human. Furthermore he delivers this idea of insight into oneness with the death of his title character: this couldn't be any harder to take. But, as an artist, I think Whedon wants to use his medium to have us think outside the box as he has his main character when she's faced with the puzzle of death being her gift.

Perhaps the concentration on love in the season finale, and Buffy's being full of love, is the emotion that comes from the expression of the kinship we all have through our being not really separate from one another. We are all family.

Also, I think that Whedon had Buffy in the season finale 'fuse' with her animal nature, but in making it a choice, a sacrifice, she humanized it. Had Buffy given into her animal nature, then the world would have become demonic/animal. But the opposite happens, Buffy's dive assimilates her animal nature into her human identity. This is why Dawn remains to symbolize this. But there is more to it than this. Despite all the pressures, Dawn represents Buffy's ability to retain her original perspective, her child-like, not childish, perspective. Unlike Giles, who's become worldly wise and despairing, she has retained a basic faith in herself and the world. She has retained the don't know mind of buddhism or the child of God consciousness of Christianity. She has retained herself. Age.


[> [> [> Re: Excerpts-Symbolic Look at 'Angel' this season, Spoilers, Long. -- Age, 13:25:03 06/09/01 Sat

My original posting was supposed to include 'Angel', but it got too long. Here are some excerpts from the other posting, mostly about 'Angel', but including some 'Buffy' this season. Spoilers.

This year both series have been about the acceptance of our animal nature: its aggression in 'Angel' and the fertility/kinship/mortality aspect of it in 'Buffy.' Both arcs followed each other in going from realization of an aspect that the title characters were either afraid or ashamed of in ep one, repression of that realization in the next few eps as the two title characters sought refuge in the past, in childhood and in the perpetual teenager/animal life of a vampire, to the uncovering of that realization in the next eps, resulting in a period of adolescence and finally the acceptance of a more adult view of life, deconstructing the black and white, Sunnydale repressive way of dealing with life. Both arcs as movement from illusion/childhood myth were symbolized by the rewrite of history in both shows, i.e. Darla(vampire/childhood past) is alive and human as opposed to being vampire and dusted, and Dawn(childhood past), the sister Buffy doesn't have, and then, as reality is restored, where the barrier between opposites has been deconstructed, black and white becoming gray, Darla gets vamped again and Dawn becomes a 'real' sister.

In ep one of 'Angel' Angel is reminded that part of his nature, part of what gives him his ability to defend the weak and help is his animal nature which he's ashamed of. The demon that Angel kills in episode one is a buddhist, representing the deconstruction of opposites. Angel has to assume the role of this demon in order to help the young woman with child. Symbolically this foreshadows the idea that Angel has to deconstruct the opposition in himself, and come to accept the aspect he's ashamed of.

The basic metaphor of Sunnydale is the weather which expresses the dysfunctional way of dealing with oneself or emotions: i.e. repressing them into the darkness, the subconscious(the dale) and putting on a smiling Sunny face in order that one can say one is in the valued good social group, the angels, while the others are the vilified devils that get persecuted because they represent everything that we are trying to repress or destroy in ourselves. Both title characters are divided against themselves, trying to fight an aspect of themselves that they fear or loathe and want to be rid of: their particular manifestation of their animal nature: this is why Angel's demon shows up in Pylea as an animal; while Buffy's monster is really her own mortality/fertility. Buffy doesn't defeat Glory; Angel doesn't defeat Wolfram and Hart(the predator and herd animals put together) because they are really fighting aspects of themselves.

The split motif is expressed on 'Angel' as Cordy and Gunn, Lilah and Lyndsey; Dru and Darla; the split between the Fang gang and Angel; the decapitation of Lorne; the split between LA and Pylea, and the Fang gang characters being split between two different lives/lifestyles: Gunn between his old neighbourhood and his new friends, between the past and the future, and Cordelia being split between her past lifestyle as princess and her present 'engaged' life as vision person. The resolution of these splits shows the movement of two becoming one. In 'Angel' the fusion imagery goes something like this: Angel getting back together with the Fang gang; Lyndsey's leaving, the two becoming one, Lilah; Cordelia and Gunn coming to an understanding in the ep where she shadows him; Lorne's head being put together with his body; the land of Pylea becoming more like LA, the two worlds becoming one; the Fang gang characters making decisions about their split between lives; on Pylea the princess and the vision girl get fused together until at the end Cordelia lets go of her princess myth. And of course Angel doesn't slay Groo: they are no longer enemies.

In regards to the two series being similar: The magic shop in 'Buffy' has a death mask on one of the walls. It is the place of death, symbolizing Buffy's mortality which she moves into at the end of ep two to symbolize her concern with death; Angel at the end of his ep two moves into the hotel to take the place of Julie who has been divided against herself and has remained in the hotel because in trying to conceal her 'monster'(which it wasn't of course) she externalized it and tried to have it destroyed in someone else, just as Angel is trying to do by killing demons. In other words, Buffy and Angel move into the place representing that which they has to deal with; the mortality that Buffy wants to repress and the shameful aspect of Angel which he wants to destroy. Also: In one episode of 'Buffy' the two Xanders think they are saving Anya from a demon(from the vilified externalized other) when in fact they are really saving her from each other. Hence the deconstruction of the binary opposition. In the 'Angel' episode that aired the same week, Cordelia shadows Gunn (as one Xander shadowed the other on 'Buffy') believing that she was saving him from a demon(the vilified other) when it turns out, just like with the Xanders, that she was saving him from himself(deconstruction of the vilified other.) I believe I can find significant similarities or connections in each 'Buffy' and 'Angel' episode set aired the same week.

This excerpt is part of a patriarchy section: The use of Lorne Greene's name in 'Angel' is also an allusion to the past, to the sixties western TV show(cowboys and indians(the villified other)) in which men were real men and women, well, they wore dresses and looked 'perty' as they washed the dishes and brought up the children that arrived from who knows where because no one in that era went to the toilet, let alone had s-e-x. Did I mention sex? And if you really want to go into the past, well, literally, the world of Pylea was made to be a medieval male dominated society where even Lorne's mum was masculine! I might suggest that the medieval setting was to suggest and criticize the structure of serfdom as human beings became herd animals, cows, to the patriarchal masters, the predators; while Cordelia's reference to Hinduism suggested also its caste system; in fact the reference to the idea that Hindus don't touch/eat their cows out of reverence, and cows on Pylea being the lowest form of life, suggests that he was really making a more obscure reference to the lowest caste group, the Untouchables, or its medieval equivalent, the serfs. This was in its own little way a deconstruction of that hierarchal order by stating that the untouchable cows, untouchable because they are revered, are actually the Untouchables, in other words, he's putting the most revered and the most devalued together, the two become one.)

If you look at both series' arcs they are about family: Angel's former vampire family which he deserts and his new human family, which he deserts. Darla is his mother(sire) to begin with, Angel is hankering for earlier times, for childhood which she represents, to be looked after; but then the dream ends and Darla, through Drusilla's(Angel's 'daughter') intervention becomes his 'granddaughter.' Thus Angel goes from being the son, symbolically, to being the father as he has been in relationship to his human family, Wes, Cordy and Gunn, all 'orphans' of a sort he's taken in. He abandons both of them, which is helpful to the human beings because it gives them the opportunity to grow up somewhat themselves, but it does hurt them also. The movement from son to father is symbolic of the movement of growth into adulthood. But, Angel comes back to the gang not as their father, but as a brother, as a fellow adult to symbolize all of their growth. Angel comes back to his human family more as an equal, having left his vamp family and what they represent behind(father/vamps as children). This change from father to brother symbolizes the deconstruction of a patriarchal thought structure in Angel himself, and this is born out as Angel's human family could only grow once the father figure left. This type of thinking is thus associated with the vampires who represent the attempt to stay as children forever.(Both Angel and Buffy lose their home sweet home illusions in episodes aired the same week when Dawn becomes Buffy's mission, fusing slayer duty and homelife(two become one) and Angel literally watches as his homelife illusion is taken from him as the actor playing the husband role is killed, and Darla becomes Angel's mission.)

The idea of unreality, of illusion, of the myth that needs to be deconstructed finds itself in 'Buffy' in the character Glory. She wants to get back to a world that's made up in a writer's mind, i.e. that isn't real. When Buffy saves her world, she is saving a 'real' world, our world. When Angel and his gang leave Pylea they leave an illusion behind too, a world that's made up, to return to the 'real' world, our world. The two series are saying much the same thing. In fact Buffy's journey through the portal turns the illusion to reality as she emerges in this world, as opposed to Glory's fictional world, just as the Fang gang emerge from their fictional world to LA. (I would add here that the unreality of the Host's head being able to live on after being severed is meant as a symbol of how illusory the black and white view of Pylea(a reiteration of the Sunnydale/child point of view) is to be taken; I think Whedon expected us to react by thinking this way: just as there's no way that the head could in reality live on, so too is the thought system behind Pylea unreal, ie the literal severing into two of Lorne's body is as unreal as the abstraction into two that happens in opposites thinking. In fact he imbues the severing of Lorne's head with more symbolism: it is meant to be an antithetical parallel to Silas' decapitation. Lorne's head lives on to express the idea that his point of view is grounded in the understanding of the value of the people who live in society(the body of people survives so the head of government survives: the two are one); while Silas's head would not survive because he believes that he is the only worthy one, i.e. that the people don't support him, he and the people are separate. Silas dies as a symbol that some reality is being restored to Pylea, this is why he stays dead; while Lorne does not die to show that the regime and thought behind it are based on illusory abstraction into black and white.

Both season finales end the same way: Buffy falls through a portal becoming one with the world and then we see her gravestone silently announcing her death; the Fang gang come back to the world they are one with through a portal and then find Willow in the hotel, silently announcing Buffy's death. The word 'home' gets transformed into the symbol of impermanence, the dead Buffy, when Angel realizes Willow's message and mouths her name. Angel thus has the welcome home mat pulled from under him just as Buffy pulls the mat out from under her feet when she dives(no permanent Place called home). The two become one. If the two series are linked together each week and at the arc level, then, as they are obviously about different characters, the two series are both individual and one at the same time, expressing the idea perhaps of our nature: separate and one at the same time. Age.


[> [> [> [> Thanks for all that -- Tanker, 08:24:32 06/11/01 Mon

After seeing some of the initial comments on "The Gift" at this site, I posted on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer that Season 5 might work very well on a mythic/symbolic level, even if the actual plot details don't always make complete logical sense (a good number of the posters to that group are really hung up on logic and dismissed The Gift, and the entire season, as a complete failure. But that's Usenet for you). I take your extremely well-written essays as a sign that I'm on the right track. Although it will take me awhile to absorb all of what you wrote.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker -- Dedalus, 18:54:18 06/11/01 Mon

You know, I started out at alt.buffy as one of my very first forums/newsgroups on the web. I lost access to usenet around the time Restless came out, and then I got a new computer recently and went back there and ... Damn. Those guys have gone nuts. Quite frankly, they are the most volatile and negative group about season five I have encountered anywhere on the net. And they use to be really intelligent and fun to talk to. Not anymore.

So are you really Mike Zeares? We conversed once or twice, I do believe. I was on webtv back then.

How The Gift didn't make perfect sense is beyond me. Sigh.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker -- Tanker, 09:52:11 06/12/01 Tue

Yeah, it's me. There were two threads started yesterday about how the end of "The Gift" was a "copout" (an awful lot of people really seem to be ticked off that Dawn isn't dead [shrug]), while another posed the question of just when did "Buffy" jump the shark (begging the question of whether it actually had). I've just about given up, although I did give my "it works on a mythic level" response. I started a thread on that a couple of weeks ago after reading some things here ("Myth vs. Logic"). Some people agreed with me, but others seem to want the plot to make rigid scientific and logical sense (like I said, that's Usenet for you, a place where logic is often worshipped like a god), and if it doesn't they blow it off as "bad writing." They tend to post a lot more than the people who still like the show. Well, such is the way of a Usenet tv group. Atbvs looks like alt.cuddle compared to some groups.

No one on the newsgroup has posted anything close to the interpretations that I've read here. If I can fully wrap my brain around it all, I might try.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker -- Dedalus, 10:10:17 06/12/01 Tue

Well, nice to see ya again. As a matter of fact, yours was the first post I read when I visited alt.tv.buffy again. I saw "Myth vs. Logic," and I was like "Ooh, that should be good." And it was. I first showed up there ... probably back around the time after Becoming and the late great "Xander Lied" posts were rearing their ugly heads - punctuated of course by the endless crescendo of "Who sang that song at the end of BII?" - although I personally didn't post for awhile.

And speaking of Becoming, what about Angel's blood? It was the key for that ritual? Did whoever make up that spell have HIS DNA?! Did they have access to CLONING FACILITIES?! Huh? Huh? :-)

Anyway, I seem to remember enjoying reading what you had to say. You should hang out here some more. I've only been around a few weeks. It's one of the best Buffy forums on the web. The level of discussion here is amazing. For an example, just go down or go over a page or two to my epic Buffy and the Basis of Morality post. I started it, and they took it away.

How's ol' David Hines doing? I bet he's been giving this season hell.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just consider it "Theft of thought"......:):):) -- Rufus, 16:03:16 06/12/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What I meant to say was ... -- Dedalus, 16:54:07 06/12/01 Tue

I started it and they took it to a whole other level.

I wasn't talking intellectual property rights. We'll save that for the fanfic site. :-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Start a topic and you never know where it will go.....:):):) -- Rufus, 18:24:55 06/12/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker: Logic and Adam; Spoilers for Fifth and Fourth Seasons. -- Age, 17:08:19 06/14/01 Thu

I think that had Whedon not killed Buffy it would have been a cop out; he had to deliver his message of mortality with her death. But her death was really dictated by the metaphorical content.

How Whedon brings Buffy back and what this means metaporically will be the test of Whedon's genius. I'm partial to some of the suggestions on this board about the hero's cycle(a metaphorical death), the integration of knowledge gained and the struggle to impart that vision to others. Also I'd like to know how rebirth and the cycle of life will be portrayed without suggesting the established idea of the revolt against life and death in the vampire metaphor. I have faith that Whedon can pull it off; I just don't know how.

Okay, what I really wanted to talk about is logic and analysis. I think that from the beginning Buffy as Vampire Slayer has symbolically been a deconstructor of myth: patriarchal myth of male dominance and the belief that somehow we can remain human and yet run away from life and death. As a female she represents one half of the partnership in a natural relationship between a man and a woman, thus suggesting the reality of our equality as human beings and our mortality etc. As a modern intelligent woman and as a strong figure, she has acted to deconstruct the myth of the weaker sex(or at least Whedon has used her to do this.) Also I've thought of the slayer as a symbolic portrayal of the emasculator/mother/slayer versus the sexual predator/boy/vampire of male dominated society, but also very much its deconstruction, as symbolically the interaction between vampire and slayer results in the myth being dusted and the human being(Buffy) remaining. She has deconstructed the myth by introducing knowledge(herself) contradicting it, and the series has presented a different method of approaching life: research, knowledge and analysis , as the Scoobies usually do.

This role of deconstructor, as symbolized by the stake tool with which she makes a point(Buffy being the argument) got changed in the figure of Adam who not only used the deconstruction tool, the stake, but had it as part of his body. In other words he was a creature of analysis who was so attached through programming to deconstructing myth/gaining knowledge/analysis that he took it to an absurd(absolute) level by literally cutting living beings open(analysis turned to dissection) to see what made them tick, thus deconstructing the very life out of them(the small boy he meets.) Adam would be the outcome if Buffy took her deconstruction to an absurd(absolute/black and white, ie if you are going to analyze you have to do it completely or not at all) level and reduced life to its constituent parts, ignoring the value of the function of those contituent parts which is life, ignoring of course the other aspect to life which is the organic wholeness, the oneness,ie that the 'parts' don't function only as parts.(If you noticed last year it was Buffy who went into the Initiative and began asking questions, instead of just taking in all the myth; it is she who exposed the myth of Walsh the mother. In one scene the Scooby gang were watching the roadrunner and Wiley Coyote cartoon; Buffy comments that it isn't real; she then disguises herself as a scientist to infiltrate the initiative complex. These acts reinforce the idea of Buffy the deconstructor.)

In fact my comments about this year's symbolism could be applied to last year as well. Just as Adam represented the Scooby Gang's idea that they could either stay together by being alike or face splitting up through their own personal initiative, he also represented logic(as it is applied in oppositional thinking, black and white thinking) which includes the principle of mutual exclusion. In last year's season showdown/battle the Scooby gang act in two different ways at the same time, individually and together as one. Last year's final battle indicated that we are both individuals and one at the same time. Once Buffy starts to fight Adam she breaks his stake arm, breaks symbolically deconstruction taken to a destructive and violent level(ie taken to the absolute level of complete analysis, to the point where everything is just taken apart, separate.) She changes his bullets(separate things of destruction) to doves as symbols of peace, but also as symbols of life. Life can't operate only in separateness.(Adam cannot conceive that people can be one and separate at the same time; if people are to be one, they have to be made 'one' by being made literally the same, constituent body parts shared by every person. Adam doesn't value the wholistic effect of the machine/body(the life itself) because this would be the separate, analyzed parts working(which are really just like cogs working separately on one another) as a whole at the same time. Adam puts the body parts back together not to create a life(the wholistic result of the working parts) but to create an army of working parts. Walsh as zombie reinforces this idea because she's actually dead, but Adam is simply using the body devoid of life. Buffy and the Scoobies contradict this by acting both separately with their own strengths and skills, and one together. To reinforce the idea that Adam is a deconstructor, Whedon had him teach the vampires that their fear was based on myth. He even deconstructed the myth that one species of demon does not work with another. But really his rallying of the demons was in bad faith as he didn't value their lives either, but simply sought a means of deconstructing them into parts for his army, ie to make soldiers, cogs in a machine.

Adam himself represents this mutual exclusion: either he's taking something completely apart to see how it ticks, or he's sowing everything together as if everything has to be the same, ie everything is either separate and knowable(knowledge over myth) in its minutest details, or it is the same. The world doesn't work this way. We are separate and not at the same time. Buffy tells Adam that he can't possibly know the source of their power. This is because his perception of the world is dictated by seeing things only in black and white as a programmed being(Adam's own power source is symbolic of splitting up, of coming apart.)(Logically, if I have a proper grasp of logic, separateness and oneness could both be wrong, and that our condition is better described in a different way, the contrary ideas being replaced by a substitute. The two becoming one.)

That's about all I wanted to say. My inclusion of the above paragraph was suggested of course by your mention of logic versus myth. To extend the idea of two becoming one... perhaps Whedon retained the myth of the cross in order to use Christianity as a basis for certain metaphorical scenes; however, the cross symbolizes the reality of the world in the sense of the two become one: that we are separate and not at the same time: the upright represents the individual, while the cross beam represents oneness through the suggestion of outstretched arms. This would be the source of the vampire's fear of the cross, and why it would burn them. As the myth that you can run away from life and death and still remain human, the vampires would be burned(the myth scorched as it were) by the truth in the symbolism: that no matter what, everything is interconnected and escape is impossible.

Also, one last bit. I mentioned in another posting Riley's baton(phallic symbol) being symbolically transferred to Adam via the Polagara demon's arm and through Walsh's back(mother.)

Here are some metaphorical interpretations:

incestuous(Walsh as mother) thoughts towards Riley on the part of Walsh resulting ultimately in the monster son Adam;

deconstruction(the arm is a stake) of the myth of Walsh the caring mother in Riley's mind;

betrayal(through the back) of the individual by a patriarchal system;

betrayal of Walsh by herself as a female by setting aside her own fertility(womb) to 'gestate' a 'son' in a laboratory as a scientist;

the immediate allusion to Frankenstein's monster story and its meaning;

the portrayal of the idea that sex equals death, the death of the previous generation which is no longer needed as the new generation has reached the age to continue the human race(Riley and Buffy's lovemaking signals the redundancy of the previous generation, hence Walsh the mother is 'killed');

deconstruction of the illusion , the myth(and yet another betrayal of herself) that women do matter in a patriarchy with Walsh's role seeming to be that of a scientist when really she was playing a glorified mother, the only role a grown woman in that society could play, ie servant to men(and when her role as mother is not needed she is not needed or valued, and this gets symbolized by her death, and by Walsh the zombie servant;

betrayal by Riley of Walsh(in Walsh's mind) when he naturally goes ahead with a relationship with Buffy;

and finally, Adam's embrace which is to analyze the life out of everything, or more appropriately, analyze everything to death.



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for all that; Spoilers Fifth, Fourth and Third Seasons: Buffy -- Age, 20:02:07 06/11/01 Mon

You are welcome.

I believe that from the beginning of the series 'Buffy' has been metaphorical. Most of the time, the metaphor, character study and drama work well together, almost flawlessly. But then again sometimes they do not, and metaphor wins out. This may be the reason why the posters you mentioned felt the season was a failure. This series isn't about vampires or slayers or demons. It's about how we as human animals integrate our animal nature into our human identity without succombing fully to the instincts we all have. It's about how we as human beings stop growing emotionally because we have been damaged by parents who are children or who have been taught that repression is the only way to deal with ourselves. The role of the parent is very important in this series: one aspect of the third season arc is an antithetical study of the caring strong father figure, Giles, and the self-centred father figure, the Mayor. Time and again we see what happens when the previous generation doesn't want to relinquish its hold, and allow the next generation to have its time; heck, Buffy and her generation had to literally fight to have their time at graduation to symbolize this very thing.(This was also a political metaphor for the people versus the dictator(Dick.)

To give you more of an idea of how the plots are dictated by metaphor, here is a quick look at the episode, 'Spiral,' in which Whedon bases the plot on what Dorothy does in 'The Wizard of Oz,' before she has her Oz dream, except for the one significant difference that Whedon deliberately uses to create meaning: Buffy no longer has a childhood home with an Auntie Emm waiting to go back to, i.e. there's no permanent place called home that we can go back to and act like children: it's time for Buffy to grow up. Instead of Buffy meeting a kind travelling salesman as she makes a run for it, there's no one. In some sense she is running away from herself at this point, and giving into her animal instinct for survival which would have meant the death of Dawn(and hence the death symbolically of her humanity.)The film,'The Wizard of Oz' is also a work based on metaphor in which the title character has to figure out if she has the right stuff to become a woman/mother. Toto represents Dorothy's animal nature with her fertility being specified in the ruby shoes. Once Dorothy makes the journey from the land of the little people to the City of Oz, she is able to change her perspective from child to adult, and deconstruct the 'god' Oz who is really a little man behind a curtain: the veil of magical thinking which elevates adults to gods for children is lifted, and Dorothy sees the wizard is really a salesman, the adult is really just a person. Having brains, courage and heart, Dorothy figures out that she can fulfil her role as human woman, and clicks her ruby red heels together.

Here is the metaphor:

Buffy and Dawn represent the split psyche, but Buffy, in the end, despite all the influences represented by Ben and Glory, doesn't give into killing herself, her humanity or giving up her fertility in the form of Dawn, except for one lapse; is anyone perfect? This is why Buffy meets up on the road with the knights: it symbolizes that her thinking and theirs(to kill Dawn, another human being and therefore kill the human being and reproductive link in herself to save herself from death) have temporarily crossed paths. This is why both Ben and Glory come to the gas station, and why it is Buffy who summons them: this is Buffy's own desire not to die coming out of her subconscious; this is symbolic of Buffy temporarily giving into her desire not to die; this is why the road and the gas station are dusty and dead; it is a dead end for her as a human being, and a symbolic representation of the death of humanity itself as the link would be severed(as the Knights want) the link between one generation and the other as symbolized by Buffy, the mother, and Dawn, the daughter being separated literally from each other. And we know that out of guilt Buffy becomes catatonic; but this is also to express the idea that indeed she has temporarily and metaphorically 'killed' herself, but all is not lost; she hasn't given in fully, her humanity as symbolized by Dawn isn't dead yet, and doesn't die.

The gas pump is a symbol of sexual activity as it is a nozzle going into a hole. That it is empty and barren(the gas station is derelict and dry) signifies Buffy's wanting first to get rid of her sexuality as the Knights would want; then the arrival of Ben confirms this to symbolize how Buffy has thought that she'd give in and save herself and the world through allowing the innocent, the girl, the weaker member of our society, the child, the next generation to pay the price and die; until Buffy swings the other way and decides not to give up her sexuality: hence the 'arrival' of Glory. Buffy will either sever the link and lose her humanity(become a herd animal) by putting her own interests above those of the next generation. Or she'll give into her animal sexual nature altogether, bringing forth the next generation, but as an animal raising an animal. Buffy's sacrifice in the season finale is a way of preserving both her humanity and the link between generations.

Both Ben and the Knights represent the herd instinct: sacrifice the one so that the herd as a whole may survive. Ben is willing to snuff out the insane, the unprotected at the 'edge' of the herd to clean up after Glory, but really he's making things easier for himself. Ben goes even further than the Knights in that he signifies Buffy's desire to get on with her university career and lose herself in the crowd/herd of those who live for themselves while thinking not about protecting those who would be preyed upon. In this way, Buffy would protect herself from death by not slaying, not getting in harm's way. This ties in with the males being used to show female sexuality being taken away because the role of parent entails protecting young, protecting those who cannot protect themselves. In other words if Buffy gives up slaying to avoid dying, it would be analogous to giving up being a parent whose very role is to protect the weak. And the contrary is true too, if she gives totally into the predatory nature of the slayer, she just becomes an animal. The link would be maintained, but between one animal and another, between the 'beasts'. Hence the world becoming demonic/animal in the season finale when Dawn's blood opens the portal. The link is maintained, but as an animal. It is Buffy's choice that humanizes the link which includes of course mortality by sacrificing herself, and stopping the slide of her world into animal/demon.

What Whedon is really saying is that there is a natural order to life; we live because those before us died; they gave us a gift of life through their death; and we will give that same gift with our death someday. We have no choice(at the moment at least because we have little control over our genetics.) But, Buffy humanizes what is really part of our animal nature, our nature as an organic structure/activity. She realizes that she is mortal, and that no matter what, she will eventually die. So, instead of keeping her mortality as part of her animal nature, and give into her instinct for survival, she chooses to use her animal nature in the service of a human choice to sacrifice herself for the world. Instead of running away from life or death as the other two slayers did and die like a herd animal taken down by a predator, Buffy chooses to take her own mortality into her hands and use it. By dying in this way, she neither runs away from life(she satisfies her duty as the slayer by saving the world, yet again) nor runs away from death. She embraces all of herself. In doing so she validates all aspects of herself instead of vilifying any as the enemy. She embraces the idea that she is both an individual human being(she makes the choice); and one with the world(part of the organic whole which includes being a link in the reproductive chain.)

Of course why is not killing Dawn so important? It represents an opportunity to exercise what it means to be human. We have greater choice than the animals in what we do, but if we simply do what an animal does, then we are no different. We forfeit what we have been given as a gift by the deaths of those who came before us. We might as well be dogs. If we simply follow the herd or prey on others, we are no different. What makes us different is our ability to think and to empathize. We may have inherited animal instincts, but we are human beings, and do not have to act on them, do not have to simply follow the programming. We have, to a greater or lesser degree, a choice of what to do with them.

One last thing to conclude with the idea that this series is all metaphor: Adam last year, represented the Scooby gang's little secret fear/idea that their personal initiative would split them up(hence the nuclear power pack as a 'heart'.) Seen a different way, Adam's constituent parts symbolized the idea that to stay together, the Scoobies had to make themselves all alike, sticking bits of one another together. The descent into the complex at the end of the season was the descent of the Scoobies into their subconscious to excise this fear/idea from their minds. Also in season four, the baton(phallic symbol) that Riley is carrying in one episode gets symbolically transferred to the Polagara demon's stake-arm; then to Adam and then through Walsh. Symbolically it is the lovemaking of Riley and Buffy that 'kills' Walsh as the jealous and domineering parent feels betrayed by the natural actions of her 'son.' Hence the stake in the back. Also the two-parter when Faith and Buffy switch bodies is a metaphorical representation of the restoration of the true Faith/faith which is faith in oneself. Riley acts as a Christ figure outside the church while the slayers go in to take it back from the vampire agents of the patriarchal Adam who represents faithlessness in humanity, and faith in and or obedience only to the leader of a hierarchy.

Age.to create mPs¨sÏ *FôPÐFèjb@PÐFòHP*F¸PsJsÏ ÐFð@PÐFòHP*F¸Ps¨sÏ ~þ


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow ... n/t -- Dedalus, 10:19:53 06/12/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Re: A Round of Applause for Age -- Dedalus, 18:48:36 06/11/01 Mon

Well, I must say I am most impressed. I saw your posts yesterday, but didn't really have the time to give them the attention they deserved so I saved them for later, and now I'm glad that I did. That was some stunning bits of insight you gleamed from this season.

I particularly liked how you went about showing that this season was about overcoming binary opposites. I noticed that was a major theme myself. I was reading into Taoism lately, and about how one of its principal goals is to "strive for an attention or consciousness that can embrace two fundamental opposites without being swallowed by either." Buffy has always had such a strong foundation in duality. All the characters have two sides, there's always the struggle between good and evil, high school and hellmouth, youth and age, male and female ... I certainly see Buffy's actions at the end of The Gift as transcending the dichotomy of opposites and bringing about union.

That was so well put. I'm going to print out a copy to read at my leisure!


[> Vampires......a gift of chaos to order....... -- Rufus, 14:40:02 06/09/01 Sat

I find the use of vampires in this series facinating. First, I agree with the vampire being the eternal adolecent. In watching their actions you can clearly see that they tend to act upon very adolecent hurts from their lives before. Angel acts out the eternal battle of dominance between father and son, Spike acts upon the need to be seen and valued. The most interesting thing about the vampires in BVS is that they are an undecidable introduced to create chaos. As an undecidable they are neither alive or dead, and had been assumed to be evil absolute. They were the parting gift, made from humanity, from the demons forced to leave our dimension. They bring chaos to order with their existence and actions. Buffy returns order to our world by slaying the vampire. But with this season she has had to question her role in the scheme of things as we have seen that in the character of Spike there is something going on proving that he may be attempting to return order to himself by doing good acts. This allows us to question our notions of good and evil without putting a mortal face to the problem. We have to consider the role of the soul and if evil or good can exist as an absolute, or, for the human condition to go on, does there have to be the balance of the binary opposition that are good and evil?


[> [> Re: Vampires......a gift of chaos to order....... -- Virgill Reality, 15:25:44 06/09/01 Sat

**We have to consider the role of the soul and if evil or good can exist as an absolute, or, for the human condition to go on, does there have to be the balance of the binary opposition that are good and evil?**

I've been wondering about Spike's progression back into the acts of good, and perhaps it could be debated whether or not he now has a "soul." We all know standard Buff-mythology: human becomes vamp, human loses soul, demon takes over. But as we have seen now, Spike's chip prevents him from evil acts, and despite the fact that he can still hurt demons, he has been subtly coersed into fighting for the forces of good, and this seems to have supressed his inner demon.

I digress a little, sorry if none of this seems to be related to the thread, but it leads me to my point: is a soul something you automatically have? Alternative philosophy would say that you're not born with a soul, but that you earn one due to good acts. Spike is slowly returning to humanity, but as he continues to do good, he might achieve a soul, if he hasn't already. When you think about it, a demon in love doesn't make much sense. Although good demons exist in the Buffyverse, your standard vampire is a creature of pure hatred, a predator without a soul, and incapable of love.

An interesting point for consideration might therefore be that Spike regained his soul the moment he realised he loved Buffy.



[> [> [> Very good points Virgill - Spike's humanity -- Liquidram, 22:40:48 06/09/01 Sat

I'm reading "Spike & Dru - Pretty Maids in a Row" right now and the Spike in this story is horribly sadistic and evil, although the reader is constantly reminded that the majority of his actions stem from his love for Dru. He does not hesitate to kill in the most brutal fashion, yet his inner-voice is always thinking of his feelings for her, more often than not, with tenderness.

Without giving anything away in the story, there is a major character who is drawn to him regardless of his actions and is tormented by this obsession with him because he once "...kissed her softly" after an act of violence that personally affected her.

The only hints of the Spike of today are minor scenes where he chooses to assist rather than kill and is shocked himself because of his choices.

In the series, he has become so human that it is hard to accept the fact that he could turn evil again. Other than his strength and healing powers, it's hard to remember that he is a vampire. I have no such difficulty with Angel probably because we've seen him digress after being "good", plus he keeps a tight rein on his emotions whereas Spike lets it all hang out.

I agree with your idea that maybe his soul was or is beginning to be returned to him as he acknowledges his feelings for Buffy. Many times he has cried out to the SG and Buffy that he has changed and no longer has the desire to do evil. Because they seldom listen to him, he has no other option but to show them. As I previously mentioned in another thread, I believe that Spike's humanity was always lurking beneath the surface because of the person William was. His tears in "Fool For Love" was William breaking through before Spike could get him under control with anger and retaliation. The fact that he couldn't follow through with that anger and comforted Buffy instead of killing her proved that his anger had been more hurt feelings and humiliation suffered once again at the hands of someone he cared for.

Obviously, I would like to see his growth continued and believe it would make for a far more fascinating story. Reverting him to evil after showing us who he is inside would just be a cop-out IMHO.


[> [> [> [> Re: Very good points Virgill - Spike's humanity -- Dedalus, 19:03:39 06/11/01 Mon

I agree reverting Spike back to his evil self would be pretty lame.

Those are some interesting ideas about the soul. We assume people are born with them in the Buffyverse ... but they also seem to act as a kind of conscience or moral catalyst, rather than just that part of us that is immortal.

Are people in the Buffyverse born with souls? Or do they form via life experiences and choices? Is the Buffyverse a "vale of soul-making," as Keats would say? And if so, could a vamp develop and nurture his own soul back into existence again?


[> [> [> [> [> Look to the influence of Dawn and Buffy on Spike.... -- Rufus, 21:06:19 06/11/01 Mon

Not just Spikes lust for Buffy but what the influence of Buffy/Dawn is having on the demon. There is something happening here and I think it will continue next season. What is it about Dawn and Buffy that has drawn the characters of Angel, Dracula and, Spike to them?


[> [> Re: Vampires......a gift of chaos to order....... -- Cynthia, 18:16:52 06/09/01 Sat

To quote a line from a book I read years ago, "A little bit of chaos is a good thing."

Seems to me that too much order would make for a very boring, very rigid world. Even scientists are starting to look at chaos as a useful tool. Or as Tara might say "lets look outside the box."

Of course, the realization that chaos, in the form of vampires, might actually be a necessary would create alot of moral confusion. And it would by its very fact, make Buffy look outside the box that she has made for herself. This was pointed out in Checkpoint when at one point she is arguing with her professor about approaching history i.e. Rasputin from a different angle. But neither she or Spike can break sterotyping of each other in the immediate following scene. (And how many of the gang could the Rasputin "need to sin in order to be forgiven" line refer to).

Actually, we all have our tortise shells on (or at least nearby in a corner) in regards to something in our lives.


[> [> [> Ack! I meant to say Anya not Tara. NT -- Cynthia, 18:23:37 06/09/01 Sat

Current board | More June 2001