May 2003 posts

Previous May 2003  

More May 2003

Ain't We Got Fun (Spoilers to "Players", but no further) -- KdS, 06:01:28 05/09/03 Fri

Players can only be considered as a breath of fresh air after the claustrophobia of much of the previous run of episodes. The Gunn plotline can best be described, I think, as "The Zeppo for adults". We were very glad to see just how explicitly Gunn's under-valuation of himself as unintelligent, uneducated, and only good for muscle was challenged and dismissed. Moreover, ME achieved a further milestone here. I will probably be challenged by some people on the board who do believe that sex outside a monogamous and deeply committed relationship is always wrong. However, Gunn achieved a level of validation that he's been slightly deprived of in the past, and Gwen managed to achieve an elementary connection from which she had previously been barred in a safe place with a considerate, perceptive and gentlemanly partner, which not everyone does. And no-one got punished by fate. (One slightly deeper thought - I would very much like to know what Gunn was about to say when he said it was the most fun he'd had since... Since what? Since the end of his relationship with Fred, since Seidel's death, since the Apocalypse started?)

While one can feel unease over the way Cordelia's been treated this season, I couldn't deny that the rest of AI were aware for most of the ep of what was going on (Angel's rather over-demonstrative speech about how dumb the Master was, Wes's deeply crude reference to "poultry strangling") and that it was hilarious. Props must also go to Lorne's rather Arabic-tinged vocalisation. Was it improvised or written?

A final speculation about Cordelia's speech to Connor about how everything that would come would be necessary. Do you imagine that that might have been what Cordelia was told, before the power totally took her over?

[> Re: Ain't We Got Fun -- JCC, 07:29:22 05/09/03 Fri

It certainly was nice to see some element of an episode that doesn't relate to the main arc. Both Buffy and Angel have, in my opinion, suffered from being tied to closely to their main plot. I've missed these one-off eps. Unfortunately it was some what diluted by AI's adventures.

It was also refreshing to have an Episode focus on one character in particular, rather than the group as a whole, as we've seen all season. Both shows are beginning to suffer from having too many characters. Let's hope for more of the same.

[> [> Agree and disagree. -- Rob, 08:04:39 05/09/03 Fri

"I've missed these one-off eps. Unfortunately it was some what diluted by AI's adventures."

I agree that it's nice that especially before the big arc-athon, the show took an episode to take a breather and focus on a character. I don't agree though that they shouldn't have had some arc elements in the episode. That is what always makes BtVS and AtS so special to me, that no episode could be placed anywhere in any order and make sense. Even in the 2nd season BtVS standalones, there is some element or line that ties it to the time period in which it takes place. For example, I just went over "Killed by Death" for my annotation site. While for the most part, it is a standalone story, there is one thing that keeps being repeated that makes sure you watch it in the correct order: Jenny's death. And you can go back to just about every standalone episode and find an important element. "The Pack," for example, Principal Flutie is killed. "Ted" renews the Jenny/Giles relationship. "Inca Mummy Girl" has the first time Oz sees Willow. I like that there are connecting elements there that keep the arc moving forward, even while the majority of the episode is standalone. That's what I like most about "Killer in Me"--the main plot was standalone, but it had been built on by past events, and also contained important character arc elements, like Willow's getting over Tara's death, and Spike's chip. "Players" was a perfect example for me of a great standalone episode for the same reasons: the major focus was on a self-contained story, yet there was still some important forward movement in the season-long arc. And, I might add, one of AtS's best episode closing shots.


[> [> [> Tasty cheese -- Liam, 09:20:46 05/09/03 Fri

I liked 'Players' because it gave Gunn a chance to shine as a character, and has vindicated my defence of him to other fans. While the James Bond type story was cheesy, it was tasty cheese, and he got the girl in the end. :)

Regarding JCC's comment about 'Angel' and 'Buffy' having 'too many characters', while I would certainly agree regarding 'Buffy' after the potentials were brought in, I feel that 'Angel' has kept the numbers reasonable at seven: Angel, Cordelia, Wes, Gunn, Fred, Connor, and Lorne. We also should remember that there were eight main characters in season 3 of 'Buffy': Buffy, Giles, Willow, Xander, Angel, Cordelia, Oz, and Faith.

[> Preserving thread untill I get home in the AM -- yabyumpan, 12:12:20 05/09/03 Fri

Loved this episode but haven't got time to write my thoughts, hope it's still here in the morning ;o)

[> [> If not... -- aliera, 21:26:26 05/09/03 Fri

...hoping you'll initiate a new one. :-)

[> [> [> Re: If not... -- yabyumpan, 01:37:43 05/10/03 Sat

Thanks, I've just done a long post on LMPTM and I'm now knackered and need to get to bed but if this thread disappears before I get up, maybe I will start a new one. Loved this ep and lots to say, esp on Gunn.

[> Metaphor as mistake -- KdS, 05:28:30 05/10/03 Sat

Picked the title for this post of the top of my head, because I remembered the tune from an old Warner Bros. cartoon. When I checked the lyrics, turns out it's about sex as an escape from your problems. Sort of appropriate.

The Best Lies are Half Truths (spoilers for Home) -- Vash the Stampede, 08:23:13 05/09/03 Fri

What if Angel didn't give Conner a new life; rather he gave him someone else's life? What if the family Conner is now with (let's call them McCoy) had a son (let's call him Jack) that bore a passing resemblance to him, and for whatever reason (either natural or supernatural) they lost him? Now, rather than create a new reality where Conner has a different family, or alter the memories of potentially hundreds or thousands of people, Wolfram and Hart make it so Team Angel has forgotten him, and the McCoy's and their community believe Conner is Jack. Not only is this more economical power wise (after all, it's not like they are hiding a potentially devastating power source), but it also makes things easier on all involved. The McCoy's get their son back, and Conner remembers Jack's life, so he loves his family and his girlfriend as naturally as the original did. Also, if Conner still possesses his powers (which I believe he does), it would explain why no one, including Conner himself, realizes he is different, because they all remember him as Jack, and Jack never displayed abilities like that before.


[> Reminds me of what they did to Tefe in the last Swamp Thing series -- A. Lurker, 11:26:13 05/09/03 Fri

A Rant on Spike, the soul quest, ME, and avoiding philosophical questions (minor season 7 spoilers) -- ECH, 08:51:38 05/09/03 Fri

It is hard to say exactly what major change the soul has brought to Spike. It has allowed him to have a wider sense of morality that isn't just based on what Buffy thinks is right or wrong, but not much wider. And, that is really all I can think of.

The only explanation that I can come up with despite it going against canon it that Spike with out a soul was a mix of William and the demon having by far having the most influence. This season the demon still retains control, but there is more of Williams positive attributes mixed in. Perhaps, what we saw of insane Spike in Lessons and a bit in STSP and Help was William bleeding through before the demon reasserted itself.

I mean if you took at unspoiled person at random that never watched the show and you got rid of the references to the soul and Spike being different now from Storyteller thru Touched and you also had that person watch Bargaining thru TR last season and asked them to try to pick out which episodes Spike has a soul and which ones that he doesn't I would bet that person would 9 times out of 10 pick more of those season 7 episodes as having Spike without a soul then those season 6 episodes.

The problem is ME decided (for whatever reason) to give Spike a soul. But, they had no clue how he should be portrayed. I have heard from some pretty decent sources that ME was playing with changing Spike's name to William this year, but it was shot down by Fox for many reason related to merchandising. And, in Lessons and the original script of BY you can very much see that ME was originally planning a Spike that would have been much closer to William, but my guess is in spite of that the ratings and the popularity of Spike but the big kibosh on that.

So ME had no clue what to do with Spike, I don't believe Marti when she said in her little recent interview that they forgot Spike in the basement, they aren't that stupid. They simply did not know what to do with him or how he should act or be portrayed. They had no personality that would in anyway be as popular as the one they already had for Spike. So, they simply kept him insane or tortured for the entire first half of the season until the ratings drop to the point where they realize that they need to bring back the Spike the audience loves. Thus, they bring back the snark, the love of violence, the duster, the romantic side of him, the I don't give a s**t street fighter attitude, and the impulsivity.

Yes, it is more entertaining, and I enjoy watching this Spike much more, but part of me still feels that ME is telling not showing Spike is a totally different entity (as Fury has Buffy state in the end of LMPTM).

In the three eps from STSP thru Selfless Spike's soul was brought up once on the show, because they were showing he was changed, viewers could see and understand he is different now.

In the two episodes LMPTM and Dirty Girls there were at least a dozen references to the soul, Spike being changed, not that person anymore, or different. That is because ME is now showing us pretty much the same Spike as last year and has to rely on hammering it over our heads that he is totally different and not that person anymore because we can't see the difference.

It sort of reminds me one of the reasons ME failed in season 6, they said over and over again that Buffy's behavior was justifiable and that he is evil he doesn't have a soul, but they were attacking Spike (in what was IMHO a racist or spiciest way) that he is not trust worthy he is soulless and he deserves any abuse he gets. Now if ME had Buffy and the gang use the evil things he has done like try to kill them or sell out to Adam as reasons why he was evil and untrustworthy I might think differently. But instead it was only that he doesn't have a soul, it was about what he is, not how he acts or what he does. And, this season Buffy doesn't defend Spike based on how he acts either, she simply says he has a soul now he is different, again she is judging Spike not on his actions, but by what he is.

And, the final thing that has been pissing me off, is that ME violated their own canon by having Spike get a soul intentionally. Having a soulless vampire go out to get his or her soul back for any reason is against canon, because vampires are supposed to be irredeemably evil. Which means they can't change or want to change, for any reason, except through outside forces making them IE Angel's curse.

IMHO, ME knows exactly how they messed up, and IMHO that is the reason why no one has ever brought up the soul or the significance of Spike's soul quest. Or, even asked any questions about it. All ME has done is have Spike tell Buffy that he got his soul back for her, and have her say he has a soul now he is different. I find it totally implausible that Giles would have no interest whatsoever in finding out the story behind a soulless vampire going out to change his nature.

ME should not have had Spike get his own soul back if they were simply going to ignore this incredible happenstance and limit it to how it affects Buffy. And, even then they haven't shown that Spike getting his soul back has really changed Buffy's opinion of him and made her question their relationship. All ME has shown me is that having a soul has allowed Buffy to treat Spike in a way that she might have wanted to last year, but refused to because of his nature.

If she wanted to simply cuddle with soulless Spike last year, he would have been just as willing. Instead she hit him, berated him, and then screwed him. Buffy showed him that she didn't want emotional warmth or intimacy, she wanted violence and sex. Now I am sure Spike would have much rather had warmth and intimacy, but sort of like Dru liking to be tortured, if that is what the girl want in Spike's mind that is what he is going to give the girl.

It wouldn't mind if the show would have simply brought up the issue and left the question open if the spiciest behavior of Buffy and the Scooby's was right or wrong (IE treating someone for what they are not how they act). Instead they tried to justify it last season with the AR and Xander saying that he never forgot what he really was. But, they had Spike prove them wrong by going out to get his soul back, and thus showing that he wasn't just a rabid caged animal to use and abuse, and that he was capable of making himself trustworthy and changing. Instead they totally ignored the ramifications of Spike's actions, and they have had no one (except for a little line from Buffy in NLM asking him how he got his soul back, in which the topic was quickly changed) has wondered or asked any questions about the soul quest. And, the only question that has really been asked about the soul itself was by Dawn being incredulous that the soul would really make Spike better.

It seems to me that the soul and soul quest that many people expected would be a big part of this season ended up in spite of its moral and philosophical implications to be the major storyline that the writers ignored like the plague.

And, I know a lot of people say that the soul quest meant nothing because he didn't want to become a better man just for himself he wanted to become a better man for someone else, or to avoid hurting that person, or to get back in the good grace of that person. But, if a soulless evil demon can change for something abstract like love or to be a more trustworthy partner, what does that say about good and evil and the nature of the soulless in the Buffyverse.

Even if the writers were to try to say that Spike's soul quest didn't mean anything because he didn't go on it for the right reasons (IE to become a moral and proper individual because he personally wanted to be that kind or person and not because Buffy wanted that kind of person from him), it would have been better then the writers ignoring the issue and its implications like the plague and simply saying he has a soul now he is different. That is called IMHO was taking the easy way out and avoiding a rich moral and philosophical quandary, because it is too sticky a subject and may or may not violate certain principles of the established canon of the show. Whether it did or it didn't violate the shows canon, I would have liked it questioned. It makes me feel like Giles had a lobotomy that doesn't seem to care at all that Spike has a soul and he went out to get one.

[> Re: A Rant on Spike, (minor season 7 spoilers) -- CW, 09:18:51 05/09/03 Fri

While I don't exactly agree with everything, you've said I think you're justified in your opinions. Marti Noxon is sometimes careless about the things she says concerning the show, so it's difficult to know when she's telling the truth , being dishonest (as Joss sometimes is) to keep up interest, or just plain doesn't care to say anything other than what she thinks people want to hear.

Frankly I don't think William the bloody awful vampire-poet would be a particularly popular character. Maybe Andrew is filling the role Marti envisioned for him. Since its clear a lot of fans love Spike as is, it would have been be nearly suicidal to change the character that much on a permanent basis.

ME is changing the rules all the time. It's more noticeable on Angel, where I think, they've pretty much given up on keeping it in the vicinity of believable fantasy, if there can be such a thing. Die hard fans tend to accept it one way or the other. The particulars of Spike's soul and resouling are just one of those things you have to accept as is or reject. ME will do as it pleases.

[> Re: A Rant on Spike -- Rina, 09:22:06 05/09/03 Fri

The first thing you must remember about the show and all of the characers is that everything revolves around Buffy. After all, the show is called BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Not only does Buffy's experiences affect her development, but so do the experiences of the supporting characters - including Spike.

Spike finally getting his soul was not just about how it affected him. Most importantly, it was about how it affected Buffy. For years, Buffy had judged him based on the fact that he was soulless. Angel was good, because he had a soul. Spike was an evil thing, because he didn't.

After Buffy discovered that Spike had a soul in Season 7, you will noticed that she treated him differently. At first, one could argue that yeah, now Spike is more acceptable and worthy of her friendship, because he he has a soul. Even more importantly, Spike sought to regain his soul - unlike Angel. But the most important change in Buffy's moral outlook happened in "Get It Done". The audience saw that Buffy has finally dropped that rigid moral outlook that has tainted her relationship with Spike. When she was ranting at him, she was telling him that she no longer want a souled vampire who hung around crying over his past deeds and acting like some second-rate Dudley Do Right. She wanted a little of the old Spike back - the snarky vampire who could kill with great skill. What Buffy was really saying that she wanted both the light and the dark in Spike . . . the same light and dark she has finally accepted that she also possessed. She doesn't want Spike to be an outright killer, but she also does not need him holding back his dark side . . . especially when that dark side is needed.

[> [> Agree with Rina, some additional points -- s'kat, 11:06:26 05/09/03 Fri

I think Rina put if very well above:

The first thing you must remember about the show and all of the characers is that everything revolves around Buffy. After all, the show is called BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Not only does Buffy's experiences affect her development, but so do the experiences of the supporting characters - including Spike.

Exactly. While in Angel, we get to explore the ramifications of what a soul means - we don't as much on Buffy. Remember when Angel was on Buffy - we got very little on his character - outside of what was absolutely necessary regarding her journey. We didn't know he was rejected by his Dad or his relationship with Spike or anything else. All we got was what would metaphorically relate to what Buffy was going through. Same thing with Spike, we get what metaphorically relates to Buffy.

I remember when fans were clamoring for more information on Angel way back in S2 and S3 online. They were ranting that we got nothing on what hell was like for him or how he'd changed outside of Amends. Angel the Series solved some of that desire - heck it was the writers answer to the fans.

Whedon has stated in numerous interviews that BTVS is about a girl coming of age, he is to some extent hindered in his story-telling by those pre-established boundaries. So as a result we see Spike's journey filtered through Buffy's eyes, just as we see Dawn, Xander, Willow, and Giles. What we see and know to some extent is only what Buffy knows, or if it is information outside of Buffy - such as Anya in Selfless or Spike in LMPTM - it in some way metaphorically relates to her. In Selfless - Anya is dealing with her female identity, her personal power and choices relating to it - this relates to Buffy who is also struggling with power and her identity. In LMPTM - Spike is similarily struggling with his identity, personal power, and his choices - just as Buffy does. What we see is directly related in some way to what Buffy needs to learn and her journey to adult hood. Whatever happens to Spike in the finale must in some way be a comment on that.

It's important to remember that while watching Buffy - we have six regular supporting characters and one lead. It's not an ensemble show like Law and Order, The Practice, or ER, or even Firefly was - it's a narrative focused on a lead character with several supporting ones whose stories support the leads. I know that enrages some people, because many fans prefer the supporting characters to the lead, but
hey we knew coming into the show it was all about the lead - so it's not like they mislead us. It's up to us how to view it.

Personally I like how Spike has been portrayed in the series. I have no problems that Spike can be snarky with a soul. Angel is snarky with one. Nor do I see him as the same character he was last year. He seems more mature this year and in the last few episodes? More together. I see the differences. They are subtle sure, but I think they are there. It would annoy me if they were too drastic, because that's not very realistic.

Examples: His speech to Buffy in Touched was not at all like the speeches he's made in past seasons. He made clear that he wanted nothing from her. And he made no excuses.

His comment to Buffy at the end of LMPTM was very different than what he'd have said in prior seasons. He makes no excuses for his actions. He doesn't beg. And he leaves.
Nor did I find his behavior in LMPTM the least bit repellent. I would have said exactly the same things to PRW, PRW deserved it. I think it's expecting a bit much for someone to feel sorry for a)killing a mortal enemy who was powerful like he was and b) someone who is trying to kill him. The fact he didn't kill him - is telling. But enuf on that we've argued LMPTM into the ground.

His reactions to Faith, Xander, Willow and Giles are also far more subdued than previous seasons. He hasn't attacked them, he goes out of his way to save Xander and is horrified by what happens to him in DG, he is careful with Giles and it takes a lot to get him to yell at him. He actually holds his tongue a great deal more - very little snark. Just here and there.

No, I'd say ME's depiction of Spike with a soul within the limited time they've had and considering the boundaries of the show, has been well done.

Why hasn't Giles reacted? Well, you are assuming Buffy told him everything that happened. Or that she had an opportunity to or that Giles would have listened. Giles doesn't appear to hear much of anything Buffy says of late. Also Giles did not go out and research Angel coming back from hell until he was prodded into it by Buffy in Amends - what prodded him? "Angel is making appearences in my dreams and I'm making appearences in his -I won't be able to get past him til it's solved." That is what motivates Giles in S3, not any concern for Angel. In S7 - Giles may not believe Spike got a soul. Why should he? Watcher.

At any rate... running out of steam. Hope that made some lick of sense. For what it's worth? I agree with Rina on this one.


[> [> [> Re: Agree with Rina, some additional points -- ECH, 11:23:19 05/09/03 Fri

I never said I had real problems with showing Spike as not too different then how Spike was before. My problem was that ME is trying to tell me that the soul means everything and that Buffy and the gangs treatment of Spike before the soul was justifiable because all he could be was a monster.

If they wanted me to believe Spike couldn't become a better man last year then they should have had Buffy believe in him instead of abuse him and call him a evil thing that can't change and then him break her belief in him. They never allowed her to show that she believed he could be good at all last year.

Hell, it is Buffy's belief in Spike this season that argueably kept him from breaking under the torture of the first and perhaps kept him from giving in to his demon.

Even if they addressed this topic I would have been happy, but they didn't they ignored it like the implications of the soul quest as if it was on fire.

[> [> [> [> Re: Agree with Rina, some additional points -- s'kat, 11:44:56 05/09/03 Fri

If they wanted me to believe Spike couldn't become a better man last year then they should have had Buffy believe in him instead of abuse him and call him a evil thing that can't change and then him break her belief in him. They never allowed her to show that she believed he could be good at all last year.

Hell, it is Buffy's belief in Spike this season that argueably kept him from breaking under the torture of the first and perhaps kept him from giving in to his demon.

Even if they addressed this topic I would have been happy, but they didn't they ignored it like the implications of the soul quest as if it was on fire.

Actually, I don't think they have ignored it. I think they did address it. Remember Buffy's whole conversation with Holden Webster in CWDP? She talks at length about how she abused Spike and what that said about her. She even repeats a little of that in her discussion with Spike in Touched. We also have them discuss it in again in Never Leave Me - where he tells her she just used him and he understands why - it was self-hatred. That the soul is about self-loathing, as wretched and evil as he was back then, he never really hated himself until now. She acknowledges this but at the same time says that's over now, she no longer feels that way. She similarly acknowledges that she saw him change.

They go out of their way to show that change and how he is different from S6 Spike in Sleeper - where he is disgusted and wants her to kill him. "I can't cry the soul out of me Buffy it won't come, please I need that.." he says about the stake. Something that would never have happened in S6.

So I still disagree with you. I see them addressing it, across numerous episodes and in numerous ways - including Anya's comments to Spike and her attempts to hit on him. "Soulless Spike would have me upside down and half-way to happy right now." Or "have you become a wimp-ire now?" Or "apparently spike gets a get-out of free card...but no we need to forgive...blah blah.."

In fact some viewers have complained they've been addressing it so much it's become the Spike/Buffy show.
It's subtle but there, in almost every single episode. And the writers tried to make it clear to us last year that Spike was evil without a soul. They did it with the demon eggs. The sex with Anya. The attempted rape. The biting the girl - which yes he talked himself into but he did it - or the chip wouldn't have fired. And the scenes in Dead Things.
He had no choice but to be evil without that compass.
Choosing the compass - provided him with a choice. I found this decision on the writers part to be interesting, still do. Have yet to see what they'll continue to do with it. Spike's story is after all far from over. But to say they haven't addressed it at all? Or ignored it? Sorry, in the show I've been watching and analyzing they have. Quite a bit.

[> [> [> [> Souls and their value on BTVS... -- Kate, 12:31:11 05/09/03 Fri

I never said I had real problems with showing Spike as not too different then how Spike was before. My problem was that ME is trying to tell me that the soul means everything and that Buffy and the gangs treatment of Spike before the soul was justifiable because all he could be was a monster.

ECH - I understand what you are saying, but I think ME does this on purpose. I've always thought there was a double-standard with regards to how say Angel and Anya were treated as compared to chippedSpike (esp during season 5 and 6) and I think this is done with intent (for the most part) and not just to annoy the heck out of me. lol

One of the first things Giles tells Buffy, Willow, and Xander in season one is that a vampire is soulless, evil creature whose human counter-part has been replaced by the demon and that it is incapable of human emotions - love, compassion, caring, etc. So from the start we have this black and white paradigm set up: Humans - Good, Demons - Bad. And this school of thought continues throughout the high school years and on past so that we can still see its prominance today (especially in Xander). However...there has been a slow shift as the characters have grown up and as the show has evolved (as well as its audience) to a greater understanding of the "shades of gray" school of thought. As we have characters like Warren, Willow, Clem, the Initiative, and Maggie Walsh appear the picture becomes a bit murkier, forcing our characters to question the rhetoric spouted out by Giles as a mouthpiece for the CoW during season 1. What they begin to see is life isn't as black & white or clear cut as it might have been when they were younger because look - Humans can be bad - Warren, Maggie, Willow and Demons can be good - Spike, Clem. So I think this has just been another lesson for characters, especially Buffy, to learn and Spike has been a way of demonstrating this lesson - which is: life becomes a lot more confusing as you grown up and often times it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad.

If they wanted me to believe Spike couldn't become a better man last year then they should have had Buffy believe in him instead of abuse him and call him a evil thing that can't change and then him break her belief in him. They never allowed her to show that she believed he could be good at all last year.

Following along in line with SK's point about this show being all about Buffy and her view of the world, then ME couldn't have shown us Spike trying to become a better man last year because Buffy couldn't and wouldn't allow herself to believe that even as a possibility. She was so consumed by her own self-hatred, anger, and pain and needing Spike to be a convienent and justifiable outlet for releasing those emotions instead of directing them where they should have gone (her friends) that there was no way she could look beyond what he is (a vampire) to who he is (a cognizant being with valid emotions). Before Buffy could see Spike as anything other than a soulless vampire, she had to see herself for who she was and to take the time to confront the emotions and feelings she had been previously exorcising out on Spike. Because if Buffy was forced to believe that Giles was wrong and that (some) vampires (and by extension demons) do have the capability to feel then she would have been forced to take a really good look at herself and wonder about the type of person she was if she could abuse someone who loves her, so easily. (This isn't to say that only Buffy was at fault last year. I think it was a mutually abusive relationship, but that doesn't completely detract from the fact that Spike has been changing over the years and the gang definitely refused to see it because of the reasons I mentioned above.)

The reason Buffy has been able to "see" Spike this year and believe that he has worked to become a better man isn't because of the soul (although that plays a large part), it's because Buffy's own way of thinking has changed. It is hard to refute the possibility that a creature of "evil" can become good, under given circumstances, when a creature of "good" (Willow and Buffy herself) can become evil, given the right circumstances.

I absolutely agree that there are numerous contradictions and double-standards within the Buffyverse (sometimes even more so than on "Angel"), but that is because the show is about the human condition and in particular the point of view of one particular young, female character. So those contradictions in thought are her contradictions in thought and as she grows-up and begins to figure things out about herself, her life and the people around her then these ideas on the show change as she does.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Souls and their value on BTVS... (spoiler Home) -- lunasea, 13:41:11 05/09/03 Fri

It is hard to refute the possibility that a creature of "evil" can become good, under given circumstances, when a creature of "good" (Willow and Buffy herself) can become evil, given the right circumstances.

Actually this could be an interesting discussion. A souled creature has their moral compass that directs them to good. That allows them to override their evil sides. What other reason do they have to do good? Being good is completely illogical. Souled creatures can all do evil, but even Willow had a spark of humanity left that could be reached. Souled beings *do* evil, they don't *become* it.

Examples of redemption are everywhere. No one is irredeemable, if s/he has a soul (with the exception of Connor, but that was different). It even looks like Wesley was getting through to Lilah (which could be an interesting story. A creature who lives in Hell being redeemed in a way).

The show really did set a precedent with Angel that had to be followed. I would like to see them explore why the soul orients a creature to good, but they have in some ways. They really leave it up to the audience to decide this. It is also what fuels the Spike debates.

The writers were completely brilliant in how they got around this with Spike. Rather than change where his moral compass pointed, first they took away his freedom and then he developed a new moral compass (Buffy), so at least he could still fight. It was interesting why Spike had that dream in OOMM. They worked with all the limitations they had previously set to explain Angel/Angelus. It allowed him to do good actions. He didn't *become* good, he just *did* good. Doing good even made him feel guilty. Given the opportunity, he would do evil. When push came to shove, his new moral compass wasn't strong enough.

Can an evil creature become good? Why would it want to? What logical reason is there for something lacking a soul to want to do good for no other reason than because it is good? Good makes no sense. Why go through the burden of being good?

Evil creatures can do good and good creatures can do evil.

My own view on vampires is that when they are vamped they do lose their humanity. They can redevelop that though. It isn't quite what they had as a human, but it does mimic it well. Angelus was free of humanity when he lost his soul, but his feelings for Buffy were still there and as the season went on, these effected him more and more. We even saw him be tender while he was sneaking in Buffy's bedroom in "Passion." The passions remain, vamped or souled. What changes is how the creature views them and acts on them. Oriented to good, Angelus' feelings for Buffy were sort of fine. Oriented to evil, he can't stand them and is willing to end the world in order to be free. He lashes out at Buffy through her friends because of this.

Spike fits with this. Once he decides that he loves Buffy, because of the dream in OOMM, since he is a willing fool for love, he views it as something beyond his control and acts accordingly. The difference between Angelus and Spike is how they view themselves. That is what causes the different actions they have.

I really hope that doesn't reopen the Spike debates.

[> [> [> [> Re: Agree with Rina, some additional points -- lunasea, 13:04:31 05/09/03 Fri

How is Buffy supposed to believe in Spike when she doesn't even believe in herself? There is nothing to sing about, the world sucks, I came back broken, but HEY Spike, You da man!!!

Spike will be an interesting character, when they get around to actually exploring him. Maybe next season, maybe not. Maybe it isn't something ME/Joss wants to explore too much. Has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with they can only tell so much in 42 minutes a week. Buffy's faith and Angel's redemption seems to be what enthralls him. Without Buffy's faith, I would venture that they would take Spike into Redemption through faith alone. They seem to be going there with "she believes in me." That contrasts sharply with Angel needing to make "Amends."

They explored the themes they did and it was interesting to see Spike's perspective and roll in this. They don't really explore characters or plot devices, like the soul. They had him get his soul for Buffy. That allows him to have more of a story later. It wasn't about the soul. It is about the redemption it now makes possible. NOW his story can really begin.

[> [> [> Well said SK... -- Kate, 11:38:06 05/09/03 Fri

I was trying to gather my own thoughts on how I see and feel about Spike and you just nailed it for me. I agree with all of your points and I think they are well supported. Thanks for reading my mind. lol

[> One really big change (spoilers to 7.19)... -- Dariel, 09:48:22 05/09/03 Fri

Although ME hasn't spent a lot of time waiving it in our faces, there is one HUGE difference between the Spike we saw in S6 Spike and the one we see in S7. That is the fact that Spike no longer has a chip to restrain him. Spike is choosing not to feed on humans, not to kill them (as he did with Wood). The soul has made this possible. In S6, when he thought the chip didn't work, Spike lost no time in seeking out a victim to feed on.

What we're seeing is a Spike who has changed in the ways that matter. He doesn't feed on or hurt humans, he shows kindness to people, such as Faith, and the monk in ES, he's appalled by what Caleb did to Xander.

As for Spike's persona, ME has shown us a couple of times, as in Storyteller, GID, and in Empty Spaces, that part of that persona is just posturing. (His scenes with Andrew, in particular, such as the whole blooming onion thing in ES and the Big Bad video image in Storyteller illustrate this.)

[> [> Re: One really big change (spoilers to 7.19)... -- ECH, 09:57:45 05/09/03 Fri

Yes, but you are forgetting that Buffy told him that Spike was an killer and an evil thing right before that in Smashed, and I have to ask myself if Buffy told Spike he could be more then that and supported him as she has this season at the time he found out his chip wasn't working on her for some reason would he still have gone out to try to feed? This is a question very few people have asked. And, if Buffy didn't believe in Spike this season would he have given in to the will of the First and his demonic blood lust and become a killer again?

It is impossible to say. All I know is that Buffy not believeing Spike could be better then a monster last season contributed to his acting like a monster. If no one believes in you it can be very hard to believe in yourself.

[> Why seek a soul? -- Caroline, 13:44:01 05/09/03 Fri

The persona of Spike appears to be quite similar in S6 and 7 but there are significant differences in the underlying character. The main one that I would bring up is the effect that the soul has had on Spike. He feels such an incredible level of guilt and remorse for what he has done, not just to Buffy but to all his victims and he wants to atone. I'll give a few examples:

In Lessons, he says that he is 'sure to be caned'. He tried to cut out his soul.

In BY, he shows that he has no expectations of a relationship with Buffy, he just wants to help. He feels incredible remorse for his actions not just towards Buffy but to all his victims.

In STSP, Spike realizes that just getting the soul is not enough:

You go off and try to wall up the bad
spots, put your heart back in where
it fell out, and you call yourself
finished, but you're not. You're
worse than ever, you are.

William's a good boy. Carries the
water, carries the sin. It's
supposed to yet easier, in'it? It's
s'posed to help to help. 'Cept it
doesn't. And it's still so heavy...

It's what you do with it that counts. There is more work to be done.

In Help, he's tormented by 'hurting the girl'. Is this Buffy or is it the victims that we later learn he has been triggered to kill? Later, he helps Buffy to save Cassie, to stop anyone from 'huring the girl'.

In Sleeper, Spike tells us how things are different:

And everything I felt, feel - it only
cuts deeper now....

He is horrified that he may have hurt someone and goes out to investigate. Once he learns the truth, he confesses immediately to Buffy and then asks her to kill him. When Buffy refuses to stake him he says:

No, please... I need it. I can't cry
this soul out of me. It won't come.
And I... killed... And I feel it...
I feel every one of them...

In Bring on the Night, he asks to be tied up so that he can't be triggered. In NLM, he reveals the depths of his self-loathing and connects it directly to his soul.

I could go on. But I think the point has been made. The impact the soul has on Spike's moral perspective, his judgment of his own behaviour and character as well the emotional toll this has taken on him distinguishes Spike in S7 from S6. In S6 he tried incredibly hard to be good for Buffy but we did see behaviour that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape. He felt remorse for the AR, and had to psych himself up for the biting but most of his behaviour is a sign of lack of moral compass. It puts into stark relief the agonies that he goes through in S7. These agonies are not just associated with Buffy or things linked to Buffy - he has a broader, deeper notion of morality, something that the conditioning of the chip could not give to him. In S6 he had the moral understanding of a child, in S7 he has the understanding of an adult. And that's not only because he acquired a soul, it's because he's learning what to do with it. I don't think that the question should be why isn't Spike very different after he acquired his soul - I think the question should be why a vampire would go out and seek a soul in the first place.

[> [> That was intriguing. (vague Spike/soul spoilers S6/S7) -- WickedBufffy, 14:16:38 05/09/03 Fri

"but we did see behaviour that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape."

There are people with souls who have no moral compass, either. It seems difficult to use those behaviour references in these discussions since humans with souls do horrendous acts also.

Other than that disagreement, what a great question.

"....why a vampire would go out and seek a soul in the first place."

Most vampires don't seem to seek a soul. Even Angel didn't, his was a curse. (Though he does fight hard to keep it now that he has it.) I'm unclear if any other vampires have sought one out?

It appeared his initial motivation to get one was to be able to be what he thought Buffy wanted. He started working on "being good" in S6. Frustrated nothing was working, he went for the soul option. Which seems to be pretty rare for a vamp, if not completely unique.

I felt like Spike had already begun his journey in S6 and the soul addition was like a jetpack on his back in his learning curve. (Maybe it cut 200 years off his journey, who knows?) As time and experience went on, he greew from the morality of a child to that of an adult - muc as we do... with time and experience. He just started with a handicap we didn't have from the beginning - no soul.

[> [> [> Re: That was intriguing. (vague Spike/soul spoilers S6/S7) -- Caroline, 14:39:05 05/09/03 Fri

'There are people with souls who have no moral compass, either. It seems difficult to use those behaviour references in these discussions since humans with souls do horrendous acts also.'

We're not actually disagreeing. You misinterpreted me. Just because I said that these actions stemmed from Spike's lack of soul does not mean that I believe that those with a soul are not capable of committing these acts. In fact, if you look elsewhere in my post, you will see that I say that the soul is just a starting point, it's how you use it that matters.

As far as we are aware in the Buffyverse, Spike is the only vampire who has sought a soul. While I don't think that he was aware of all the consequences that a soul would bring him, he was certainly aware that there would be a change. I was trying to point out to ECH that Spike's behaviour prior to ensoulment is the really weird thing for a vamp, not the behaviour of soulled Spike in S7. I'd love to know if all vampires would respond to a chip in the same manner as Spike or if there is something about him that made the conditioning possible (and thus the choice to acquire a soul, which I don't think would have been made sans chip).

[> [> [> [> ... and then I said (vague Spike/soul spoilers S6/S7) -- WickedBuffy, 16:14:25 05/09/03 Fri

ahhhh ... I think I understand now what you were saying.

For some reason I thought you meant that Spikes positive actions presoul weren't as valid as Spikes actions post-soul (S6 to 7), simply because having a soul made it count. And that, presoul he had a childs morality and post soul (automatically), it was an adults morality.

Sorry to jump to that - I've just read some of those quotes before being used to validate that point.

::standing on my head::

" ...that Spike's behaviour prior to ensoulment is the really weird thing for a vamp, not the behaviour of soulled Spike in S7" I get it now. Sorry, Caroline, and thanks for clarifying it for me.

I always speculate about what kind of vampires the humans would be if they were turned. Like Andrew - would he continue to be a funny nerd with evil, but incompetent plans, similar to Harmony? Or would that incredibly deep (thin) streak of evil that seems to surface from time to time fully evolve when he was vamped and make him a very dangerous adversary?

[> [> Re: Why seek a soul? -- Dochawk, 15:37:31 05/09/03 Fri

I agree that Spike does not want to commit future atrocities and the evidence supports it (I would argue with most of you on the itnerpetation of Spike letting Wood live though), but he does not feel guilt over what he did as a vampire. He makes that clear in LMPTM when he tells Wood that he is not sorry for killing Wood's mother. he does not have the guilt complex that Angel still carries for his conduct.

[> [> [> Re: Why seek a soul? -- leslie, 17:23:51 05/09/03 Fri

"but he does not feel guilt over what he did as a vampire. He makes that clear in LMPTM when he tells Wood that he is not sorry for killing Wood's mother."

I think it's a little more complex than that, actually. The torment he feels at the beginning of the season he attributes to general guilt over his acts as a vampire--I don't think you can argue that it's over whatever people he may have killed under the influence of the First after acquiring the soul because he isn't even aware of those yet--yet he says that he isn't sorry for killing Nikki. Putting aside the fine semantic distinctions between "feeling guilty" and "feeling sorry," he seems to be making a distinction between innocent people who had no chance against him and people--such as Slayers--who are his equals as warriors. He reeeeeaaaaaally thinks of himself as a warrior; that's how he presents himself from his first appearance in Sunnydale. He seems to feel that there is a distinction between killing an enemy in battle and murdering a civilian during peacetime--he feels guilty for the latter, but not the former. Which is, let's face it, the general attitude of Western society toward killing people.

[> [> [> [> Exactly...some additional support (Spoilers to Touched) -- s'kat, 19:53:33 05/09/03 Fri

He seems to feel that there is a distinction between killing an enemy in battle and murdering a civilian during peacetime--he feels guilty for the latter, but not the former. Which is, let's face it, the general attitude of Western society toward killing people.

Spike has a line in Touched that really supports this:

"There are always casualities in a war."

All the way through the series he sees slayers as something other than human - he sees them as equals, warriors. That's how Buffy, Faith, Kendra, and Nikki have been portrayed in his pov as warriors, soliders.

In Villains, the cave demon tells Spike: "You were a legendary warrior"

The irony of Spike falling for Buffy is he is forced to see her as something more than just a warrior. And when she dies he is forced to deal with it on a personal level.
That would be meaningless if he didn't separate the slayers from the human population - as something else in his head.
Also it would make no sense for Spike to fall for Buffy if he hadn't separated her into that other category.

Add to this that in Spike's head he didn't kill Nikki - so much as beat her in a battle to the death - the old two men enter, one man leaves. And on top of that "I was
a vampire, she was a slayer" line. This is incredibly important. It's how soliders feel in battle. They may feel remorse, but they don't feel sorry - it was either them or us pov.

What annoys me most about this debate is everyone is so wrapped up with the words and is ignoring the action - Spike did NOT kill Wood - he would have last year in a second. He just scares him - which makes sense - since Wood did attempt to murder him. Not fight him equally like Spike did with Nikki. Murder him. Trap him in a room with crosses and kill him while his soul was incapicitated. And Wood felt no remorse or guilt. Of the two, Spike's fight with Nikki was in some ways ironically enough more honorable than Wood's with Spike. But Spike shows Wood sympathy in two ways: he does not kill him AND he tells Buffy the truth, not sticking around to see what she does. That is more sympathy than Wood has really shown anyone in the show without getting something out of it for himself.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Exactly...some additional support (Spoilers to Touched) -- Rufus, 19:44:22 05/10/03 Sat

What annoys me most about this debate is everyone is so wrapped up with the words and is ignoring the action - Spike did NOT kill Wood - he would have last year in a second. He just scares him - which makes sense - since Wood did attempt to murder him. Not fight him equally like Spike did with Nikki. Murder him. Trap him in a room with crosses and kill him while his soul was incapicitated. And Wood felt no remorse or guilt. Of the two, Spike's fight with Nikki was in some ways ironically enough more honorable than Wood's with Spike. But Spike shows Wood sympathy in two ways: he does not kill him AND he tells Buffy the truth, not sticking around to see what she does. That is more sympathy than Wood has really shown anyone in the show without getting something out of it for himself.

I have to add in a few things here.....Spike went to that garage to help out Wood in respect to being part of a team. He may not have totally trusted Wood but he went. Wood has a legitimate beef against soulless Spike but I don't think he was fair in trying to get the Spike with a soul. I understand the logic used by Giles and Wood in that Spike did pose a danger if that trigger could be used by the first again....but, they both had agendas that went beyond public safety. Giles sees Spike as a hinderance to Buffy, and Wood wants to avenge his mother.

To come up with the idea that because Spike was mean to Wood by saying his mother didn't love him means that he doesn't regret his actions as a soulless vampire goes against what we have seen. Spike showed great remorse over his actions but he also wanted to help out the Scoobies. Wood trapped him and beat him up. Spike may have been a bit of a bastard to compare the mothers love....but he wanted to hurt Wood in some way. He also told Wood why he hadn't been honest about his mother issues. So, if the situation were different and Wood hadn't just tried to kill Spike, maybe Spike wouldn't have said what he did in the way he did about Nikki's love for her son.

[> [> [> Calvin-Luther -- lunasea, 07:18:42 05/10/03 Sat

they had to do something to contrast with Angel. We don't want to see Angel 2 (even JM worried that is where Spike would go when he found out about the resouling). Instead they could explore an interesting area IF Spike makes it over to AtS next season.

People have commented on how Angel is going to have feelings about Spike actually going to get his soul. I would think that Angel would just blow that off as Spike being willing to do anything for a girl, something Angel knows about Spike and isn't going to consider all that admirable. Angel will blow off all Spike's good actions this way. What Angel will be upset about it how easily Spike has moved beyond everything. "She believes in me" and Spike is fine? Why can't Angel do that?

Another area they can explore is how the unsouled vampire relates to the souled one. When Angel finds out about "Seeing Red," he is going to have feelings, strong ones that hopefully involve smashing of some sort. If Angel dismisses everything he did as Angelus, he is going to have to dismiss what Spike did unsouled. Can Angel do this? I doubt it. If Angel can see how unsouled and souled Spike relate, he will see how Angelus and Angel relate.

[> [> [> [> Re: Calvin-Luther -- leslie, 09:27:23 05/10/03 Sat

Actually, should there be a next season of Angel with Spike involved in some way, what I'm really looking forward to is Mr. Antiestablishment Make-My-Own-Rules Rebel doing his snarky act with Corporate Vampiredom. I mean, you really don't think the Speaker of Uncomfortable Truths is going to let that one just lie there, do you?

[> Re: Spike -- Dochawk, 14:00:13 05/09/03 Fri

I think most people here (well the one's who aren't skipping this post because it is me talking about Spike) know I am not the leader of the Spike (or more accurately Spuffy) fan club.

But I think Spike has made dramatic changes. In Empty Places, he went at Giles request to investigate the monastary in Gilroy. This is something he might have done in Season 6 to make Buffy happy, but never at Giles urging. In fact, his last dealing with Giles resulted on an attempt on Spike's life and yet he is willing to go without checking with Buffy first. He does this because he thinks the information is important in the battle to save the world. I think its a major step in his development.

[> I still stand by the explanation of vampires using the Osiris Complex......... -- Rufus, 22:21:23 05/09/03 Fri

To explain why a personality can fragment and exist in one mind.

Why have I chosen The Osiris Complex as the title of this book? I coined the term in my previous book, Multiple Personality Disorder: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment. The Osiris complex designates what I believe is the most important motif in psychopathology: the fragmentation of the self in response to external trauma. In the Isis-Osiris myth from ancient Egypt, Osiris is murdered by his jealous brother Set, who cuts him into pieces and scatters them far and wide. Isis then gathers her brother Osiris's fragments together, reintegrates them, and resurrects Osiris in a new form: this healing of the traumatized self is my task as a therapist. Fathered by Ra, Isis and Osiris were siblings who married and begot a son Horus, who in turn defeated his uncle Set in battle. The idea communicated by the phrase 'the Osiris complex' is that incest and other psychosocial trauma are at the root of much psychopathology, and can be a direct and overwhelming cause of serious mental illness.
Institutional, social, and economic barriers stand in the way of traumatized children and their recovery, in our society and throughout the world. Like many forms of inflammation, MPD is a normal human response to trauma that has become self destructive. MPD is an autoimmune disorder in which the psyche has become confused about the distinction between self and non-self, and has learned to turn its destructive mechanisms on the self, mistaking it for a foreign invader. Fortunately, over the last thirty years, a specific and effective method for treating this condition has been created through the joint effort of many clinicians.

I see the the infection of the vampire as an element that removes the constraints of the conscience and resets the moral compass towards evil....but the person is who they once were. The mind of the person contains the personality and memories with the soul/conscience gone.

Contrary to prevalent opinion, MPD patients do not have more than one personality; the so-called different personalities are fragmented components of a single personality, abnormally personified and dissociated from each other. Adult patients exhibit core symptoms: voices in the head and ongoing blank spells or periods of missing time. The voices are the different parts of the personality talking to one another and to the main, presenting part of the person who comes for treatment. Periods of missing time occur when aspects of the personality take turns being in control of the body and memory barriers are erected between them.

What happened with Angel and Spike is not a totally new entity setting up in shop but a supplement to what would be the dead person allowing them to live on....but without the conscience having no moral compass. What is Spike and Angel as vampires is the result of their mind becoming fragmented and the components of each single personality, becoming abnormally personified and dissociated from the other. This way Angel is Liam is Angelus, Spike is William but can decide to retain the name Spike.

[> [> That Complex almost seems to fit Connor, in some ways. -- WickedBuffy, 23:44:43 05/09/03 Fri

[> [> One of the best explanations of a vampire -- lunasea, 07:06:28 05/10/03 Sat

It seemed for a while they were really going to get into this when they brought back Angelus this season, but then they completely side-stepped the issue when he was resouled. Angel isn't quite ready to deal with this and it will merit its own season (which to be honest was where I thought this season was going). That will probably be what Angel has to deal with when they get to his final season.

They showed Dissociative Identity Disorder rather well this season. They had Angel talking about Angelus as if he was a separate entity, something he hadn't done before. They gave Angel memory blackouts. They had Angel and Angelus both denigrate the other and actually fight for control. It really hit me sometimes, but didn't cause me quite the pain I thought it would. If I met anyone from ME, I would thank them for two things--Season 6 of BtVS and the middle of Season 4 of AtS.

Redemption. First, what does it mean. Second, what does it take to get someone to that point. For me, redemption is the reintegration of personality that is illustrated by Osiris. The party that needs redemption is caught up in the mistake and cannot see the other parts of himself. Angel first did this by seeing himself as only a monster. Now he doesn't see the monster. He still needs redemption.

What does it take to get someone to this point? For me it was feeling safe. When I felt that I was around people that wouldn't judge that dark side of me and would physically control her if necessary, I was able to let her out and explore what drove her. That is the purpose of a therapist, to create a safe environment where the person can explore and therefore reintergrate these personas.

Cordelia was beginning to fill this role nicely Season 3. That was why Angel started to develop strong feelings with her. It was the Florence Nightengale syndrome in some ways. Jasmine/Cordelius completely undid that. The writers couldn't have Angel at a place where Angel would actually resolve his main issue, so they had to find a way to throw him back. It was painful to watch. It was painful for him to experience.

I think the writers won't set up another female in this role. I think Wesley is being set up for it, instead. Angel needs to explore this without the sexual tension.

[> [> [> Thank-you, thank-you, Lunasea! -- WickedBuffy, 08:45:12 05/10/03 Sat

I'd never been able to get a good grasp on "redemption" until your post. Especially as people have been using it in regards to BtVS. (my lack, completely)

I appreciated your post - it helped me get a better handle on the whole issue.

(Maybe I should translate those other vague terms into DSM language. Might help the muddle.)

[> [> [> [> You're Welcome, but... -- lunasea, 10:02:12 05/10/03 Sat

I am not saying what I said is canon or where the writers are going or if they are even aware of it. It is pretty much THE story I see everywhere in everything. I tried to show how the underlying philosophy of the Buffyverse and Christianity were basically the same. I laugh at the angry atheist posts (no offense to the writers. I am sure people laugh at mine all the time)

Mind-body-spirit are just three ways of looking at the same thing, human existance. Spirit allows us to transcend the limits of human ego. I can't forgive myself. I am a monster. I am unloveable. God can forgive me. God tells me I am his daughter. God loves me very much. Does it really matter whether there is an actual God that does this? What matters is that I can function optimally.

My name on the net used to be "Carla-Sophia." I still use it in Wiccan and Pagan sites, since that is what I am known as. Carla was for Carl Jung. Sophia was for that inner wisdom that we all have and gets projected outwards as God/dess. It was to remind me to always come back to the wisdom and realize everything around me was just the transcendent function's way of speaking. It is so easy to get lost in symbols. I easily lose the forest for the trees.

I don't think a theist could write Buffy. Joss is exploring some fundamental questions that would be answered other ways. It is the way his Sophia is communicating using his transcendent function. His answers remarkably match up with the answers that have already been given by other things. I could do a similar post heavily relying on the sutras for Buffyverse and Buddhism. I am sure people could do Judaism or Islam. I would love to see people do these. We have seen how it lines up with more ancient mythology. Why restrict ourselves to just the common metaphors. We can move onto see why there are all these commonalities. We can see what is behind EVERYTHING.

[> [> [> [> [> of course, of course, of course... -- WIckedBuffy, 10:26:08 05/10/03 Sat

I know your words aren't canon - I'm arguing with you in another section! :>

But just the more defining examples of those words that let the dead horses out of the corral - like redemption - get me a step closer to understanding more, which I appreciate.

... and my other internet name is "Kea" after a Godddess of Chaos.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Rosetta stone -- lunasea, 11:14:51 05/10/03 Sat

I used to want to put together some sort of Rosetta Stone for mind-body-spirit. They are like three different languages. Mind-body is being done by Cognitive Neuroscience among other fields. Mind-Spirit was done wonderfully by Dr. Jung, though there are some other new age movements that address it. Nothing much on body-spirit other than things like the God spot.

A lot of times it does help to take spirtual topics and convert them into psych terms. If you want any others done, let me know.

And You're Welcome.

[> [> [> The thing that made it the best explanation happened in s1 Angel -- Rufus, 16:34:36 05/10/03 Sat

In "I will Remember You" Angel was restored to a totally mortal state and he was just Angel, but still had all the memories of Angelus. For any of the things Angel is confronted with from his human and vampire self, the only thing that makes sense of his father issues, and his personality quirks would be the fact that the vampire is an infection that changes behavior in a way that could be compared to a meek person who turns into a nasty (homicidal in a vampires case) drunk.

[> [> [> [> Re: The thing that made it the best explanation happened in s1 Angel -- lunasea, 17:31:16 05/10/03 Sat

In "I will Remember You" Angel was restored to a totally mortal state and he was just Angel, but still had all the memories of Angelus.

Actually he wasn't quite Angel, which is what makes this the thing that made it the best explanation. He was Angel, but he could feel more. As Doyle told him "More real, now that you're real?" He hurts more, he can taste food better, the dead bodies make him ill. He allows himself to feel for Buffy. Even when they were dating, we didn't get to see him express himself like he does this episode.

He really does show how different the personality is once the personas have all been reintegrated. It makes us more real and stronger emotionally. It allows us to do things that we may have been afraid to do. It makes us more expressive.

The curse is handled as if Angel is a drunk, who if he gets happy will not just fall off the wagon, but run his friends over with it.

I think in that episode we got what Angel's central issue is. His father stuff is just part of it, much as Buffy's abandonment issues and superiority-inferiority complex is part of something. "And I'm not sure what I am now. I don't know what my purpose is." (then they cut a great line about him working with Xander)

Who am I? It is *the* fundamental question. When it comes to his father, he was trying so hard to prove that he isn't what his father said he was, a disappointment and a sinner. Even when that is dealt with, he still doesn't know what he is. The father issues are just a part of Angel, part of a much larger picture.

All the vamps we have seen in detail were vamped in early adulthood (with the possible exception of the Master), when they are finding out who they are, often in a moment where they are trying to find this out (Liam had just broken away from his father and wanted to see the world, Dru had run away to a convent and wanted to be pure in His sight, William had just admited his feelings for Cecily and been rejected) Darla is the only one that remotely knew who she was and was comfortable with it. She is vamped on her death bed. It shows in the vampire she becomes. Darla is a bit different when she is vamped the second time.

This would be a great angle to explore Spike with. I hope they do.

[> [> [> [> [> Darla -- Rufus, 18:15:43 05/10/03 Sat

Darla seemed to have a basic understanding of human nature but it was tainted by her cynical nature. When Darla was brought back as a human she was revolted by her beating was a reminder of things she tried to repress as a vampire. Her past as a prostitute coloured her world view.

As a new human, but one with a past as a woman she can't even remember the name of....and a vampire who set about punishing the world for her inner pain. At first Darla is all about getting Angel back to being Angelus, be then she slowly finds out that some of her current pain is being caused by feelings of attachment that go beyond sex. She wasn't a human for long but it did change the vampire she became in a small way. Darla became the same killing machine she was before but she never forgot that Angel had almost died to save her. The rest of the time as a pre-pregnant vampire Darla tried to wash away any positive feelings she had as a human who was ready to die but knew that someone loved her for more than the rental of her body. Opportunity is a strange thing, we never know when it will crop up. Darla found her redemption in the feelings she had while sharing a soul with her son. She may have been a cold blooded killer, but one who was saved by sharing a soul with her unborn son. I always go back to the quote from Marie Louise VonFranz on Redemption in Fairy Tales......

The word redemption should not be associated with the Christian dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations. In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings or events in the story is redeemed. This is a very different condition from that in the Christian idea.

Both shows (Angel and Buffy) bring us stories in which relationships with romantic partners, friends, family, and even chance encounters can affect a persons life. Redemption is something that can result from one moment or a lifetime or many lifetimes of interactions with others. Redemption may happen to those we think of as monsters, but if a monster can be redeemed, the curse removed, the curse of hate, fear, and isolation in the real world becomes a possibility.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla -- lunasea, 18:42:57 05/10/03 Sat

I love Darla. I was hoping after "Inside Out" there would be more discussions about her. She has been the only character we have seen fully redeemed and how they then see things.

Darla was saved before she was revamped, by Angel's love. That is why she was able to sacrifice herself for Connor. If Darla hadn't been saved, she wouldn't have done it. She did for Connor what Angel had done for her. Angel showed her not only the feelings, but what those feelings cause us to do.

Love seems to be the redeeming force in the Buffyverse. Even Lindsey was saved by his feelings for Darla. Angel is being saved by caring/loving others, whether that is the helpless or his friends. It isn't the penance he is doing, but having a means to express his feelings, turning pain into strength.

The word redemption should not be associated with the Christian dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations. In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings or events in the story is redeemed. This is a very different condition from that in the Christian idea.

And this is different from the Christian idea how? Redemption refers to a condition where Man has been cursed by the Fall and through the death and resurrection of Jesus (and reconciliation: contrition, confession and penance) Man has been redeemed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla -- Rufus, 18:55:09 05/10/03 Sat

I think one of the differences is in the idea that good works is the only way to be redeemed where VonFranz leaves redemption as a result of interactions with others. The curse can be something that is lifted not because the person deserves it but because the person happens to enter into a set of interactions with others. This could mean that there is no contrition, confession or penance, involved. This makes the ensoulment of Angelus make sense. He didn't deserve a soul, it was originally a curse...but this curse was in fact an opportunity that Angel eventually realized through his interactions with others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> you leave out grace -- lunasea, 20:23:19 05/10/03 Sat

Man doesn't deserve or merit Grace. It just happens. That would be the same thing as the curse. Without grace there are no theological virtues.

Most saints are redeemed by a vision, such as Paul. It is them interacting with God

Still no real difference.

And good works are the only way to be redeemed. It is one of the big debates that the Council of Trent was called to address.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: you leave out grace -- Rufus, 20:47:43 05/10/03 Sat

You see the show in relation to your religious beliefs, where Joss uses more than just Christian symbolism to get his story across. Joss is at the least an agnostic, so he and his writers may write situations that speak to you in a Christian way but I don't think that is their only intention. This is why you see numerous situations were a redemption happens, so how you interpret the information seen can speak to you in Christian terms but isn't intended to be restricted to Christianity.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not Christian -- lunasea, 21:05:36 05/10/03 Sat

And Joss is not agnostic. He is an angry atheist existentialist. Will readily admit it.

They aren't speaking to me in a Christian way. They are all just saying the same story. There is no difference between fairy tales and religion. THAT is what I am trying to say. At their core, all these things are the same. They are telling a universal story. My disagreement was with the idea that fairy tale redemption is different than Christian redemption. When you get into them, this can be seen. Then THE story starts to emerge.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not Christian -- Rufus, 01:18:18 05/11/03 Sun

Joss and wife just had a kid.....I just wonder how angry he will remain. I said agnostic because at the very least he is agnostic.

There is no difference between fairy tales and religion. THAT is what I am trying to say. At their core, all these things are the same. They are telling a universal story.

What I'm saying is that limiting the analysis of the show in one religions writings makes the stories less than universal. I never said you were a Christian, I gave you a quote that I agree with.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not Christian -- lunsea, 07:32:31 05/11/03 Sun

Joss and wife just had a kid.....I just wonder how angry he will remain.

Not sure about angry, but tired is probably a good description.

What I'm saying is that limiting the analysis of the show in one religions writings makes the stories less than universal. I never said you were a Christian, I gave you a quote that I agree with.

I just disagreed with part of the quote. I agreed on what she said redemption is. I just disagreed that this is any different in Christianity. I wasn't even looking at the show, but that universal story that underlies the Buffyverse, fairy tales and religion, among other things. I was just pointing out a commonality. The question then becomes why this is a commonality.

Your quote was trying to get beyond Christianity. I was saying there really is no need to. There are a lot of misconceptions about Christianity. That is what I was addressing. Much damage has been done to the religion by taking a deconstructionist approach to it. Intent is key to healing the divine spirit.

Buffy is NOT alone (spoilers Touched and Home, WKCS 7.21) -- lunasea, 09:00:27 05/09/03 Fri

There it was, in full Glory. What is refereed to as The Scythe. It is the weapon of the Slayer. We haven't seen Buffy wield it, yet. Why "Scythe" (especially if it doesn't look like one)? Death is her gift. What does Death wield?

This is yet one more thing the Slayer is supposed to get that Buffy didn't. The first we found out about in "What's My Line, Part 2." Buffy never got the Slayer's Handbook because Giles "realized that, uh, the handbook would be of no use in your case." Buffy is a bit unconventional and Giles adapts the methods he was taught to fit her. We see this as a good thing, but it did have its cons, too. It hurt Buffy's feelings when she found out and the book is more than just a list of rules and procedures. It is a link back to the other Slayers.

In "Get it Done," we find out that Buffy didn't get another thing she was supposed to, the emergency kit. Buffy traveled through the portal not remotely knowing what she was getting herself into. She must have felt some sort of mystical pull, because Alice isn't one for jumping down the rabbit hole without cause.

Buffy didn't know about the source of her power. She didn't know the story the shadow casters told. In "Buffy v Dracula" Buffy admits that she needs to learn "About where I come from, about the other slayers." The conjoining spell and Dracula both taped into something primal in Buffy. Buffy now has questions.

Thing is as Giles tells Joyce, "She lives very much in the 'now', um, and, uh, history, of course, is, is very much about the, uh... the 'then'." ("Angel") Buffy is constantly having trouble with history while she is in high school. She also has trouble with math and French. It isn't that Buffy is stupid (does fairly well on her SATs). She just isn't interested in certain areas.

Math is pure logic. Buffy isn't so much with the logic. Neither is Xander. When we meet him he is asking Willow to be his tutor. In "The Pack" Willow is helping him and he throws his book in the trash (and gives over to his inner hyena).

French is another culture. In "Checkpoint" we learn that the Slayer is supposed to learn the fighting terms in Japanese. This seems to be a ridiculous exercise and Giles was right to just speak to Buffy in her terms. Latin used to be the language spoken in educated Europe. This gave people a common tongue to communicate in. Language can link us to people. I like learning the Pali and Sanskrit terms for Buddhism. It ties me to the great patriarchs and the Buddha himself. I used to refer to God as Abba when I was still Catholic. Words are just words, but they can be so much more than that.

History is the important one. In FFL, Buffy's death wish kicks in. She goes to Giles and starts to learn about the earlier Slayers. She goes with a purpose, to learn about their deaths. Her attitude is "Same as all the others. Slayer called... blah, blah... great protector... blah, blah... scary battles... blah, blah... oops! She's dead. Where are the details?" Buffy isn't remotely interested in their lives. She just wants the info that she thinks is pertinent to her situation.

In "Restless" we get to see the spirit of the First Slayer. Where do you think that spirit is? It is inside of Buffy. Buffy treats it like it is something foreign to her. "Why do you follow me?" Tara responds "I don't." That Spirit was inside ALL Slayers. It links all Slayers. Buffy has dreamed of these girls. Buffy is linked with the Potentials. She has dreamed of their deaths.

I'm drowning in "Restless" again, so I will continue. The final part of the dream is in the desert. Buffy says "I'm never gonna find them here." Tara responds "Of course not. That's the reason you came." Buffy is trying to lose her friends. She needs to find the Slayer spirit inside of her. She needs to connect with this primal force that connects her to all the past Slayers. The only words spoken by the spirit of the First Slayer is "No ... friends! Just the kill. We ... are ... alone!" Interesting choice of words. We, first person PLURAL. Plural is alone.

Buffy's friends are great. Friends are great, in general. I highly recommend everyone get some. Buffy's friends have their limitations, though, as they showed in "Empty Places." Buffy is unique. The Slayer line may now run through Faith, but Buffy is THE Slayer. Perhaps that is where the change is. After Buffy climbs out of the "Grave," the Slayer spirit is more attracted to her, so the line is weakened.

Buffy's friends cannot understand her or make her feel not alone. I mentioned on another thread that Angel had to leave so that Buffy could deal with an issue. That issue, played out in her abandonment complex and inferiority-superiority complex, is feeling alone. There is a great shot in "What's My Line" where Angel is talking to Buffy on her bed and then they cut to show how it looks in the mirror to show how even with Angel she is really alone. With Angel (and this season Spike), another supernatural creature who did understand her, she didn't feel so alone. Buffy needed that feeling to get her to where she is as we wrap up this season/series.

Angel is coming *back* to give her information she will need to defeat the First. The First is the bad this season that represents what Buffy is going through. I have written on the First before. What is the source of all evil is a metaphor for is fairly easy to figure out, especially when it first appears in "Amends." The First is an ignorance that we are separate from others. In "Amends," Faith and Buffy reconnect, Willow and Oz reconnect, Xander and Buffy reconnect, Buffy and Angel reconnect, Angel goes to Giles for help, Xander is unable to reconnect because Cordy is a bitch so he is left alone in the snow at the end of the episode to contrast all the coupling going on. Everything the First is promotes disconnection. It sets one creature apart from another and bad things, what is known as evil, results. When we view others as ourselves we don't generally hurt them.

Buffy feels this disconnection. Her Slayerness does set her apart from the rest of Man. It also connects her to all the previous Slayers. Buffy saw the Scythe and her eyes lit up. It was much more than just a pretty weapon. She felt something for it. That weapon has been wielded by the previous Slayers.

Angel has been tormented by his past, both the guilt about the horrible things he had done pre-soul and things like Darla or Holtz coming back to mess with his present. A big theme with Angel is the consequences of our action and that we can never escape our past. Who better to deliver the necessary information that will probably be about Buffy's Slayer legacy? Buffy shut herself off from her Slayer heritage, running away from it. She met the spirit of the First Slayer and said " It's over, okay? I'm going to ignore you, and you're going to go away. You're really gonna have to get over the whole ... primal power thing. You're *not* the source of me." She can't escape this, no matter how hard she tries, just like Angel can't. Angel has accepted his past is going to have serious consequences. Buffy has to learn that being Slayer has a legacy as well.

Back to "Restless." Tara tells Buffy "You lost them" in regards to Buffy's friends. Buffy, in denial says "No. I think they need me to find them." Buffy looks at a regular clock to see what time is. Tara tells her that is wrong and hands her the tarot cards. The Slayer is timeless and outside our conception of time. The tarot cards represent something more mythic. Buffy rejects the mythic and tries to go back to the mundane. That is the dream that Buffy has. Her answers lie in the mythic, not the regular life she has been trying so hard to maintain with her friends. Angel was the one freaky thing in her freaky world that made sense because she saw him as a Man, as a boyfriend. She wasn't understanding the primal connection those two have that allows her to even feel him when he is around and gives him his perfect moment of happiness.

Joyce, Buffy's family, is walled up. Buffy could free her, but walks off instead. Buffy longs for normalcy, but something inside of her is always pulling her somewhere she doesn't want to go. With the conjoining spell, Buffy has called on the source of her power. Because of that she is walled off from others.

Riley and Adam have a lot of good stuff in them. It is the first time we are really shown that Buffy's power may be demonic. The normalcy v slayer is highlighted nicely with Riley v Adam. She asks Adam his name and he doesn't know. "Not a man among us can remember." Then the demons escape. Buffy doesn't know what she is and not a man among them can remember what she is. Because of this, Buffy has been unable to handle her Slayerness (not like Faith, in a different way). Riley is going to build a fort, something to protect them, much like the wall that Joyce is in. Adam is going to get pillows, thus the fort is ineffective.

Then Buffy says she has weapons. What is that weapon? Mud. She smears it on her face, like a primitive. As Gwen tells Gunn in "Players" she is the weapon. Taping into that primal force is her weapon. Buffy get absorbed by the mud when Riley (her normal self) reminds her that she is supposed to be looking for her friends. Buffy doesn't move. Riley says, "if that's the way you want it. I guess you're on your own" and leaves her. Buffy has left behind her normal life and enters the desert of the primitive.

Buffy isn't ready for what she finds there. She asks the wrong questions. As Tara says again at the end "You think you know ... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even begun." Buffy isn't ready to deal with her Slayer legacy. She still wants to be as normal as possible. "I talk. I shop, I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back."

Now the time has come. She needs to learn how to turn love/pain into strength. She needs to reconnect to all those Slayers. Who better to bring her this info than Angel? Any plot contrivance could have been designed to get him over so they can get one last smoochie in. Whatever he is bringing could have been discovered any number of ways.

The Watcher's Council has been blown up. Why? What do they have this is so important? Nothing is really known about the First. Giles got what little they had out before the explosion and that hasn't been helpful. Why were the Watcher's going to set up shop in Sunnydale? Besides just training the Slayer, they are the keepers of the Slayer legacy. Andrew was taking down Buffy's story in "Storyteller." The Watcher's did this with their diaries.

The First has been isolating Buffy from her friends. It both caused Buffy to turn into Generalisimo Buffy and has cast doubt in her friends. It wants Buffy to feel completely alone. Then it has total power over her. It isn't just part of her. It is her. Buffy can combat this by reconnecting with the previous Slayers. The transfiguration gave Jesus tremendous strength. We are alone, but because it is WE, we aren't.

That is what Buffy needs to learn.

(I was going to do a part about the importance of Kendra and Faith to Buffy not feeling alone, but this is long enough. "What's My Line" is great when viewed from the theme of isolation and connection. Maybe I'll do an addendum later)

[> Thank you for a very impressive essay! -- Robert, 14:30:15 05/09/03 Fri

[> Re: Buffy is NOT alone (spoilers Touched and Home, WKCS 7.21) -- eloise519, 18:20:30 05/09/03 Fri

Illuminating. Looking forward to the addendum on Kendra and Faith.

Joss and Minear at Bronze Beta -- Masq, 09:29:47 05/09/03 Fri

With contradictory stories. Although I choose to believe his Jossy-ness.

[> Re: Joss and Minear at Bronze Beta -- O'Cailleagh, 09:39:57 05/09/03 Fri

So how come they never come here to post/chat? I would have thought that Joss would enjoy coming here, with the philosophy and all. Or have they just not been invited/invoked?

[> [> Re: Joss and Minear at Bronze Beta -- shambleau, 09:56:01 05/09/03 Fri

So, according to Tim, no more ME work. And Jane's moved on. And Marti. Whimper.

Including the Firefly newbies, Joss had corralled the best set of writers for his shows in, like, oh, EVER. It was a Renaissance studio, only painting its masterpieces for the idiot box. There's still AtS, probably, but what a blow emotionally affecting, serious television has taken this year.

[> Tim and not-joss -- Calvin, 10:04:18 05/09/03 Fri

Actually, they said that it was Tim, but not Joss. Someone posting as Joss. However Tim posted for a long time at buffistas, starting around here:


[> [> It doesn't say that anywhere on that page. -- Rob, 10:25:51 05/09/03 Fri

None of the posts on that page indicate that that wasn't really Joss. Did you read that somewhere else?


[> [> [> Re: It doesn't say that anywhere on that page. -- Calvin, 10:34:08 05/09/03 Fri

You might have to scroll back on the Bronze archived boards a bit, but they say that it wasn't in color and the IP address matched one from another poster. If I can find a link to that, I will post it. Apparently, that board gets a whole lot of faux-Joss posters, especially on episode nights. And if you read what he wrote, it doesn't sound like him at all. Finally, I seriosly doubt that he would leak that kind of news to the Bronze Beta. Just a few thoughts.


ps - If you have a few minutes, it is worth your while to scroll through Tim Minear's comments on the Buffista board. Very interesting stuff on "Home".

[> [> [> [> beware of false Joss' -- Calvin, 10:42:11 05/09/03 Fri

Bawston says:
(Thu May 8 17:20:51 2003
Edited: Thu May 8 17:22:19 2003

Was hoping it would be ignored but since not, let's nip this in the bud. "Joss'" IP:

Search results for:

OrgName: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Address: 445 Hoes Lane
City: Piscataway
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 08855
Country: US

So unless Joss is taking some sort of odd vacation...I'd say no.

ETA: Tiggy beat me to the punch. Sorry to be repetitious.

[> [> [> It does now. They crossed out the whole post. -- s'kat, 11:14:15 05/09/03 Fri

Try Masq's link again. I just did it and the archivist did a cross out of the whole post and included a ( ) quote stating this is an impostor and if anyone knows who forged this to please give him/her a name and address. The archivist sounded pissed.

Tim Minear's on leaving for Wonder Falls appears to be genuine. No news on Angel Renewal yet. Dang it! Really am beginning to hate WB. And the ratings. But staying good, won't go into another ratings rant, I promise.

[> [> Interesting Tim quotes (spoilers for Home) -- ponygirl, 11:11:48 05/09/03 Fri

Thanks for the link Calvin! I just had a nice scroll through the Buffistas' thread and pulled some very cool Tim-bits on Home:

...the irony of the battle-for-free-will arc wasn't lost on me when I wrote this. Or when I wrote Connor talking about how all love is a lie and you "can't be saved by a lie." I'm irony guy!

Angel killed Connor. With a big ol' knife. And, if I'm not mistaken, fulfills a certain prophecy. The father no longer has a son.

[> [> [> That is so cool!!!! So the prophecy did come true!!!!!! -- Rob, 11:15:03 05/09/03 Fri

I wasn't even thinking of that. Oh, Joss and Tim, you darn geniuses!


[> [> That was fake Joss. Real Joss just said so at the bronzebeta nm -- abt, 11:45:05 05/09/03 Fri


[> Story over at Bronze Beta on Joss post -- s'kat, 16:23:02 05/09/03 Fri

Just come from Bronze Beta and here's the skinny:

Some nit pretended to be Joss and posted on Bronze Beta as Joss and the real Joss got wind of it and posted this in response:

"joss says:
(Fri May 9 18:39:45 2003) [Edit/Delete]

OKAY! for the first time ever, someone pretended to be me with some measure of success! Congratulations. Here's exactly what came of it: the brass at the WB saw the post, thought it was me, and got wicked pissed off. The fact is, they are still deciding the schedule, and Angel's future is still in doubt. Making them angry at this stage is, shall we say, unhelpful. Hopefully my colorfulness will make it clear I'm me, I don't have time for the usual funny."

Then he said that he still had hopes on Angel's renewal, but no news yet. The fake poster was from IEEE in NJ. Also apparently Nathan Fillion and another actor are doing commentary for the DVD of War Stories. You can read it all over at Bronze Beta right now. Not archived yet.


Totally Off-Topic - I finished my book! -- Darby, 10:46:55 05/09/03 Fri

Good thing, too. I decided when I couldn't get more copies of the text I use for my Spring course that I'd write an online text for the course. I started on January 3rd, and the course started on January 29th, and I've been staying ahead of the class all semester. My class has been my beta testers - heck, it's a free book - and I'm surveying them for feedback now.

The book's available here if anyone wants to take a look.

The course is a classic old-style plant & critter course for non-science majors. I've tried to put something together that's readable at about a high-school level, non-technical (or as close as can be gotten), and full of illuminative links. If anyone wants to look over some bit of it and tell me whether it succeeds or not, please feel free. We will eventually be charging the poor students for this, so it'd be nice if it were worth something.

Now I have to write an introductory text for Biology majors for my fall class. That one will be much more bells-and-whistles oriented. Should be a challenge.

[> Congrats! -- Caroline, 10:53:06 05/09/03 Fri

[> Re: Totally Off-Topic - I finished my book! -- DEN, 11:11:46 05/09/03 Fri

I'm impressed! Congratulations!

[> Congratulations!! -- ponygirl, 11:21:23 05/09/03 Fri

[> Wow! That's impressive! Congrats! -- WickedBuffy, 11:25:49 05/09/03 Fri

I really liked that phylogenetic tree page. Did you do the design and illustration?

I would have LOVED having this kind of resource when I went to college. :>

[> [> No re-inventing wheels for me. -- Darby, 12:01:33 05/09/03 Fri

Didn't do it - part of the process has been finding the right links already available on the 'net - stuff with good graphics, bunches of pictures, or simple alternative explanations of concepts. Without pop-ups. If you hunt long enough, you can accesorize almost anything, I'm finding.

The other book is going to have more dedicated extras...

[> [> [> Then extra kudos for your fine hunting ability! -- WickedBuffy, 12:25:42 05/09/03 Fri

[> Re: Totally Off-Topic - I finished my book! -- Cactus Watcher, 11:47:03 05/09/03 Fri

Looks good, Darby. Writing a textbook just ahead of the class is better than some alternatives. Thanks to a nutty TA supervisor I once had to teach the first term of Russian without a textbook at all. One of my professors admitted to us that when he first taught Russian, he was learning the language by reading the textbook a week ahead of where the class was.

Oh, and when you write the book for the Biology majors be sure to put emphasis on the topics they will want to know most about; succulence, spines, areoles... ;o)

[> thanks, -- MsGiles, 11:58:19 05/09/03 Fri

I like the context bit, I think that's really useful, where the ideas have come from. We missed that, when I did Biology (and science generally), and looking back it seems a huge omission. This is good.

[> Congratulations, Darby! -- Arethusa, 14:38:08 05/09/03 Fri

It's very clear and enjoyable reading. I'm up to Chapter 4.

To bad about the naming of groups. I definitely would have gone with Yogi bear.

Is there such a thing as fungi that move??

My God, the humanity. Those poor marshmallow peeps, subjected to cruel lab testing. There should be a law.

[> Re: Congratulations Darby! -- aliera, 15:50:55 05/09/03 Fri

Would you like me to ask Ben to read it? He's a freshman in high school.

[> [> If he's interested... -- Darby, 17:47:26 05/09/03 Fri

This Week's Buffytvs & Angel Season Finale -- Spike Lover, 11:10:50 05/09/03 Fri

Howdy all. 1st, I apologize that I am just now posting my initial thoughts. Hectic week and all. Have not had time to read the archives of what anyone else said, so I am certain I will repeat what has been posted. Sorry.

1) the Good

Loved the Angel season final. Please, oh, please, let Lilah be a part of next season. I loved the scene w/ Wesley and her perpetuity agreement. (I continue to hope for a romance between Wes & Lilah, although it may be a bit awkward.)

small analysis: 1) The lawyers tempt Wesley with the past, Angel w/ the present, Gunn with power.

I speculate that they were after Gunn, and they have tempted him with real power. (Wesley & Angel have already been tempted with power, and it failed to corrupt them. They might have figured out that Gunn will subcomb.)

Interesting Choice about Conner. Did the actor want off the show or do you think the writers were tired of that story line?

2) the bad

I thought the Buffy ep was horrible. Horrible, shallow, almost plotless, hard to follow. There was barely any continuity in characters. (I was so upset, I avoided this board.) Rather than have any sort of real story, they hid behind the sex. I have NEVER been so disappointed by a Buffy ep. (I know y'all will attack now, possibly because I have criticized the show without giving specific details and examples to back up the parts I disliked. But I am short of time.)

Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant I want to watch them go down on each other on tv. I was 'ok' with the implications with W & T. But the Kennedy/Willow thing was pretty gross for me to watch. (The only time I laughed in the ep was when I saw K's tongue jewelry.)

I do have a question. Is Giles evil? I watched that ep and wondered what exactly he is doing. 1st he tries to get rid of Spike (via Woods), and now, for some UNKNOWN reason, he slits the Bringers' throat before he has finished talking. It seems that they should have asked the Bringer what sort of 'arsenal' they had down there, or what the plans were or whatever. Why in the world did he kill the guy? Did that seem fishy to anyone else?

I continue to concur with 'Earl' last week who had the philosophy that the writers simply do not care anymore.

1 good thing about the buffy ep: I liked how Andrew talked for the guy.

[> Re: This Week's Buffytvs & Angel Season Finale -- 110v3w1110w, 11:47:49 05/09/03 Fri

i thought that giles killed him to stop him from saying any more to but i didn't say cause i thought it was just me. as for the willow/kennedy sex scene not even lesbianism can make me get past my dislike of kennedy

[> [> Re: This Week's Buffytvs & Angel Season Finale -- Spike Lover, 12:35:14 05/09/03 Fri

The writing is so choppy and disjointed that I could not tell if when she stood up and complained to Faith at the beginning- and Faith told her to back off

And then when she was the 'bait' to catch the Bringer, she said something like, 'My first role as "disgruntled" girl' or something like that. It made me wonder if her speaking out against Faith was part of a plan to catch a Bringer or if some sort of slayer overthrow plan is underway or if it means nothing and sloppy writing is to blame.

[> Troubled -- ponygirl, 12:42:16 05/09/03 Fri

Spike Lover, I realize you were in the midst of a rant about Touched, and I completely respect your right to rant. Who doesn't love a good venting? However you have to realize how offensive a statement like the following can be taken:

Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant I want to watch them go down on each other on tv. I was 'ok' with the implications with W & T. But the Kennedy/Willow thing was pretty gross for me to watch. (The only time I laughed in the ep was when I saw K's tongue jewelry.)

If the depiction of oral sex or any type of explicit sex on television is offensive to you that's fine, but the way this reads is that you are against seeing gay sex presented in the same degree of explicitness as hetero sex. If this was not your intent I'd just suggest re-reading a bit more carefully before you post. If it was your intention, well, then I think you need to seriously question some of the biases you might possess.

I hope I'm not coming across as horribly condescending, but we saw a great deal of sex on BtVS last season, almost all of it straight, it seems only fair that some effort is made for equal representation of nookie. Also just imagine your statement if it was about W/F and you had substitued "interracial couples" for "gay couples" - it becomes pretty easy to see how upsetting your paragraph is.

[> [> Well said. -- Sophist, 13:50:29 05/09/03 Fri

[> [> ****standing ovation**** -- contumelious, 13:56:35 05/09/03 Fri

[> [> People are entitled to their feelings -- lunasea, 07:34:14 05/10/03 Sat

There is a difference between someone ranting and saying they don't want to see certain things or that it was gross and them trying to get it pulled from the air.

I find lots of things disgusting and I don't watch them. Some gays don't like to watch hetero sex and find it disgusting. Different strokes for different folks.

Tolerance doesn't mean that I have to like or want to see everything. It means I have to give those who want to see it a chance to.

What is upsetting is that people expect everyone to like whatever they do and if they don't, there is something wrong with them.

He didn't call for the show to be pulled. I don't see a boycott being called for. He was just expressing a view, an equally valid view as anyone else's here.

I support Spike Lover's right to feel disgusted.

[> [> [> And I expressed mine -- ponygirl, 08:06:23 05/10/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Big Diff -- lunasea, 08:31:19 05/10/03 Sat

SL worte about watching an action. Your's are about someone expressing an opinion or idea. There is a difference

Jane Fonda was a traitor for giving aid and comfort to the enemy (if you see it that way).

The Dixie Chicks are actually patriots. All she did was give her opinion, showing us what this country stands for

Big Dif

Everyone go out and buy Dixie Chicks albums. Support Free Speech.

Actions are what matter. People can think and feel whatever they want. To disguise intolerance as tolerance is no better than any other form of intolerance. You are criticizing SL for disliking something, but you are doing the exact same thing, though just about an idea, not something that actually affects anyone else.

[> [> [> [> [> False assertion -- Tchaikovsky, 09:00:53 05/10/03 Sat

You're muddying the waters here, lunasea. In the act of posting, Spike Lover's private thoughts, feelings and emotions are deliberately expressed in a public medium. Therefore, it is not that ponygirl is being intolerant of Spike Lover's right to have whatever private thoughts and reactions she wishes, but instead that in posting to the forum, it has become part of a discussion. In expressing a view to a public forum, there is a necessity in restraining oneself from certain comments. For example, a stirring up of racial hatred by a post is wrong, regardless of the person's right to have racist thoughts which remain private and unexpressed.

In ponygirl's post, she very carefully allows for the possibility that the suggestion that 'Homosexual sex is best not shown on air', is accidental, before showing how it can be interpreted as being offensive. It is not a vendetta, and it reacts legitimately to a point only made by the action of posting to a public forum.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: False assertion -- lunasea, 09:23:10 05/10/03 Sat

In expressing a view to a public forum, there is a necessity in restraining oneself from certain comments. For example, a stirring up of racial hatred by a post is wrong, regardless of the person's right to have racist thoughts which remain private and unexpressed.

And why shouldn't such things be stirred? How are we ever going to deal with them if they aren't stirred?

Hasn't Angel shown us what happens when we repress things and keep them "private and unexpressed"? What about Ms Summers? You are advocating one of the cardinal sins in the Buffyverse. It is cardinal for a very good reason.

People can have thoughts AND express them. PC be damned. It is damning this country. We suppressed everything for 8 years and it exploded in the last Presidential election. Similar things seem to be happening in Europe, though having a common ideological foe in the US is keeping things at bay.

So what if the view was "Homosexual sex is best not shown on air"? It is a view just as valid as anything. Conformity to supposedly "tolerant" views is still conformity. I think that homosexuals have a thick enough skin that they can handle someone disliking seeing certain things. I find it incredibly insulting to have to protect people's feelings like that.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK can march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood to spew their message of hate and discrimination. THIS is what our country is all about, or at least it is supposed to be.

Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What? -- TCH- in disbelief, 10:57:43 05/10/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you're missing TCH's point -- Sophist, 14:45:50 05/10/03 Sat

Consider the following dialogue from The Freshman (quote from Psyche):

FatVamp: (Now wearing the sweater.) ... Does this sweater make me look fat?
Sunday: No, the fact that you're fat makes you look fat. That sweater just makes you look purple.

I assume there's no dispute here about Sunday's legal right to respond however she wants. I doubt, however, that vampire morality provides any solid foundation for happiness IRL. I understand TCH to be making the latter point, and I concur.

I'm afraid we disagree about cause-effect in the 2000 election also.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Jasmine's sort of happiness isn't for me -- lunasea, 17:47:51 05/10/03 Sat

That is what I find so amusing about this whole thing. Jasmine made everyone be nice to each other. They didn't even want to hurt each other. There were no other criminals as Wesley says.

I find Spuffy sex disgusting and wish it wasn't so integral to the story so I didn't have to watch it. I must have offended someone with that comment, so I will now immediately appologize. Only comments that aren't offensive to anyone can be allowed, even if I were to preface it that I don't have a problem if people engage in such behavior in the privacy of their own home. I can think whatever I want, but heaven forbid that I express it. Everyone being shiny and happy is much more important than something that could spark meaningful dialogue or even venting.

I apologize profusely to everyone for anything I have done to remotely offend or upset you, including my position on this thread.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hmm, probably going to regret this in the morning -- ponygirl, 22:40:55 05/10/03 Sat

I once read a quote somewhere that suggested that the old-fashioned term for political correctness is good manners. That's something I can't help but wish more people would practice.

I had a fairly snarky response all ready to go, but then I changed my mind. I left the first paragraph because snarky or no I still agree with it. Lunasea you say you want a meaningful dialogue, I believe for such a thing to take place you have to do more than listen to another person's opinion you have to allow for the possibility of it changing your own. Otherwise what's the point? You end up speaking solely for the purpose of hearing yourself speak, and that gets awfully lonely after a while. Note: I'm using "you" in the general sense here, not trying to make assumptions about your state of mind - see, polite. What the hey, let's take this first person singular:

When I was much younger I held the opinion that there was nothing wrong with being gay, but, like you seem to espouse, only as long as any overly sexual expressions of such were kept to the privacy of one's home. I was young, I lived in a conservative suburb, I didn't know any gay people, or so I thought, there was no reason to question these views. Then I went away to school in a large city, and I made some very good friends who were in the midst of coming out. This was far from an easy process for them, and it was complicated by the fact that their whole lives they had seen their desires depicted as wrong, dirty, or ridiculous. At best they were told that their romantic and sexual impulses should be hidden away from normal society. I think virtually everyone has to deal with a certain amount of hang-ups and repression when it comes to sex, but straight people take for granted the template of behaviour that gets handed to us by popular culture.

Words have power, words can hurt, and like any weapon we have to be careful how we wield them. So yes, freedom of speech rah-rah, but at the same time why should we desire to hurt another person needlessly? See, I can very clearly imagine a boy of 19 wanting to tell one of his closest friends exactly who he was, but waiting a whole year to do so, because he had heard her expressing opinions that she had never thought to question. I can imagine it very clearly, and more than ten years later I still burn with the shame of it. Because I hurt my friend.

Ack! Now I'm definitely going to bed! Should not post after going to bars, but I'm going to hit send and hope for the best.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hmm, probably going to regret this in the morning -- Alison, 23:14:08 05/10/03 Sat

Bravo. In my opinion, absolute dedication to any philosophy is rarely a good thing- exceptions must be made, emotions taken into account (and I am a BIG advocate of freedom speech as much as possible). Thank you for your honesty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Brilliantly expressed -- Tchaikovsky, 02:42:25 05/11/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nothing to regret. Very Well said. An addition. -- s'kat, 09:42:53 05/11/03 Sun

I liked this post quite a bit, ponygirl. Even though I haven't read all the posts that inspired it.

I would like to add something, if you don't mind:

I remember a discussion with several friends who are gay, where they said and rightly so: "Why can't there be gay sex on television just like there is heterosexual sex? Can't we see something representing our choices? You (and I mean you in the general sense of the usage) may not like to watch two women have sex on TV, but did it ever occur to you that a lesbian may not enjoy watching a man and a woman having sex on TV? They may find that gross and offensive?"

Television is a public medium which flows into billions of households, not just one person's. IT's for everyone. And free speech is for everyone. The writers of Btvs have been courageous in their desire to represent numerous identity choices in life, not just one.

One of my pet peeves about censorship - is the hypocrisy of it. A lesson I learned way back in the 6th grade. I find it fascinating how people will push for their right to see something - ie. sex between Buffy and Angel on Btvs. But
when it comes to something someone else wants to see and they don't, they'll push for no sex at all - we don't want to see Willow/Tara or Willow/Kennedy. Every time this happens I feel this overwhelming desire to pull a Rod Sterling and thrust the person into the Twilight Zone where they are faced with the fact that they are odd man out and that what they want is considered sick or wrong or not represented. How would you feel if the only sex considered correct or possible was say homosexual liasons and to see a man and a woman together - required breaking censors rules? What would it feel like if Buffy and Angel's relationship was consider bizarr and people posted on fanboards, how they just can't stand the idea of seeing these two people kiss and wish sex like that would just stay in the privacy of their homes? Or that when you kissed your spouse or significant other in public, people looked at you like you were an alien or considered it gross? Lots of people prefer not to see hot sex on screen - we find it embarrasing or inappropriate - we prefer it to be kept private. That's valid. Not liking something. No problem with that. I'm not overly fond of watching overt public displays of affection myself regardless of who it is. OTOH - I think if Television or movies are going to show sex - it should be able to show both homosexual and heterosexual sex. And if you don't like it? You can always fast-forward or just not watch. Same with - if a heterosexual couple can show displays of affection in public, so should a homosexual one, without fanfair and without derision.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have to wear clothes in public -- lunasea, 15:09:04 05/11/03 Sun

I don't really think that people should have to wear clothes. I would love a world where people are all comfortable with their and each other's bodies. I would love a place where such a world wouldn't result with the see-saw of aversion and craving, not to mention jealousy and insecurity.

But I don't like in such a world. We have BIOLOGICAL preferances, both in what gender we prefer and what we want that gender to look like. This is something that can't be taught or cultured out of us. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this and to admit that you feel this way in a forum like this (don't want to say "tolerance Nazis", but I really do) takes courage.

No one called for the show to change. She just mentioned that she didn't want to see certain things. It made the show less enjoyable. Why is that any different than saying what made the show more enjoyable?

On a tangent, the Succubus interview this week said that they had trouble finding music for the sex montage. The original music they had picked out was written by a Christian woman who didn't want her music to overlay sex. Are people here going to say that this woman was wrong to not allow ME to use her

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have to wear clothes in public -- s'kat, 15:47:18 05/11/03 Sun

That's a really lunatic analogy.

There's a difference between showing sex on tv and wearing clothes in public. Clearly. And the Christian woman didn't want her music used for ANY of the sex scenes, not just that one. So I don't fault her. That's different. Nor did she tell the show that they shouldn't do the scene or try to censor it in any. She just said she didn't want her words or art associated with it. That's her right. Absolutely no problem with that. But if she went on a campaign to censor the show or get it off television or posted on boards about how gay sex should not be shown but heterosexual should be? I'd scream HYPOCRIT!
And pray for the day she finds herself on the other side of her own words.

Again I ask you how would you feel if someone posted that seeing a kiss between Angel and Buffy was gross and not worth seeing on TV? By the way, in the 1950s - that would have been the case - we would not have seen two characters kiss or have sex on TV regardless of gender. Some of the hot sex scenes you mention loving in BTVS? Would never be on screen during this period of time. And the kiss if it happened would be fairly G-rated. There was time that the sex scene between Wood and Faith - would have caused an uproar. It would be censored. It would have been considered sick and not because of anything other than the fact that Wood is black and Faith is white. NOW that offends me. Because what it is doing is saying its okay for this group but not that one.

Going back to your clothes in public analogy: the reason this analogy doesn't work - is it is a crime for everyone to be nude in public. Not just one group of people. EVERYONE should wear clothes. How would you feel if only men were allowed to be nude but not women, or only women but not men? Or say only white people are permitted to wear clothes? There was a time in our history where this was the case - slaves weren't allowed to wear clothing. How would you feel if you alone were singled out for reasons such as gender, color of skin, religious preference, or sexuality to be prohibited from something everyone else got?

Again I think it's important we make a distinction. I'm not saying not liking is a problem. I don't particularly like seeing anyone lick anyone's neck on screen. But...I don't think the networks should censor it. What I'm saying is what Wicked Buffy and Sophist say far better below - censoring it or suggesting it be censored is a problem. And that I find offensive. It's what I've worked most of my life against - CENSORSHIP.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have to wear clothes in public -- contumelious, 16:31:28 05/11/03 Sun

"How would you feel if only men were allowed to be nude but not women, or only women but not men?"

know what's weird? in america men can go shirtless many more places than women can.

in other countries, it's not an issue.

america is ahead in some areas and far behind in others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very true...People are strange -- s'kat, 17:55:34 05/11/03 Sun

I remember going on a 4 day back-country trip in College, Bandiolere National Monument in New Mexico. Several of the women and men on that trip decided to take off their tops, it was hot and sweaty. We were fine until we entered civilization where the Park Ranger admonished the "women" to put on their tops and left the "men" alone.

Which by itself isn't so odd - unless you compare it to Europe. When I visited France for two months in a high school exchange program, the female friends I stayed with went topless on the beach, along with the men. They kept their bottoms on but took off the top to get even tans.
It was a public beach, not nudist, family oriented. No one cared.

OTOH - according to articles I've read, BBC America censors sexual content from Buffy that the US doesn't. I don't know about other countries. Or whether this is an English Culture thing. But it is interesting the things we have troubles with. Some of the violence we see on Buffy very few people yell and scream about. Heck, ironically enough some of the posters who are squicked by Kennedy and Willow making love - enjoyed and where turned on by the scenes where Spike bit (a "gentleman vampire's kiss" one poster stated) and killed women in CwDP or the Bronze Beta scene where he took Buffy from behind or the scene where Faith attempted to rape and kill Xander in Consequences - but they find the W/K scene offensive?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes. it's very odd that violence is more acceptable than nonviolence. killing vs kissing. -- contumelious, 19:27:58 05/11/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: False assertion -- Miriel, 22:27:59 05/10/03 Sat

The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK can march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood to spew their message of hate and discrimination. THIS is what our country is all about, or at least it is supposed to be.

Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.

On the other hand, tolerance of intolerance only leads to more intolerance. To tolerate intolerance is to risk the spread of intolerance at the expense of tolerance. One of the world's many paradoxes.

;) Miriel

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: False assertion -- Miriel, 22:29:25 05/10/03 Sat

The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK can march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood to spew their message of hate and discrimination. THIS is what our country is all about, or at least it is supposed to be.

Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.

On the other hand, tolerance of intolerance only leads to more intolerance. To tolerate intolerance is to risk the spread of intolerance at the expense of tolerance. One of the world's many paradoxes.

;) Miriel

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops. Double post. Sigh. -- Miriel, 22:31:42 05/10/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lines in the sand -- lunasea, 14:55:13 05/11/03 Sun

We all have to decide where to draw them. I didn't find someone expressing a preferance about what they see on a fictional TV show to be one of those lines, especially when prefaced by I have nothing against X. Also, especially when this opinion was just a rant and not calling for censorship.

When we get to censorship, then we have a major line. When we have someone addressing an actual person, then we have a blurry line, but still a line.

That is what is so great about fictional products. They give us the freedom to explore these things without getting personal. I can say I hate when X fictional character does Y and evaluate that action or express feelings without actually getting into a flesh and blood human being.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> weren't "X" and "Y" representing believable human beings? -- contumelious, 16:37:13 05/11/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> ::inviting you to step into a bigger picture:: -- WickedTired, 09:40:00 05/10/03 Sat

What bothered me was this part of the paragraph:

"Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant I want to watch them go down on each other on tv. "

The "disclaimer" at the front set the tone for the rest of the statement. I have no idea if SpikeLover even realized that was offensive to some people on a very deep level. But people here are trying to point out how it was, explaining it in different ways.

The problem now isn't so much SpikeLovers original words, (I have no idea where you're at now, SL), but that other people are saying that it doesn't matter, it was freedom of speech... and not something that actually affected anyone else on more than a television show board level.

It obviously does. If you are unable to step into their /our shoes for a moment to understand this and learn how it is hurtful - that is your freedom of choice, of course. It is representative of what you are willing to learn about others. Keep arguing.

But whatever you say, it doesn't invalidate how it felt.

Maybe it just hasn't been explained in a way you can grasp it, yet.

When I first came on this board (not too long ago ::koff::) I was blown out of the water for describing Gunn as animalistic. It was taken as a racial slur by some people. I absolutely didn't meant it that way. They explained why it was... all new to me... at first I was angry and offended it was even taken that way. Then I finally saw the "bigger picture" going on.

So in addition to clarifyng what I had said - which was *my* freedom of speech - I apologized. Sincerely. And I'm thankful for the lesson - I don't want to do that in my life, consciously OR unconsciously. Or be mistaken in my words or any other form of communication.

Though I didn't mean to, I did. And they were the people most affected by it in various ways. Rather than argue semantics, which I could have, I realized it had become about communication. And respecting something that affected someone (faceless strangers, at that!) deeply.

I'm the worst at being able to explain this, I know. I almost asked one of my friends to ghostwrite it. But, here it is. If it's my writing that doesn't make it clearer to you, then I will ask her to write it. If it's that you choose not to see what's going on here, then there's probably nothing more I could do anyway. And I totally realize that that is your choice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ::inviting you to step into a bigger picture:: -- lunasea, 11:09:26 05/10/03 Sat

I understand what you are saying and I find it insulting to think that we have to watch what we say so carefully because it might hurt someone's feelings. There is a lot of shit in this world. Gays probably take on more than their fair share of it. They should be able to blow off an admitted rant.

I don't watch what I say. I don't play nice. When I do, I don't say much of anything worth saying (though some may argue that what I say isn't worth anything to begin with). I find it incredibly disrespectful and selfish to treat people that way.

I think an interpretation of Gunn as animalistic is interesting (now I will have to search the archives for it). People are so ready to see demons in everything that sometimes they do.

You apologized for you inadvertant hurt, but did they? I doubt it. The wounded party is never in the wrong. In the bigger picture we all are.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ::inviting you to step into a bigger picture:: -- Calamus, 11:55:44 05/10/03 Sat

"I understand what you are saying and I find it insulting to think that we have to watch what we say so carefully because it might hurt someone's feelings. There is a lot of shit in this world. Gays probably take on more than their fair share of it. They should be able to blow off an admitted rant.

I don't watch what I say. I don't play nice. When I do, I don't say much of anything worth saying (though some may argue that what I say isn't worth anything to begin with). I find it incredibly disrespectful and selfish to treat people that way."

Funny, I really don't care much when people say they don't wanna see gays on TV, and I gotta be one of the few people who seem to enjoy lunasea's posts about the show, but this particular line of argument always sounds like such a cop out to me, and piques. I, I, I, I, I. That's so easy, and makes the speaker sound so independent, bemevolent, and all-knowing. My gut reaction is always "Bully for you."

For me the bottom line is that majority likes and opinions keep minority desires off TV, or off TV in any fashion that might actually prove interesting, and have other wonderful real world effects like the loss of jobs, or health insurance benefits in one fell legislative coup, etc. IMO, the whole "I shouldn't ever have to think about anyone else's feelings" thing is what makes the world, esp. the cyberworld, so damn boring sometimes. (I know, flipside.) It's boring to hear that nothing should ever change, that we should never endeavor to be our better selves in public, except if people some day kinda feel like it, on a whim, when they have a moment, and always subject to recall. It's so utterly boring that the only reason anyone'd ever think to watch what they say is to please other people, not to rethink their drink.

Yo, say what you want, get in and get out, but spare your "victims" the rote recitation of justifications, please. Wicked tired, yeah.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry if this got out of hands -- lunasea, 12:32:06 05/10/03 Sat

Everyone has their own vision of paradise. My own is a world where people feel free to say what they want. When I see someone jumped on for their feelings (whether I share them or not), I tend to defend the idea of free speech. I think it took a lot of courage to say what she did. She probably prefaced it with nothing against gay couples because she knew the reaction it would evoke. That wasn't enough.

Let's try another example. I have nothing against any religion. Doesn't mean that I want to go to a service for X.

If you do, more power to you. I statements allow us to own our feelings. They take personal responsibility for our thoughts. I use them all over the place. I admit that that is how I feel. SL was making an admission with I statements. *I* don't want to see. She was not making an accusation.

Don't hold me accountable for decisions that network executives make. It is one thing to go after actions. Go after the network executives who make a difference. If you don't like their decisions, tell them. There are a lot of people out there that feel like you do. If we band together, things can change. How many shows have been saved by write-in campaigns? Did you send WB a postcard so they wouldn't cancel Angel? We will see next week if it worked.

Don't let da Man win. WE the People still have the power. Government can only do what we let them. Greedy Corporate types will only do what gets them more money. Let them know that there is a majority that doesn't approve of their actions. Don't settle for the pabulum that they use to pacify us with. If that fails that is what Indy films, books and the net are for. We don't have to play their game. Enough of us do that and they will get the message.

It is amazing how far the pendulum has swung. Once upon a time, women had no choices. Now we have a choice, go to work. Staying at home is viewed various ways, but most are not that favorable. The majority view used to be the only acceptable one. Now only views that accept everything are acceptable. Neither side of the pendulum is good.

At least not in my paradise.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you for clarifying your choice. -- WickedBuffy, 12:43:15 05/10/03 Sat

You chose to stay within the confines of your own photograph, of course. Free Choice.

There's a huge world of people out here learning how to speak their hearts, fully, with compassion and respect. From reading posts just on this board, there seem to be many people who already know how to do that.

It's your choice to be unable to express yourself freely without having to hurt people. Or that you even care if you do. Free will, free speech, free choice and all that.

( btw - I'm grateful for the lesson I learned and an "apology" from them is irrelevant when put into the perpective of things.)

You've made your stand on life very clear. It's very different from mine.

I'd like to be part of a world where we don't need to keep growing thicker skins. And I believe it's possible.

Or else I wouldn't give a damn about what you are saying.

My words seem to only be encouraging your posts about this, so I'm stopping.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry if we are parting badly -- lunasea, 13:12:13 05/10/03 Sat

Maybe just like Buffy, I need a nap :-)

I hate duty days. I won't see hubby until tomorrow afternoon. I don't even get to sleep in tomorrow and it's Mother's Day :-(

The ultimate thick skin is no skin at all. When we really see people as ourselves, we don't assume that they meant to hurt us. When someone hurts me, I try to figure out why. If she actually meant to hurt me, I am not going to let her. The terrorists NEVER get to win. If she didn't mean it, I see where my perception came from and learn something about myself.

I am not so uncaring as I come off. Now for that nap.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm 5x5! ...and not parting at all. :D -- WickedBuffy :;just moving over there abit::, 20:35:37 05/10/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> WB, you are a big hearted person! -- Rahael, 09:53:21 05/11/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> awww ... thank you R. And I ditto that, right back! -- WickedBlushing, 17:19:09 05/11/03 Sun

[> I thought the W/K love scene was a bit gratuitous -- Vash the Stampede, 13:37:30 05/09/03 Fri

I thought that the love scenes between Willow and Tara were always very tender and romantic. You got the feeling that Alyson and Amber were really comfortable with each other (as actors, not lovers). With Kennedy and Willow, well, I'll be honest, it was kinda like watching on of those late night shows on Cinemax. Plus, they stayed to long on them; they should have given each couple an equal time frame, exp. Xander and Anya, cause we all want to see those too back together.

[> [> I say, bring it on! (Sex, sex, sex talk inside.) -- Arethusa, 14:13:27 05/09/03 Fri

Tender Sarah McLaughlin love is great, but it's not the only kind. I liked the tenderness of B/A and the hotness of Wes/Lilah and both should be permissable. Love comes in many guises. There are tons of shows on tv that never show anything considered remotely different, so we all can watch what we want. And Skinimax, as Manny puts it, doesn't often show people we've grown to love like Willow in caring relationships. I thought W/K was much hotter than Faith/Wood, who didn't care about each other.
Since this is the only time we've seen W/K make love, it didn't bug me that it was longer than the X/A pairing, which we've seen many times.

I don't think I've heard any complaints about the hot heterosexual sex going on between consenting young adults for the past seven years. Spike had very kinky sex with Drusilla, hot but passionless sex with Harmony, violent sex with Buffy, and drunken sex with Anya. And who knows about sex with Angel? Although I never see slash where others see it (it didn't even occur to me that Faith could be bi until I went online), vampires have few, if any inhibitions. Just ask the slimy demons with antlers that Drusilla left Spike for.

[> [> [> Actually what I meant was... -- Vash the Stampede, 14:38:05 05/09/03 Fri

I didn't really buy them as a couple having sex. I don't know, maybe its because I never really got the whole Kennedy/Willow pairing. It just seemed, I don't know, artifical. It just seemed like they were having sex for sex sake. It lacked the love of Willow and Tara, or the passion of Wesley and Lilah.

I don't know, does this make any sense?

[> [> [> [> Re: Actually what I meant was... -- 110v3w1110w, 14:53:12 05/09/03 Fri

i totaly agree with Vash the Stampede willow and tara seemed a lot more natural maybe thats because it wasn't so graphic and didn't make the actors so uncomfortable but the whole willow/kennedy thing has just seemed awkward from the start.

[> [> [> [> Re: Actually what I meant was... -- Malathustra, 15:39:45 05/09/03 Fri

Could be just my reading, but I think I hear what you're saying here. I mean, face it. The Faith/Wood pairing was MUCH MORE artificial than the Kennedy/Willow pairing... but we're accustomed to that from Faith. It is in character for her to have sex at intense times with the nearest warm body.

It seems a bit OUT of character for contemporary Willow to jump at that opportunity. She did so in Graduation Day with Oz, yes, four years ago, but it was pretty clearly out of a more desperate place. The Kennedy/Willow deal this week was partly desperation, too, but was foisted on us as though it was just normal couple sex. I didn't sense the desperation. I wanted to. I would have felt better if I had. THAT's what didn't fly for me, with that scene.

I was also very disturbed by Kennedy's insistence that they push forward after Willow expressed her desire to NOT push forward. I'd have preferred a sweet, cuddly, makeout session between the two of them because even though Willow's fears are a bit over the top, they are legitimate fears and they are HERS.

Don't be taking my fears away from me. Help me while I confront their irrationality on my own.

So, yeah. That's what bugged me about the W/K sex scene this week. (And I'm a lesbian!)

[> [> [> [> [> It comes down to chemistry -- Vash the Stampede, 17:27:22 05/09/03 Fri

I've been thinking about this since my last post, and I realized it comes down to chemistry. Willow and Kennedy just don't have the kind of chemistry that Willow and Tara had, which is why the whole thing seemed awkward and aritifical. Now this isn't either actresses' fault, sometimes you just don't have chemistry with someone. It is ME fault though, for not finding a better way of working around this.

You make a great point about Faith and Robin, it was even more artifical than Willow and Kennedy. However, since Faith has made a habit of one night stands, the lack of chemistry is irrelevant.

Also, side note, I never thought that Reily and Buffy had the same level of chemistry as Angel/Buffy or Angel/Spike did

[> [> [> [> [> [> Theirs, yours, mine, ours ... -- WIckedBuffy, 23:25:21 05/09/03 Fri

I think it's even more about each viewers own chemistry with the characters on the screen. That's why every opinion is true. (Of course, it's just a one-sided kind of chemistry.)

Completely subjective.

[> [> [> [> [> Re -- Laura, 17:32:01 05/09/03 Fri

I wrote something about that you can find it at:

Frankly, I'm not buying the Willow-Kennedy relationship. It makes me miss Tara quite severely.

[> [> [> [> Kennedy is rebound chick -- lunasea, 07:48:52 05/10/03 Sat

I don't think it was so much the sex as I don't like seeing Willow doing rebound sex. I didn't like seeing Buffy do "I hate myself" sex either. It wasn't the sex so much as what it was saying about my friends. I didn't want my buds to go through that. I know they have to for the story, but it doesn't mean that I am supposed to like that. The show shows us lots of things we don't like to watch. We aren't supposed to like watching them. That is what makes the show so good. They have no problems showing us painful things if it is necessary for the story.

Wes and Lilah really had some heart and teeth to it. It wasn't just the hot bods that made that interesting to watch. It was an incredibly complex relationship. W/K aren't. Just simple dominant Kennedy and Willow trying to move on.

It depends on how you see W/K. Is it something nice because Willow is getting on with her life, or is it something yucky because you wish Willow would get on with her life with someone who isn't such a (insert your prefered insult for Kennedy)?

I don't think it is so much people can't get beyond Tara. I was determined to hate Riley. I fell in love with him right along with Buffy. What was there not to love? Kennedy has nothing for me to want her to be with my friend. Yeah Willow for being able to move on (though wouldn't the real test be if Kennedy dies and Willow doesn't go postal? Please, pretty please). Just find someone else.

[> [> [> [> [> Somebody had to be. Think of it as a blessing! -- WickedPollyanna, 08:30:53 05/10/03 Sat

It's a fact - it's happening. Can't change the script that's been shot. On the bright side of it , Willow will be able to move on after she gets thru this "step".

So, if you don't like Kennedy, perhaps be grateful to her for being part of Willows healing process to move on.

*Disclaimer: I like the W/T thing fine, just trying to support the people who don't.

It's National "Help Anti-Kennedy Fans Have Some Peace" Day, y'know.

[> [> [> How about an all-naked, all-shagging Buffy ep? -- Caroline (chat is a bad, bad influence), 19:08:17 05/09/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Lol. But what about Andrew? -- Arethusa, 20:18:02 05/09/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Yeah, I know. -- Doug, Fenris42 in Chat, 20:49:08 05/09/03 Fri

[> Best laugh of the day... -- Sofdog, 13:42:08 05/09/03 Fri

"Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant I want to watch them go down on each other on tv."

LOL!!! I was checking the clock to see if Buffy had switched to 10pm. That was some explicit sexual imagery. And they wonder why children are jaded and cynical in grade school. They've seen too much.

[> [> amusing -- WickedBuffy, 13:53:45 05/09/03 Fri


Also, I am not against hetrosexual couples, but that does not mean I want to watch several of them having face-to-face sex on tv.

just as amusing, eh?

[> Re: in response to the responses -- Rendyl, 14:48:28 05/09/03 Fri

Er...if girl on girl sex squicks Spike Lover then it does.
Not everything in the world is as simple as "hey, think I'll feel a certain way today and never have an opinion (right or wrong) again."

Personally, the Buffy-Riley sexathon of season 4 got
on my nerves in a big way. I am allowed my opinion as is SL. Why should he/she have to -conform- to anyone else's beliefs?

There is nothing wrong with SL not wanting to watch..or with someone wanting to watch. No big ugly bigotry, just a personal choice.


[> [> Re: in response to the responses -- Sophist, 16:43:44 05/09/03 Fri

I agree that we can't choose our emotional reactions to events. Sometimes, however, expressing those reactions, no matter how "legitimate" they are, can be hurtful to others. If I have an irrational hatred of Jews, I may not be able to control that hatred. I can, however, avoid expressing it in a way that hurts others.

Moreover, I understood ponygirl's post to question SL's expression on the ground that it implied such acts should not be shown on TV in contrast to heterosexual acts, which would be "ok". That suggests a double standard resulting in censorship.

ponygirl was very careful to leave open the possibility that she misunderstood. SL can clarify; if she didn't mean that, it's a non-issue.

[> [> [> Re: in response to the responses -- Rendyl, 20:38:55 05/09/03 Fri

Maybe I misunderstood. I never saw where Spike Lover made that distinction.

I also disagree that not wanting to view intimate sexual acts (of any pairing) is the same as a racial hatred. What race most of us are is pretty much out there with little choice in being dealt with. Sexually is a tad more private.

To be honest, I was uncomfortable with Willow and Kennedy. I don't really have anything against Kennedy but I felt like it was too soon for Willow. It bothers me that sex and intimacy are so easily continued on the show after a death or breakup. Maybe in ME's world it is nothing to get over the loss of a loved one. In my world it seems to take longer and be more painful. (Or -sigh- maybe I just really miss Tara)

As for SL, I don't understand why the responses were not as much a censorship of her viewpoints as her original post was supposed to have been? Free speech is only free if all viewpoints are allowed.


[> [> [> [> Re: in response to the responses -- Sophist, 07:50:38 05/10/03 Sat

Well, I read the passage the same way ponygirl and WickedBuffy did, but it's ambiguous enough that we may have misinterpreted it. One reason I liked ponygirl's post was that she was not dogmatic about it -- she left open the possibility that she had misconstrued it.

I agree that people are perfectly free to express discomfort with watching sex on TV (though I oppose any censorship of scenes). As I said, if that's all SL meant, it's a non-issue.

I deliberately chose my example as one of religious bigotry, not racial, in order to avoid the point you mentioned. I would say, though, that sexual identity is so intimate that IMHO it warrants the same treatment as race or gender when it comes to questions of discrimination.

I don't understand your last point. ponygirl's post was making a moral point, not a legal one. She wasn't suggesting censorship, she was suggesting flaws in SL's expression that might warrant re-evaluation. Merely criticizing another's views isn't an attack on freedom of speech; if it were, we could never have much discussion at all.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: in response to the responses -- Rendyl, 08:14:33 05/10/03 Sat

Aghhh...okay, having gone back and reread your message I am now off to Wal-Mart to pick up the handy dandy post-prevent-a-misunderstander for myself. (only $19.95 after rebate) I see where you were referring specifically to the show, I just read it wrong.

I also misunderstood your Jewish example since it could represent race or religion.

Sigh, I apologize too if I sounded abrasive or grumpy. I am in the middle of the project that won't die and it has made me a little testy. It has also (it seems) eaten away a chunk of my brain.

Ren - ponders a day off at the beach

[> [> [> [> [> [> You owe me no apologies -- Sophist, 08:59:09 05/10/03 Sat

There was nothing wrong with your posts. And I probably should have used Catholicism or Islam instead of Judaism to avoid the ambiguity.

[> [> [> I felt the same way as you did about it, Sophist. -- WickedBuffy, 23:36:46 05/09/03 Fri

and still do. You worded it better than I ever could.

(All I could do was point out the irony of it.)

[> I spend that (those) scene(s) wondering where Andrew and Dawn were now everyone was getting all sexy -- pellenaka. I love Andrew, 11:19:59 05/10/03 Sat

[> [> I pretended they were in the basement, doing each others hair. -- WickedBuffy, 11:53:10 05/10/03 Sat

In defense of Angel and the taking of free will (spoilers for "Home") -- heather galaxy, 11:52:42 05/09/03 Fri

Forgive me if someone else has already posted something like this.

Angel Inc. saved the day deciding that an imperfect world with free will was more worthwhile than a perfect world with out it. So why would he, in the final episode, take away Connor's free will if it is so important?

It's because Connor didn't really have free will.

Sure it existed with in him (although that is up for debate as well as I will discuss futhur down), but looking at the facts: he was born as a tool for Jasmine's existance. Growing up Holtz made and taught him one thing: vengence, without any thought of his own. When he finally came back into this world, it was clear that this boy does not know anything but fight and kill.

Basically, he does not know how to choose. We see this throughout the season: he does what he is told without even thinking of it (trying to destroy Angel, falling with Cordelia, doing whatever Cordelia asks of him, following as a Jasmine soldier). The only time he ever really gets to make his own mind up (whether to kill the girl or let her go) he can't. He does not know how to exercise his free will, nor would he ever. In truth, he does not really have free will because he can never be his own agent.

When he realizes this he goes mad.

Maybe none of us have free will, but most of us at least think we do. We believe we are random happenings and while circumstances apply, many times we have a choice. Even if every little bit is set up (as Skip suggested), it seems as if we have to believe that we have agency or else we become crazed like Connor. Jasmine made everyone believe that they had free will, even when they didn't, and this kept them happy.

Connor truly had a life built that was never about him, but as a means to an end. It was never his life. After realizing this and trying to find someone to make all the decisions for him, Connor gave up and freaked out. It was similar to the Jasmine followers when they were given their free will back after having things be so easy without it. Connor could never accept Angel, his love and guidance, because Angel wanted him to have a choice. This is something that the boy without a will of his own could never accept. He could not choose this or any path.

Angel did what he had to do. What Connor needed. He made a choice. He exercised his free will. Things Connor was never capable of doing. Connor didn't really have the free will everyone claims was taken away from him. How can you take something that wasn't even really there?

Now what this does for the memories up through this season, and what damage that causes, I do not know. I imagine a signficant amount. Did Angel make the right choice? I don't know. Either it was take the offer or kill his son (plus who knows if he would have gotten to Connor in time had he not taken the offer, I highly doubt it). All I know is, I'm glad to see such a tortured soul as Connor to have the only bit of peace he's ever had.

[> Re: In defense of Angel and the taking of free will (spoilers for "Home") -- eloise519, 19:05:12 05/09/03 Fri

I have a different take on Connor's choices. Even when everyone else was under Jasmine's spell, Connor always saw her for the demon she was. He chose to believe in her. Perhaps he liked her style. Then he chose not to believe and to kill her.

Granted he's still an adolescent. I wonder at what age your free will kicks in and when you're responsible for your choices. Perhaps it's a phased process. If your mental health is compromised to the point of madness, that's a different story. But I don't think you can take a pass on free will based upon how much you've suffered or who your parents were.

[> [> What Connor said -- mamcu, 17:46:27 05/11/03 Sun

What Connnor said he wanted, at every possible opportunity, was to be a part of a family. He made that ultimate choice. Perhaps Angel took away Connor's choices in some of the intermediary steps, but the goal was one Connor had already chosen.

[> Re: In defense of Angel and the taking of free will (spoilers for "Home") -- Rufus, 00:21:49 05/10/03 Sat

I think that Connor had free will of a sort...a sort compromised by his growing up in a Hell dimension (Angel didn't come out of hell feeling great)...and the fact that he couldn't tell what in his life was a lie or the truth. He can't reference the type of information needed to make an informed choice partly because of his age and because of his chaotic upbringing. What Angel did may seem wrong to some but I see it as an opportunity. Even if at some point if Angel broke the deal with W&H and Connors memories are returned to him....he just may have been around a loving family enough to change how he things about his situation..even if the perfect family memories weren't didn't hurt Dawn to be brought up in a family.

[> Someone corrected me on this a few weeks ago... and I don't believe it's a question of agency -- Malathustra, 06:23:30 05/10/03 Sat

Before we got confirmation that Connor could see Jasmine's true face all along, I sensed it coming. I assumed that one of the reasons he had knowingly chosen "maggot-face" was that he wanted to kill Angel and so I was posting something about him having wanted to kill Angel since the moment he dropped into this dimension.

Someone, and now I can't remember whom, corrected me by pointing out that every time Connor has had a genuine opportunity to bond with his dad, he has taken it. The only time this bonding wasn't interrupted by external or internal forces was in "Awakening." In that episode, one of the factors contributing to Angel's moment of happiness is that he and Connor make amends. That they sort of pal around like buddies. The person responding to my post suggested that there was evidence that Connor wished for this, too.

There were several instances along the line, though, in which Connor says things like, "Dad you always have to go and screw it up right when things get good." There are times where the screwed-up thing he is talking about includes a resolution and relaxation between the two of them.

I guess this is the long way of saying that I no longer believe it was Connor's agency or lack of agency that he could not escape. It wasn't that his inability to "make choices" couldn't be undone through mortal means. It was his abandoment issues. There was quite a lot of talk about his desperation and exhaustion in that sporting-goods-store scene, but the line that really chilled me was, "You let him take me, dad.

"You let him get me."

In other words, Connor realizes that Angel's screw-ups and mistakes can be forgiven and that they could theoretically move past those (as loving families often do when their children pass adolescence), but that he can't forgive his father for allowing Holtz to kidnap him and raise him in a hell dimension. That he wishes (as desperately as Angel wished last season, just after Connor was born) that he could have grown up with his cool dad. Learned fighting techniques by sparring and training rather than screaming and running. That he could have had Angel as a father rather than Holtz.

He wishes that Angel had saved him and he could not forgive Angel for that.

It wasn't Connor's agency that was restored at the end of "Home." It was his innocence and belief that the world was not out to get him. It was his solid footing and a healthy father-son relationship. It was his trust that the world was not out to get him, or that if it was, his family would fight on his side until all was made right again.

It was Connor's abandonment issues that could not be resolved without Angel's sacrifice. Connor had agency all along, and this season's many references to the importance of "choices" point that fact out. We all have agency, regardless of the circumstances of our birth, childhood, and adolescence.

THAT was why Angel's sacrifice was so poignant to me. If Connor had been able to forgive, he could have saved himself.

[> [> Re: Someone corrected me on this a few weeks ago... and I don't believe it's a question of agency -- Wizard, 16:42:58 05/10/03 Sat

I tend to agree- Connor has been manipulated all his life, and by all the major people in it with the exception of Real!Cordelia in late S3. Despite all this, as the visitation of Darla showed, he did have free will. He didn't know how to make constructive choices, he didn't know how to forgive, and he had been burned far, far too often to be able to truly love. Despite all this, he did have free will.

My difficulties with Angel's 'sacrifice' is that it's a patch. It doesn't solve the real problem. Connor's situation is not like Dawn's. Barring a major plot twist, unlikely with only two eps to go, the Key didn't have a consciousness before the Monks of Dagon turned it into Dawn. Connor does- or rather, did- and ME experience (with a healthy amount of skepticism-bordering-on-cynicism) tell me that the patch will eventually wear through, and all hell will break loose when that occurs. Perhaps Happy!Connor (for lack of a new name- and wouldn't it be a kick if his new name is Steven) will have nightmares of his old life, like Slayers have dreams of past lives. Perhaps Sahjian will be released, and go looking for the Miracle Child- because unless I'm very wrong, Jasmine only co-opted the Miracle Child's destiny. She didn't change it completely. He still has to kill Sahjian. Or maybe Cordy is unaffected by the mind-mojo, and when she returns, kicks off the "Quest for Connor." Maybe a combo of all three- Cordy leads AI to find Connor before Sahjian does, and they find a boy who knows them from his nightmares, but doesn't quite know why.

As I've said before, and will continue to say until I'm proven right or wrong, what happens when the spell ends will depend mostly on the new family- if they can accept Connor, all is well. If not... Well, think of the events of "Home" multiplied by, oh, say, at least ten, because then connor will have had a real taste of everything he always wanted, only to have it snatched away.

[> [> [> i'm hoping something like that happens (spoilers for "home") -- anom, 22:43:39 05/11/03 Sun

I tried to post this in the "copout" thread, but it was archived. Let's see if I can shoehorn it in here.
Haven't had much time to jump in on this issue, but I didn't like Angel's "solution." It certainly looked like a copout to me; whether it's Angel's or ME's copout depends on what happens next. I'm hoping that next season the new reality starts to develop some cracks & the truth ends up coming out. Angel sidestepped dealing w/the issues, & I think they'll come back to bite him even harder.
(I kept that original post vague to avoid spoilers, but what the hell--this time I'm labeling 'em.)

I like the possibilities you outline, Wizard. While Dawn's situation isn't quite parallel, the false reality part still is, & the truth came out in her case. Of course, people around her found out & she eventually learned it from the stolen Watcher Diary. But the "new" Connor doesn't even know such things exist, & apparently neither does anyone around him. We'll have to see how they & his "old" (AI) family deal w/the consequences in the next season (which there will be, RIGHT?!).

Current board | More May 2003