June 2001 posts
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
PLUS HOW BORING WOULD IT BE IF EVERYTIME BUFFY WANTED TO FIGHT
A VAMP IT JUST TOOK FLIGHT, SHE'S NEED THE CROSSBOW ALOT MORE
THAN JUST A STAKE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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!
DATE -- TITLE --- DIRECTOR
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,
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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?***
Yep
***2 > Do you want it to continue?***
Yep
***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
Answers:
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?
A8
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
Hm.
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
Howzat?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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
730 IS TWO YEARS! DO YOU HAVE TO BE SLAPPED IN THE FACE WITH INFORMATION
BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND IT ?
5-2=3 SEASON S WHEN FAITH FIRST SAID THE 730 QUOTE IT WAS MEANT
TO HAPPEN IN SEASON 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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.!!!
Aelith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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?
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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.
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- DARK PHOENIX, 14:33:07 06/02/01
Sat
YOU DIDN'T MENTION A SINGLE FACTOR THAT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE
STORYLINE, THEREFORE THEY DIDNT NEED TO ADD ANY MORE MYTHOS ABOUT
THESE CHARACTERS
ALSO THE KNIGHT SERVE a GOD, MANY RELGIONS HAVE ONE GOD, DOESNT
MEAN ITS THE JUDO-CHRISTIAN ONE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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.
**ALSO THE KNIGHT SERVE a GOD, MANY RELGIONS HAVE ONE GOD, DOESNT
MEAN ITS THE JUDO-CHRISTIAN ONE**
Goto
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/53.html#512
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.
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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 :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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 -
Rufus, AWESOME POST.
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 tell