May 2001 posts
Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's
house? -- Halcyon, 01:05:58 05/01/01 Tue
Following the events of Epihany, Darla has apparently LA for good.
Now that she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Angel's sleeping
with Buffy = perfect happiness and that Angel's sleeping with
her= perfect despair, will she try to get some measure of revenge
on Angel by attempting to harm Buffy in someway? Remember Buffy
does not know that Darla has been raised and turned back into
a vampire and as far as I know the de-invite spell has not been
performed for Darla's access to Buffy's house.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house?
-- Rufus, 02:12:13 05/01/01 Tue
Now that is a question....did Darlas dusting negate the invite...or
does it still stand...
I think that it could make for an good story about a surprise
visit for Buffy. And could you imagine if Darla were the one to
tell Buffy how Angel got his Epiphany?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house?
-- Halcyon, 07:00:09 05/01/01 Tue
Spike knows that Darla has been raised and turned back into a
Vampire and some of what Angel has been up to recently. Will he
keep that information to himself or will he tell Buffy about it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's
house? -- Lyn, 16:55:05 05/01/01 Tue
Buffy and Angel are pretty much living seperate lives now. Who
told Angel about Joyce? Was it Giles, or Willow? Or maybe spike
made a phone call? Dru went to Sunnydale to get Spike back. Did
she think to put Spike against Angel? Did Buffy tell Angel that
Dawn is the key? That Glory is a god? Maybe Wesley could find
something in his books about Glory that the other watchers don't
know. It doesn't seem like Angel and Buffy are telling each other
very much. I don't think he told her about the lawyers he locked
in the wine cellar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into
Buffy's house? -- Halcyon, 09:25:56 05/03/01 Thu
But Angel knows Darla was invited into Buffy's house, after all
he finds her after she feeds on Joyce. Do you't think better safe
than sorry - inform Buffy so the de invite spell could be performed
to prevent the possibility of Darla gaining access to Buffy's
house.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does Darla still have an invitation into Buffy's house?
-- Sue, 23:25:47 05/01/01 Tue
Of course it is ultimately up to the writers (sorry for the bit
of reality here) but my guess would be no.
This comes from my belief that it is a different demon inside
this vampire, yes with the same memories of the other vampire,
but still a different vampire.
I am of the opinion that they didn't "bring back" Darla.
In the respect that they didn't snatch "Darla's" soul
out of wherever it was after Darla died. What they did, in my
opinion was they created a new body out of Darla's DNA(actually
they used magic, not science, but to put it into scientific terms
for a moment just to serve as a model they made a "clone"
of Darla.) Then into that body they stuck (still using magic)
all the memories that Darla had until Angel staked her.
The effect was almost exactly the same, and in that respect they
"brought back Darla", but to be technical it was a "different"
vampire who was invited into Buffy's house in season one. Different
but the same (if that makes any sense).
To sum it up. Darla is vamped by the Master (she dies?). Angel
slays Darla vamp. The demon within her either is destroyed, goes
into the vamp hell (is there a vampire afterlife?) whatever.
New Darla. Old Memories (I am resisting using the Star Trek hologram
analogy, but it is difficult). New Darla is vamped by Dru (New
Darla dies?) Different Demon enters body (as the other demon is
no more).
As this is a different Vampire, I would think that she would have
to be invited in. But again who knows? Perhaps since this new
vampire is so close to the original vampire who was invited in,
the rules get confused.
Cordy,
Gunn & Wesley's reaction to Angel's return to the fold. -- Halcyon,
04:37:07 05/01/01 Tue
On several websites I have seen several people attack the way
C, G & W acted towards Angel. One of the reasons given is that
they just dismissed his obssession with Darla. That is wrong for
a start. First Wesley knew that Angel had staked Darla three and
a half years, he had no reason other than the dreams Angel was
having to suspect Darla was back. Cordelia and Wesley tried reasoning
with Angel on several occasions from Dear Boy, the start of Guise
Will Be Guise, Darla and Reunion.
It is easy to commend C, G & W actions towards Angel after Reunion
but let's not forget how Angel acted towards them particularly
in Blood Money and Reprise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cordy, Gunn & Wesley's reaction to Angel's return to
the fold. -- Lyn, 16:47:51 05/01/01 Tue
Cordy believed in Angel when no one did. Sure she carries a cross
in her purse, keeps holy water in her desk, but they have gone
thru so much together (Doyle's death)and she really felt like
Angel was the one person in the world besides Wesley that she
could trust. She has really worked hard towards his goal of redemption
and then he locks the lawyers in the celler with Darla and Dru!
Then he fires them! (Remember "you can't fire me I'm vision
girl, Ha!)Beside Angel was the one place Cordy felt like she belonged
(since leaving high school). I don't think C, W, & G have been
near hard enough on Angel. He totally betrayed them. And it wasn't
Angelus, that they could at least understand that evil took over.
Wait till they find out that he did sleep with Darla, and risked
everything!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cordy, Gunn & Wesley's reaction to Angel's return to
the fold. -- Traveler, 22:32:49 05/01/01 Tue
The main problem I have with the whole situation is that they
never really tried to talk to him and understand why he was doing
the things he was doing. After he fired them, they more or less
let him go his own way, even though he was their friend and a
potential menace. Yeah, Angel did wrong, but they did too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Cordy, Gunn & Wesley's reaction to Angel's return
to the fold. -- Halcyon, 09:40:53 05/03/01 Thu
Alright neither side is completely blameless in this matter, but
look how Angel treated them in Blood Money and the way he acted
towards her in Reprise. Since she started working for AI and following
Doyle's death Angel has been the one constant thing she thought
she had to rely upon and he goes of the deep end and fires her
like he did. Also Cordelia is the only one who expresses how much
she was hurt by Angel in Ephiany and Disharmony, after all he
'dared' to give all her clothes away probably including the Prom
Dress that Xander bought for her this was a reminder of her life
in Sunnydale before ending up in the appartment from Hell. (See
City Of through to Room With A Vu)
I think Cordelia may have also somehow learned about the video
of her and Wesley being broadcasted at the Charity do, with the
pair of them acting like prats. This may explain why she reacted
to Angel the way she did at the end of The Thin Dead Line, it
certainly did not help that one of her closest friends had nearly
died.
Identity (long, spoilers for "Intervention")
-- Humanitas, 12:27:35 05/01/01 Tue
One of the great themes of this season has been the search for
identity. The clearest example lately has been Spike (see Nina's
thread about the masks coming down and Rowan's reply, in particular),
but nearly all of the other major characters have been engaged
in a similar search. These are in no particular order:
Giles: As the season started, Giles was having a major identity
crisis. With the loss of both his jobs (librarian and Watcher),
and the growing realization that Buffy was really coming into
her own as a Slayer, he felt pretty useless. So much so, in fact
that he was considering going back to England, until Buffy effectively
gave him back his old identity as her Watcher. Even so, he still
felt at lose ends. Last season was tough for him:
BUFFY: How bored *were* you last year? GILES: I watched Passions
with Spike. Let us never speak of it. ---The Real Me
So he did things like buy a new sports car, classic sign of a
mid-life crisis. Taking over the Magic Shop helps a lot, though.
It gives him an identity independant of Buffy, which he will need
if she should suddenly reach her expiration date. As a side note,
Giles has an edge in re-defining himself over the other characters:
he's done it before, when he chose to not be Ripper any more.
Xander: We all thought we knew Xander. He's the Zeppo, the token
Normal Guy in the SG. In fact, my personal take on the show was
"I wanna be Giles. I know I'm really Xander, but I wanna
be Giles." Yeah, ok, he's the 'heart' of the group, but what
does that really mean? Now we know. Ever since "The Replacement,"
Xander has been given the only thing he ever really lacked: self-confidence.
Seeing his Suave Self from the outside allowed him to realize
that he did have those characteristics, that he was not doomed
to Scruffiness. This has removed the defeatism that was blocking
his development allowing him to become the most clear-headed of
the SG, his attitude toward Spike notwithstanding.
XANDER: I lied. See, what I think, you got burned with Angel,
then Riley shows up. BUFFY: I know the story, Xander. XANDER:
But you miss the point. You shut down, Buffy. And you've been
treating Riley like the rebound guy. When he's the one that comes
along once in a lifetime. (Buffy looks dismayed) He's never held
back with you. He's risked everything. And you're about to let
him fly because you don't like ultimatums? [Buffy's eyes begin
to water as Xander's words finally get through. ] XANDER: If he's
not the guy, if what he needs from you just isn't there, (shakes
head) let him go. Break his heart, and make it a clean break.
But if you really think you can love this guy ... I'm talking
scary, messy, no-emotions-barred need ... if you're ready for
that ... then think about what you're about to lose. [Buffy looks
up at him, then looks around anxiously. There are tears in her
eyes.] BUFFY: Xander... XANDER: Run. ---Into the Woods
In matters of the heart, Xander Harris is now officially The Man.
"Triangle" showed him having his own problems, of course,
but he is capable of working them through (and with Spike, of
all people!).
XANDER: And they get in these fights, and they're both looking
at me like I'm the referee. Also, sometimes I'll say something
about Anya, and Willow'll get this look, this, um, "what
the hell do you see in her" look. SPIKE: I know that look.
Lot of people never really got Dru, you know. XANDER: Well, she
was insane. (Spike looks offended) Then it's like, well, I get
all torn. Because, Willow's my best friend and I really value
her opinion, but, uh, Anya's my girlfriend, you know? ---Triangle
Ok, still a little insensitive, but he does still have Issues
with Spike. Anyway, the point is that Xander has suddenly become
more adult-like, both in the material things (his new apartment,
etc.), and in his relationship with Anya. He still has a way to
go, but he is definitely out of the mire he started the season
in.
Anya: Anya has become decidedly more human this season. Her reactions
to Willow in "Triangle" and to Joyce's death in "The
Body" clearly show her strugling with her human identity,
but they also show her making progress. The scene between her
and Xander where they are discussing children and the purpose
of sex (I couldn't find this one, but I think it's in "Intervention")
is particularly telling.
Tara: Tara's identity issue is essentially contained in "Family."
It seems cut and dried thus far: Tara belived that she was part
demon, because her family told her that she was. It turns out
that she is not. She had to accept this change in her identity,
and in who she identifies as her 'family.' I have to wonder if
the twisted mind of Joss will allow it to remain that simple,
or if there really is more to Tara than meets the eye.
Willow: Willow is really the exception to the rule. Her identity
shift came last year, when she fell in love with Tara. She is
still coming to grips with her powers, of course, and desperately
needs to aquire a sense of responsibility for the consequences
of using those powers, but she's pretty much the same now as she
was at the beginning of the season.
Dawn: Dawn's search for identity is wrapped up in her discovery
that she is in fact The Key, that she is in a sense an artificial
person. That is, to say the least, a little hard for her to take.
It drives her to do things like cut one of her wrists open ("Blood
Ties"). Ultimately, we end up considering how identity is
constructed. In Dawn's case, it is made up of memories, shared
and otherwise. She has to learn that, at least in this case, Perception
is more important than Truth.
BUFFY: Are you okay? Did she hurt you? DAWN: Why do you care?
BUFFY: Because I love you. You're my sister. DAWN: No I'm not.
BUFFY: Yes you are. (Lifts Dawn's arm, so we can see her arm and
hand are still bloody) Look, it's blood. It's Summers blood. [Buffy
presses her hand against the tire-iron wound on her shoulder,
wincing a little. She clasps her bloody hand in Dawn's bloody
hand.] BUFFY: It's just like mine. It doesn't matter where you
came from, or, or how you got here. You are my sister. (pause)
There's no way you could annoy me so much if you weren't. ---Blood
Ties
Dawn's search for Identity seems to have reached, if not a resoultion,
at least a pause. No doubt it will continue as we learn more about
the Key and it's function.
Buffy: Buffy's continuing efforts to incorporate her identity
as the Slayer into her Identity as Buffy Summers are the driving
force of the series as a whole. This season, she has become more
aware of those efforts, and has started to pursue them on a concious
level. This process was triggered by Dracula's claim that her
"power is rooted in darkness" in "Before Dawn."
Buffy feels for much of the season like her 'Slayerness' is overwhelming
her 'Buffyness,' that it just gets harder and harder for her to
love, to be a human being, rather than the super-human Slayer.
Her vision-quest in "Intervention," while cryptic, did
provide her with some re-assurance, while at the same time giving
her cause to worry, because, while she is "full of love,"
"death is her gift."
The funny part, of course, is that Joss told us that this season
was going to be about identity, way back in (surprise, surprise)
"Restless." I'll leave that analysis to someone else,
but in hindsight it seems pretty clear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Identity (long, spoilers for "Intervention")
-- Lyn, 17:06:07 05/01/01 Tue
I think the characters search for identity just makes the show
more enjoyable. Don't we all search, all of our lives? In school
we search...are we a member of the "cool" group?..or
the smart group?..or the athletes?..Then we search for identity
as a couple, with our mate, then as a parent, in our jobs our
titles define us, as we grow older we search for identity as a
grandparent. It( the search they embark upon) makes the characters
more human, even the demon ones.
glory's latest victim (spoileriffic)
-- dan, 19:22:12 05/01/01 Tue
spoiler space...
5 * * * * 4 * * * * 3 * * * * 2 * * * 1
whew! this season of buffy's really put me through the wringer
- i'm tearing up every other ep, it seems like, and i certainly
did tonight when willow said the line about tara "she's my
girl." any thoughts about tara's fate in the future (and,
by extension, the fate of glory's other victims)?
my guess is that when glory gets dusted, that her victims will
be restored back to normalcy... somewhat. sort of like they had
a mild stroke. but judging from joss' comments he's made about
tara's character, i'm betting she's on next season; and moreover,
tara around in the vegetable state she's in right now would put
a *major* hamper on willow's character. so much of willow would
be all about her taking care of tara, it would preclude any other
character development for her.
thoughts?
-d
ps - i'm delurking after having read this forum for a few months;
i always enjoy reading it b/c of the thoughtfulness of the posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic) -- Solitude1056,
19:53:39 05/01/01 Tue
ok, spoiler space to return the favor...
(is that too much?)
anyway... agreed about Tara. I was sort of hoping that Willow
was actually being all business to restore Tara, but it was much
more satisfactory seeing her (at least momentarily) kick Glory's
ass. Ok, not kick her ass completely, but Willow did slow her
down a little. Looks like that's the secret: a combined set of
forces might do the trick. Glory can hold up against one, but
she can be worn down. And while I'm at it, there's another early-season
spoiler that's (so far) not shown up. Wah. What was all that about
Willow doing a spell & unbeknownst to her, Anya & Tara are helping
her out, and somehow this may damage Willow & Tara's relationship?
Given that Tara's a) mentally on vacation and b) she just spilled
the news about who's-who on the Monk Lineup of New Fake People,
I can't see much more damage being done...
but they'd better bring Tara back (and not just as the local vegetable
garden) - I really like her character. I'll stop before I'm reduced
to fan-like gushing, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic) -- rowan,
20:09:40 05/01/01 Tue
I thought it was interesting that Willow seemed almost more effective
against Glory than Buffy. I don't recall Buffy really "tiring"
Glory out (as Glory mentioned) the way Willow was able to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic) --
Javoher, 11:43:01 05/02/01 Wed
Glory said a couple times "That witch really slowed me down"
or words to that effect. I haven't been able to figure out what
spell Willow was saying while she was running towards Tara, but
could that have had an effect on Glory?
Or could it be that Tara, being a pretty powerful witch by herself,
had the effect of 100 proof vodka and made Glory a little drunk?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic)
-- Masquerade, 12:18:10 05/02/01 Wed
I think Glory was buzzed after feeding from Tara. Glad to see
you made it back onto the board!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic)
-- Javoher, 17:46:40 05/03/01 Thu
Thanks, but the main message board continues to act up for me.
I just type in the URL's of individual messages, and then sometimes
the navigation links, "next thread", "next message"
work and sometimes they don't. I've cleared all caches twice and
used three different computers. Has anyone else had any problems
navigating this board?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic)
-- rowan, 17:19:07 05/02/01 Wed
I'll have to check my tape, but I thought that it was just a spell
to locate Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: glory's latest victim (spoileriffic)
-- Rufus, 18:39:50 05/02/01 Wed
Glory said:
"I think I'm getting a little buzzed from eating that witch.
What a mind she had."
So I do wonder if the fact that Tara was so stable and calm if
that would last longer for a god that is losing it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Vegetable garden...LOL...... -- Rufus, 21:24:50 05/01/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Welcome, delurking dan! Pleased to have you join our
merry band! -- OnM, 09:38:56 05/02/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> that expression... -- Solitude1056, 17:26:48 05/02/01 Wed
Ok, strange image that's been returning to my head repeatedly
as I think back to the episode. This image that for some reason
that stands out so clearly is Tara's expression just before Glory
starts the vacuum cleaner routine. It was like her face hardened
somehow, as if she'd made a decision of some sort. Now granted,
I imagine it's hard to think straight when someone's crushing
your hand into little bits - and amazing to me that Tara didn't
holler about it - but that last expression seemed awfully... something.
I can't put my finger on it. I'd like to think Tara was doing
something internally - since she's not exactly without resources
herself. I don't know what one could do prior to having your sanity
sucked dry, but I've been curious as to whether Glory's post-brain
buzz (and subsequent weakening during Willow's onslaught) weren't
due to something Tara did in those last few seconds. Did anyone
else notice it, and anyone have any ideas?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: that expression... -- Jessica, 16:48:48 05/04/01
Fri
I also think that Tara did something before Glory brainsuck her.
A few seconds before Glory did her thing Tara was scared (who
wouldn't be) then it seems she was doing something like a spell,
and then she had a resolve face like she tought she did everything
she could to protect Dawn and the scoobies and that Glory would
get more than she bargain for. Tara seem to be more together than
Glory's other victims, maybe what she was saying was some kind
of message to the scoobies. Maybe Tara will know and be able to
tell the gang Glory's weaknesses because she was linked to her.
I also think that Tara is a more powerful witch than she lets
on, maybe she's scared or something happenned in the past to make
her restrain her powers, maybe now will see her do powerful magic
and maybe find her way out of madness on her own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tara vs Willow -- FanMan, 12:57:42 05/05/01
Sat
Tara seems to be more in line with Wicca spirituality, she thinks
of the morallity and consiquences of magic. And it is a familly
tradition, her mom probebly gave her a history of spells with
bad results in her familly. For natural witches that conversation
would be as natural as a talk about sex, drugs, and old people
with candy...eeew!
Tara is more fem/emotional of the two also. Willow is not masculine,
but she is the intillect vs Tara and intuition. Willow does spells
in the same way as a science project. Willow does spells for results.
I think Tara is equal to Willow, but she still has self-esteem
problems from her familly. Also, she holds herself back because
magic is "messing with the natural order" Tara also
seems to have a form of ESP that is like empathy/aura-awareness.
If her aura-awareness gave her any insight into Glory, she might
have intuitavely done something that would preserve her personality
more than other victums of Glory.
Scratch 'n Sniff (Tough Love Spoilers)
-- Solitude1056, 20:11:00 05/01/01 Tue
ok, spoiler space just to be nice (for those of you still waiting
for the episode to air)...
Ok, first we have Glory sniffing Spike, and then licking Tara's
mutilated bloody hand. It appears that this is the way she determines
if it's the Key. But at the very beginning, it was stated implicitly
- and later explicitly - that insane/crazy people could see the
Key. Glory herself, as shown repeatedly, is a few napkins short
of a picnic. And she seems perfectly aware of what she's leaving
behind in her victims when she feeds off them; it somehow appears
to be her own insanity, as if she's trading sanity for insanity
with them. I'm wondering if, when she's at the verge of non-feediness
and insanity, that she might be able to see the Key by just looking
at it. But by displacing her insanity into humans, she removes
herself somehow from that being-able-to-see. Not sure here, just
postulating, but did anyone else get all that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Scratch 'n Sniff (Tough Love Spoilers) -- rowan, 20:15:19
05/01/01 Tue
Well, I'm not sure, but that spoiler that mentions Glory will
need to bleed Dawn to death to start the apocalypse is making
more sense now that I've seen the scratch, sniff, and taste-testing
she's been doing with everyone's blood.
I supposed (as I was watching) that Glory knew the hell Tara was
about to face after the brainsuck so well because Glory had experienced
it herself. I wonder if that was her fate in hell (or wherever
she was before she got here).
It seems clear Glory can't see The Key, or else she would have
already known it was Dawn in the episode at the hospital when
the Ben to Glory morph occurred. But could she degenerate to the
point where she could see it if she couldn't feed? I'm not sure
we've seen enough to know that.
Reactions from One Who Feels Brainsucked
(Spoilers Ahead for Last 3 Eps) -- rowan, 20:31:28 05/01/01 Tue
Okay, let me give some spoiler space, too.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Here are just some first reactions to Tough Love.
1. The eps are starting to go by so fast! The first time I looked
at the clock, 45 minutes of the ep was gone. Now that they've
got this Glory storyline cranking, I feel like I can't wait for
4 separate eps -- I want 2 hours at time.
2. How about Spike calling Dawn platelet?! That's a new one, isn't
it? Niblet, little bit, bitty Buffy...LOL.
3. Willow really kicked some skanky, lopsided, fashion victim
ex-god a**, didn't she? She managed to slow Glory down more than
Buffy has been able to in the past. It looks like she's going
to get even more power in at least the next 2 episodes.
4. Did you notice the new tone in their voices when Buffy and
Spike conversed (what are those, tunnels under the crypt?). Anyway,
when Spike told Buffy that Willow would go after Glory, his tone
of voice totally lost the usual sarcasm, and Buffy actually listened
to him for once (although it took Dawn to convince her). Times,
they are a changing (at least for now).
5. What did Giles do to the scabby minion to get him to talk?
Was this a Ripper moment that was too gruesome to show us?
6. Poor Tara. Enough said.
7. Poor Dawn. I must admit, her scene with Spike was really touching.
You could feel her pain. And check out Spike, providing comfort,
of all things! Compare this scene to the one in Crush: similarities,
but interesting differences.
8. Xander finally got a haircut - yea!
9. So, did anyone get the impression from the preview that Ben
will be the one to betray them? It appeared as if he will change
from Ben to Glory in front of them, and that's how Glory gets
Dawn (or am I jumping to conclusions).
10. How about Spike telling Dawn, 'I know evil, and you're not
evil', then telling her when she's afraid she can't be good: 'well,
I'm not good and I'm okay." Spike certainly doesn't need
any self-help books, does he? I guess atonement is still an unknown
word to Spike.
IMHO, another great episode. I can't wait for Spiral!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Reactions from One Who Feels Brainsucked (Spoilers Ahead
for Last 3 Eps) -- Solitude1056, 20:57:43 05/01/01 Tue
Ok, ok, so maybe it's true that AtltS:
10. How about Spike telling Dawn, 'I know evil, and you're not
evil', then telling her when she's afraid she can't be good: 'well,
I'm not good and I'm okay." Spike certainly doesn't need
any self-help books, does he? I guess atonement is still an unknown
word to Spike.
Ok, granted, but think about it... Dawn's major fear is that the
bad things happening must mean she is also bad, somehow. She'd
come to this conclusion whether it was Spike with her or anyone
else - but if anyone else said, "Oh, no, Dawn, you're not
evil" it's akin to Willow trying to empathize with Buffy
about what Buffy's going through post-Joyce-death. They can't,
she can't, and just as Buffy knows Willow's guessing, so would
Dawn if anyone else tried to reassure her. But how you gonna argue
with Spike, yanno? He may be a poser but he's certainly ripped
it up with the best of them anyway, and he's definitively got
the authority to claim to know Evil when he sees it.
What I thought interesting was that Spike's interaction with Dawn
closely mirrored Gile's interaction with Buffy, at the start of
the episode. This is definitely working into a Key & Protector
relationship, similar to the Slayer & Watcher relationship...
or at least, that's my gut instinct about it. (And was Spike feeling
peckish with Dawn, or just wanting to console her - that quick
hand motion up & smooth the 'do rather than reveal he was about
to touch her...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Don't get me wrong -- I loved Spike's advice to Dawn.
It's just so Spike. -- rowan, 21:10:28 05/01/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Secondary meaning to 'platelet' ? (Endseason spoiler)
-- OnM, 09:36:01 05/02/01 Wed
Don't pretend to be any kind of expert on things medical, but
if I recall correctly, aren't platelets the component of blood
that makes clotting possible?
Recent spoilers I have come across suggest that the purpose of
the Key is that it can unlock the 'barriers' that hold the various
differing dimensions of the universe apart, so all would collapse
into one gihugic megaverse-- humans, demons, hells, strip malls,
all together as one, all bleeding into one another.
So, you could visualize Dawn as 'the clotting factor'?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Secondary meaning to 'platelet' ? (Endseason spoiler)
-- Rufus, 15:27:44 05/02/01 Wed
OnM may I take this moment to go...blood clots...ewwwwwwwwww....yes,
platelets do function to arrest bleeding. Lets call it blood coagulation.
Glory has said that the key is pure....and when she licked Taras
hand like a lollipop she noticed the impure blood right away.
So I do like how you have put the blood thing. Think of the other
realities as wanting to make a tear or wound to pass into other
dimensions, so it makes sense that you would want a clotting factor
there to seal it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Secondary meaning to 'platelet' ? (Endseason
spoiler) -- rowan, 17:14:48 05/02/01 Wed
Yes, I thought it was interesting given all the bloodletting spoilers
floating around about Dawn that Spike suddenly called her platelet.
Does this mean she has the ability to stop the apocalpyse as well
as start it?
Also, considering Glory just found out The Key is human, where
did she suddenly come up with this bloodtasting routine?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Secondary meaning to 'platelet' ?
(Endseason spoiler) -- Solitude1056, 17:19:06 05/02/01 Wed
Not to mention, how the hell would you bleed a bicycle pump to
death, anyway? *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Secondary meaning to 'platelet'
? (Endseason spoiler) -- Cleanthes, 17:27:26 05/02/01 Wed
I have had more than one bicycle pump die on me, usually with
the tire only half inflated. Sometimes lack of lubrication caused
the problem. Perhaps some hell god licked off all the grease?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Secondary meaning to 'platelet'
? (Endseason spoiler) -- Rufus, 18:23:05 05/02/01 Wed
That's it....two gross outs today....clots and grease...or is
the puzzle of the season finale making us just silly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Secondary meaning
to 'platelet' ? (Endseason spoiler) -- FanMan, 18:26:45 05/02/01
Wed
The puzzle of the end deason is making us silly! Dawn the blood
clot?...LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahh... the clot
thickens! -- Solitude1056, 18:39:36 05/02/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...the clot
thickens... *snerk* -- Masquerade, 09:03:01 05/03/01 Thu
But you know if this metaphor turns out to be more or less applicable,
I'll be usurping all your posts for my site. It's concrete and
easy to understand, but it also has an emotional impact. Plus
blood and Buffy just kind of go together. The whole vampire thing,
you know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
...the clot thickens... *snerk* -- Solitude1056, 09:16:44 05/03/01
Thu
usurping all *my* posts? Yikes. Okay, the pun was bad, but come
on, some thing simply cannot be resisted. Share the love, make
everyone else suffer, too!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That was a collective "your" : ) -- Masquerade, 11:55:30
05/03/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: That was a collective "your" : ) -- Rufus,
13:25:38 05/03/01 Thu
I still can't get over the "lick test" for purity...yuck....but
it would save money on those pesky strips....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Speaking of blood... (Tough Love & End of Season Spoilers) --
Umbriel, 12:27:17 05/03/01 Thu
I'm delurking here -
Possible spoiler ahead * * * * * * * * * *
I found it very interesting that it was the key's blood that Glory
was after in Tough Love. Now, it could be that tasting a person's
blood is simply one way that she can tell whether or not that
person is the key, and that actually using the key would require
some other action. However, it could also be (and I'm leaning
towards this) that consuming Dawn or her blood is how the key
is used, or that Dawn's blood has special properties because she
is the key. If Dawn's blood is special in some way, what happens
when a vampire (or a slayer or human, for that matter) drinks
it? Could it cause a significant change in that individual? One
scenario that could result if this is the case: Dawn allows Spike
to bite her, either because turning Dawn into a vampire would
somehow prevent Glory from getting the key (vampires after all,
can't be the key), or because her blood would somehow heal or
restore him (although I'm not sure he would voluntarily become
good or human). Or he gets the chip out, gets a little hungry
and his meal has unexpected results - for good or evil, I don't
know. I do think we will eventually get more explanation for what
Doc said about having seen Spike with dark hair playing dominoes,
and while this could easily refer to the past (although you'd
think Spike would remember it then, wouldn't you?) perhaps Doc
is seeing a possible future in which Spike has changed. Doc could
have prophetic visions and think they're reality or be a being
who drifts in time somehow.
And on a somewhat related note, at the beginning of the season,
when Buffy tasted Dracula's blood, it seemed to give her extra
power and interesting visions. I wonder if a nip of vampire blood
could give her extra power against Glory? I kind of hope not,
because it seems like a dark and disgusting way to go (as is Dawn
becoming a vampire), but from what we saw in the teaser for next
week's episode it looks like things are going to get pretty desperate
in Sunnydale before it's all over.
Anyhow, I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts and I'm glad to
get all this crazy speculation out of my system!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Here we go! -- rowan, 21:07:05 05/03/01 Thu
Well, I've been thinking some crazy stuff along those lines too.
What if Dawn is near death from being bled out by Glory, so Spike
has to finish her off and vamps her? Or if Spike for some other
reason consumes the blood? This could be a way out of the Spike
without a soul dilemna and also could reinforce this link alot
of people are sensing between Dawn and Spike (anyone notice that
Dawn's just a little younger than Buffy was when she met Angel?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Practical Concerns -- Malandanza, 18:54:59 05/04/01
Fri
The last pre-adult vampire we saw was the annoited one -- he had
to be eliminated from the show because the actor was going through
to many physical changes (and vampires are not supposed to go
through puberty). MT is still quite young and is likely to look
a bit different as she continues to age -- it is unlikely that
Joss & the writers would vamp her if they intended to keep her
on the show for any extended period of time.
The Angel/Buffy romance was acceptable because the actors were
both in their twenties at the time. To have a child actress playing
a romantic part opposite an adult would generate unnecessary notoriety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Practical Concerns -- rowan, 19:37:06 05/04/01
Fri
Yes, I guess I wasn't thinking immediately (like next season),
but you're right I had forgotten too that JM is about 32 (more
than twice her age), so it would be rather shocking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Practical Concerns -- Umbriel, 20:40:00
05/04/01 Fri
It's possible that the writers planned a 1 to 2 season storyline
with a tragic ending (like becoming a vampire) when they created
Dawn's character. It would be in line with what we've heard about
needing a hanky at the end of the season. The thing is, I think
Dawn has become a very interesting character with a great presence,
so if I were them I would want to find a way to keep her. A romance
with Spike does seem unlikely for the reasons you give above.
What I'm interested in is whether her blood might have unusual
properties, and whether tasting it might have some kind of transformative
effect on a vampire (or even a human). She doesn't have to become
a vampire for this to happen. The writers could have had Glory
do any number of things as a test to see whether Tara was the
key, but they chose blood tasting, something a vampire would also
be likely to do. Maybe they just wanted to show Glory's disgustingly
evil nature by making giving her cannibalistic appetites, or maybe
this is something more. I guess we'll find out soon, at least!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Practical Concerns &
Summers Blood (spoilers for season ender ep) -- rowan, 21:12:43
05/08/01 Tue
Yes, this is a very interesting theory about Dawn's blood. After
seeing Wanda's latest batch of spoilers (which include a horrible,
bone-crunching fall for Spike), it begs the question: Will Spike
need some human blood to heal (like Angel before him) and who
will it come from? And if it came from Dawn, would that blood
have any special properties that would change him in any way?
Because, of course, he would then have Summers blood and be part
of their family, wouldn't he? And if Buffy does sacrifice herself
as rumored, then Spike would be Dawn's family (unless Hank reappears).
Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Simplicity, 22:08:29
05/01/01 Tue
Spoiler Space * * * * * * * * * * I was gratified to see a momentary
Ripper appearance (twice in one season!!). I also wonder what
type of torture he inflicted on the minion. Obviously, it was
nasty enough that he wanted to keep it from Anya and Willow but
quick and effective! Love the way his demeanor changed, his voice
had no trace of the "Giles stutter" and his tone quiet
but menacing (You're talking quite a lot, just not about the right
things.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Sue, 23:04:23
05/01/01 Tue
I loved seeing "the Ripper" as well. I like it when
"the Ripper" comes out and takes charge.
In many ways Giles shined tonight, in others, though I was quite
disappointed.
Giles was correct of course about Buffy being the one to take
point with laying down the law with Dawn, but I sensed within
him a pulling back from Buffy that I think was unhealthy.
Yes, Buffy needed to take point, but Giles should have been there
to back her up. Buffy might have been an adult, but she is just
an adult, a new adult. Dawn needs Buffy to set her right, Buffy
is the one that she is most likely to listen to, but Giles needs
to be an adult role model as well for Dawn.
Giles distanced himself from Buffy at the time she needs him the
most. When Buffy last week told Giles that she loved him, he didn't
seem affected at all. Yes, I realize he is British, and I didn't
expect him to break down and hug her or anything like that, but
still it seems like he has regressed. Talking about her training.
"You were doing so well." Reminds me of a "Watcher's
Council" type watcher. The type that would allow the girl
he trained to be drugged and then thrown in with a vampire without
her powers. I thought Giles has now realized that being a "Watcher"
is about more than the training.
I can't quite put my finger on it, and on a surface level he is
doing the right things, I don't know if I am explaining myself
well. But I guess it centers on how he has avoided Dawn. He said
that Buffy is Dawn's only family now (besides Hank who may or
may not be a vampire right now). And technically that is correct.
But on another level, on the level where all these friends have
formed a sort of family, Giles is the adult of the group. He is
Buffy's watcher. He is her Master (in the eastern sense of the
word), and as such should provide guidance to her, but also by
extension her sister as well. He needs to be a 'watcher' for Dawn,
a mentor, a master. Yet he is running from that role.
Does he feel like he was a failure as a watcher for Buffy? Is
that why he won't open himself up to help Dawn?
Dawn is strong. She is good, and she does care. But she doesn't
have all the benefits Buffy did when she grew up. Sure Dawn doesn't
have slayer strength, but Giles could teach her self-defense.
He could teach her magic. He could teach her all the things he
had to learn to become a Watcher. Those skills are important for
someone who is near the Slayer and who lives so close to the Hellmouth.
It was great to see Giles take out one of Glory's minions. That
was one of the areas where he shined. And again, the advice he
gave to Buffy was important. She is going to have to be a grown-up
for Dawn. But by the same token Giles is going to have to be a
grown-up for both Dawn and Buffy. Buffy can't do it alone. And
as an adult friend of the family, Giles is really going to have
to get involved in Dawn's life as a mentor, which will take the
pressure off Buffy.
Dawn is a good kid. So is Buffy. But even good kids like Buffy
and Dawn could use some help from adult friends to make life a
little easier. As Buffy's "Watcher" as her "friend"
as practically her second father, he should feel compelled to
help, yet he is pulling away. Transforming back into dispassionate
"Watcher" instead of involved "Watcher."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Solitude1056,
06:36:45 05/02/01 Wed
I didn't get the impression that Giles was "pulling back,"
but that he was doing something that even parents have to do at
some point: and that's let the kid face facts that it's time s/he
grow up & do it hirself. It's not Giles' place to administer Dawn's
life as a pseudo-parent, and if he does so, it only risks undermining
Dawn's relationship with, and respect for, Buffy. Giles could
do it temporarily but the longer he's the "adult" for
both B & D, the harder it'd be for Buffy to take that role over.
Giles supports her, and he knows it's not easy, but he's not going
to do it for her. He hasn't before, and even less so as she matures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love)
-- Sue, 19:08:32 05/02/01 Wed
You are probably right. Giles needed to do what he did (but still
part of me thinks he should have stood right behind Buffy when
she was talking to Dawn). But Giles does have a role in Dawn's
life, and he needs to accept that role as her mentor.
Hey, it is either him or Doc. That's the choices. Personally I
would much perfer Giles as Dawn's mentor.
And of course, there's always Spike.
Giles needs to get involved in Dawn's life, and quick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough
Love) -- Solitude1056, 20:09:22 05/02/01 Wed
Odd, you didn't mention Xander as a male role model, and given
the options, I'd say he's as good a choice as Giles. Then again,
I still say the most important person in Dawn's life right now
isn't some male role model, but Buffy, and at this point, it's
probably only Buffy.
And based on the cliffhanger of the latest episode, it's Buffy
and only Buffy who's going to be there 100% of the time to be
Dawn's guardian in every sense of the word. So I think Giles was
right - Buffy needs to start now with Dawn trusting her as an
authority. There won't be time, when fighting Glory, for Dawn
to doubt or hesitate when Buffy calls the shots.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for
Tough Love) -- Sue, 06:02:54 05/03/01 Thu
Buffy is certainly a very important person in Dawn's life. The
most important person in Dawn's life, but I still say that Giles
has a role too.
He is the only real adult among them.
He needs to be Dawn's "Watcher" as well as Buffy's.
Sure that might not be in the Watcher's Handbook, but by now I
thought he has learned that there is that a lot isn't in there.
I don't believe Giles failed as Buffy's Watcher. Dawn needs that
same type of guidance. She might not have super powers but she
is a very super person. Giles could provide Dawn with the adult
mentor she so needs. She will seek one out if Giles doesn't rise
up to that role. She will find her mentor on the streets (Doc?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Watcher not Father -- Scott L., 20:11:29 05/02/01
Wed
I think Giles was right on the money with his advice to Buffy.
Dawn has been feeling like she's a burden for Buffy, that Buffy
doesn't want her around. She feels unreal and unimportant.
Buffy accepting the role of caregiver, provider, and disciplinarian
is going to help Dawn through those emotions.
It isn't Giles' role to be a parent to Dawn. It is his role to
be a disciplinarian for Buffy and that is just what he did. He
told her that she needed to accept responsibility and provide
guidance. That is the advice that will bring Buffy to maturity,
even if it is a bumpy road.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Watcher not Father -- Sue, 06:06:46 05/03/01
Thu
"It isn't Giles' role to be a parent to Dawn."
Maybe not exactly a parent, but Giles should have a role in Dawn's
life. A mentor's role.
It seems like Giles still wants to be a teenager in many ways.
While the advice he gave Buffy was sound and correct for that
circumstance, Giles must step up as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Watcher not Father -- Sue, 06:11:30 05/03/01
Thu
A watcher might not exactly be a "father". Giles isn't
Buffy's father. However the role of Watcher and the role of father
has some similaries.
When I think of the duty of the "watcher" I think of
the term "master" in the eastern sense of the term.
Giles is supposed to train Buffy and show her the path of being
Slayer.
Dawn as well needs some mentoring. Why Giles? Because he is the
only one who can do it. Not that others aren't willing. I am sure
Doc would be more than happy to show Dawn the way. But I don't
think we would be happy with the way Doc would show her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Leah, 09:08:21
05/02/01 Wed
Am I the only one who thought Giles didn't do anything to the
minion? I thought the whole point of that was to show how unloyal
Glory's minions are in contrast to how the Scoobies are willing
to die to protect Buffy and Dawm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Cleanthes,
09:20:11 05/02/01 Wed
I thought he did nothing more than fix the minion with a steely-eyed
Ripper stare, too. Oh, and he threatened to tie the minion up
with twine -- so I figured that the minion had seen too many Glory-tortures
not to have a vivid imagination about what would happen next.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: When the going gets tough, the tough subcontract...
-- OnM, 09:26:19 05/02/01 Wed
Perhaps Giles leaned over and whispered to the minion that he
didn't need to torture the minion himself-- he would just inform
Glory that said minion had betrayed her, and then allow events
to proceed naturally from that point on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Maybe, but I heard -- Jen C., 10:44:04
05/02/01 Wed
a disturbing "crunching" sound just as Willow and Anya
turned towards the twine on the counter. I personally think that
Giles twisted the minions nasty, ugly nose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: When the going gets tough, the tough
subcontract... -- Rufus, 14:36:28 05/02/01 Wed
I answered this in a thread further up...watch Giles closely...he
has a habit that is consistant everytime he uses the Ripper mode
of questioning. As Giles he has a habit of compulsively cleaning
his glasses with his handkerchief....as Ripper he wipes his hands
after punching someone out.....he does that everytime...plus the
tone of his voice changes...he holds no simple interview, he beats
the sh*t out of the person....only as much force as he feels is
required. His voice also changes and he means business...plus
he distracted the girls so they wouldn't see what he was doing.
The Ripper is a nasty piece of work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Shaglio,
11:51:26 05/02/01 Wed
When they went to get the twine, I thought I heard a crunching,
grinding sound. I wasn't sure if the noise came from the TV or
from somewhere in my room since I turned to look at my computer
at that exact moment. Too bad I don't tape the episode so I can
go back and rewatch that scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love) -- Max,
19:50:04 05/02/01 Wed
I don't think Giles did anything.
The minion was a coward. Just the threat of tying the minion up
was enough to make him crack.
This scene was to contrast the minion's cowardness with Tara's
courage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ripper's Return (Spoilers for Tough Love)
-- Sebastian, 20:20:07 05/02/01 Wed
I've been reading this debate all day at work.
When I returned home - I replayed the scene itht the volume WAY
up.
There *IS* a crunching noise when Anya and Willow are turned away.
Although I'm sure the contrast was still done apurpose. Tara refuses
to yield despite having her hand crushed to the point where it
bled in contrast to the minion getting roughed up by Ripper.
Angel gets all mysty eyed ....Spoilers!
-- FanMan, 00:06:15 05/02/01 Wed
5
4
3
2
1
In the latest episode there were four different plot lines going
on.
1. Cordy and her acting angst, plus Angel being big brother/protector....funny
scene!...:) 2. Gunn choosing between Angel Investigations and
his old friends. A tragedy for Gunn... 3. Wesley feeling insicure
in his leadership role, partly because of his father, but also
because Angel is better at action being the hero and all. Wesley
is very good if a problem requires intillectual thought, this
ep did not. 4. The Host having his cousin show up! The Host getting
flustered, defensive, winy, and trying to play down his knowladge
of the demon that showed up in his bar. Very funny! He has been
the wise man of the show, it is nice to see he has quirks and
foibles like everyone else.
I liked the scene where the Host describes his own world. To paraphrase;
everything is black and white, heroes just kill the bad guy, there
is no need or desire for social niceties. Angel got mysty eyed!
You could see that he would like that world where moral choices
are much simpler, also Angel is still auckward socially.
Next ep: Cool, everyone goes to Angel's dream world,and the car!....Army
OF Darkness?..naw:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
last few Angel episodes -- spotjon, 08:27:44 05/02/01 Wed
"4. The Host having his cousin show up! The Host getting
flustered, defensive, winy, and trying to play down his knowladge
of the demon that showed up in his bar. Very funny! He has been
the wise man of the show, it is nice to see he has quirks and
foibles like everyone else."
Until the very end of the show, I had assumed that this was just
another throw-away episode, not important to the plot, but offering
insights into a rather obscure character. But now, I wonder what
Cordy and the gang being chucked into black-and-white land will
lead to. Will Angel find peace there and want to stay? Will his
friends be sacrificed to the double-sun god? Will Angel suddenly
realize that his SPF60 is quickly fading? I have no idea how this
ties into the season finale, which I previously assumed had something
to do with Wolfram & Hart (which it probably still does).
Also, did anybody else notice how much Angel was not bursting
into flames in the trailer to next week's episode? Does this mean
that only our sun is capable of cindering vampires? Would travelling
to another planet not be a problem for vamps, as long as they
didn't have the windows open as they were leaving our solar system?
I'm sure that we'll be given some sort of explanation next week,
but it's certainly fuel for dissention until then!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: last few Angel episodes -- FanMan, 18:40:25 05/02/01
Wed
If the force barrier protecting residences, crosses and stakes
are some form of curse from of a God/TPTB, then it could be the
same thing for sunlight. Maby none of these things are REAL weaknesses
for vampires, and it is a curse to help even the odds for puny
humans. If there are no vampires native to the other world, there
would be no need to cast that curse there. Alternately, the natives
of that world could just be more bloodthirsty than humans-UGH!
Then they would not need any help killing vampires.
SPOILERS Concerning the Season Finale -- spotjon,
06:27:59 05/02/01 Wed
From Cinescape Online:
== Joss Whedon is shedding some light on the coming 100th episode
of Buffy the Vampire Slayer...which just happens to also be the
season finale.
While talking to TV Guide, Whedon spoke of the episode to come,
saying, "There will be some resolution to the Dawn arc -
her being the Key and whether she's Buffy's sister - as well as
Buffy's journey about what it means to be the Slayer."
Of course, it will also involve Buffy going head to head with
Glory to stop the end of the world from happening. On this point,
Whedon says, "Saving the world is what we do here at Buffy
Entertainment, so there's going to be some punching and some death,
too."
Whedon also reveals that the episode's ending will likely leave
fans sobbing in their hankies. He adds, "We did a big finale
last year, but not as the final episode, because the story wasn't
really connected to the characters. This time, it's more like
the old days." ==
Read it at Cinescape.
-spotjon
Re: Buffy Series Finale
Speculations (poss. Spoilers) -- Candy, 07:08:27 05/02/01 Wed
I am very pissed off about there no longer being a Buffy The Vampire
Slayer series. I have been a loyal fan since the beginning and
have taped every episode. How stupid can the WB possibly be to
let this series go? Although I have enjoyed each and every episode,
I expect more. I am very beyond disappointed with the WB's decision
to remove this t.v. series. They really suck for doing that, and
I hope you really do break a leg!
Specs
on Season Finale(Buffy)-Longer than I expected... -- Unsung Hero,
08:12:07 05/02/01 Wed
I doubt anyone really cares what I think, but....:-)I decided
to give my speculation on the season finale.
Ok, so what do we know?- We know "Death is your gift",
and we know Dawn has the power to do something REALLY nasty and
Glory wants her for that. We also recieved word that we're supposed
to need our collective hanky for it....so.....
SOMEONES GONNA DIE
At least, that's how I've got it figured. Now...likely canidates?
Dawn's VERY likely. Buffy would have to kill her to prevent all
exsistence from ending(surely that will be the end result of Dawn's
power). However, it's been done. But I wouldn't put it past Whedon
to do it again. It's not like he hasn't repeated stuff before.
Other potential victims? Well, Tara and Anya are fairly expendable.
This in't to say they're not great characters- They are, absoloutley,
but are they truly essential the show? No.
Tara seems awfully likely, too. But, we've heard Whedon talk about
her and how he likes her. But that doesn't give her immunity.
Anya is also very background oriented, but there are places left
to go with Anya's struggle with humanity, since very little serious
air time has been devoted to it, it's mostly been funny. But Anya's
death would do VERY little for the plotlines, and would be shock
value only, and that's not Btvs. Spike could also bite it, but
it's very unlikely in the light of his more recent actions- however,
he hasn't reformed exactly, and still believes in evil- he just
seems to like Buffy more. And the last honest canidate for death
is Buffy herself. Death IS her gift, after all. But, someone pointed
out, she already died for the world. But....she came back, kids.
A true martyr doesn't exactly come back(and before biblical references
are brought out, let's remember Jesus rose from the grave and
then went to Heaven, not went on for four more years), and as
such Buffy was not a martyr. Basically, the way I got it figured,
"death if your gift" has two literal meanings: Death
for yourself, or death for someone else. Either Buffy kills someone
important, or she dies. And I seriously doubt(and hope) that Glory
is not that important person she executes, because that'd be pretty
lame seeing as how they gave us the huge production on "Death
is your gift", and everyone would answer a big ole' "DUH"
to that one. I think Buffy dying would be an interesting twist,
one that I don't think Whedon is above making. Now...does this
mean Gellar would leave? Not neccesarily. Angel died, and he came
back mid-season. Buffy could die and come back a changed woman,
a different character than the one we knew. Or she could just
leave. I dunno. But I think it's not as unlikely as it seems.
For the first time, I have no idea how a villan will die. I've
always had an inkling as to thier tragic flaw- Glory doesn't seem
to have one. No weakness, no power source, and no fears and emotions
to play on. Dawn is the only thing that comes to mind. So my official
prediction is Dawn will focus her world ending powers on Glory
and send her lop-sided ass to wherever Gods go when they die.
And, I think, either she or Buffy will go with her. Of course,
that's my speculation and isn't based on anything whatsoever.
No matter what happens, I don't think the season will end in celebration.
Glory is far too powerful to just be beaten like Adam was-there
will be consequences, and I'm certain the gang won't hang out
at Buffy's and watch "Apocolypse Now" this time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, AtltS -- rowan, 17:09:09 05/02/01 Wed
Since Glory commented that Spike is "totally useless"
--can't be the key, totally impure, can't even be brainsucked
-- is that the clue that Spike doesn't die or a red herring to
throw us off the scent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could Buffy give Ben the gift of death? -- Vulpes, 17:37:09
05/02/01 Wed
I was just thinking about it. If Glory and Ben share the same
body, and Ben is the weaker of the two, could Buffy just kill
them both by targeting Ben?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Could Ben kill Glory while she's trying to use The
Key? -- rowan, 17:53:32 05/02/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Could Buffy give Ben the gift of death? -- Jen
C., 22:23:09 05/02/01 Wed
I've been thinking that Ben may be a totally innocent bystander.
It may be that he has been victimized for centuries (millenia?)
- hauling this hellgod around while he tries to make right all
of the crud that she does. If it turns out that he is Glory's
only weakness, and he's a total innocent, will Buffy kill him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Could Buffy give Ben the gift of death?
-- Halcyon, 09:28:43 05/03/01 Thu
Ben is hardly a total innocent, he did summon the Queller to kill
all the crazy people that Glory had created. An action that nearly
got Buffy, Dawn and Joyce killed as well as making Spike scream
like S3 Wesley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i thought Dawn would -- riffington, 22:15:04 05/02/01 Wed
sacrifice herself to save the world - Buffy could never kill her
own sister.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Specs on Season Finale(Buffy)-Longer than I expected...
-- change, 03:48:29 05/03/01 Thu
> For the first time, I have no idea how a villan will die.
I've always > had an inkling as to thier tragic flaw- Glory
doesn't seem to have one. > No weakness, no power source, and
no fears and emotions to play on.
Actually, Glory has at least two weaknesses that we know of. First,
she has to feed. If she doesn't, she goes insane. Secondly, she
has to share her body with Ben, and the two of them are enemies.
There are a couple of ways these weaknesses could be exploited.
Usually, Joss seeds these things into earlier episodes. For example,
the Superstar episode demonstrated how a reality changing spell
could work and so laid the ground work for Dawn's appearance.
The two episodes that come to mind are The Replacement and Blood
Ties. In The Replacement, Xander was split into two different
beings. The two beings were suppose to represent opposite qualities.
The SG could use this spell to split Glory and Ben apart from
each other, as well as the third hell god if there is one. This
would allow Ben to work directly against Glory. It might also
weaken Glory. She may be sharing a body with Ben because she needs
to.
In Blood Ties, Willow teleports Glory about a mile up into the
air. If Willow finds a way to control that spell, then she could
teleport Glory a mile underground. That probably wouldn't kill
her, but it would take her a long time to dig herself out, and
she wouldn't be able to feed. She could go completely insane before
she makes it out.
Just some thoughts on how Glory might be defeated. My point is
that Joss likes to lay in the ground work for these things ahead
of time. So, one of the previous episodes probably has the solution.
Parallels between Spike and Willow
-- Simplicity, 09:26:59 05/02/01 Wed
Just some brain food for thought. . .
Did anyone else catch some Spike/Willow parallels. First, Tara/Drusilla
both suffering from insanity. Spike/Willow both willing to stick
by their loves despite the mental illness. Willow/Spike both resorting
to evilness/dark powers to restore/get revenge for their hurt
loved one. Spike was willing to kill Angel to save Drusilla. Willow
was willing to use "Darkest Magic" to do so.
What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Leah,
10:38:00 05/02/01 Wed
Am I the only one who thought Giles didn't do anything? It seemed
to me like the minion was just a wimp and very unloyal. I saw
the scene as a point of contrast b/w Glory's unloyal minions and
the Scoobies who would die for Buffy and Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Simplicity,
11:31:44 05/02/01 Wed
I taped it. When I ran it back you hear a sickening "crunch"
off camera when you're focused on Anya and Willow. Ripper definetly
did something to the minion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Rufus,
14:28:15 05/02/01 Wed
When Giles is in Ripper mode he has a habit he does every time
he punches someone out.....he wipes his hands in his handkerchief
post pummeling. He made a point of distracting the girls with
the twine request...and Giles and the minion came to a hasty understanding
that the twine was the least of the minions problems. Giles seems
to have a compulsion to wipe the violence off his hands everytime
he is forced to use his natural talent. What else is he wiping
away? He also gets a different tone to his voice making one wonder
how many personal interviews his has given in the past. He's very
efficient in getting the cooperation of the subject he is questioning.
When Giles is in Ripper mode there is a definate feeling of menace
and violence that can't be attributed to gift wrapping a minion.
Plus, is twine strong enough to hold more than a normal package?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... --
Rufus, 02:25:24 05/03/01 Thu
The order in which Giles did things was first to open the door
and hit the minions head with it. Drags the minion into the room.
Pulls out handkerchief wiping hands as he requests the minion
tell why he was spying. Asks the girls to get some twine. As their
backs are turned a loud crunch can be heard, and the minion yelps
a bit. Then full cooperation. The crunch wasn't Giles cracking
his knuckles, I think he may have leaned on the minion with his
foot. If he had used his hands I figure more hand wiping would
start up. Nice that he didn't want to corrupt yound minds by showing
his violent side in action. In Halloween just before he beat the
hell out of Ethan he had Willow leave. In this ep he had them
distracted long enough to get the job done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... -- Solitude1056,
18:22:11 05/06/01 Sun
The verdict is in, but I think they toned it down from the original
to something a bit more subtle. The shooting script outlines that:
Giles holds the Minion's gaze. Without looking away.
GILES Quickly you two, on the counter... get the twine. Let's
tie him up.
We follow Anya and Willow as they grab the lengths of twine off
the counter.
They are startled by A LOUD CRUNCH AND AN ANGUISHED GASP OF PAIN.
Anya and Willow turn to see:
SLOOK Pale and sweaty. Trembling at Giles' feet.
SLOOK (O.S.) (desperate) Don't... I'll tell you anything. Please.
Whatever you want to know. Just... I'll... anything...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion... --
Rufus, 20:35:30 05/06/01 Sun
I know intimidation and the beginings of torture when I see and
hear it....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion...
-- purplegrrl, 13:29:15 05/08/01 Tue
Did Giles get intimidation and torture lessons from Angelus (remembering
what Angelus did to him during the whole Acathla-sucking-the-world-into-Hell
thing) or was this something he picked up in his mad, bad "Ripper"
days??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and the minion...
-- Rufus, 15:01:41 05/08/01 Tue
I think it was training from his time with the CoW and natural
talent. Which makes one wonder what type of training Watchers
get.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles and
the minion... -- Solitude1056, 19:22:49 05/08/01 Tue
I doubt it had much to do with the CoW's training - look at the
abilities Wesley had when he arrived... uh, that would be none!
*grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What happened with Giles
and the minion... -- Rufus, 21:45:03 05/08/01 Tue
How about an innate gift for persuasion....:):):):) I'm talking
Giles here....Wesley is a work in process.
A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow?
Spoilers for Tough Love -- Brian, 12:27:05 05/02/01 Wed
Since I joined the Buffyverse in Season two, I have heard many
people tell Willow to "go slow," "be careful,"
"the powers you evoke are dangerous," &
"I don't think you can handle it." Well, last night,
Willow demonstrated that she really is a powerful witch, and she
can handle it. She may not have defeated Glory, but she caused
her some serious pain.
It was nice to see Willow put her doubts behind her, and take
action, no matter how rash. She needed vengence in the worst way.
I imagine that she had a lot of guilt, that because of her fight
with Tara, she wasn't there to protect her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough
Love -- Joann, 18:52:52 05/02/01 Wed
I love that Willow finally used the power of her magic. When she
came sweeping into the room with those death eyes I got chills
all over it was so creepy. No wonder she is best friends with
the Slayer; she is as dark. I liked this episode the best of the
season because everyone was in angst and suffering and in peril
and may die, just like it use to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for
Tough Love -- FanMan, 19:08:14 05/02/01 Wed
Willow has done some very powerefull spells before. This EP was
the first time I recall her useing explicitly harmfull magic.
Normally she helps Buffy with usefull magic. Some of her other
spells had bad effects RE something Blue, but the spells were
morally neutral. This EP she was using spells from a book callled
Darkest Magic!
I like POWER WILLOW, but I wouldn't want to cross her!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers
for Tough Love -- Wiccagrrl, 20:19:53 05/02/01 Wed
The scene with Willow taking on Glory very much reminded me of
Giles going after Angelus in Passion. And I loved the "I.Owe.You.PAIN!"
line. I thought this ep was really great. I loved them reinforcing
the W/T relationship. I thought Tara was truly heroic- her resolved
face, knowing what Glory was going to do to her, broke my heart
and really impressed me at the same time (not that I thought she'd
give Dawn up, but wow)
Gods, I hope they find a way to help Tara fast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow?
Spoilers for Tough Love -- Sebastian, 20:25:18 05/02/01 Wed
I'm also glad that they have *finally* fully addressed how powerful
Willow has become.
They have, of course, hinted at it the past few seasons - but
this episode finally showed just how adept at magic Willow really
is.
I also really enjoyed the nature of Willow and Tara's argument.
I've had lesbian friends in college deal with the same issues
- and it was very well done and realistic.
A sidebar: The concern Anya showed to Willow was sweet - and her
comment "I realizd that sounded alot more 'lesbian' than
I meant" made me laugh aloud.
Sorry for the ramble..... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow?
Spoilers for Tough Love -- John Burwood, 12:36:26 05/03/01 Thu
Just a thought - if Willow gets sufficiently vengeful, she has
the option of giving d'Hoffryn a chant & acquiring the additional
powers of a vengeance demon - as Anya reminded her in Triangle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Willow the vampire slayer? -- Traveler,
22:00:47 05/02/01 Wed
You know, after this episode I started wondering: how much longer
will Sunnydale need Buffy? With Willow seriously discomfiting
a god, how could measly vampires stand a chance against her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow the vampire slayer? --
Xayide, 13:03:13 05/03/01 Thu
Replace "Bag o' Knives" with "Bag o' Stakes"
and vampires are absolutely no longer a threat. She could even
do some telekinetic decapitation if she wants.
Still, she's said before that her powers are linked to her emotional
state, so perhaps she won't normally be able to access that level
of power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow the vampire slayer?
-- FanMan, 17:52:57 05/03/01 Thu
Buffy also fights better when she is pissed. Two things though,
Willow was using darkest magic wich probably has some bad side
effects, also spells require prep work. If Willow is suprised
she will not have time to cast a spell.
Two more things (g) Buffy has faster reflexes and healing powers.
Buffy is equal to Willow after Willow has spell ingrediants and
preped spells, but Buffy is always ready for The Dance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow the vampire
slayer? -- Xayide, 11:24:20 05/04/01 Fri
True, but keep in mind that Willow's telekinetic powers appear
to function without spells and ingrediants. Even if they were
amped by her rage, she should still be able to toss a stake around
fairly easily (and as we've seen, even pencils work just fine).
Speaking of her telekinesis, have they ever shown her use it on
living beings, or just objects? It occured to me that if she simply
lifted Glory off the ground, her strength would be almost useless
and her speed completely so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: A Seriously Brassed Off...Willow? Spoilers for Tough
Love -- Humanitas, 09:49:17 05/03/01 Thu
First of all, I was very happy to see Willow finally become an
Official Bad-Ass Spell Slinger. They've been hinting at it for
two seasons now, so it has been on my mind, especially since she's
seemed so inept ths season (esp. in "Triangle").
I gotta say, I'm a bit worried, though. Magic seems to rely heavily
on the emotional state of the user. Willow's strength in htis
ep definitely came from grief and anger, which are always dangerous
to give in to. Again, not that I think she was wrong, but I bet
there will be unforseen consequences from her use of "Darkest
Magick."
death as a gift
-- gds, 16:54:15 05/02/01 Wed
Am I the only one who believes the whole point of saying "death
is your gift" was for Buffy to deny that death is a gift.
This denial is the proof that Buffy needed that she is not turning
into stone, not losing her humanity. To emphasize that point,
the Guide left saying "you're question has been answered"
as soon as Buffy made the denial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: death as a gift:reverse psychology -- FanMan, 18:58:52
05/02/01 Wed
Could be. I like youre reasoning. Restless was the same; the scenes
were in the form of a dream, and therefore metaphorical and vauge.
SNEAKY GUIDE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: death as a gift:reverse psychology -- rowan, 21:01:00
05/03/01 Thu
It could also be interpreted: "I'm not going to stand here
arguing with you because I answered your question."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: death is a Gift -- Darren K, 09:06:19 05/04/01 Fri
Oracular metaphors. Dream sequences with nuggets of truth. Why
should a Buffy fan insist on one interpretation?
Death is a gift because it's a release from responsibility, a
release from tragedy.
No one in Buffy's world faces more responsibility and tragedy
then a Slayer.She faces a neverending battle. Why shouldn't she
want release? This is the same message from "Fool for Love"
when Spike contends that all Slayers have a deathwish.It's not
a wish to be defeated, it's a wish to be released, to not have
to be the hero.
But there is another interpretation in the Guide's words. Buffy
shouldn't expect any end--other than death--to her responsibility,
or to her life's tragedies. Responsibility in all worlds is cradle
to grave and if Buffy--or any of us--find the time and the room
in our lives for love and joy, It's because we make it, accept
it and welcome it.
Basically, she's telling Buffy to buck up and take it on the chin,
just like Slayers before her.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: death is a Gift -- Nina, 16:17:20 05/04/01 Fri
I am probably way off here, but I remember JW saying somewhere
(sorry don't remember where and when - so probably not a good
theory) that Buffy would finally find her soul mate at the end
of season 5. Could "death" be Spike? I know it's too
simple and probably stupid, but there could be a lot of meanings
for those words. All of them could be true at the same time. (like
the titles of episodes which have many meanings!)
Okay I'm off... should have kept my word and keep reading!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: death is a Gift -- darren K, 19:59:16 05/04/01
Fri
I think that's a perfectly valid theory.Why shouldn't Spike be
death?
dK
Angel (the series) seems a
little alien to me... -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:57:27 05/02/01 Wed
Epiphany was a great episode. Angel had learned many things during
his tenure of "darker dark hero", and he returned to
the fold. It still had that great Angel tone that hooked me in
the first place, dark and moody, with that tinge of humor and
humanity that the gang (and sometimes Angel) provide. I remember
after watching it I felt excited to see where it would all go.
I've liked where it has gone, to an extent. Angel's new attitude
is both refreshing and amusing. He SMILES, he's sarcastic, he
wears a little bit of color. But the show's tone, and entire world,
seems to have changed. Lighter, I was expecting, but it seems
to have gotten REALLY lighter than it was. No longer does Angel
walk through smoked screened alleyways under the blanket of the
night. The stories from the past two episodes (and to a lesser
extent, yesterday's) have been stand alones, not arc stories.
We saw only a little of Wolfram and Hart, not looking in on their
scheming against Angel but at their promoting Lilah. I'm not even
sure WHAT it is that's bothering me about the show now, its just
that its so DIFFERENT. I like complicated characters and the gray
that Joss keeps between the black and white forces of the B/A
universe, but I like for that black and white to EXIST. Demons
used to be evil. Yesterday we had a demon, related to the Host,
that was a hunter on neither side of the moral spectrum. Maybe
I got a little too used to Angel being so dark, and the stories
revolving more around the villains with history with the lead
character. I dunno,someone make sense of this for me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Angel (the series) seems a little alien to me... --
Javoher, 18:13:08 05/03/01 Thu
The darkness of Angel was what originally attracted me to this
series.
Angel swings from light to dark and back. He's really trying to
lighten up these days, be with human friends even if he does feel
old (I got the Lorne Greene thing too, but wasn't thinking Bonanza).
After firing them and taking on Darla and W&H by himself, going
over the edge and having that epiphany, he's realized he needs
a community to keep him from falling off a cliff. There was a
thread a little while ago about Spike needing a community that
accepts him - it's exactly the same for Angel and all he really
has are Cordy, Wesley, and Gunn, and now the Host. Interesting
how the Host offered a hand of friendship so casually and sincerely.
This guy isn't bad at all, and he's not a bad musician either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel (the series) seems a little alien to me...
-- verdantheart, 06:19:47 05/04/01 Fri
I like the host too, and I'm glad they finally gave him a name.
He provides a nice counterpoint to the brooding side of the show,
especially since he seems to have a connection with TPTB yet is,
if anything, freed by it rather than suffering because of it.
(Were they thinking "lounge lizard" when they came up
with the green scaly makeup?)
It's interesting to see some of his backstory filled in.
- vh
What's up with everyone's hair?
(Tough Love spoilers and a frivolous post) -- rowan, 17:26:02
05/02/01 Wed
Did anyone notice that practically everybody had a new 'do for
Tough Love? Buffy was back to the totally straight, ironed look
(which I personally like alot); Xander finally got his hair cut
(although I think it would look better even a little shorter),
and Spike's hair looks just a touch longer &
wavy (not quite Intervention's bed head, but definitely different).
The cast must have gotten some serious time off between episode
shoots.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: What's up with everyone's hair? (Tough Love spoilers
and a frivolous post) -- Lynn, 19:21:28 05/02/01 Wed
I like a little frivolity is good once in a while, especially
since I think we're going to be in for a lot of strife the next
few weeks!
I liked everyone's hair this week too. I think it made them look
younger, for some reason, especially Spike, he looked almost boyish,
despite the bruises. Spike's hair has been the subject of much
posting, I've seen it on other sites. Most didn't liked the slicked
down look, and I'm wondering if the change has something to do
with the change in his character (see, I'm trying to make this
a serious discussion) :)
Lynn
Misc Glory/Ben -- FanMan,
20:05:02 05/02/01 Wed
Glory is a Hellgod-in exhile- so what? Besides eating and harassing
the SG what villenace actions has she taken. She is not a villian
that I can empathise with. She is stupid as Spike said, her minions
are pitifull; who you associate with says something about you.
Glory does not have any intelligent servants-inferiority complex?
or is it that she is so stupid that no smart villian will ally
with her? I hope there is a different villian that is the real
big bad for season 5. Glory is powerfull, power is not scary by
itself, you need some menacing and random violence. I guess she
is scary in the same way that the Cuthplu Gods are; she is so
powerfull that humans are literally like bugs in her view- Ouch!
My SELF-ESTEEM!
Glory:invulnrable, immortal, very fast,very strong, spellcaster.
Glory:insane, arrogent, overconfident Until we get new info the
only weakness I can see in Glory is her overconfidence. Overconfidence
is a weakness because it fools you into thinking someone is less
dangerous than they are. An eight year old kid might look harmless;
untill he points a gun at you! Incidentally I remember reading
something very funny and not relevant. A burgurlar was killed
by a chiwawa after it bit his finger off! He could have bandaged
his hand: but the owner came home, so he hid in a clauset and
bled to death....LOL
Ben is not any better. He is boring as a regular cast member.
If his sister is a God/Godess? why does he act so wimpy? RE pacifism:
you can be a pacifist for moral reasons or from a simple aversion
to violence. Regardless, you can be strong and a pacifist at the
same time. When Ben tried to make a date with Buffy he might have
been looking for a reason to talk to her in private about his
relationship with Glory. If he has any romantic interest in Buffy,
then he is an ass! Two scenerios: Buffy&Ben
geting intimate and suddenly Glory is there!...eeewww! Buffy trusting
Ben as a friend and leaving Dawn with Ben. Ben has two reasons
to tell Buffy that he is related to Glory: so that Buffy would
keep Dawn away from him, also he could give Buffy some inside
info on Glory.
Ben:cast one spell, unkown power, actually cares about humans
to a degree. Ben:Pacifist,reactive instead of taking initiative,
wimpy. My thought is that Ben is the Achillies Heel for Glory
in some way.
What is the deal? Glory said that Ben was getting stronger, next
EP Ben is totally shocked to find out that Glory had been controlling
thier body for two weeks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
more Glory&Ben -- Riffington, 21:49:30 05/02/01 Wed
I never really thought Ben and Glory had a true Jekyll & Hyde
existence until Ben got fired for his absence. I was still holding
on to the suggestion that they were atleast 2 seperate bodies
linked in a shared existence. I'm trying to refer to a scene in
the epsiode "Family" where Ben is changing in a locker
room, & then a few rows away, the demon stalking him is nabbed
from behind by Glory. I suppose that can be attributed to her
goddess-ly super speed & strength.
I suppose the way to destroy Glory is to kill Ben
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: more Glory&Ben -- FanMan, 17:56:06 05/03/01 Thu
I remember that scene. If there are two bodies and Glory can act
independantly of Ben, then where was Ben for two weeks? Was he
concious?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: more Glory&Ben -- Solitude1056, 21:28:10
05/03/01 Thu
If Glory's been trapped in Ben's subconcious all this time, perhaps
what she said to Tara is Glory's experience of what it's like
to be without an Identity - IOW, an awareness of a Self as a separate
person from other people. Hm, maybe that's the reason Glory brainsucks,
because if she doesn't, she isn't - separate, that is. Ben doesn't
need to brainsuck because he contains the identity, where Glory
doesn't. That would explain why he held his head & repeated, "I'm
Ben, I'm Ben" as if to reaffirm that his identity is the
primary for the body.
In my interpretation of things - and given that we've seen them
morph into each other - then Ben was "gone" for two
weeks, effectively as if he'd been temporarily unconcious. I suppose
this is the point where we look to see if Joss was checking out
books on MPD three years ago, when that evil brain o' his was
coming up with this season's arc!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Misc Glory/Ben -- Solitude1056, 20:22:02 05/03/01 Thu
In the writer's comments I posted above, one of the writers explains
that Ben is mortal & always has been. Something just doesn't seem
right, there, to me. I mean, usually even the Buffyverse doesn't
work so randomly. The PTBs just picked "some guy" out
of the crowd who's going to be saddled with this insano-god chick
for his whole life? On top of that, Ben has referred to Glory
as his "sister," and implied that he's been the Janitor
for his "whole life." Maybe we're being led by the nose
into another Fight Club rehash, but wouldn't he then consider
Glory his "bad half," and not his "sister"?
The word choice implies that Glory is somehow an Other, and not
just a part of him - excepting his comment to Dreg of "let
the best Me win."
I'd posit actually that perhaps Ben bowed out of the Hell-God
position, or more likely fled, and became human. Perhaps Glory
wasn't able to stop him, or unwittingly aided him, and thus their
PTB killed two birds with one stone. Glory gets punished by being
trapped in a mortal body with Ben, and Ben gets punished by having
to deal with her for the rest of his life! That makes more sense
to me, since the idea that Ben was picked out of a random lineup
to be saddled with Glory just doesn't add up, based on his comments
to Dawn & Dreg. Glory sure doesn't seem like the kind of chick
to have done anything good enough (in a Hell's upside-down reasoning)
to have warranted such punishment. And I can't think of any other
way we'd end up with both being punished at the same time. Forcing
them together for a mortal lifetime doesn't make sense as a punishment
for two personalities whose priorities are radically opposite,
because I can't figure how they could both have committed the
"same" crime, being so radically different.
Just my two dinar, after such a long post on related topics!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misc Glory/Ben -- FanMan, 22:35:38 05/03/01 Thu
I started a thread called Musing about Angel. A reply mentioned
a serial killer who had his memories and personality erased, then
a new personality was put in his body.
Check that, it is similar to your post.
Another stupid question??? --
Emcee003, 09:43:11 05/03/01 Thu
Can Dawn ever be made mortal??? If so that could be the death
in the 100th eps. of which we are all trying to figure out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Another stupid question??? -- darren K, 12:28:03 05/03/01
Thu
Dawn is mortal. Her body is mortal. She can be killed and her
DNA (according to the Doc) is Joyce's. Basically, the monks made
Buffy's true sister and used it as a host for the KEY. I don't
think Dawn is the KEY. I think Dawn is a mortal housing for the
KEY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Humanitas, 13:08:02
05/03/01 Thu
Um, not to nitpick (Who am I kidding? I'm picking nits furiously
in a vain attempt to not go crazy waiting for next week's ep),
but Doc doesn't actually know that Dawn has Joyce's DNA. He looks
at Dawn's DNA, assumes it comes from Joyce (because Spike idetifies
Joyce as "this one's mum"), and says:
DOC: Well, your mother's a good candidate, at least. Strong DNA.
Now, we know that Joyce *does* have strong DNA, as it can withstand
the pressures of being The Slayer, in Buffy's case, but that does
not mean that Joyce's strong DNA is what Doc is looking at in
the sample he takes from Dawn.
'K, getting overly pedantic. Gonna stop now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dawn is not storage? plus side note -- imcj, 20:07:38
05/03/01 Thu
May take on it.
It's definitely not stored in Dawn. The key is Dawn and Dawn is
the key.
Three monks from the Order of Dagon, used their ability to bend
reality and transformed. A bright green energy matrix, that vibrates
at a dimensional frequency into human form.
At first I thought she was just an Illusion. This energy matrix
just made to look-smell-taste-feel, etc., like a real human. Because
a) when Buffy performed the A Tirer la Courture Dawns figure seemed
to fade in and out. Like she wasn't there. b) when crazy ppl saw
her they saw a green light or nothing at all, a "blank."
However, that has been proven wrong.
Dawn has emotions, she is real. She is yes artificial in the way
she became human. But Dawn is real, she is mortal.
side note: It's so interesting how the Order of Dagon have such
power. To manifest energy into human flesh. To alter reality and
change many PPLs perceptions. That's just coo.
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Side note-why were they protecting it in
the first place? -- Anthony8, 19:34:12 05/04/01 Fri
I don't know if this has been addressed in any of the threads,
but has anyone yet discussed why the monks were protecting the
key in the first place. The Knights of "Hack and Slash"
seemed to think all their problems would be solved once they destroyed
The Key. The monks main purpose (later transferred to Buffy) appeared
to be to protect it. Has anybody discussed whether The Key has
a bigger significance than enabling Glory to return to her dimension
and destroying ours in the process? Granted, that's still about
as significant as it comes, so my guess is that The Key came into
existence as a by-product of Glory entering our dimension. Glory
did tell Dawn in "Blood Ties" that The key wasn't as
old as she was.
If the solution is as simple as destroying the Key, presumably
the monks would have done that. Of course, maybe it's not possible
to destroy it at all. In that case, hiding it until the time has
passed for Glory to use it would make sense.
Okay, now I appear to be answering my own question. Have I? Okay
then, what would happen to The Key if Dawn were to die before
Glory got ahold of her? If The Key goes unused and Glory is properly
dispatched, what happens to it then? Alright, that's it. Sorry
about the rambling.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- rowan, 20:42:39
05/03/01 Thu
That would make some sense out of Glory's tasting of blood to
determine who is The Key, and the spoilers that indicate Dawn's
blood must be spilt by Glory to activate The Key. The pure energy
that Tara saw is housed within the human body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> but why then? -- Solitude1056, 20:50:32 05/03/01
Thu
The other brainsucked folks noticed Dawn as a "blank"
right away - but (I think) Tara's the first to call her a bright
light and/or the color green. Why then, and why hadn't Tara remarked
(as the other victims had) on Dawn's non-being as soon as Tara
saw Dawn? That just seemed odd/inconsistent to me, and Joss isn't
usually inconsistent without a good reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes, vg point! (spoilers ahead) -- rowan,
20:55:19 05/03/01 Thu
I thought in the last ep that Tara seemed alot more with it than
most of the brainsuckees. She was better able to interact with
others (although not to actually converse). Do you think this
is just because she's a newbie, or could that "Tara Resolve
Face" have been a way that she was able to slightly protect
herself? Spoilers lead us to believe that she will be the one
who knows how to destroy Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, vg point! (spoilers ahead)
-- Solitude1056, 21:02:59 05/03/01 Thu
Spoilers lead us to believe that she will be the one who knows
how to destroy Glory.
They have? Uh, I'm still back with the "when is Melissa Gilbert
going to show up" disinformation thread. Call me slow on
the uptake, I guess. *grin*
But you're right, Tara was more with it - and Willow commented
that at points she could tell Tara was "in there." At
the time I took this as wishful thinking but I'm right in guessing
that the identity is what's gone, and the soul's what loves, then
it makes sense that Tara may still express affection, if only
non-verbally.
Two things: I was wondering about the whole "tara as a vessel"
line of thought that's been going down since Restless. If Tara's
identity is returned to her, and it has to be stolen back from
Glory, how much of Glory will come along for the ride? Is there
anything of Glory once those stolen identity-energies are gone?
And second: maybe it's heightened emotion that makes the Key shine
so bright. Dawn was calm until Glory pulled away half the wall
and discovered them - and anyone's emotional barometer would go
bonkers at such an interruption. Maybe as Dawn has become more
human, her Key-part has been better & better cloaked, but fear's
a pretty primal thing, and no better way (other than anger) to
take you to your most basic state.
Dunno... comments, questions? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, vg point! (spoilers
ahead) -- rowan, 21:11:48 05/03/01 Thu
"Spoilers lead us to believe that she will be the one who
knows how to destroy Glory.
They have? Uh, I'm still back with the "when is Melissa Gilbert
going to show up" disinformation thread. Call me slow on
the uptake, I guess. *grin*"
Well, so true, but I never did believe the whole Melissa Gilbert
thing -- sounded way too strange to me. The Tara stuff sounds
alot closer, because we've seen that other brainsuckees have insight
that others don't have (they recognized The Key, etc.). Plus,
someone soon has to give the SG some kind of clue. Have we ever
gone this far into an arc where they are so clueless?
I wondered if Dawn was vibrating (sounds kind of risque) at a
higher frequency when Glory arrived (I'd be peeing my pants, so
I can sympathize). It is strange that Tara didn't notice Dawn's
keyness until Glory arrived. Does The Key get brighter when The
Keymaster is around (oops, sounds a little GhostBusterish suddenly).
I got the impression from Glory's impassioned ramblings to Tara
before she brainsucked her that she had experienced the brainsuck
hell herself -- she described it so realistically. Maybe everyone's
wits are hanging out together in hell waiting for release.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, vg point! (spoilers
ahead) -- Rufus, 22:12:46 05/03/01 Thu
Willow kinda answered the question for me when she mentioned the
drugs the hospital gave her to keep Tara calm. Drugs can only
do so much. Tara could have been close enough to another dose
that the stress of Glory arriving and the amount of fear that
would generate makes sense that she could have fought off the
effects of the drug and seen Dawn for what she is for the first
time. Remember Tara understands that Glory is the one that hurt
her, and she would be outside of reality so she could have an
unintentional outburst such as the one she had when she identified
Dawn as the key. Everyone was pretty freaked...not often that
the front of a building gets torn open by a normal looking girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Emcee003, 12:40:22 05/03/01
Thu
I Am in the UK so the last eps I saw was Dawns attempt to return
her mother thanxs 2 Willow. So how many Eps eps behind am I with
the all u????? but the next is on in 23 1/2 hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Wiccagrrl, 20:31:18
05/03/01 Thu
Not too far behind. The ep you mentioned, Forever, is ep 17, so
I'm assuming you'll be getting ep 18 tomorrow. We got ep 19 on
Tuesday, and will get ep 20 this coming Tuesday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Another stupid question??? -- Emcee003,
00:51:57 05/04/01 Fri
THanks (I thought i was only a few)
Vengeance & Consequences (oops,
long) -- Solitude1056, 18:50:16 05/03/01 Thu
This got kind of lost in another thread but I decided to repost
because it leads into something else I've been thinking about
today. First, Tara's expression: just as Glory made it clear Tara
was going to get brain sucked, we saw Tara's Resolve Face. I'm
still curious as to whether anyone else has theories of what she
was thinking. As I stated before, she's not without resources.
Perhaps whatever she formulated (or decided upon) is why Glory
felt so buzzed afterwards. Or maybe it was just pure determination
that Glory wouldn't get the information, at any cost, and the
satisfaction of knowing that at least Buffy and Willow would kick
Glory's lopsided ass back to Kingdom Come.
There's also been a lot of speculation that we're finally getting
to see Willow being as powerful as some have suspected she is.
Well, she may be that powerful, but right now she's got reason
to be: she's royally pissed off! In a realverse situation, if
a drunk driver had hit Tara as she stood on a street corner, Willow
might've gone through solid steel and a wall of fire to make the
guy suffer. Barring that option, her pain is the kind that leads
people to begin things like MADD and support groups for families
of murder victims. It's the same as Buffy needing something physical
to blame for her mother's illness. It's just that Willow had less
at her disposal (such as physical strength) but was willing to
use what she had and put all of her soul's muscle into following
it through. And she could do that - for once - and be completely
focused because, in some ways, she had nothing left to lose. Nothing.
Tara, mentally, is gone and in the Buffyverse, there's no guarantee
for Willow that Tara will ever get better.
Glory messed with the wrong Scooby - not Tara, Willow - when she
messed with that Scooby's beloved. Unlike the other Scoobies,
Willow's the one who had someone she loved leave her because of
a third person's involvement. Oz up &
left Willow, without any input from her. She found him asleep
and nekkid with someone else - and that kind of betrayal is hard
to forget or just put aside, especially when it results in the
other person deciding they can't be with you. Oz didn't stick
around to give Willow the chance to work through the anger coming
from that discovery, nor did Willow have the opportunity (or guts)
to unleash her anger on the Other Woman, though she tried. In
some ways, she was still learning her Art, and in some ways, she'd
not truly lost Oz - yet - so she still had something to lose.
There's the feeling of wanting to kill the Other Person, and yet
the holding-back because there's just the little bit of suspicion
that this other person is someone Oz liked more than her.
Then along comes Glory and damages Tara. Well, perhaps somewhere
in her mind, Willow saw herself as "taking it" the first
time, without her say-so and no part in the resulting end-of-the-relationship.
This time, she's gonna do it differently. She's been through the
heartbreaking loss when someone else takes away the one she loves.
She stood by and watched her beloved go, and this time she will,
too, but not without a serious fight. She's older, she's stronger,
she's smarter, and now she knows herself well enough to know -
despite Buffy's naively thinking otherwise - that she's not willing
to look back and say, "I should've done something."
That's why Willow fought back, and that's why she was twenty times
stronger than she's been before. I don't know if she'd be able
to muster that level of focus again, just for anything. On top
of that, this isn't an emotional power that goes everywhere: it's
very focused. Willow didn't waste time on the minions. She wasn't
interested in them; she was only interested in the object of her
anger. Nor can I see her wasting 40 vampires (if Tara had been
killed by a vamp), unless it's necessary to get to the single
one that hurt Tara. At that point, her mission - so to speak -
is complete and she's drained of her vengeance.
Now, for the second half: we saw no consequences, unlike Willow's
previous spells. For starters, I'd suggest that's because her
vengeance was not going against the grain of the Buffyverse. She
may have unwittingly been acting with the PTB behind her and thus
her ability to not only slow Glory down but also to recover so
quickly. Where her other spells have verged on cross-grain magic,
this one may've been so properly with the grain that she would
be even more powerful as a result. Swimming with the current is
gonna get you there a lot faster, and perhaps this time the PTB's
current was behind her all the way.
Curiously (and tangentially), I've noticed Anya speaking with
less stilted pronounciation, and her phrasing has been relaxing
into a more human manner since Joyce's death. She blurted out
an offering to sleep with Willow, but the cadence was natural.
It's subtle & though it's been years since I've done shakespearean
acting, cadences are something I pay attention to. (Don't know
if anyone else noticed it, as no one's mentioned it.) Anyway,
that indicates to me that Anya's slowly becoming more human on
the inside, and thus I wonder if she may also become more able
to use magic, as a result. Perhaps that's part of what one needs
to really kick-ass in magic, is something like Willow's in-touch-ness
with her Will (and to some extent, her anger, which is sometimes
the same thing). The farther Anya sat from her emotions, the harder
it may have been to work magic. She was angry about losing her
status as Vengeance Demon, hence her ability to muster the anger
to try & regain that in Doppelgangerland. But since then she's
adamantly insisted she's powerless, as she struggles with her
humanity. Perhaps as she moves closer to her emotions, the more
she may be able to assist Willow. Hopefully my intuition is right
that this is a sign that Anya will be able to support Willow,
magickally, in the upcoming head-ons with Glory.
And last issue/idea: what if we think of sanity, like the soul,
as a complete unit? A soul is required for Glory to suck the person
dry, but in her case, she's leaving the soul behind - and taking
the personlity; that is to say, the person's identity. The soul
is what makes the difference between whether she can take it or
not - Spike has plenty of personality but no soul. It's where
your memories, thoughts, reactions, preferences, tastes, likes,
dislikes, reside. We know identity is not the same as the soul,
since vampires continue to have an distinct personality similar
to pre-vampism despite the demon taking over. We've called it
sanity, since in its absence the person is insane, but what if
they're not insane so much as a soul without any roots or foundation
of Identity? How apropos, since this season's theme is identity.
And that would explain the non sequitorial uncertainty, and random
verbal repetition, on the part of the brainsucked: they grasp
at statements and random thoughts and hold onto them, as the soul
attempts to shape some sort of identity in the vacuum left behind.
So... how would one restore the Identity to Tara, and what would
happen to Glory? Is Identity something that you can craft out
of thin air - thus restoring Tara without dealing with Glory's
refusal to give it up - or is it like the soul: a complete unit,
that can be bartered, taken, restored, but not recreated from
whole cloth? I'm suddenly thinking of Joss' being influenced by
Sumerian mythologies, but unfortunately I'd have to go into the
Egyptian understanding of the soul to find a precedent for this
perspective. The Sumerian (and later Babylonian) philosophies
tend to speak more of "what the gods do" and less of
"who a person is." The Egyptians had a complex understanding
(rivaled only by modern Voudoun) of the different areas that together
define a person's spirituality: the Ba, the Ka, the Akh, the Shadow,
the Name, and several others I can't remember now. Each was distinct,
and it was necessary in the funeral rituals to observe each spiritual
part of the person. If we view Glory's interaction with Tara,
compared to the other brain-sucked victims, then to me it appears
that we're dealing with the same type of perspective on What A
Person Is. It's a compilation of a series of interdependent aspects
that together make up the person: a soul, an identity, a body,
and what else?
I'll stop there, but hopefully that's enough to get you guys on
the track of how I'm seeing the recent actions...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- rowan, 20:27:29
05/03/01 Thu
I don't have much of any insight to add, except thanks for helping
me think about Willow in a different way. I was fairly "anti"
the revenge magick, primarily because it seemed against the Wiccan
Rede, but I hadn't stopped to think that maybe it was acceptable
in the Buffyverse. Food for thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Rufus, 22:31:10
05/03/01 Thu
I remember Glory describe to Tara what happens when one is brain
sucked...
Glory: "It doesn't kill you. What it does...is make you feel
like you're in a noisy little dark room, naked and ashamed, and
there are things in the dark that need to hurt you because you're
bad. Little pinching things that go in your ears and crawl on
the inside of your skull. And you know, it the noise and teh crawling
would stop, that you could remember how to get out. But you never,
ever will."
That remained with me because when Glory brain sucks someone she
doesn't get their talents or memory she gets the ability to interact
in our reality. So to me that means that the element that she
removes is the unity of the mind the ability to use your personality
and memories, or your mind, in this reality. I think that she
was referring to how she, Glory feels when she has to feed. I
think that she loses her ability to interact in this reality.
So what has to be returned to Tara is that element of the mind
that takes her from outside reality back into reality. Tara is
lost in the dark room, we only have to find out what will open
the door to let her out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Solitude1056,
22:54:05 05/03/01 Thu
then don't go reading the spoilers at www.slayage.com - they're,
uh, quite extensive. (and they include all the disinformation,
too, which is rather hilarious to read for the past few episodes!)
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) --
Rufus, 23:04:07 05/03/01 Thu
I read spoilers and just take them as partial truths, and total
fibs......they are very entertaining....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (spoilers, Ep 21) --
Wiccagrrl, 23:07:29 05/03/01 Thu
Spoiler space for Ep 21 (Weight of the World)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The TV Guide synopsis for this ep mentions the Buffy goes into
a catatonic state, and that Willow must use her powers go into
Buffy's mind and help her find her way back. I really think this
is going to tie into the Tara situation- that helping Buffy teaches
Willow how to help Tara, or vice versa. The description Glory
gave of what Tara's condition would be (of feeling trapped, lost,
trying to find your way out...but you never will) just ties in
so well to the type of pathworking (for lack of a better word)
Willow will be doing with Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Malandanza,
23:55:22 05/03/01 Thu
A few comments:
***Oz up & left Willow, without any input from her. She found
him asleep and nekkid with someone else - and that kind of betrayal
is hard to forget or just put aside, especially when it results
in the other person deciding they can't be with you. Oz didn't
stick around to give Willow the chance to work through the anger
coming from that discovery, nor did Willow have the opportunity
(or guts) to unleash her anger on the Other Woman, though she
tried. In some ways, she was still learning her Art, and in some
ways, she'd not truly lost Oz - yet - so she still had something
to lose. ***
Willow's curse targeted both Oz and Veruca -- and it seemed to
me that Oz was the principle target since it was his picture being
used. In accordance with the rules of sympathetic magic, the spell
should have been more easily able to affect him than Veruca (at
least I do not remember seeing an item of Veruca's being offered
to the lower beings). Also, remember that Oz found Willow and
Xander curled up in bed together when he and Cordelia were trying
to rescue them -- Oz forgave Willow's conscious betrayal (and
a betrayal that occurred over an extended period of time) -- Willow
refused to even discuss the Veruca/Oz issue. In my opinion, Oz's
betrayal was not entirely his fault -- he is not responsible for
his actions as a wolf -- while Willow's betrayal is unjustifiable.
***Now, for the second half: we saw no consequences, unlike Willow's
previous spells. For starters, I'd suggest that's because her
vengeance was not going against the grain of the Buffyverse. She
may have unwittingly been acting with the PTB behind her and thus
her ability to not only slow Glory down but also to recover so
quickly. Where her other spells have verged on cross-grain magic,
this one may've been so properly with the grain that she would
be even more powerful as a result. Swimming with the current is
gonna get you there a lot faster, and perhaps this time the PTB's
current was behind her all the way.***
I believe the only currents in the Buffyverse are evil currents.
When Willow attempts harmful, destructive spells she is much more
effective than when she attempts helpful or innocuous spells.
Whoever or whatever powers these spells has a vested interest
in their outcomes -- these creatures provide the power necessary
for magic that has an evil intent -- no need to distort the outcome.
Positive magic must be carefully worded to prevent an equivocating
fiend from perverting the intent of the spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) -- Wiccagrrl,
09:08:15 05/04/01 Fri
Willow's curse targeted both Oz and Veruca -- and it seemed to
me that Oz was the principle target since it was his picture being
used. In accordance with the rules of sympathetic magic, the spell
should have been more easily able to affect him than Veruca (at
least I do not remember seeing an item of Veruca's being offered
to the lower beings). Also, remember that Oz found Willow and
Xander curled up in bed together when he and Cordelia were trying
to rescue them -- Oz forgave Willow's conscious betrayal (and
a betrayal that occurred over an extended period of time) -- Willow
refused to even discuss the Veruca/Oz issue. In my opinion, Oz's
betrayal was not entirely his fault -- he is not responsible for
his actions as a wolf -- while Willow's betrayal is unjustifiable.
Gonna take issue on a number of points. First, Oz did make the
decision to lock Veruca in the cage with him, before he wolfed
out. Oz' attraction to Veruca was very intense, even at non-wolfy
times. And very obvious to Willow. And as for not being willing
to talk to Oz about it, that's just not true. She freaked at first,
but she *did* want to try and work it out. Oz was the one who
wasn't willing to try and stick around and work things out together,
and told her no when she asked "Don't I get a say?"
And, if you remember, Oz pulled away for a bit after the Xander
thing, too. He didn't immediately say "it's ok, honey, I
understand" In fact, I remember him telling her to leave
him alone, and that her feeling guilty was "not his problem"
at that point. Not that that reaction wasn't justified, but I
think it's unfair to say Willow wasn't willing to forgive Oz the
way Oz forgave her. She didn't want him to leave. She wanted to
talk things out, try and work them out. Just like in the Xander
sitch, Oz set the pace, he decided to walk away, he decided when
to come back. Unfortunately for him, by the time he came back
in NMR, he'd been away too long. Willow'd moved on. His timing
was off.
Both people (Willow with Xander, Oz with Veruca) acted wrongly.
I don't condone the W/X kissage, or more importantly her lying
to Oz. I just don't think you can give Oz a free pass on his actions
in handling the Veruca situation at non-wolf times, which IMO
were more the problem/issue than whatever acts Oz/Veruca committed
when they wolfed out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long) --
Malandanza, 12:45:34 05/04/01 Fri
I fear we've drifted off topic a bit, but I do like discussing
Willow's moral failings :)
I see the Oz/Oz-wolf dynamic as analogous to the Angel/Angelus
dynamic. When Angelus has been in control, Angel is powerless.
When Angel is present, Angelus is still there, lurking in the
background, trying to corrupt Angel. We see the same pattern with
Oz -- he black out completely when the wolf takes over. However,
when he is Oz, the wolf is still there, just below the surface
(and, we have seen, can come out during periods of emotional trauma).
And both Oz and Angel blame themselves for the actions of their
alter-egos.
***Gonna take issue on a number of points. First, Oz did make
the decision to lock Veruca in the cage with him, before he wolfed
out.***
Here are some of Veruca's remarks about pre-wolfing:
Veruca: Right before sunset, I get a little buzzed, you know?
...Do you feel it? It's like blood boiling.
As sunset approaches, Oz has less control over his actions; the
wolf begins to dominate. So even the period just before he turns
is wolf-dominant.
***Oz' attraction to Veruca was very intense, even at non-wolfy
times. And very obvious to Willow.***
The werewolf hunter had mentioned that 'wolves are attracted to
sexual energy. It does seem as there is a reciprocal power --
a sort of animal magnetism -- that Veruca, at least, was radiating.
It was not merely Oz who felt the affect of Veruca, but all the
men. Consider Giles on Veruca when she is singing at the Bronze
(and the rest of the Scoobies are playing down her charisma because
they know Willow is jealous):
Giles : Really? I think she's rather remarkable. Such presence
for someone her age.
By contrast, if we examine the interaction between Oz and Veruca
as Oz was waiting for Willow at the lunch area, there was no flirtation
-- all the talk was business -- amps and things. Willow's jealousy
made the meeting awkward when she interrupted a conversation she
clearly knew nothing about. Why shouldn't Oz have been talking
shop with a fellow musician? He never placed any restrictions
on who Willow could associate with or when (not even Xander).
***And as for not being willing to talk to Oz about it, that's
just not true. She freaked at first, but she *did* want to try
and work it out. Oz was the one who wasn't willing to try and
stick around and work things out together, and told her no when
she asked "Don't I get a say?"***
Initially, Willow was unwilling to listen to anything Oz tried
to say -- she dismissed the comparison between her and Xander
as trivial, she tried to cast a spell to make Oz forever miserable
-- it was not until after Oz was packed and ready to leave that
she decided that she wanted to talk. Remember that Oz had just
killed a fellow human being -- definitely a disturbing experience.
He was not leaving out of spite, jealousy or any other base motive
-- he was leaving becasue:
Oz : No. Veruca was right about something. The wolf is inside
me all the time, and I don't know where that line is anymore between
me and it. And until I figure out what that means, I shouldn't
be around you... Or anybody.
***Both people (Willow with Xander, Oz with Veruca) acted wrongly.
I don't condone the W/X kissage, or more importantly her lying
to Oz. I just don't think you can give Oz a free pass on his actions
in handling the Veruca situation at non-wolf times, which IMO
were more the problem/issue than whatever acts Oz/Veruca committed
when they wolfed out.***
The Willow/Xander relationship happened over an extended period
of time -- premeditated. Oz/Veruca lasted two days. Willow admitted
to Buffy that she found keeping secret exciting (after Buffy had
been discovered harboring a returned Angel). For Oz, the secret
was excruciating. Oz has only loved one person during his entire
life. Willow has had Xander, Oz and Tara -- and it seems he is
a distant third in Willow's affections. Consider the reasons why
Willow began dating Oz: she was jealous of the X/C relationship,
she thought by dating a "cool" older guitarist she would
become less nerdy, curiousity about sex (she complained to Buffy
that Oz was moving too slowly in their relationship). Where is
the love? Oz was more committed to Willow than Willow was to Oz
(obviously -- Oz traveled the world to find a way to control his
lycanthropy so he could be with Willow -- Willow just moved on).
The betrayal of Oz by Willow was more serious because he was more
attached to Willow. For Willow to complain that "that thing
with Xander" doesn't compare is disingenuous -- had Cordelia
and Oz not had such impeccable timing, the X/W groping would have
ended in sex just as surely as the Oz/Veruca pairing did. I do
not believe Oz deserves a "free pass" -- he should have
trusted Buffy to help him out (I think he is a little afraid of
slayers, however -- going back to the time when he was locked
away with a slayer as a guard). I do believe that Willow should
have been more understanding given her own chequered past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long)
-- Solitude1056, 15:26:31 05/04/01 Fri
All very interesting points - some I agree with, some I don't,
natch. But my post wasn't to condone or condemn Willow. I was
just trying to a) explain why Willow's power may've gone off the
charts suddenly and b) express what Willow may've been thinking
that caused her to go all vengeancy.
And that was my setup for the real bones of my post (ok, so it
was long, but it's down at the bottom, just scroll *grin*) - that
Willow's actions this time don't appear to have serious consequences,
unlike previous spells, and to suggest a reason for that. And
also to suggest a theory as to what it is that Glory's taking,
and raise some ideas about getting it back & the implications
of such actions for both Tara & Glory.
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The Nature of Magic -- Malandanza,
20:47:36 05/04/01 Fri
Sorry if this is a double post -- I tried to send it previously,
but nothing happened (at least on my computer).
***All very interesting points - some I agree with, some I don't,
natch. But my post wasn't to condone or condemn Willow. I was
just trying to a) explain why Willow's power may've gone off the
charts suddenly and b) express what Willow may've been thinking
that caused her to go all vengeancy...that Willow's actions this
time don't appear to have serious consequences, unlike previous
spells, and to suggest a reason for that.***
Actually, if you look back at my original response you will see
that I was agreeing with your assessment that Willow's spells
were going with the "current" of magic in the Buffyverse.
The part I quibbled with was that she was somehow aiding the Powers
that Be.
In the Buffyverse, the instruments of darkness take an active
role in the fate of mankind -- the forces of good are largely
indifferent (or nonexistent, perhaps, with actions that appear
good being the machinations of one evil entity thwarting another).
Good magic goes against the grain of the Buffyverse. Hence, Willow's
attempts at helpful magic have difficulties (and healing magic
is problematic). The problem seems to be one of: to whom do I
pray? While there are plenty of malevolent beings eager to curse
your enemies (in exchange for a slight hold over your soul), there
is a noticeable lack of good deities eager to fulfill the petty
demands of the "white magic" witches.
Willow's most effective spells have been when she was doing something
destructive, or operating from base motivations. The spells at
other times either failed to work properly or exacted a significant
price from her (such as the teleportation spell and her recurring
headaches). Perhaps part of the reason Willow has taken to magic
so quickly is because she is the most self-centered, negatively
motivated member of the Scoobies.
Of course, the other possibility involves the Scientific Method.
Willow has a genius level intelligence. She has been experimenting
with spells -- no doubt to find out what makes them work, uncover
similarities and determine the rules of the game. Just look at
the tinkerbell light spell she used with Tara while exploring
the ruins of SDHS -- she was able to turn a tiny floating light
source into a spell that brightly illuminated the entire area.
Imagine if she similarly tinkered with some curses and hexes...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Nature of Magic --
Wiccagrrl, 21:51:47 05/04/01 Fri
I don't know that I agree. I think, especially on Angel lately,
there has been evidence that TPTB do step in on occasion. For
one thing, we have Cordy's visions, presumably sent by TPTB to
help Angel and the gang help mankind. We have Angel saving Kate,
being allowed somehow to enter her place without being invited.
We have Angel's being sent back to earth in the first place, and
the snow storm in Amends which kept him from killing himself.
(Which, since The First evil seemed perfectly happy to have Angel
meet his dusty fate, would appear to have been sent by some higher
being who was acting in opposition to the first evil)
That said, I'm not sure I think Willow was aided by them in this
case. I think her heightened power came from her heightened emotional
state. I see her going after Glory as being very similar to Giles
actions in Passion, going after Angelus. She got in a few good
magickal "punches", but it also took a lot out of her,
and if Buffy hadn't stepped in she wouldn't have survived that
encounter. But I think most of the backfires she's experienced
in the past have come down to a lack of focus and to having power
she didn't really know how to handle/channel. In the case of going
after Glory, she was intensely focused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Nature of Magic
-- Malandanza, 18:14:54 05/05/01 Sat
***I think, especially on Angel lately, there has been evidence
that TPTB do step in on occasion. For one thing, we have Cordy's
visions, presumably sent by TPTB to help Angel and the gang help
mankind. We have Angel saving Kate, being allowed somehow to enter
her place without being invited. We have Angel's being sent back
to earth in the first place, and the snow storm in Amends which
kept him from killing himself. (Which, since The First evil seemed
perfectly happy to have Angel meet his dusty fate, would appear
to have been sent by some higher being who was acting in opposition
to the first evil)***
Most of these examples are problematic and it is hard to come
up with many more instances of possible divine intervention by
TPTB.
Codelia's Visions: Typically, demon-granted boons come with strings
attached -- and often have serious enough drawbacks that the recipient
regrets asking for them. The same is true of Cordelia's visions
-- the pain and suffering inflicted upon her is disproportionate
to the amount of help they give. If the pain was supposed to teach
her a lesson of some sort, it would have achieved its purpose
long ago. Furthermore, the visions are so vague that when Angel
needs real help, he looks not to the random jumbles of visual
images, but to the singing demon host of Caritas. Are the visions
truly from a good power? Would a good deity inflict habitual pain
on its adherents? When Cordelia needed a vision (in Epiphany),
the vision arrived too late -- she had already figured out that
the something was wrong -- rather than help her, the vision incapacitated
her at a crucial time.
Angel Saving Kate: My feeling is that the suicide call was an
invitation. We have seen implied invitations before -- the most
vague example is with the Master and Darla.
Angel's Return: W&H operated under the assumption that Angel was
fated to play a role in the coming apocalypse -- and they believed
that they could influence the side Angel chooses. It is entirely
possible that an evil force set Angel free with the intention
of using him in the future. The First Evil claimed to have done
so, but I think it was a lie. It seems to me that an evil being
would have easier access to whatever hell Angel was inhabiting
than would a good being -- so it would be easier for an evil demon/god/whatever
to set him free. And after all, he did such a good job causing
pain and suffering during his first lifetime on earth, he earned
a second chance :)
The Snow Storm: This is the one point that cannot be easily explained
away. It does seem as though it was a case of direct intervention
by a higher power. If an evil power had been responsible, one
would expect the sunlight to have been blocked by something more
sinister than freshly falling pure white snow (like a gathering
of black thunderclouds, an eclipse, or smoke from a busload of
burning schoolchildren).
My feeling is that TPTB are not a force of good; rather, they
are instruments of fate. There are certain things that are "supposed"
to happen and when humans and other sentient creatures have drifted
too far off their destinies (through the exercise of free will),
TPTB try to gently nudge them back on the foreordained path. Thus,
if Angel is needed in the upcoming apocalypse, he must be returned.
If he is headed to a dinner party he should avoid, Cordelia gets
a message to distract him. If people unconnected to the big picture
suffer in the process, well, so what? They are an indifferent
power -- neither good nor evil, but acting for good more often
than evil because in the Buffyverse evil is dominant -- when a
power needs to be checked, it is likely an evil power.
The warriors for evil abound. The forces of good rely on human
organizations for the most part (there is also Buffy and Angel,
but Angel's powers are based in evil and Buffy's are uncertain).
Groups like the Watcher's Council, Gunn's vigilantes, The Knights
of Byzantium and the Initiative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Balance of
Magic -- Solitude1056, 18:48:05 05/05/01 Sat
My intuition is more that the "power" part of the "powers
that be" are neutral and self-balancing. I don't mean the
PTB in an aware sense, but more of the "power" sense
of "powers that exist in the Buffyverse & not in the realverse,"
like Magick in its varying forms.
I tend to think of Magick, myself, as a tool. I think of Clarke's
Law - "a sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable
from magic," and Crowley's words - "Magick is the Art
& Science of causing change in conformity with Will." Add
in that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction," or however it goes. So, at least for me, Magic
- which is just an advanced method of making things happen - is
bound to have as much reaction somehow as you'd get if you were
to try bounding across your kitchen to catch a glass before it
fell off the countertop. If you bang your knee on the cabinet
but catch the glass, do you blame the glass - or the gravity that
made it fall - as evil, or do you blame as evil whatever gave
you the ability to bound in the first place, because it resulted
in a bruised body part?
The damage inflicted - if one wishes to call it such - by using/experiencing
the supernatural - is measured only by the person who uses/experiences
it. As I've said before, Willow has deemed the drawbacks of some
of her spells to be neligible in view of the benefits. Tara doesn't.
So some people drive a car faster than the speed limit, and justify
such in whatever way they choose. Others perpetually drive 10
miles under the speed limit (and usually right in front of me
while I'm late, damn them). I may view the slower ones as too
cautious; they may view me as overly risky. But neither of us
deny that having a car (and dealing with the risks) is way better
than not having a car at all. The car itself is not inherently
dangerous or safe - it's essentially a neutral tool, and can only
be viewed as positive or negative based on the actions of the
one who uses it.
In that sense, Cordelia is the ambulance driver who takes a bad
road at top speeds: the bumps and jarring she gets are (currently)
part of the price she pays for being able to move at faster speeds
due to her need. At some point she may determine that she can't
keep doing that speed, and either slow down or lose control. If
she's steering but not controlling the speed, this analogy is
closer to her situation, I'd guess. But hopefully you see what
I mean: we can argue back & forth about which magic in the Buffyverse
is positive or negative, but the fundamental - to me - is that
it's a tool. Magic is what Willow used to see in a darkened hallway,
and magic is what the Mayor used to become a life-size demon.
Magic made Dawn, and magic transformed the serpent to find Dawn.
Yada, yada, yada. *grin*
And back on the Willow-topic: I could entirely relate to Tara's
worry that Willow may "go back" to the opposite sex.
But I don't think that fear necessarily indicates that Willow's
"in a phase" - it's the same fear that anyone expresses
when they're in a relationship: "what if you find someone
else?" It's just a little bit more loaded when you're currently
in a relationship that's culturally less appreciated. If Willow
were seeing a guy with five tattoos and seven piercings whose
biggest aspiration was to be a truck driver (think Xander, but
stupider and less charming), then sure, he'd have reason to be
afraid she'd up & get bored, and want to go back to dating someone
as intelligent as she - IOW, to dating someone she's expected
to date. And in our current western culture, young college women
are usually expected to be dating young college men, not other
young college women. So Tara's fear is less of the "only
experienced by young lesbian" type and more of the "experienced
by anyone in love" type.
Still wondering about the repercussions are of stealing someone's
identity, and just why that's what Glory chooses to take, instead
of their energy, or their youth, or whatever else...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magic Tools
-- Malandanza, 18:17:43 05/06/01 Sun
***I tend to think of Magick, myself, as a tool...The damage inflicted
- if one wishes to call it such - by using/experiencing the supernatural
- is measured only by the person who uses/experiences it. As I've
said before, Willow has deemed the drawbacks of some of her spells
to be negligible in view of the benefits. Tara doesn't. So some
people drive a car faster than the speed limit, and justify such
in whatever way they choose. Others perpetually drive 10 miles
under the speed limit (and usually right in front of me while
I'm late, damn them). I may view the slower ones as too cautious;
they may view me as overly risky. But neither of us deny that
having a car (and dealing with the risks) is way better than not
having a car at all. The car itself is not inherently dangerous
or safe - it's essentially a neutral tool, and can only be viewed
as positive or negative based on the actions of the one who uses
it***
Okay, so magic is a tool, like a car, that can be used for good
(delivering meals to poor shut-ins) or for evil (running over
other people's pets and children). It depends on how you use it.
But where is the energy coming from to power the spells? Suppose
every time you tried to use your car for a good purpose, it traveled
so slowly, and had so many flat tires and engine troubles that
you would have been better off walking. Now suppose that every
time you decided to run over a dog or a cat your car became a
high-performance machine. After a while, wouldn't you begin to
worry when your car was working perfectly? Mightn't you think
that maybe you were headed for an evil incident?
The motivations of the person using the magic are of secondary
importance to me -- I'm more interested in who (or what) is powering
the spell. Time and time again we have seen spells go awry when
their casters were not specific enough. There is too much leeway
given to the creatures that grant the wishes to ignore their motivations.
Willow's spells have been most effective when she has been acting
out of rage, vengeance or self-pity -- negative emotions. As you
said originally, these spells go with current of magic in the
Buffyverse -- her wishes match exactly the desires of the lower
beings providing the impetus for the spells, thus are more effective.
I wonder how far Willow has gotten herself in debt to her "benefactors,"
how much of a hold she has given them over her soul, and, most
of all, I wonder if Willow has ever bothered to research the nature
of the creatures she has been routinely supplicating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magick
& Intent -- Solitude1056, 18:43:55 05/06/01 Sun
Willow's spells have been most effective when she has been acting
out of rage, vengeance or self-pity -- negative emotions.
At first I didn't like this line of reasoning - I've always liked
Willow's character and its development - but re-reading the scripts,
hmmm. Disclaimer: I'm not that big into the whole heaven vs. hell
religious view of things, so personally I don't put as much weight
on the idea that one's actions will cause a person to "lose"
their soul. YMMV, obviously.
[aside: comments of losing one's soul make me think of the crack
about "did you look under behind the cushions in the sofa
in HELL?" *grin*]
But you're right, Willow seems to operate best when she's working
with an intent that's not quite as pure as western ceremonial
magick (the apparent basis for much of Joss' characterizations
of magick in the Buffyverse). The traditional view is that one's
intent colors one's results - a logical assumption, given that
we're aware sociologically that one's expectations usually color
one's reactions pretty effectively. As a corollary, I've noticed
Willow's self-involvement getting worse & worse over the past
season or two; her relationship with Tara doesn't seem to have
snapped her out of this, either. Think back to when Willow risked
her relationship with Oz in a "last kiss before dying"
with Xander. She pestered Oz to discuss it, and in one of the
harshest, but truest, statements, he told her that he felt she
wanted to talk about it not because he did, but because she wanted
to absolve her guilt. And that, he felt, wasn't his problem. Harsh,
but accurate.
It seems to me that much of Willow's practices and rash acts stem
from her wish to make herself feel better, regardless of whether
her actions are what the situation best requires, or what the
other person really needs. She was upset that Dawn was angry at
her, and sought to relieve her self-inflicted guilt over her helplessness
by providing Dawn with dangerous information. Then she provokes
an argument with Tara just to make herself feel like she, Willow,
is the misunderstood one, instead of acknowledging that she's
being unfair to people who've experienced something she's not.
And then, to top it all off, she attacks Glory without back-up
or forethought, despite Buffy's wise advice that the Scoobies
don't have (yet) whatever it's going to take to really fight a
god. She puts herself, and Buffy, in danger, just so she can assuage
her guilt over putting Tara in danger in the first place.
Willow's definitely one of the more complex characters, but I'm
liking Xander's straight-forward simplicity more and more these
days... *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Magick & Intent -- Malandanza, 21:07:32 05/06/01 Sun
***Disclaimer: I'm not that big into the whole heaven vs. hell
religious view of things, so personally I don't put as much weight
on the idea that one's actions will cause a person to "lose"
their soul. YMMV, obviously.***
I'm a bit of a materialist myself. When I speak of "losing
one's soul" it tends to be metaphorical (the exception is
when talking about Angel) -- corruption rather than literally
losing the soul. As far as Christian thought goes, there is division
on whether or not the soul exists -- Jehovah's Witnesses, for
example, believe the the ressurrection of the physical body rather
than the continued existence of an immaterial, indestructible
soul. My concern with Willow is not that she will someday wake
up without a soul and go on a killing spree like Angelus, but
that slowly and subtley she will will be corrupted and, by the
time she realizes what happening, it will be too late to save
herself.
By the way, I have two OT questions:
What does "YMMV" mean?
How do you get the boldface font?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Magick & Intent (OT) -- Solitude1056, 06:00:17 05/07/01
Mon
YMMV: "your mileage may vary"
to get bold-faced, italic, under-lined, etc, use html code. use
(b) to start, and (/b) to finish, but use the angular brackets
instead of regular parenthesis - I can't use them in the example
since then the system will read my examples as actual html code.
grrr. btw, those angular brackets are the ones over the , and
. on your keyboard.
(that may be excessive explanation, since I'm not sure of your
familiarity with html.)
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops,
long) -- Umbriel, 21:21:54 05/04/01 Fri
Maybe we haven't seen the consequences of Willow's use of dark
magic yet. Perhaps there are no immediate physical consequences
this time, and maybe this is for the reasons you have given, but
that doesn't mean there won't be longer term consequences, particularly
if she keeps using dark magic. It could gradually corrupt her
soul, or cause reality to begin to come unglued. I remember Tara
saying something to this effect when Dawn wanted to try the resurrection
spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences
(oops, long) -- Rufus, 01:23:39 05/05/01 Sat
Yes, Tara mentioned messing with the natural order of things.
My feeling is that the disorder from the darkest magic Willow
used, causes an equal reaction from nature to return order to
disorder. So we have to wonder at what cost to Willow who has
caused this disorder to occur?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences
(oops, long) -- Solitude1056, 20:13:18 05/05/01 Sat
My feeling is that the disorder from the darkest magic Willow
used, causes an equal reaction from nature to return order to
disorder. So we have to wonder at what cost to Willow who has
caused this disorder to occur?
To rephrase my point in Rufus' terms, by saying that Willow was
working with instead of against the grain, I meant:
What if Glory is the disorder, and in this case Willow was unwittingly
acting as the universe's reaction?
Without knowing the big picture, it's hard to tell, but my guess
was that the lack of bad side-effects from such a powerful working
might be indication that Willow had in fact been part of the re-balancing
effect in the wake of Glory's intrusion into the Buffyverse. We've
been assuming, it seems to me, that one person's magickal actions
must be an "action" independent of the context. Perhaps
in some cases, a person's actions are actually part of a larger
"reaction" and therefore have a re-ordering effect.
That's how I'd count defensive violence, when a person has a half-second
to decide, and pulls the trigger in order to prevent another from
committing rape, murder, etc.
If Glory were just some chick who'd made a pass at Tara, then
Willow's (re)action could count as unjustified retaliation, and
thus disorderly in universal terms. But Glory's damaged the lives
of more than a few people at this point, including Tara's, as
well as tortured Spike cruelly. This is not someone who's acting,
IMO, with the universal sense of Order on her side. In that sense,
her actions will invariably provoke an equal reaction from the
universe. If Willow happens to be the one dealing that blow, is
she automatically suspect because her action, out of context,
might be disorderly in & of itself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops, long)
-- Wiccagrrl, 20:51:02 05/04/01 Fri
So much is subjective when it comes to this stuff, and it seems
obvious you and I aren't likely to agree on this stuff- our sympathies
lie in very different directions. But what the hell, I'm gonna
speak my mind anyway ;)I don't dislike Oz, but I think he handled
things very badly. Willow moved on, but what choice did she have?
Oz bailed. As far as she knew, permanently. Oz did what he felt
he had to do, Willow did what she had to do. I think it's very
unfair to expect that she would have just put her whole life on
hold, waiting on the off chance that Oz might come back to her.
As she said, she couldn't live like that. I think she still loves
Oz very much, but he left her. I repeat, *HE* left *HER*.
She didn't take it well when she first found out about Veruca,
but who would have? And she was tempted to want revenge, but she
couldn't bring herself to do it. And she did want to work things
out with Oz.
Now, I didn't mention the comment by Willow about the Xander affair
(that it didn't compare) because I don't think that's true. I
agree with you that things would have continued if she hadn't
been caught. But I think it's just as disingenuous to say the
Veruca situation didn't count, or to blame Willow because Oz chose
to walk away, and she did what she had to do to make her life
bearable again- move on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vengeance & Consequences (oops,
long) -- VanMoodySenior, 08:41:30 05/05/01 Sat
Aren't we being a little harsh with Oz? I mean he didn't leave
Willow for another girl, it was to protect her from his werewolf
self. He left to find answers on how to control it and was successful,
then he comes back home to his girlfriend all cured (in his mind)
and finds her with another woman. I don't know about you, but
that would freak any guy out. If anything Willow is a bisexual,
not lesbian. She has romantically liked two guys on the show Oz
and Xander. Tara on the other hand as far as we know hasn't ever
had a boyfriend, which is why she is a little worried about Willow
turning back to guys. I think Tara has a point because it could
very well happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> This isn't just a phase Willow's
going through... -- Wiccagrrl, 12:00:30 05/05/01 Sat
If the ending of Tough Love showed us anything, it pretty clearly
showed that she is as committed to Tara and to their relationship
as she's ever been to anything in her life. I tend to think that
she is attracted, at some level, to men and women, but this relationship
is real, she loves Tara and is in love with Tara. She's not sitting
waiting for something better to come along. Tara's concerns were
valid, because a lot of changes did happen in Willow's live very
quickly, but she was wrong if she was worrying that Willow was
likely to quickly outgrow her or this stage. Will's in it for
the long haul.
Mummy Buffy???? -- Emcee003, 09:36:41
05/04/01 Fri
Is it possable that Dawns strong DNA is in fact Buffys DNA. As
theres got to be better benifits of giving 'the key' Buffys DNA
than Joices. I know they made the memorys of Dawn as the little
sister that gets on Buffys nerves, but that could still be true(but
false)memories, as that does not mean shes still not made from
Buffys DNA??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn's DNA -- Darren K, 11:16:57 05/04/01 Fri
The only possible purpose for Doc's line about Dawn's DNA is to
show that Dawn...
A) Has DNA like any other human
B) Has Joyce's DNA--Summer's DNA--just like Buffy
I think that reading anymore into the comment then those two items
is stretching things.
As for the issue of whether Dawn is made from Buffy's DNA, it's
possible, but almost irrelavant. The Monks made the Key into a
sister for Buffy. It--SHE--is a sister and probably will be until
the day the show goes off the air. dK
Classic Movie of the Week - May
4th 2001 -- OnM, 20:45:26 05/04/01 Fri
"People don't so much believe in God as they choose not to
believe in nothing"
--- Max Klein
*******
If I only could I'd make a deal with God And I'd get him to swap
our places I'd be running up that road Be running up that hill
With no problem
--- Kate Bush
*******
A few weeks ago, I recommended a film called *Defending Your Life*,
which humorously, but rather cleverly, dealt with the idea that
to move forward as a sentient being, one has to work at overcoming
fear, as fear holds us back from being fully involved with life
and the amazing world around us.
This may have some substantial element of truth to it, but there
is also no question that fear has its geniune uses, too. At the
current moment out there in the Buffyverse, our heroine is about
to go on the run from hellgoddess Glory, with fear as the driving
force-- after all, if Glory gets ahold of the Key, the entire
universe may very well go the way of the dinosaurs, something
most humans would agree is pretty valid stuff fear-wise.
Buffy has stared death in the face far more than once, she is
unquestionably very brave, but she isn't devoid of fear. Suppose
that she was?
"Death is your Gift", said the spirit guide, and we
have been debating the meaning(s) ever since. While I don't think
that it applies in the Buffyverse, it is possible that death could
bring about a freedom from fear in someone who passed through
it, but managed to come out alive on the other side. Such is the
theme of this weeks Classic Movie, a wonderful and thought-provoking
examination of what happens when one Max Klein, architect, (Jeff
Bridges) manages to miraculously survive a horrendously violent
plane crash, and discovers that he no longer is afraid of dying.
In fact, Max becomes convinced that he is effectively invulnerable--
at various times he strides out into an onrushing mass of traffic,
stands at the top corner of the roof of a very tall building,
the wind billowing his coat around him, even casually eats a strawberry,
a fruit he loves but has a deadly allergy to. None of these dangerous
feats seems to cause him the slightest harm, and so we begin to
wonder, does Max really have some kind of deal with God, or is
he just, as his friends and family think, just staggeringly lucky
and on the edge of some post-traumatic stress syndrome that is
dissolving his sanity?
One circumstance of his 'new life' that does affect Max profoundly
is the plight of one Carla Rodrigo (played by Rosie Perez in what
I think is the best work she has ever done, and that's saying
a lot), who lost the life of her baby son in the crash. Carla
is inconsolable-- she is so immersed in her grief that when Max
first meets her, at the urging of a therapist appointed by the
airline (played by John Turturro), she lies in bed all day long,
in a room made up as a shrine to her son, wishing openly and repeatedly
that she wants to be dead also. The therapist feels that since
these two people are the only crash survivors that he has so far
been unable to help, and because they seem such polar opposites
in their reactions to the tragedy, they may be able to help one
another.
This building relationship between Carla and Max is the core element
of interest in the film, and it never fails to hold us in rapt
attention. Max seems unaffected in terms of his sense of invulnerability,
but he does succeed in slowly drawing out Carla to the point where,
much later in the film, Carla finally expresses to him verbally,
in a heart-rending emotional collapse, what we in the audience
have suspected all along-- that she blames herself for her son's
death, and why. The method Max devises to break her away from
this soul-consuming fear is ingenious, and incredible. I won't
even give a hint, it's much too wonderful to spoil.
The movie does have a few weak points, but they are forgivable
ones-- mostly a matter of some characters who seem to create subplots
that never really get fully resolved, or who weren't really necessary
in the first place. I sort of got the impression that this work
may have originally been much longer, and as it got edited down,
it became evident that the Max/Carla story arc was really the
only one that counted, so some other smaller arcs got deflected
to some extent. These are very minor distractions, however, and
in no way detract from the overall statement that the director
and writer are are trying to make.
So, I urge you to fear not, and while you may walk in the valley
and shadow of death, as do we all, there is bound to be a good
video shoppe down in the valley somewhere, where you may rent
or purchase this week's Classic Movie, *Fearless*, by director
Peter Weir, based on the novel by Rafael Yglesias.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical notes and whatnot:
*Fearless* was made in 1993 by director Peter Weir. Running time
is 2 hours and 4 minutes. Principal actors are Jeff Bridges, Isabella
Rossellini and Rosie Perez, with other roles played by John Turturro,
Tom Hulce, Benicio Del Torro, Deirdre O'Connell and John de Lancie.
The screenplay is by Rafael Yglesias, cinematography by Allen
Daviau and music by Maurice Jarre. Aspect ratio of the theatrical
production is 1.85:1 and sound is in standard Dolby Surround.
The review version was on laserdisc, a DVD version is available
according to the IMDB.
Found a message on my bench after returning to my shop post-install
today that 'your DVD pre-order is in'. Since this isn't June yet,
it can't be 'Crouching Tiger', but it very likely is Disc #3 of
the ongoing *Farscape* 1st season releases. If so, will let you
know for sure next week, but if you are a fan of the show and
DVD capable, you may want to check for yourself this weekend.
As always, if you have comments or questions or a rant of your
own, you know where to find me, so post away!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- gds, 21:46:55
05/04/01 Fri
Your discussion of death/fear brings to mind the mantra of the
QH "Fear is the little mind killer".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- Wisewoman,
21:37:53 05/06/01 Sun
Fearless is in my collection as one of my all-time favorite movies.
One of the things that impressed me most about it was the handling
of the actual crash, very early in the movie, and the amount of
time the writers and director took to move the viewer through
that, and to impress upon us the fact that a crash of this type
doesn't happen instantaneously. Minutes (which must have seemed
like hours) went by while the passengers recognized that the crash
was inevitable. I think that went a long way to explaining some
of the behaviour (sorry, Canadian spelling :0) ) that Max displays
afterwards. He had a long time to realize that he was about to
die, before he didn't. (Hmmm, does that make sense?) Anyway, IMHO
Fearless is a classic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001 -- OnM,
21:49:32 05/06/01 Sun
Don't worry about the Canadian spellings-- lots of your kinfolk
on this board! (I'm not, but they made me an honorary back last
year!)
Rufus will want to know if you are a Cat-anadian, so spill!
BTW, Welcome, have you posted here before?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th 2001
-- Rufus, 00:07:06 05/07/01 Mon
Yes, spillage is required....we did make OnM an honourary Catanadian
(he did pass on the honourary girl offer).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 4th
2001 -- Wisewoman, 15:39:16 05/07/01 Mon
Hi, just managed to check back to this message board. No, I haven't
posted here before. If a Cat-nadian has cats, then I qualify!
I've been lurking/posting on other Buffy boards for a while but
find that most just aren't interested in long discussions of a
philosophical nature (go figure, eh?) so I was *really* glad to
find ATPonBTVS.
What else would you like to know? Female (obvious), old (very),
transplanted Torontonian (to Vancouver)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week -
May 4th 2001 -- Rufus, 17:38:28 05/07/01 Mon
Yes, cats...and chocolate....and Canadians seem to go together.
I think at this board the average age of the poster is older than
at other boards such as the Cross and Stake. It's nice to see
someone else from the Vancouver area has found this board.
q&a -- imcj, 21:02:11 05/04/01
Fri
When: Tara brain sucked in "Tough Love."
My Q&A?!
Q: Did the other PPL at the festival even notice what was going
on? A. 1: NO, the PPL were just walking by normally. Not a care
in the world, that a girl is glowing and someone is screaming.
A. 2: YES, the PPL did notice but since this is Sunnydale things
like that happened and you shouldn't mess with it.
Q: What Magick Spell did Willow do? A: I assume a Releasing Spell
(or something similar to) The Incant: By the force of heart and
mindful power By waning time and waxing our I echo Diana When
I Decree That she I love Must now be Free
Q: Did Willow's Magick Spell work? A: NO, Tara got brain drained
fully. However, even if the Spell had worked Willow would have
still been to late to save Tara.
Q: How did Glory just disappear? A. 1: Willows Spell (if it did
indeed work) A. 2: She got up and left, during the time that the
fake dragon passed by Willow.
-CJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: q&a...one answer -- FanMan, 13:26:02 05/05/01 Sat
There have been several eps where Glory has moved so fast we didn't
see her. We hear a wooshing sound and she is somewhere else, similar
scenes in superman.
I beleive Glory can move supernaturally fast, although not as
fast as superman. She is probably about as fast as Angel, and
Angel does the superspeed-whoosh once in a while.
Thoughts on Wizard of Oz (some
spoilers for the next few Angel eps) -- Wiccagrrl, 23:38:10 05/04/01
Fri
Ok, so, some small spoilers (consisting mostly of ep title speculation,
what we saw in the promo last week, and the last couple of minutes
of Belonging.)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space...
Ok, so, we know that Cordy got sucked into another dimention at
the end of Belonging. And that, according to the Promo, Angel,
Wesley, Gunn, and the Host appear to follow her.
Also, the episode titles seem to allude pretty strongly to the
Wizard of Oz (as well as Alice in Wonderland.) Ep 20 is called
Over the Rainbow
Ep 21 is called Through the Looking Glass
Ep 22 (The Finale) is called There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb
Also, there were a couple of throwaway lines in Belonging that
sort of alluded to WoO, namely the Host mentioning the Elton John
song "Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road" and calling the kids
munchkins.
I'll set aside the Alice in Wonderland title for a second, and
focus on what I think they may be hinting at with the Oz symbolism.
In Oz, we have a girl who is transported to another dimention.
Along the way, she meets up with many companions who are all searching
for something. (scarecrow wanting a brain, Tinman wanting a heart,
Cowardly Lion wanting courage.) They make this long journey, searching
everywhere for the promised Wizard who will fix all their problems.
In the end, it turns out that all the things they were missing
were inside them all along.
So, Cordy is sucked into another dimention. And wants to get home,
we would assume. But, in another sense, she's been trying to "get
home" since she moved to LA. To get back to the privilaged
life and secure social status and sense of self worth she had
in High School.
Her friends will apparently meet up with her. In Belonging, we
sort of saw that all the characters had many issues and insecurities
they were trying to deal with. Wesley's talk with his father seemed
to bring his insecurities and fear that he's a failure bubbling
to the surface. Angel spent much of the ep acting almost, but
not quite, human. Gunn, who's been feeling torn for a long time
between his old gang and his new gang, is going to have some serious
guilt over what happenned because he wasn't there to help his
friends. The Host seems to have some unresolved issues with his
family.
I think their time in this new world is going to hold out the
promise of a quick fix to some of these problems- One of the spoilers
says that Cordellia will end up being a queen in this new world
(Queen C, anyone?) The promo showed Angel asking everyone to take
note of how "on fire I'm not" But in the end, I think
they're going to discover, just like Dorothy and the others in
W of Oz that the wizard's not what he seems, that the answers
were there inside them all along, and that there's No Place Like
Home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thoughts on Wizard of Oz (some spoilers for the next
few Angel eps) -- FanMan, 15:20:30 05/06/01 Sun
Excellant comparison! If Joss is doing a parallel story to the
W Of OZ deliberately, I'm curious what his twist on the original
will be?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Wizard of Oz (some spoilers for the
next few Angel eps) -- Humanitas, 09:46:00 05/07/01 Mon
Joss has always had a fondness for TWoO. He made a couple of references
to it as early as the film version of BtVS. I'm looking forward
to his version of the story! :)
Can Spike be redemped -- Naomi,
04:57:49 05/05/01 Sat
Ok this might be a dumb question but why are so many people convinced
that Spike has literally no chance of redemption. I know he doesn't
have a soul but he has been making a real effort to change. Why
would he have helped Dawn out in Forever if that was not the case.
He specifically said he was helping her because of genuine concern
and he didn't want Buffy finding out. Joss has said that not having
a soul meas you are more drawn to evil but presumedly Spike does
have some understanding of the concept of right and wrong. Lets
not forget that for about a hundred years Angel made little effort
to atone despite having a soul. Indeed he still fed off humans
with Darla's engouragement despite of what he told Buffy. He didn't
actually try and atone until the Ptb finally decided to send a
demon to talk to him. Buffy was also a strong factar in his decision
to become a part of the world again. I would argue that there
are stronger parellells between the characters of Angel and Spike
than people think. I just don't understand why everyone is so
convinced that the vampire nature is fixed for all time. Bad humams
have turned their lives around{Linsey and Faith} in spite of being
drawn to evil and being responsible for many deaths. Is there
really such a huge difference between Angel and Spike. Yes Angel
is a lot further along than Spike at this point but it took him
a while to get there. I just think the idea that there is no hope
for Spike a is little blinkered. After all Angel had a soul when
he locked the Wolfrom and hart lawyers in the basement with two
killers. Whilst I agree with the decision made in that instance
I believe Angel threw his morals out the window when he put the
lives of everyone he loved in danger by sleeping with Darla. Not
to mention letting Darla go because he didn't feel like killing
her. Therefore the argument that Angel=soul=good and Spike=no
soul=iredemedly bad is a little simplistic to me. Anyone agree?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Spikes babe, 07:05:31 05/05/01
Sat
I agree. I thought Spike was really heroic in Intervention and
the scoobies have been treating Spike like crap for too long.
Whenever Buffy was frustrated she beat up Spike knowing he couldn't
fight back which which makes her character deeply unsympathetic
and no better than a common bully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- VanMoodySenior, 08:27:49 05/05/01
Sat
I believe the biggest difference between Spike and Angel is the
guilt factor. Angel feels guilty for his past. Spike doesn't.
If Spike were to be redeemed it would be after his chip was removed
and he chose as a matter of will not to ever kill again. We have
never seen a vampire do so in the buffyverse who did not have
a soul. On the show, "Forever Knight" the vampires were
able to make those decisions against their nature, but the vampires
here are different in that they are not the person who was killed,
but a demon taking the place of the human soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Boxd_man, 12:01:22 05/05/01
Sat
I think Angel said it best in Epiphany:
if there isn't any bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness
is the greatest thing in the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Naomi, 06:24:05 05/06/01
Sun
My original point was that it is to easy to dismiss Spike as being
incabaple of change. Recently he has been forced to accept that
he has no real chance with Buffy and yet he continues to crave
acceptance with the scoobies. In Intervention he refused to give
up Dawn because of genuine concern for Buffy's happiness which
the the writer made a point of showing in the final with Buffy
disguising herself as the bot to discover the truth and her surprised
reaction when she realised that Spike was capable of deeper feelings
than she gave him credit for. He has also been showing a more
humane side around Dawn so his actions are not just about getting
the girl Personally I find the idea of Spike finding redemption
far more interesting than keeping him as the two dimensional big
bad. We can argue that Spike's past actions are completely irredemable
but Faith was also responsible for torturing and killing innocents
and this was with a soul. By spending time with humans it is surely
becomimg faf more difficult for Spike to simply dismiss them as
"Happy meals with legs". In Crush Spike is uncertain
about feeding. He does give in to the urge eventually but then
think how strong you would be if presented with a hanburger after
months of a diet of brussel sprouts. Of course it can be argued
that Spike was merely hesitating because of his chip but I believe
it was more than that. He seemed genuinelly torn. I personally
find it hard to believe that the chip is the only factor in his
decisions. If he loses his chip does ayone honestly see him returning
to the persona of the ruthless big bad and torturing Giles and
stalking Buffy as Angelus did. I believe that there is more going
on inside Spike than we think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Arac, 18:46:07
05/06/01 Sun
I think the main reason a lot of people are uncomfortable with
the idea that Spike is capable of redemption is that it undermines
the core principles of the show, that of good (flawed as it can
be) versus evil, incontrovertible and absolute. If all a vampire
needs to become a useful member of the community rather than a
destructive, bloodsucking creature of darkness is the love of
a good woman and possibly a little bit of plastic in his head,
doesn't that mean that every time Buffy dusts one she's no longer
slaying, but murdering something with the potential to be better?
I love Spike, always have, but I hope to /God/ this chip-thing
turns out to be temporary, and he has a nice evil catharsis at
some point, because the difference between Angel and Spike should
be that Angel has a human soul, Spike has a demon soul, and that
demon souls want for nothing but chaos, destruction and pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Rufus, 19:49:06
05/06/01 Sun
I have no problem with the idea of Spike being capable of being
redeemed, he can if he chooses to and acts in such a way as to
prove his intent. That doesn't change or threaten anything as
it is unlikely that he will choose that route. Redemption is largely
an option of choice rather than something open only to a select
section of beings that choose to be redeemed. Any changes that
Spike has made hasn't been because a good woman loved him, but
because he loves a good woman. Spike has already proved that he
has a limit to the amount of chaos he is willing to participate
in. If he is only evil he can't make that choice. Just because
a being has the potential to change doesn't mean that Buffy is
a murderer if she if forced to slay them. If they are a direct
threat, potential for good or not, she should slay them. But if
a vampire has shown that they have changed and aren't a threat
to humanity I don't think she would slay them. Humans are not
all good or all evil they are various combinations of both, with
a predisposition towards good. Vampires are the opposite. I feel
both can have anomolies that don't represent their species as
a whole. The fact that the vampire is a result of an infection
shows that you never know how an infection will play out in any
given host. The vampire was created to prey on man, but the vampire
started as man. The only thing missing is the conscience, but
the body(with new power and limitations), personality, and memories
are intact. The infection corrupts the host but you never have
a guarantee of how a vampire will turn out. If one was to create
the perfect demon sent to wipe out man they wouldn't be smart
to use man as the template. The mind is to complex to react to
the infection (or corruption) the same way all of the time. Spike
can at any time revert to vampire type and have to be killed but
that would be a bit too simple. I like Spike grey...where he can
choose his limits of both good and evil acts. Of course I like
life to be a bit unpredictable...makes more sense that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- Rendyl, 09:29:34 05/05/01 Sat
There seem to be some misconceptions floating around. The comments
on this subject from the writers of the show all centered on the
Buffy-Spike relationship and why some writers felt that it would
be wrong for Buffy to be involved with Spike, not on whether Spike
could somehow redeem himself. Spike himself has never stated he
is looking for redemption. He justs wants the girl. He is willing
to change his behavior to get her to love him but he still sees
himself as 'not good'.
There have been endless comments on the chip giving Spike the
equivalent of a soul. This again is misleading. Angel 'chooses'
not to kill humans. The chip denies Spike this choice. As long
as the chip controls his behavior he can never truly be redeemed
because he is not choosing his actions.
Spike is capable of guilt. He (imo) felt guilty for the pain his
showing Buffy what Rileys little secret was caused her.
Much has been made of Spike refusing to give up Dawn, of his willingness
to sacrifice himself for Buffy. He has always been this way. He
was ready (while wheelchair bound) to sacrifice himself for Drusilla.
Is this the demon? William's memories influencing the demon? (I
love Spike as an enigma-it is so much more fun than Spike the
Evil or Spike the Good)
I think the real question is not can Spike be redeemed but is
"What is Redemption?" and "what are the conditions
for receiving it." Is it earned or awarded? Can you work
for it or is it bestowed in one shining moment?
-Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- good points -- dy, 20:34:37
05/05/01 Sat
You have nailed down an issue which has bothered me for a long
time. What is meant by redemption (for Spike)? My thoughts are
not too clear here, so please bear with me. I think that people
are generally equating redemption with becoming "good."
Or, more cynically, how can we keep him on the show, because we
like him. If he becomes "good" he can join the gang.
If he reverts to "bad" he gets staked or at least chased
off the show. If he stays in limbo, he'll become untenable as
a character (and we'll be begging for someone to put him out of
his misery).
If redeemed = good = trustworthy = gets to join the gang, then
we can talk about what we would expect in terms of motivation,
remorse and atonement for that to happen. Another element in this
mix is how far we would want the writers to go to save him. How
can he be redeemed without damaging the integrity of the Buffyverse?
Can he be redeemed short of sacrificing himself in one "shining
moment" of atonement?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Can Spike be redemped -- good points --
Solitude1056, 21:16:29 05/05/01 Sat
Uh, dunno.
No, seriously. *grin* You're right, if it's not a matter of Spike
being any particular thing but simply at least tenable to Buffy
& Co's ethics, and works in the Buffyverse - and makes us think
in new painful circles - then Joss'll probably do it. He's evil
that way.
But I wonder: if a vampire, like Spike, whose loyalties remain
unchanging for a long duration, once made, were to throw his loyalties
in with Buffy, would the Scoobies accept him? And having done
so, and been accepted, what does that mean for Spike, to be aligned
with the one person who's here to destroy his kind? What if his
loyalties don't change once the chip is out, and that the chip
itself is not what's creating his care & compassion but something
else inside himself? That could mean that even without a chip,
he'd find his place is now with the Scoobies. Or, once the chip
is out, if the demon part regains some level of control, does
this automatically mean that all bets are off? Or does it just
mean that Spike's even more in the hole about who-he-is, because
then he wouldn't even have the excuse of being "defanged"
to explain the insanity of a soulless vampire doing Scooby time.
We're talking about a lot - like the Tara/Glory mindsuck issue
- that revolves around the crucial question of "what is a
person," and what defines/makes up a person? Can a person
still be a "person" in undefined way, without a soul,
or without an identity? Right now, wouldn't Tara be as much a
non-person while identity-less as Spike is while soul-less? If
the Scoobies can accept one, why is it that the other would not
be considered just as much a "person" in some way?
Of course, this is ignoring all the issues over remorse, violence,
past history, serial killers, death, murder, and the rest of the
vampire being's ball of wax. Natch!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Defanged -- Rufus, 22:38:02 05/05/01 Sat
I wonder if Spike is looking for excuses for his aberrant behavior
anymore. He seems to be rather resigned to things as they are...at
least for now. I don't think that the chip can create compassion....I
think it stops the most violent behavior and puts a vampire in
a neutral position. Depending on the vampire the next acts could
vary as much as in a live person. Spike has always had the option
of having another being do the attack and he could have the scraps
from the kill. He has only done that once and it wasn't even his
idea. So what is going on here. Spike has tested the limitations
of the chip and has a good idea of how to work around them. So
is he acting or because of his love for Buffy forced to play by
her rules? He isn't looking for redemption, has no remourse about
what he has done, has done nothing to atone. So his motives for
current actions aren't redemption. Now it seems that he doesn't
even think he will get the girl either. I know one thing that
will motivate him will be the loss of the world that brings him
"Passions". He went against Angelus to save the world,
now again he is forced into helping the efforts to save the world
again. But it's nothing new to him. Now he may fight for his comfort
but also there is the element of actually liking the humans he
used to consider lunch. With all his best intentions, can Spike
remain with the white hats? Or, is he going to fall victim to
the craving of his evil nature? Will the chip even be a factor
in that final choice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Spike's motivations -- Morgane,
07:07:38 05/06/01 Sun
Just a think about Spike's motivation to do good. Well the end-of-the-world
kinda thing is probably a good part of the answer. But Spike has
always been an action guy, with big project, evil ones before,
but with precise goals anyway. Now, he has this chip in his head
that prevents him to do evil plan, but he still needs action and
fighting in his life. And what can get him that? Helping the scoobie
gang is probably the better way to get near of danger. He doesn't
have anything else to do anymore. Helping them involves doing
good, fine, but it also involves to fight and to be part of a
really powerful gang. Is it that much important for him to be
in the good or the evil side?
The fact that he loves Buffy probably increase his need of helping
them, not because he has hopes that Buffy would love him back
but because he cannot deal(like he said twice)with the idea of
Buffy suffering. The only way he has to prevent that is to help
her.
Well, finally, if he didn't have any good reason to help them,
he now have one. I don't think that he really did like the little
meeting with Glory and I don't believe he want to give her another
shot. So, just revenge would be a pretty logic motivation for
helping.
With all these motivations I really don't know why he wouldn't
help them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike's motivations --
rowan, 15:06:15 05/06/01 Sun
I guess when it comes to helping avoid the apocalypse, I seek
a simpler explanation for Spike's participation. In the battle
against Angelus, Spike fought with Buffy for two reasons: love
for Dru and a liking for this world. His motives can be the same
here and it doesn't really indicate any change in his behavior.
Dawn -- FanMan, 14:09:07 05/05/01
Sat
It has been years since I saw the Buffy movie. If I remember correctly
Joyce was recently divorced in the timeline of that movie. Buffy
was fifteen and nonexistant Dawn would have been ieght or nine.
Grammer for existitialism is confusing!
If Joyce was recently divorced, then she was presumably maried
for about fifteen years: when Buffy was concieved. Joyce & Hubby
presumably had sex at least a few times per year during thier
whole marriage. Many intances where Buffy could have gotten a
sibbling.
Two scenerios for Dawn's creation. 1. Retroactive alteration of
one instance of sex so that it results in conception. This is
like time travel: one change in the past and the history is modified
to fit the change. In this scenerio Dawn would be completely real.
Side note, the conception could create a completely normal person
with a soul inhabiting the body, then The Key could be metaphysically
linked to that soul.
2. Alteration of reality so that things are as if Dawn had been
concieved. This is what seems to have happened in the show.
These two scenerios are equally valid in terms of the validity
of Dawns memories. In one history is actually different, in the
other remembered history is different. Only a time traveler would
be able to tell the difference after the monk's spell. Grammer
again! The time traveler would first need to meet Dawn after the
spell, then go back in time to tell the difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn [and the animated series - possible SPOILERS] --
spotjon, 09:53:26 05/07/01 Mon
AAAAAAUUUGGHHH!!! Time travel episodes give me a headache! They
handled it fairly well in The Wish, but I hope that they never
do it again. I like the idea of the whole Dawn situation being
one of changed memories, and not of the timeline itself (whatever
that means). It makes you wonder where all of her "stuff"
came from, though (i.e., the things in her room). When Buffy saw
through the spell that created Dawn, the objects in her room vanished
to show what was really (?) there. Are Dawn's clothes and personal
items actually real, or are they only illusions? Here comes my
headache again, and it's not helped by the fact that...
SPOILERS BELOW
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SPOILERS AHOY
...Joss is considering having Dawn in the new animated series,
which chronicles more of Buffy's high school years. Are these
cartoons going to just be Buffy's updated memories of high school,
or what? They need to have some Sci Fi consultants on this show.
:-)
Giles' BBC show? -- Unsung Hero,
14:32:52 05/05/01 Sat
Where did this information come from? A BBC mini-series about
Giles?
See, I only ask because a month ago I was on the BAPS(Bloody Awful
poetry Spike) list(till I was flamed off by uber-nuns and over
sensetive jerks- with a few exceptions, don't get pissed) and
during a thread involving who could carry thier own show, someone
said "It'd be cool to see a Giles mini-series about his past
and stuff". Now...this could have been bounced around till
it became "It's going to be cool to see a Giles mini-series
about his past"
Now, why would it be on BBC? Because he's british? But the majority
of the fan following would be in the states, wouldn't it? It was
designed here, why wouldn't it be shown on a general cable channel
like "Buffy" and "Angel"? It doesn't make
too much sense to me.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- Solitude1056, 16:57:18 05/05/01
Sat
There's other productions that are BBC-created in the same way
20th Century Fox produces TV shows & sells them to American cable
companies. At least, that's my understanding, which is how WETA
in Boston & DC end up with BBC-created stuff. It's not like all
of Joss' fans are in the US; I'm sure there's plenty in the UK,
and AH has been well-known there for some time previous to BtVS
anyway. It doesn't seem that far-fetched to me, and if anyone
could pull it off, Joss could. The bummer would be that it'd be
us Americans' turn to wait until it's broadcast on a local PBS
channel here, a year later than in the UK!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- Mav, 01:32:36 05/06/01 Sun
Being English, I can say that Buffy has a fairly massive following
inthis country, probably percentage wise the sae as the states.
The rumour why its being done by the BBC is that ASH want s to
spend more time here, understandably. The really interesting rumour
though, is that it'll be filmed at the school Joss attended in
England (The oldest equivalent of what you call a highschool in
the country, 13th Century - I'm here) There's been a lot of talk
aboutit, and a lot of praying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> THe BBC will just only make it 4 some1 else -- Emcee003,
01:41:55 05/06/01 Sun
It make seance that BBC will be like sub contractors, as the cost
to take an entire production crew to Egnland(Uk wot eva!) would
be crazy!! (other usless fact- The BBc make most of the wildlife
shows that or shown on the Discovery Channel).
On another forum they seem to think if made it would not be able
to surport cross over stories, but it could have guest starts
that are no longer in either BtVS or AtS, such as Oz etc and that
it would be very much something that stands alone. (Also in the
UK we r only 2-3 eps. behind u in the US (If u have some form
of pay TV)) And if the strikes in Hollwood continue coming to
the UK would avoid any problems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: THe BBC will just only make it 4 some1 else
-- AK-UK, 06:12:50 05/06/01 Sun
On the BBC website , www.bbc.co.uk Marti Noxon and Joss Whedon
say they are in talks with the BBC to develop a Giles spin off
mini-series that would be shown on the BBC. In the Uk we get about
5 million viewers for Buffy, and video sales of the Buffy series
have been massive, so the BBC would have a lot of reasons for
wanting to do this.
Oh, and I'm glad we in the UK would get it before the Americans......then
you'd be the ones who would have to dodge spoilers! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- Jack Dee, 04:20:42 05/06/01 Sun
I work for the BBC, and i'm a big fan on Buffy, and i would know
if there was going to be a Giles mini-series, and there's not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- AK-UK, 06:18:54 05/06/01 Sun
Jack, what position do you hold at the BBC? Do thsy consult with
you on projects that are in development? I fear you have been
left out of the loop on this one, cos the information is up on
the BBC website!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles' BBC show? -- curlykerry, 02:58:09 05/08/01
Tue
Hi Jack
You not the ' Jack Dee' are you ?
I mean the comic Jack Dee ?
Nuclear Dawn -- Solitude1056,
17:14:36 05/05/01 Sat
This was asked below, and I thought it deserved to be raised in
its own thread, because I don't recall if it's been discussed
in any previous threads (and I started to look but I'm lazy, so
correct me if I'm wrong).
Anthony8's question was simple: why protect the Key in the first
place? As he put it so eloquently, the hordes of Hack 'n Slash
intend to destroy the Key. On the face of it (especially before
Dawn became a human), this seems like the simple solution. I can
come up with several scenarios - let's see what everyone else
thinks.
1. The Key, in its original state, could not be destroyed. Therefore,
the hordes were unable to do anything about its existence until
they got word that it was transformed into something destroyable.
- just how did the Knights find out? What did the monks do, send
out a taunting telegram? - If the Key could not be destroyed while
in an energy state, why would death/destruction of its vessel
also destroy the Key's energy?
2. If the Key could be destroyed while pure energy, why did the
Knights wait until now?
3. If the Key's sole purpose is to provide some Hell God a quick
route back home, why keep it around at all?
Which is all simply a re-statement of Anthony's original question,
but with this added analogy of Einstein & his crew just after
WWI. The crew of European scientists came up with the idea of
nuclear energy, and almost as quickly became aware that it could
have immense military strength. Einstein himself had serious misgivings
about the potential for destruction, and was ambivalent about
releasing it into the military wilds, so to speak. But for the
majority of the scientific community, the treasure of the scientific
discovery itself was too important to worry about the consequences
down the road. This was too big a step to just put it back into
a box. They could only hope that the knowledge would be used responsibly
- and perhaps the Key is like that. It may, at some point, have
positive value somehow, but the only known use at this time is
for Glory to get home. The benefits of destroying the Key are
outweighed by the possibility that it serves an even greater purpose,
hence the reluctance to turn the Key into a physical object which
could so easily be broken/killed.
Rambling, I know, but just enough (this time!) to get us started...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dawn -- Rufus, 18:17:49 05/05/01 Sat
Why destroy the key? If the key has only one function and that
is destruction, then destroying the key makes perfect sense. Consider
the situation though, the key was under the guardianship of the
Monks. These Monks just happen to have the ability to bend reality
and mould the key(energy) into alternate forms. The Knights also
had a reason to be...they are the last defence in case the key
gets into the wrong hands. The Knights are there to sever the
link and avert Chaos. What other function does the key have? We
know it's a portal, but now the key is also human. Except for
those outside of reality. Those outside of reality still see the
key as energy...so is that because they perceive reality at a
different "frequency"? Plus can matter have two forms
simultaniously? If so, can you kill form of Dawn but not the key
itself? What function does the key have that has the monks so
ready to die to preserve it? Did the monks change the function
of the key by changing it's form, or, did the monks make the key
human to change the key into a sentient being capable of realizing
and choosing how it functions? Does Dawn contain an element that
Buffy is missing that can tip the scales in favor of the Slayer?
Dawn is only concerned about her ability to be evil, will she
progress to being fully aware of her ablilities as the key, giving
more options available than just being a portal? Is it ethical
to destroy Dawn because she has the potential to be destructive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn -- Jen C., 19:21:18 05/05/01 Sat
and, if the key contains so much energy, it may be that "destroying"
it would cause more damage than it's original purpose. The energy
would need to go somewhere, since energy cannot be created nor
destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nuclear Dawn -- katy, 05:26:06 05/06/01 Sun
Okay, I am a completely new poster here but I have enjoyed reading
the wonderful thoughts posted here over the last couple of months.
It has been a late night of drinking so I will apologize now for
the complete disorganization and apparent stupidity of this post.
I, myself, hate reading those posts so sorry...
In the show, there has been several references to the desire to
control the key. Giles has said "people have died, killed
and summoned armies to control the key." So, the question
remains, who is "controlling" the key now? Obviously,
Glory and the knights are not in control of it now. What if the
monks (or whoever/whatever they serve) are in control? Some may
argue that the key has no function in this present form (Dawn),
being some form of latent energy. I do not believe this is true.
What if this energy is performing some key role now even though
it is disguised as a teenaged girl? Could the key be what provides
Buffy with her slayer power, among other things? The monks sent
the key to Buffy in the form of a sister. Why? Yes, she is a warrior
and yes she would be more inclined to protect someone she cared
about. But wouldn't her desire to protect the key be exacerbated
by her knowledge that this key provides her with the power to
fight evil? Think about it... 1) This season is suppose to be
about Buffy finding her origins. How do the Glory and Dawn story
arcs tie into this theme? 2)In their dreams or whatever (this
topic yields a whole new discussion), both Buffy and Faith appear
to have knowledge of Dawn. Why?? 3) stretching... In Family, Glory
remarks "Don't tell me I was fighting a vampire slayer. How
unbelievably common!" I don't know why but Glory's use of
"common" always struck me as meaning ironic. And it
would seem ironic that Glory ended up fighting a vampire slayer
if the key was beneficial to both of them. 4) Glory tells Dawn
that the key can be good or evil, depending on your point of view.
5)Glory thinks Buffy has the key or knows where to find it. Why
Buffy? It is not because Buffy stole the monk because Glory arrives
at that conclusion much later in the season. Then Glory comments
that "the slayer and the key are connected."
As mentioned before, I am drinking, so my thoughts may not necessarily
be connecting or conveyed properly. And the post has turned into
a druken stream of consciousness. again, sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nuclear Dawn -- FanMan, 12:43:51 05/06/01 Sun
Katy, I think your post was coherent and well thought out. This
site is cool because differing oppinions provide perspective.
Philosophy is about concepts, and two opposite viewspoints create
a larger view...yin/yang anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nuclear Dawn -- rowan, 06:11:43 05/06/01 Sun
I went back to look at some shooting scripts to see what we actually
know about The Key (which is really so little). The monk tells
Buffy that The Key is pure energy, and that it is a portal and
it opens a door. The monk confirms they have made The Key human,
sent it to Buffy, and that is is an "innocent." The
Knights of Byzantium tell Buffy even less ('we will die to kill
it and you, Glory is an abomination,', etc.).
My observations probably aren't all that brilliant, but I've always
viewed The Key as the energy that can open the door to either
heaven or hell (or whatever serves that place in the Buffyverse).
The Key reminds me of the biblical reference to Peter ('you're
my rock...I will give you the keys to heaven and to hell'). That
would explain why the monks didn't destroy it, but protected it
-- because it is the energy that opens the door both to an apocalypse
on earth and a heaven on earth (the milennium in the Book of Revelations).
The KoB, however, would rather lose heaven on earth than risk
hell on earth.
I've also assumed that in the right person's hands, this open
doorway could be used in two directions, although I guess I don't
have alot of evidence for that other than that's how doors work.
So The Key's nature is dualistic, and it depends on its use. Dawn
as human is innocent, confirmed both by the monk and by Glory
(her converation with Spike in Intervention) and at least not
evil (confirmed by Spike, who's usually a pretty good judge).
This also explains (AtltS) the "strange friendship"
mentioned in a thread below between Dawn and Spike. Both are characters
who have a duality in the nature -- enormous potential for evil,
enormous potential for good. Dawn's is inherent in her essence,
and Spike's has been created by that chip. I think this is why
Dawn has always been attracted to Spike's company, becuase her
other companions are so clearly either good (the SG) or evil (the
demons they kill).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nuclear Dawn & oblique Doors reference -- OnM,
20:49:57 05/06/01 Sun
rowan, really liked the Biblical reference re: the key to heaven
or hell. Nice one.
*** "I've also assumed that in the right person's hands,
this open doorway could be used in two directions, although I
guess I don't have a lot of evidence for that other than that's
how doors work." ***
Which causes the thought to pop into my head about how The Doors
(the group) got their name... something about how some philosopher
remarked that there "are walls of perception dividing the
conscious and subconscious, but in the walls are doors".
Might be somewhat misquoting that. I'm not drinking, I just have
a bad memory at times. Well, lots of times...
BTW, Welcome katy. Glad to have you here. Your post was actually
pretty good.
What are the writers thinking
of? -- theharrisboy, 04:36:23 05/06/01 Sun
When Buffy first started the storylines were nothing short of
perfect, but when we got to the end of season three i realised
that the stories began to, well, flop, a bit. I mean getting the
all her class mates to fight in a mini war between a load of vampires
and a giant snake, when their not supposed to know whats going
on it's just, well, lack of ideas. And a few of season fours were
also a bit, crap. For example, the "Jonathan2 episode. Pretty
bad. But i still have faith as the story lines have started to
pick up again, but if the creators aren't careful it's gonna end
up like the x-files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What are the writers thinking of? -- Sam Gamgee, 07:01:09
05/06/01 Sun
They probably think they are being paid a lot of money to do what
they do, while you are paid absolutely nothing to whine about
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To Sam Gamgee -- theharrisboy, 07:15:44 05/06/01 Sun
How do you know?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: To Sam Gamgee -- Sam Gamgee, 09:27:07 05/06/01
Sun
The use of the word "probably" should have tipped you
off that I didn't know, but was stating a theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re:Horrors:Buffy ending like the X-Files?
-- FanMan, 12:49:55 05/06/01 Sun
I realy loved the X-Files until the last two years. I have stopped
watching, they should have ended when the writers still had better
stories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re:Horrors:Buffy ending like the
X-Files? -- Sam Gamgee, 13:52:50 05/06/01 Sun
The X-Files ended for me last fall when I stopped watching it.
It seems rather silly to complain about a show and still watch
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> complaining -- Unsung Hero,
18:59:04 05/06/01 Sun
I complain about almost every show I watch. Just because I like
the shows doesn't mean I find them perfect. At least once an episode
of Buffy I groan and say "Why the hell are they doing this?"-
take the Buffy Robot for example. Every show has problems and
things fans disagree with. People have opinions, Mate- and they're
not always popular. You may decide to watch every show you like
and grin and talk about how wonderful it is- I prefer to remain
objective and critical, because I enjoy being objective and critical.
I'm a film critic, I do it all the time. Complaining about a show
and still watching is perfectly logical- bitching is half the
fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: complaining -- Sam
Gamgee, 19:26:05 05/06/01 Sun
Well, mate, there is a difference between bitching about the show
and complaining it hasn't been good for the last two years and
asking what the writers are thinking. And if we are going to get
into what a person's right is, it is my right to complain about
people who whine how BtVS isn't as good as it was two years ago,
expecially when the complaints consist of "lack of ideas"
and "well, bad". Very constructive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: complaining
-- FanMan, 19:32:01 05/06/01 Sun
I have watched about three or four Eps of the X-Files in the last
two years. I think Buffy is still excellant, I would be disapointed
if they continued after the writers run out of good plots. BTVS
& Angel are still very good and I was not complaining about them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: complaining
-- Sam Gamgee, 20:03:15 05/06/01 Sun
I wasn't talking so much about you, as about the first post that
started this thread. I have the DVDs for season 2 X-Files, and
it makes me sad when I see it is still on. It would be different
if the show was covering new ground, but it is stuck in the same
plots they used to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This reminds me
of... -- OnM, 20:31:43 05/06/01 Sun
...an ongoing, well, not discussion, because you sort of have
to have two sides to something to discuss it, and if the one person
just simply doesn't get it, well...
Ooops, tangent there. I was going to say that my boss is often
baffled/amused at my ability to (supposedly, in his mind) watch
a movie or TV show and see more than just the basic entertainment
level in it. That's what he says he sees when he watches a movie,
and doesn't really look for anything else.
I have no idea why I see the levels, they're just there, ya know?
It is certainly possible to enjoy something overall and still
be critical, but my boss seems to see it the way many people do--
you either like it or you don't. It very seldom is that simple
to me. I still watch the X-Files every week, hell, I even watch
Star Trek: Voyager, shows you how picky I am!
Speaking of which, there is something I simply MUST get off my
chest in some kind of a public forum, and this brings up the perfect
opportunity:
ST writers-- The correct term is DAMPING, ***NOT*** DAMPENING
field, factor, whatever!! Fer cryin' out loud, you've been making
this stupid error for YEARS now!!!
To *dampen* something is to make it wet or moist, for example
you dampen a paper towel to clean something up. If you want to
reduce the effect of something, which is what you are trying to
say, then you DAMP it, for example you damp the reaction in a
nuclear reactor by lowering the control rods into the core.
Sorry, I'll stop now. Well, almost...
Unsung, you're a for-real film critic, not just a wannabe pretender
like me? Cool! Guess you should be doing the Classic Movie column
when I'm on vacation.
Oh, that's right, I rarely seem to take those vacation things...
damn! Nice try, OnM...
Angel's chip? -- Morgane, 07:32:26
05/06/01 Sun
We have talk a lot about Spike's chip, that he cannot do evil
because of it, and that without it he could be a danger. Well
fine, but what about Angel. We saw him as the good guy but he
his much more dangerous than Spike in fact. Buffy trusts Angel
but not Spike. She said that she can get involve with Angel but
not with Spike because that he was good. But think a little, why
is Angel good? because is soul prevents him to do evil, exactly
like a chip. It isn't more natural a vampire with a soul than
a vampire with a chip. Angel can lose his soul with one moment
of true happiness. We know that sex with Buffy is one moment of
true happiness for him, now he knows it, but what else could give
him that moment? no one knows... it could be anything. And if
he does lose his soul he can get very very dangerous and also
very unpredictable, we know that. So it's only his "temporary"
soul that makes him good. Now, for Spike. He has a chip that prevents
him to fight with human and not to do evil, but he doesn't act
evil anymore. No one has no idea how to remove his chip and the
chances that someone will know someday are pretty small. And even
if the chip does get removed, Spike wouldn't necessarily get back
to evil side (probably not actually) so he wouldn't be any danger.
So we have Angel who is now truly good but can lose his soul at
any moment and surely become a real danger. And on the other side
we have Spike, who still consider himself as the bad guy but cannot
do anything evil because of a chip no one can remove and even
if someone can, he probably wouldn't be a danger anyway.
And you can add to this, that Angel went away and Spike is still
there even if he had a pretty much interesting proposition to
leave by Drusilla.
Well, I don't think Buffy has been really rationnal on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel's chip? -- FanMan, 13:04:57 05/06/01 Sun
Spike is dangerous with or without the chip. Loveing Buffy does
not make him a fluffy kitten. Spike is completely loyal to those
he loves, Buffy and Dawn. Spike is still dangerous to anyone he
does not love. Without the chip he might hesitate to kill an innocent,
but he would still have the desire.
Regarding Angel, in one EP he was given a drug that made him happy
until it wore off. Angelus took over for a short time. W&H could
capture him and forcibly inject heroin into him. Maby some other
drug, but if they made him happy with a drug, how long would he
remain happy with Angelus in control?
Wierd scenerio: a drug making Angel happy while Angelus doing
evil makes him unhappy...would he cycle back and forth between
Angel and Angelus?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel's chip? -- rowan, 15:00:08 05/06/01 Sun
Well, probably for most of the first 4 seasons, the Buffyverse
presented us with a picture where creatures with souls are good
and creatures without souls are evil. In that view, Angel has
a soul and therefore is good. What makes him even more special
is that, because he is a vampire, even with a soul he has to struggle
against the capability for evil.
Spike is still a vampire, still soulless, and heretofore at least,
evil. The chip doesn't prevent the evil, only the physical harm
to humans. Spike could still be a deadly evil genius if he wanted,
and organize minions (maybe not scabby ones, though) to do his
sinister bidding (gee, a little BuffyBot crept in there).
All this is to say that I don't think Buffy is being inconsistent
in her views.
That said, this season we've seen alot of grey. Spike is grey
(I won't go over again why because it's been debated to death)
and Dawn is also grey (an innocent whose the gateway to hell on
earth). So, perhaps what this season has been showing is that
the simplistic (white = good, black = bad) view of the Buffyverse
is not quite the true view. In that case, it leaves the possibility
open that Buffy may have to change her opinion of Spike if his
behavior warrants it. JMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel's chip? -- spotjon, 13:16:23 05/08/01 Tue
"But think a little, why is Angel good? because is soul prevents
him to do evil, exactly like a chip. It isn't more natural a vampire
with a soul than a vampire with a chip."
Angel does not refrain from evil for the same reasons that Spike
does (or did). Angel keeps from becoming evil because he doesn't
want to be that way anymore. With his soul, he regained his conscience,
and the desire to do right. Even though he still has evil desires
to fight against, he is doing good out of his own free will.
Now Spike, on the other hand, does not refrain from doing evil
because he wants to. He refrains from it because he has to do
so. It's like having a taskmaster whack you on the head every
time you make a misstep. Spike is not (or was not) refraining
from badness out of his own free will, but rather because he has
no other choice.
And therein lies the difference: Angel=good because he wants to
be; Spike=good (or morally ambiguous) because he has to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How much does motivation matter? -- Humanitas, 15:16:48
05/08/01 Tue
So what does 'redmeption' mean, then, in practical terms? Must
it be more than behavioral? If the chip has started a chain-reaction
in Spike's psyche, causing him to do good actions, how is that
functionally different from a soul? Ultimately, we can neither
know nor judge Spike's (or anyone else's) motivations, unless
the writers specifically tell us. We can observe his actions,
and their consequences. At best, we can figure out if those consequences
were intentional or not by observing his reactions to them.
Angel is another matter. In Angel's case, there is the promised
shanshu. Ok, that's a good reward, but if you work in hope of
getting that reward, then you blow your chances. So in Angel's
case, it does matter why he does what he does, and the writers
have been pretty good at keeping us abreast of that.
In Spike's case, I'm not sure motivations matter so much. He has
no soul, so there is nothing to drive him toward redemption, in
the spiritual sense. All he has available to him are the things
of this world (pleasure, pain, and love, which could be considered
a combination of the two). Since he is limited to worldly considerations,
is it fair to judge him by anything other than his worldly actions?
Are those actions less worthy because he has no natural inclination
to do good? One could argue that they are actually more worthy,
because they represent a greater variance from his predisposition.
Which brings us back to the matter of motivation. (If this sounds
like the Chicken-and-the-Egg Problem, that's not too surprising.
Sometimes action does create motivation, rather than the other
way 'round.) What do we actually know about the motivations of
the Clockwork Vampire? We know that he is motivated by pleasure
and pain. He's demonstrated that from the beginning. It is also
fair to say at this point that he truly does love Buffy. Allowing
Glory to give him the whipping of his un-life proves that beyond
any doubt, at least in my mind. Plus, per the teaser for 'Spiral,'
he lets her use his RV. Having owned an RV, that's no small thing,
I can tell you! ;)
So that's what motivates Spike. Those motivations play themselves
out in some odd ways, because he has no predilection to be good,
so it never occurs to him (for example) that stalking someone
isn't the best way to display affection. He can learn, though.
His behavior in the last couple of ep's has shown that. Maybe
that's all the redemption he needs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How much does motivation matter? -- verdantheart,
14:35:46 05/09/01 Wed
His "borrowed" RV, it turns out! ;)
But he *did* put himself at pretty high risk for incidental/accidental
sun exposure!
Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough
Love (possible spoilers) -- Kendra, 09:26:09 05/06/01 Sun
This review was so great, I felt compelled to share it.
Analysis
Knowing that you love somebody and letting them know it aren't
really easy things to do. Spike did a lot of things to convince
Buffy he loved her (including kidnapping her and threatening to
kill Dru) and he flat out told her. But she felt he was just obsessed
and sick and twisted. But when he was ready to sacrifice himself
in Intervention, she realized there was something real (her words)
about what he had done and what he felt. In this episode, the
love between Buffy and Dawn is more clearly articulated, and Willow
realizes just how much Tara means to her and what she is willing
to do for her. At the same time, knowing what you are and what
your role in life is is also tough. And Dawn and Spike and even
Willow travel a ways down that highway.
The episode begins with Buffy symbolically giving up her life
(a foreshadowing of the gift of death the guide spoke of in Intervention).
She's dropping out of university. She's dropping an English course
she really enjoyed and a professor she really liked and who clearly
likes her. She says she won't have time for poetry and the professor
says maybe she can make time for short poems. She remembers haiku,
which are poems about nature and try to capture a concrete image
in place and time. Buffy lives in an unnatural world - a world
of demons and mad gods and keys disguised as teenage girls - and
she is being forced to move forward while she really wants time
to stop. She needs to take time to deal with her grief, time to
tend to her sister, time to plan. Instead she's forced into constant
action. First by the facts of her mother's death which makes her
drop out of school. Then with the problems Dawn faces at school,
which make her assume an adult persona she doesn't feel ready
for and dedicate herself to Dawn. And, finally, by the actions
of Glory who begins to aggressively pursue the key and now has
found who it is.
At Dawn's school, Buffy faces another member of the educational
system. Like her English professor, the principle seems nice and
helpful. But unlike him, she has bad news. Dawn is cutting classes
and appears out of control. If Buffy cannot control her, then
she may be taken away from Buffy. Buffy realizes she has to assume
the maternal role fully. And she doesn't feel prepared for it.
She tries to get Giles to take the role on. But he realizes that
this is something that must happen within the family. And as Buffy
comes to this recognition, the last shreds of her childhood, in
tatters since the death of her mother, fall away. When she orders
Dawn home and rejects Willow's suggestions, she says she has Dawn's
life. She is subordinating her life to Dawn's. Like a parent,
she is ready to give up life for her child/sister.
At home, Buffy comes across as domineering and tyrannical. Not
unlike the school mistress Willow likens her too. But she ultimately
reveals to Dawn that her tyranny comes from fear of losing Dawn,
not of a desire to control. As always, truth brings the sisters
closer together. Just as Dawn and Buffy bonded when Buffy revealed
the depth of her sorrow at their mother's death in Forever, so
the bond is reaffirmed here when Buffy reveals her greatest fear
is the loss of her sister. This spurs a change in Dawn. She had
been acting in a nihilistic manner. Feeling nothing mattered because
she wasn't real, she felt free to do anything she wanted. Now
she suspects that others do matter and that her actions or her
very existence can harm others. She's gone from a self absorbed
sorrow to an exaggerated sense of responsibility for the world's
problems.
But Dawn's self absorption has it's limits. In the caves, after
having been comforted by Spike she speaks to Buffy. She still
thinks it is all her fault, but she asks about Willow. She still
cares about other people and is not trying to focus all attention
on herself. And her question, which gives rise to Spike's skepticism,
leads to the rescue of Willow. It's interesting that Dawn and
Spike work together here. He realizes how Willow feels and that
he would have similar feelings. He draws a parallel between his
actions and Willow's for Buffy. And Dawn drives this point home
by making Buffy think of her own feelings in an analogous instance.
Dawn and Spike together function as a catalyst for good. Which
makes me wonder what happens if the key is activated. Is it possible
that the key may give Glory the ability to be more evil and Spike
the ability to be more good? Does the key simply reinforce potential?
When Glory attacks Tara, she licks her blood and realizes she
is not the key. A very vampirish thing. Spike refers to Dawn as
platelet in this episode and has jokingly spoken of biting her
in the past. But what would happen if he tasted the key's blood?
Buffy's realization that Tara means to Willow what Dawn means
to her leads to the scene between Willow and Buffy where they
reveal their understanding of each other's feelings. Feelings
that can only be understood through analogy and not through description.
Before Willow was angry because she felt accused of not understanding.
She was angry because she felt she had failed to protect Tara.
Buffy was angry because she felt she had failed to protect Dawn.
Now both realize that they can only do what they can and have
to trust in faith. Willow is ready to care for Tara even if she
never recovers. They just have to wait and see.
This season there is a something of a parallel between Tara and
Anya. Partly because they are the unlikely lovers of two of the
gang. Partly because they don't quite fit in. Partly because their
love, however strange, is genuine. I think you can extend that
comparison to Spike and that partly explains why he is the one
who understands that Willow will go after Glory - even knowing
it is suicide. In this episode, Anya is continuing the process
of integrating herself into human society. She began by falling
in love with Xander and becoming part of a couple. She then found
a job, working for Giles, and became a useful and contributing
member of society. Now, she has begun to see herself as part of
a larger society, America, and is struggling to understand the
underlying principles of her new country. Of course, there's an
underlying humourous subtext. Anya's passion for capitalism is
being used to mock capitalism - or at least capitalism in its
raw form. And we see her proAmerican attitude turning into an
anti everyone else attitude (especially the French). This, of
course, is the natural course of nationalism.
Meanwhile, Tara is moving in the other direction - becoming increasingly
separate from the group. She quarrels with Willow and they go
their own ways. She's unable to believe that Willow really loves
her. She finds herself alone on a bench confronted by Glory. She
realizes no one, none of the normal protectors of the social order,
can help her. Glory makes this clear to her as she points out
all the people Tara could call to and how she could kill them
all with ease. Surrounded by people she is alone and helpless.
Ultimately, Glory removes her from the society of thinking people
- robbing her of her thoughts and committing the ultimate rape.
Willow, who Glory calls the lover, acts the avenge the rape of
her beloved. Tara's innocence and purity have been ravaged by
Glory and Willow intends to destroy Glory in return. Her actions
are understandable, but stupid. She plans on an epic conflict,
like a character from one of those long poems Buffy won't be reading.
But she isn't the stuff heroes are made of. She isn't strong enough
to face Glory and her only hope is in a united front with Buffy
and the others. Buffy thinks she has convinced Willow of this
but Spike, the would be poet who often acts like an epic hero
(or villain), realizes nothing could deter Willow. He understands
that while she lacks the power to destroy Glory - the power an
epic hero has, she suffers the epic pain of love - something Spike
shares. He knows death is preferable to that pain and action is
unavoidable. Willow has gone off, like a knight championing his
lady's honour, to fight the black knight that is Glory (and where
are the brotherhood of Byzantium who we saw in Checkpoint and
who might actually be of help now).
Tara's love for Willow (and for the others) is made evident in
her willingness to die or be mentally destroyed rather than reveal
the secret of Dawn to Glory. Like Spike, she is tortured and remains
true. Willow's love for Tara is made evident when she goes off
ready to die to avenge her beloved. Of course, both actions only
make matters worse. Willow's attack provokes a counter attack
by Glory and further endangers everyone. And Tara's madness proves
the key to revealing the key to Glory. Had Willow not sought revenge,
Glory would not have arrived at the opportune moment and Tara
would not have unwittingly revealed the truth. So Willow, driven
mad by love, endangers not only herself but everyone. This forms
an interesting counterpoint to Spike's love, in Intervention,
which saves the world from Glory - at least for a while. While
Willow is essentially good and Spike essentially evil or at least
not good (he says this himself in this episode), it is Spike who
finds in his strange love for Buffy something ennobling and improving
while Willow gives in to the dark side of passion.
Dawn's comments about not being good if not being outright evil
clearly reflect on Spike. You can't argue he's good, his good
actions come from motivations more complicated than a simple desire
to do good. But he's not evil either. He's become something less
than evil but still not good. Willow, on the other hand, is not
evil but has turned into something less than good. She seems to
be turning further inward. She focuses on her own feelings a great
deal and doesn't seem to consider how her actions will impact
others. This was clear in Forever, when she foolishly made the
book about resurrection available to Dawn. This episode, she's
insensitive to Tara and walks out during their fight while Tara
wants to sort things out. It's interesting that she's hurt because
Tara's mother died and hers didn't. Hardly something to be hurt
by. If anyone deserves some slack here it is Tara, who is a virtual
orphan and not yet well integrated into the gang. She's always
being left behind or out of the action. And Willow leaves her
behind one more time in this episode. And this time, she gets
lost.
Spike takes a different approach. Although he is an essentially
self centered person, he pays a lot of attention to the feelings
of others. Left alone with Dawn he tries to comfort her, something
he's done pretty much everytime he's been with her. At one point,
he actually reaches out to pat her - a sign of physical affection
we'd expect from Willow not Spike. He jumps back when she turns
and you can see how Spike's own emotions are exposed. He's frightened
to reveal his compassion, yet desperate to do so. His face softens
as Dawn expresses her concern over responsibility for his wounds
(the second time in two episodes someone has actually felt sorry
for Spike). Conversely, Willow hardens herself after seeing what
has happened to Tara. She removes herself further from humanity
and seeks out black magic solutions to her problems. And she's
only saved because Spike understands what she is going through
and what she would be doing. Spike and Willow are passing each
other on their live's journeys, headed in opposite directions.
It's no accident that the emotionally wounded Willow draws the
sympathy and attention of the gang (rather than the physically
and psychically wounded Tara whom Willow seems to supplant). But
the physically wounded Spike gives sympathy and attention to others,
especially the now very fragile Dawn. Willow has become a taker
and Spike a giver.
Some quick final thoughts. It was nice to see a principal who
wasn't evil or stupid. Glory's bath tub scene has to be one of
the high lights of the series. It was nice to see she likes some
things, like bubble baths. I love Anya referring to Giles as a
foreigner. So, was the minion a coward or did Giles do something
really unspeakable to him when no one was looking. I'm hoping
for the latter. I love the way Glory accuses people of lying to
her when they haven't even spoken to her. Her graphic and disturbing
description of what it feels like to be brain sucked suggests
that's the way she feels trapped inside of Ben. And it may be
a clue to how she can be defeated. Everyone may hate hospitals,
but the show has certainly gotten a lot of value out of that set.
I like the parallel between the earthquake like attack of Willow
on Glory and Glory's earthquake like attack on Willow, Dawn, Tara,
and Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Could you please post the original URL of this review? Thanks!
-- Masquerade, 12:14:58 05/06/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Very Sorry -- Kendra, 13:04:32 05/06/01 Sun
http:/www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/btvs519.htm#btvs519a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible spoilers)
-- Sue, 17:30:40 05/06/01 Sun
"It's interesting that she's hurt because Tara's mother died
and hers didn't. Hardly something to be hurt by. "
Loved your analysis, but have to comment on that statement, as
that isn't QUITE right.
Willow was fustrated. In one sense that whole confrontation seemed
almost manifactured. Willow was hurt by what Tara said, but it
wasn't Tara that hurt her, but the reality of the situation. Tara
didn't understand that. Willow wasn't mad at Tara or even angry
at what she said, it was the situation that frustated her.
Willow knew that she couldn't ever understand what Buffy was going
through. No matter how much she could try she could never comprehend
it, not like Tara could. Of course she wasn't upset that she hadn't
suffered such a tragedy. But she wanted to understand, but she
couldn't and she knew that.
She didn't want such a tragedy to happen to her, but she wished
that she could emphasize more with Buffy and with Tara, ever knowing
that she couldn't, not ever, no matter how much she tried. She
did feel a little left out, but she didn't want to join the club.
Membership fees too high.
Willow was glad she hasn't suffered such a tradegy, for she is
sure it isn't good. At least that's the impression that she gets,
but she does wonder if she could.
Anyway complex feelings. No she is glad she hasn't been tested.
But it frustates her that she can't emphasize with Buffy like
Tara can.
Later in the episode, however, the test came.
Look at the tested and think there but for the grace go I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love (possible
spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 18:10:16 05/06/01 Sun
In one sense that whole confrontation seemed almost manifactured.
Right on. It reminded me of a line from a show I loved - and one
I recently found out is also one of Joss' favorites - 'My So-Called
Life.'
"You know that feeling, when it seems like you're not having
the argument, but the argument's having you?"
That's what that whole argument seemed like to me - just somehow
contrived, like when one person really wants to fight, the other
doesn't, and the first one comes up with repeated reason to argue,
provokes the argument by intentionally misunderstanding a comment,
gets indignant, goes off, and storms out. It's a one-person drama
and whatever the other person says is irrelevant: the drama queen's
gotta have her blow-up and will have it, one way or another. Willow
did realize she screwed up, but at what a high price.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough Love
(possible spoilers) -- Sue, 18:42:17 05/06/01 Sun
"Willow did realize she screwed up, but at what a high price."
I am sorry, but I think Tara screwed up.
She was the one who pushed a confrontation that didn't need to
be pushed. Willow wasn't upset at Tara, but Tara pushed when she
didn't need to.
If there were other issues, then Tara should have brought them
up later. But Willow wasn't upset at Tara, yet Tara pushed.
WILLOW No, I just, I mean I know I can't know what you went through,
I just... It's no big.
TARA I made you mad.
WILLOW No, no...
TARA All I meant was that--
WILLOW --It's okay, the whole Buffy thing just -- Forget it.
Willow said she was sorry for seeming like little snippy gal.
The whole Joyce dying thing and what it was doing to Buffy and
Dawn was hurting Willow, and she was frustrated.
Willow will never really know, ok she gets it. She is glad she
never had to be tested in a way that Tara was, or what Buffy and
Dawn is going few. Willow feels very fortunate ok.
But she wants to help. But whenever she tries she gets "you
really can't know what it's like to--" thrown back at her.
And what can she say. She knows that "she really can't know
what it's like to--". She gets that already.
Nobody's fault. --It's okay, the whole Buffy thing just ..
Frustrates Willow. She knows she will never know, but how can
she help? Since she will "never know" everything she
tries is wrong.
Tara, couldn't she just she how frustrated that was, and not use
it as an opportunity to bring up other issues?
Tara should have let it drop. At least for the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Jenoff's Excellent Review of Tough
Love (possible spoilers) -- Sue, 18:44:35 05/06/01 Sun
"Willow will never really know, ok she gets it. She is glad
she never had to be tested in a way that Tara was, or what Buffy
and Dawn is going few. Willow feels very fortunate ok."
Going through, not few. Sorry for the error.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Impression that She Gets -- Sue, 18:14:19 05/06/01
Sun
Willow knew her limitations in the whole situation.
She KNOWS she can't understand what Buffy or Dawn is going through.
She gets that. And it is that what hurts. She wants to help, but
always knows that she can only help so far since she has "never
been there".
She feels quite fortunate for having "never been there".
But still she wants to help her friends.
Willow doesn't want to have the experience herself but a part
of her wants to understand it. But she KNOWS she can't understand
the experience without experiencing it herself. And she is thankful
every day that she hadn't had to yet.
Willow wasn't angry at Tara, yes, frustrated, but it wasn't Tara
who frustrated her but the knowledge that she could never understand
Buffy like Tara could. Nobody's fault, just a little frustrating.
Tough Love transcript
TARA (overlapping slightly) I had to deal with my brother's problems
after, I mean -- you really can't know what it's like to--
WILLOW (defensively) I know that.
WILLOW No, I just, I mean I know I can't know what you went through,
I just... It's no big.
TARA I made you mad.
WILLOW No, no...
TARA All I meant was that--
WILLOW --It's okay, the whole Buffy thing just -- Forget it.
Here is what confused me about the whole scene. Tara is usually
so sensitive to others feelings especially Willow's. She should
have known that she didn't make Willow mad. What made Willow a
little upset is that OK, she know that she can't know what Tara
went through. She knows that. And she knows that she can't know
what Buffy and Dawn is going through. She knows that already.
She accepts that. It just gets tiring hearing that all the time.
No, Tara didn't make Willow mad. It's just the whole Buffy thing.
Willow knows that she can't know what Buffy is going through.
She wants to help, but knows in some ways she just can't.
Tara should have let the whole thing drop -- Forget it. But instead
she thought SHE hurt Willow. It was the situation, not Tara, she
should have understood that.
But of course, I guess there were other issues to their relationship
that was beginning to surface. Tara picked a poor time to confront
them, though. I am glad to see Tara somewhat assertive, and you
can't ignore issues when they come up. But then wasn't the time.
She should have realized that.
She should have let the whole "you really can't know what
it's like to--" thing drop. Yes Willow understands that.
She feels fortunate that she hasn't been tested in such a way
yet. Willow understands that she can never understand, but she
wants to help, and but knows that in some ways she just isn't
in a position.
I am sure Willow is feeling a little disconnected to her best
friend right now.
WILLOW No, I was snippy gal, it's just... I know I can't, on some
level... it's like my opinion isn't worth anything because I haven't
been through... I didn't lose my mom, so I don't know...
I think one of the most frustrating things must be to know that
you can't know. You want to help. But you can't know. You understand
that you can't know, but you want to help. How can you help, if
you can't know?
Why couldn't Tara see Willow's frustration? Instead she took the
frustration as something directed against her instead of what
it was, which was the whole Buffy thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Solitude1056, 18:01:32
05/06/01 Sun
What an excellent analysis - I'd been thinking about Willow's
actions, but this larger-picture of Willow's development really
said it well. Setting aside the issue of vengeance & consequences,
it had seemed to me that Willow's actions were definitely rash.
She unnecessarily provoked Glory at a point when the Scoobies
don't have all their defenses aligned yet. Glory coming a'knockin'
at the dorm wall can be traced directly to Willow's sudden entrance
into Glory's territory.
Rayne's posted the shooting script for Tough Love (yay!) and the
last bits of the argument go as follows. I'm pretty sure this
is also the same version that aired, but you folks with those
newfangled recording machines will have to correct me if I'm wrong.
WILLOW No, I was snippy gal, it's just... I know I can't, on some
level... it's like my opinion isn't worth anything because I haven't
been through... I didn't lose my mom, so I don't know...
TARA Well I'm not the expert, I mean, I only lost one... Do I
act like I'm the big Knowledge Woman?
WILLOW No...
TARA Is that "no" spelled Y-E-S?
WILLOW S-O-R-T of... it's just... I mean I just feel like the
junior partner sometimes, you've been doing everything longer
than me, you've been out longer, and practicing witchcraft way
longer--
TARA --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I mean
it frightens me how powerful you're getting.
WILLOW That's a weird word.
TARA "Getting"?
WILLOW It frightens you? I frighten you?
TARA That's so not what I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...
WILLOW Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took it from an evil
government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like
creation right before the final -- but I know what a Freudian
slip is. Don't you trust me?
TARA With my life!
WILLOW That's not what I mean. [...] What is it about me that
you don't trust?
TARA It's not that. I worry. Sometimes... You're changing so much,
so fast, I don't know... where you're heading...
WILLOW Where I'm heading?
TARA I'm saying everything wrong.
WILLOW I think you're being pretty clear. It isn't the witch thing
-- this is about the other changes in my life.
TARA I trust you. I just... I don't know where I'm gonna fit in.
In your life, when --
WILLOW When I 'change back'? Yeah, this is just a college thing,
just a little experimentation before I get over the thrill and
head back to boys' town. You think that?
Is it just me, or does it seem like Tara was talking about the
"witch" thing, and Willow diverted the argument neatly
into a discussion about her sexual preference, and by doing so
could whallop Tara with self-righteous hurt... whereas if she'd
dealt with Tara's actual intent - to speak of Willow's erratic
& uncontrolled development as a witch - then Willow wouldn't have
had as quick a defense.
Anyone else come away with this impression?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- Wiccagrrl,
18:26:43 05/06/01 Sun
Is it just me, or does it seem like Tara was talking about the
"witch" thing, and Willow diverted the argument neatly
into a discussion about her sexual preference, and by doing so
could whallop Tara with self-righteous hurt... whereas if she'd
dealt with Tara's actual intent - to speak of Willow's erratic
& uncontrolled development as a witch - then Willow wouldn't have
had as quick a defense.
Anyone else come away with this impression?
S-O-R-T of ;) I think Tara was basically talking about the witchcraft,
but I do think that there was an undercurrent about the relationship
that tied into it. With Willow and Tara, their magickal partnership
and their relationship have always been pretty intertwined. I
don't think that Tara really felt that Willow was gonna dump her
for the first cute guy to come along, but I do think that Tara
is pretty insecure at times, and may have felt that, since their
relationship was originally connected to their witchcraft, Willow
might get to a point where she didn't feel she needed Tara as
much anymore.
That said, I think both girls let their insecurities get the best
of them (Willow that Tara didn't trust her completely, Tara that
Willow might not need her as much, or might "outgrow"
their relationship) But the end of the ep really reinforced to
me that these two truly love each other, and I think and hope
that Tara will be ok and the relationship is going to end up stronger
than ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions -- rowan,
18:37:08 05/06/01 Sun
Here's where I thought Willow was coming from in the argument:
Even within relationships among nice people (like Willow and Tara),
power structures come into play. Willow has some insecurities
about herself that came out in the argument. She feels like the
"junior partner" -- she's a newer witch and a newer
lesbian. This puts Tara is a more powerful position than Willow.
The area in which Willow has more power is within the SG. Tara
is only linked to the SG through Willow -- for example, if they
break up, Willow stays and Tara goes. When Tara begins to bond
with Buffy and Dawn after Joyce's loss, this threatens Willow's
only area of power within the relationship.
Here's where I thought Tara was coming from in the argument:
Tara is insecure because Willow is undergoing changes. She is
making tremendous progress as a witch and appears to have power
beyond what Tara (who has been practicing longer) could hope to
have. The very nature of Willow's change echoes another change
Willow has made recently -- from a heterosexual relationship to
a homosexual relationship. Tara is clearly afraid that as Willow
changes and develops, she will outgrow Tara and want someone equal
to her in power.
I found the argument very convincing, because it had that same
tone as most really important arguments -- it started about a
simple thing, but escalated to the serious reasons that lay underneath.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions
-- Maladanza, 20:36:01 05/06/01 Sun
***Even within relationships among nice people (like Willow and
Tara), power structures come into play***
I think the power lies predominantly on Willow's side, and agree
with Solitude that the argument was driven by Willow. However,
when Willow switched the argument from her misuse of magic to
her sexual orientation, she hit a nerve with Tara. We do not know
Tara's past sexual history, so we don't know if there is a reason
for her to be afraid of losing Willow, but we have seen hints
that Willow is not as committed to the relationship as she might
be: Willow still has a sort of proprietary interest in Xander
(in spite of his committed long-term relationship with Anya) which
Tara witnessed first hand in Triangle; also, Willow's locker-room
comments about April provoked a disapproving glare from Tara,
suggesting that this was not the first time Willow's eyes had
wandered to another girl.
Now add to the power structure: Willow is the only daughter of
an upper middle class family -- she also has scholarships. Money
is no problem for her in school. Tara has been disowned by her
family. I suspect she is still in school -- it is possible to
make it through on Pell Grants and Students Loans, but a breakup
would result in significantly reduced circumstances for Tara.
And then there's their friends -- Willow would get the Scoobies.
Without Willow, Tara loses everything valuable in her life. Without
Tara, Willow still has a pretty good life.
My feeling is that the power lies with Willow, and she used that
power tyrannically. She was an intellectual bully making herself
feel better by tearing Tara down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments, Reactions
-- Jill, 21:46:41 05/06/01 Sun
I have been critical of Willow for the last few episodes, but
the only thing I could fault here for in this episode was going
out to seek revenge against Glory.
But as Dawn and Spike explained, such actions were understandable,
and Buffy should have been able to predict it. Dawn and Spike
would have done the same if the situation was similar.
As for the fight, which is the subject of this post, I think Tara
pushed it. This is the first time I really have had anything critical
to say about Tara, but I feel she was being insensitive to Willow.
Willow didn't want a fight. She had no reason to fight. Now there
might have been issues that Tara had. With the quiet ones it is
often very hard to tell of issues bugging them, but Tara should
have known that it wasn't the time to face them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara, Arguments,
Reactions -- Humanitas, 12:35:45 05/07/01 Mon
I'm not sure blame can truly be assigned in a case like this.
It's clear that there are some issues in this relationship, as
there are in all relationships. I agree with te previous poster,
who said that this argument felt very real. I know I've had arguments
like this one, and been on both sides. If the relationship was
weak, such an argument can be fatal (to the relationship, not
the parties involved), but if the relationship has something substantial
behind it, they will come out stronger for having aired the issues
between them (as Giles pointed out). In this case, of course,
we'll never know, thanks to a certain Brain-sucking Hellgod.
The Good, the Bad, and the Grey
(Tough Love spoilers) -- rowan, 14:53:02 05/06/01 Sun
As I watched Tough Love for the second time, I felt that the scene
between Dawn and Spike is one of the most significant moments
of the season. Here's what they said:
Dawn: "This stupid Key must be something horrible...to cause
so much...evil."
Spike: "Rot--"
Dawn: "What do you know?"
Spike: "I'm a vampire. I know something about evil. You're
not evil."
Dawn: "Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'm not evil, but I don't
think I can be good."
Spike: "Well I'm not good and I'm okay."
Spike's last line really speaks to alot of the debate I've seen
on the boards this season over the nature of evil. Alot of us
have been uncomfortable with a post-chip Spike because we're concerned
that if evil creatures aren't inherently evil (but capable of
good), then the morality of the Buffyverse is shaken -- how can
Buffy slay, if evil creatures aren't really evil, but possibly
just...complex? or redeemable? Some of us have even debated whether
the canon allows any shades of grey.
But here, in a simple conversation, we see two creatures of the
very duality that disturbs us debating the very issue. Dawn looks
at herself and attempts to determine "am I good or am I evil?"
Spike at first moves to reassure her that she's not evil, even
going so far as to claim his own evil status as his ability to
discern her lack of one. When Dawn counters with the basic argument
that even if she isn't evil, she doesn't think she's good (still
attempting to categorize herself as one thing or its opposite),
Spike pauses for a moment and then (ever the philosopher) blows
the whole conversation out of the water by saying "I'm not
good and I'm okay."
Thank you, Monty, I'll take door Number Three.
This is a meaningful followup to Spike and Dawn's last heart to
heart (also in his crypt) in Crush. Here's what they said:
Dawn: "I'm not even human. Not originally."
Spike: "Well, originally, I was. I got over it. Doesn't seem
to me it matters very much how you start out."
Right smack in the middle of the Buffyverse, we now have this
third thing, which is neither (or both) good and evil, can change
over time -- and it's okay to be it. What makes this even more
fascinating is that Dawn and Spike are having this conversation.
Dawn has been confirmed as an innocent by three separate characters,
yet has the potential to open the door to great evil. Spike, an
evil monster as impure as the driven yellow snow, in a post-chip
life is having all sorts of good impulses (like comforting upset
children and protecting them from hellacious gods). All they'd
need is Anya to make the point even louder and clearer.
It seems that in a season about "identity", the most
fundamental identity question (am I good or am I bad? do I go
to heaven or do I go to hell? how can a god be evil? am I getting
hardened, or am I pure love?)is getting pretty muddled up in the
Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Good the Bad and Reality -- Rufus, 17:57:22 05/06/01
Sun
Yes we have had more Canon fire this year than ever before, all
because now we have to look a bit closer at the demons Buffy kills.
No longer can we point and shoot confident that we have conquered
evil. Spike with this little bit of plastic in his head, has set
off a war over the concept that evil or good can exist as an absolute.
I have always said no. I say that because how can good have any
meaning if there isn't evil to compare it to? Until last year
it was too easy to kill with no provocation, now, even Buffy has
to question the motivation of the demons she slays. I see that
as a good thing. It's easy to kill if you can justify the act
with proof of the evil intent of the demon you kill. Then there
was the debates I have had numerous times about the vampires ability
to love, I felt it was there and others used Canon to refute what
I said. Now JW has upped the ante by saying that the soul is just
the element that makes humanity go in the direction of good, not
very successfully a lot of the time. Vampires with no soul, were
predisposed to evil, but that isn't proof that they can never
do good acts as we have seen with Spike. I'm glad that we have
to wonder if Spike is evil or good or a combination of the both.
Spike may be as impure as the driven yellow snow, but we can't
ignore the fact that he can love and be motivated by love to act
against his evil predisposition. Canon stands until there is information
that proves it wrong. I think the Canon with the vampires is mostly
right. Most vampires will do evil acts, will kill everyone they
get then chance to. Now we have the chance that one vampire can
act beyond his nature, motivated by love. I don't think that changes
Buffys duty as a Slayer. The Slayer protects humanity against
the threat of demons. She slays to protect, just like she should.
I don't think the fact that one vampire is acting against vampire
nature threatens anything. Just like some humans become evil,
why can't some vampires become somewhat good? This doesn't mean
that they will want redemption, it just means that they will be
less of a threat. It means that like some humans exist as a grey
character, vampires can as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) -- Boxdman,
23:16:14 05/06/01 Sun
"I think the Canon with the vampires is mostly right. Most
vampires will do evil acts, will kill everyone they get the chance
to."
I think from what we've seen vampires don't kill everyone they
get the chance to. Other than major characters most vampires we
have seen have been killing because they're hungry. This leads
into another comment you made:
"I don't think the fact that one vampire is acting against
vampire nature threatens anything. Just like some humans become
evil, why can't some vampires become somewhat good? This doesn't
mean that they will want redemption, it just means that they will
be less of a threat. It means that like some humans exist as a
grey character, vampires can as well."
If a human, who is supposed to tend towards good, can be evil,
why can't a vampires, who is supposed to tend towards evil, be
good? But I take issue with all these assumptions. The way the
characters in BtVS and Ats are written eveyone makes their own
choices. Even if JW says things are a certain way, the way the
characters are written seem to contradict what he says (sometimes
I think JW just says stuff to be diplomatic, especially with DF
and his views on vampires). If the characters do make their own
choices, then societal influences come into it. In demon society
it is perfectly acceptable to kill humans. This is even more so
for vampires since their primary food source is humans. They also
have a built in blood-lust. Ask anyone who has had sex when they
shouldn't have how difficult it is to ignore something that is
ingrained into your makeup. And it goes on. In Caritas everyone
is expected to behave themselves, and they do. Giles says that
Vampire brothels are all over the place. Hmmm...maybe vampires
who don't want to hurt anyone but need food and need to satisfy
their blood-lust at the same time. The fact is that vampires are
seen as evil because they kill humans. If humans main source of
food was chimps and we had this huge rush eveytime we ate one
I guarentee that there would be nothing but chimp farms all over
the world. Sounds awful, doesn't it, but it is the nature of all
creatures to be selfish and it takes a lot of work to overcome
that basic human characteristic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) --
Rufus, 00:04:00 05/07/01 Mon
Why construct a rigid set of rules only to threaten them with
deconstruction when faced with new facts or reality? This season
has been about reality. What is real and what is false. Does reality
question Canon, or is Canon fixed and absolute?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish)
-- Humanitas, 13:09:30 05/07/01 Mon
Joss has been quoted as saying that the series is written to follow
Buffy as she grows up. A big part of growing up is learning that
the world is not black and white, is complicated. Thus, the show's
view of good and evil becomes more complex as Buffy matures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish) --
Max, 00:13:56 05/07/01 Mon
"I don't think the fact that one vampire is acting against
vampire nature threatens anything. Just like some humans become
evil, why can't some vampires become somewhat good? "
Don't see the analogy here, unless you are saying that humans
by nature are basically good.
Whereas Vampires are evil by nature, humans are neither good nor
evil by nature. They can be pulled either way given the situation.
They are kind of free agents in this whole good/evil thing.
The Buffyverse have creatures that are evil by nature, but we
haven't seen any creatures that are good by nature. Not that we
haven't seen good in the form of humans like Joyce, Buffy, Dawn,
and the Scoobies, and people like Tara and Riley. These individual
humans are very good, though since they are human, they have their
failings as well.
Is there any supernatural creatures that are good? The PTB are
against the evil, does that alone makes them good?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Good the Bad and Reality (longish)
-- Rufus, 02:05:35 05/07/01 Mon
I use the last thing written about what separates humans from
vampires. Joss answered a question regarding conscience:
"to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most
people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good,
you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite
star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like
it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good."
He said more but you can look it up at this site. So I base what
I say upon the Shooting Script and interviews. In the last interview
it's assumed that humans are guided by a star that predisposes
them to wanting to be and do good. The most demons and vampires
are guided by the opposite star. I hope my analogy makes more
sense now. When you look up the quote go to the part where JW
talks about the spectrum...
"I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting
their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere
in the middle."
Have fun figuring out where that leaves humans and demons in respect
to good and evil. Choice does seem to help determine the direction
either human or demon goes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers)
-- Sean, 20:45:23 05/06/01 Sun
The word "good" really bothered me her, because I am
unsure what Dawn means.
Dawn isn't evil, she is human. Humans are most often neither pure
good or pure evil, but a mixture of the two.
Spike is evil, but he has been doing good things.
I honestly don't know what Dawn was trying to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers)
-- Justin, 14:20:20 05/07/01 Mon
I think it was this year's season premiere that had Dracula accuse
Buffy of being a hunter and a murderer like him. It unsettled
Buffy terribly and it was THIS new fear she had, of liking to
hunt, that moved her to decide to continue her training. And it
was that, in fact, that got Giles to stay. Buffy set on a quest
at the very beginning of the season to find out about the DARK
side of the slayer's power. Buffy's a little bad, Spike's not
good but he's o.k., Dawn can't be good if causes so much harm.
And the whole dilemma was set out in the first episode. Damn good
writing. And Buffy's answer, so far, is that "Death is her
Gift." (to which I can only respond with Buffy, "what?")
I think, in a way, it's almost like a coming of age story. Someone
realizes at a certain age their potential for evil. That life
isn't as clear cut as they thought. What do they do? (or in reverse
vampirese...their potential for good.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers)
-- rowan, 17:28:38 05/07/01 Mon
Hmm...welll I guess I inadvertently opened up the "can Spike
be redeemed?" can of worms, when I was really trying to focus
on the "how come Dawn and Spike have such cool philosophical
discussions and what does it mean?" issue.
But hey, that's okay! AtltS, right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Grey (Tough Love spoilers)
-- Justin, 18:39:38 05/07/01 Mon
They have such cool conversations cause they're soul mates. It's
really funny. I mean, even if you didn't know that the writers
were going to make Spike and Dawn get along.... just imagine the
two characters they made. Put them in a room. They HAVE to get
along. I think THAT stuff, their conversations, was not a matter
of any decision the writers were capable of making. You create
Spike. You create Dawn. You put them in a room. It just works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Soul Mates -- Solitude1056, 18:52:57 05/07/01
Mon
Spike & Dawn, as soul mates. Hm. Well, it's not the first time
the Buffyverse has had a pair of soul mates who can't have sex...
*grin*
But honestly, there's so much in common between Dawn & Spike,
that even the brother-sister relationship is bound to end up being
deep & heart-felt. The idea that both started from some point
other than where they are now - to the extent that both were entirely
different types of creatures - human or energy. And the idea that
both aren't sure what they are now - good? bad? indifferent? And
finally the idea that both are peripherally part of a gang that's
traditionally not included them. I can't see them not bonding,
frankly. And I like their discussions - the two of them seem to
raise issues, between them, and discuss those issues with perspectives
entirely unlike any of the Scoobies.
Besides, IMO, the best part of their friendship is that Spike's
not one to go all reassurrey on Dawn, which is exactly what Willow's
been doing... nor will he go all authoritarian on her, which has
been Buffy's tack. Spike says it like he sees it, and still treats
her as an equal, just as she observed back at the beginning of
the season. Dawn really needs an equal right now, who protects
her without patronizing her, and who gives her the room to feel
like she gets some say in her destiny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Great insight! -- Justin, 14:27:13 05/08/01
Tue
Solitude, great description of why Spike and Dawn fit so well
together. Poor Dawn needs to feel like she has some control over
her own destiny. No WONDER she likes Spike.
I especially like the stuff about Spike treating her as an equal.
Which you wouldn't think at first, but it's true.
He didn't moralize one way or another with helping her to bring
her mom back. He was like an equal friend, who just knew she needed
help, and was going to do it anyway, so he backed her play. It's
one of the best relationships on the show now, I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Solitude1056, 15:56:30
05/08/01 Tue
The Buffy/Spike duo has sparks, but the Spike/Dawn duo has heart,
and that makes for way better relationship, IMO.
From the Horse's mouth... repost
of response to Wiccagrrl way, way down the board -- OnM, 21:41:56
05/06/01 Sun
Since the original thread is about to disappear off into the archives
at any mo, and I think it is a rather interesting topic, thought
I'd repost it here at the top.
Wiccagrrl had wondered about the *Fray* comic Joss is working
on, and whether it meant that there will be no vamps from sometime
in the near future until 300 years later.
This is from an interview by Dark Horse Comics with Joss. I'll
provide the link below the excerpt. Pretty interesting, and long,
interview.
***
SE-G: I want to get into the story of a little more, so this is
where I should start letting you talk a lot. Fray is a vampire
Slayer. How does she discover that?
JW: It's probably important to understand the world she live in:
there has been no magic -- no demons or vampires or magical creatures
-- on the earth for a few hundred years. The implication being
that something happened in the 21st century that sort of made
them all go away and no more is ever said about that. But, though
no Slayer has actually been called , the watchers counsel is still
around and it has become a bunch of insane, drooling idiots, and
a bit of vampirism has sort of resurfaced, but nobody knows what
it is. Nobody even knows they ever existed or has heard stories
of vampires -- that eradication really did `em in. So, Fray basically
someone who has always had this power in her, but she was never
trained and never "called." She's never had an outlet
for her power.
***
The link is:
http://www.darkhorse.com/news/interviews/sku_00018int/index.html
Very, very neat site, this is. Even if you're not big into comics,
you might want to peruse it anyway, some very cool stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I am really looking forward to this comic. Sounds very interesting.
-- Wiccagrrl, 22:05:37 05/06/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 2nd, related item, with link, for your reading pleasure...
-- OnM, 22:05:39 05/06/01 Sun
Joss just recently finished the third Fray script, right around
the same time the crew wrapped the 100th episode of Buffy, this
season's finale. On top of tackling those chores, he's turned
in three scripts for an upcoming Buffy: Tales of the Slayer book
coming from Dark Horse this fall. It's an eighty-page book with
stories written by Joss and his writing staff from the show, with
artwork by some of comics greatest talents: Tim Sale, P. Craig
Russell, and Gene Colan. Joss has dropped a lot of hints about
past Slayers, but this book is the only place you can get detailed
accounts of a handful of them, dating from the Primitive, thousands
of years ago, to Fray, hundreds of years in our future. Put it
on your reading list for fall.
http://www.darkhorse.com/products/zones/z_buffy/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Egad, WG! Look at the time stamps for our posts!!
-- OnM, 22:09:01 05/06/01 Sun
Redemption/Spike, 'The road to
hell is paved with good intentions', can the reverse be true?
-- abt, 01:58:09 05/07/01 Mon
spoilers up to 5.18, 'cos that's as far as I've seen... if replying
to my post please let me know of any spoilers past B5.18, A2.17,
as that's as far as I'm up to.
I just found this website last night, had a quick read, thought
in my sleep, and now it's 9.30am. So it's not very well thought
through yet, just glimmerings of ideas, but I'd like to see your
thoughts.
I agree with Fury that:-
A vampire with a soul is a very different thing.... It is still
a choice for Angel. Yes, he's driven by guilt, but he's also driven
by a blood-thirst. ...He's not sure if he can [be redeemed], and,
'If I can't be redeemed, what's the point? Why can't I just go
killing people?' That's the interesting dilemma for Angel. To
afford that kind of conscious choice on a character like Spike
would diminish both of them (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).
I agree that 'that kind of conscious choice would diminish them',
but...
Note the word "conscious". The road to hell is paved
with good intentions. Good people can unconsciously make choices
that send them in that direction.
If Angel has his eyes set on the goal of redemption and is climbing
his way towards it, it's possible that Spike is coming at it from
the other direction, stumbling backwards, wearing a blindfold,
without a clue where he's going. Could he walk into it not deliberately?
He has been doing good things recklessly.
But he is still a demon. Is there a glass ceiling?
Having a divine spark, a soul, doesn't stop you going bad. What
about a demonic spark, can it go good? Can a demon want it? I
suppose it is possible.
regarding Christian views on angels/demons and free will. usually
they seem to say, man has free will, angels/demons don't. But
then practically on page 1 of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, there's
an angel called Lucifer with what looks like free will, he chooses
to go bad.
Also from the Christian pov, think of the parable of the Good
Samaritian. The whole point of this parable was that the person
who helped was a Samaritan, not a Jew, not one of the Chosen people.
IIRC Samaritans were seen as "half-breeds" "tainted"
by non-Jewish blood.
Doing the right thing was what counted, not what you are. And
Spike has (perhaps unknowingly) been doing the right things.
Of course, he hasn't shown any signs of regret over killing. Major
drawback. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption/Spike, 'The road to hell is paved with good
intentions', can the reverse be true? -- Naomi, 10:41:38 05/07/01
Mon
People talk of Spike having the wrong intentions and claim they
are not willing to give him a chance until he behaves unselfishly
and is actions don't just revolve around impressing Buffy. However
he has genuine empathy for Buffy's fellings which was shown in
"Fool for love" and even Buffy felt obliged to thank
him for his "selfless good deed" in "Intervention".
Spike believed that Glory was going to kill him yet still did
the right thing. He was being tortured by a God and I doubt his
primary thought was i'll sacrifice my life for Buffy because that'll
really impress her. He withheld Dawn's identity because he didn't
want Dawn and Buffy hurt. Seems pretty selfless to me. He has
also been building up a protective big brother type of relationship
with Dawn and has helped her out in spite of Buffy as in "Forever"
when he went behind Buffy's back to help Dawn. Not to mention
leaving flowers for Joyce simply because it was the right thing
to do. In the beginning I saw all Spike's behavier as selfishly
motivated and saw some definite parallels with his feelings for
Dru and Buffy. He was simply trying to impress Buffy but he seems
to have moved on from that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Following up my own post, comments on David Fury/Spike/Angel
-- abt, 12:54:38 05/07/01 Mon
Just posted this on the Bronze, but I think it's more appropriate
here:-
I've read a few quotes from David Fury, here's what they made
me think.
Spike, boyfriend, it raises a lot of moral questions about our
characters, about the kind of people they would date. It would
speak volumes about Buffy in a negative way, if she were to reciprocate.
She is a strong, moral woman, and for her to suddenly go, 'Hey,
he is kind of cute,' that would diminish her character ([BtVS/AtS
writer] David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).
I agree
...my conviction [is] that Spike can never be redeemed... [He
is] a murderer who would be killing innocent people were he not
suffering from chip affliction (BtVS/AtS writer David Fury, Feb
13 9:48 2001).
Yes, if he weren't chipped. But he is chipped. And the chip doesn't
exist in isolation. Experiences affect murderers, the experience
of being in prison affects murderers, and I don't mean just as
a deterrent.
I hear you say, yes, but murderers are human and have souls and
can repent. Spike is a demon without a soul.
A vampire with a soul is a very different thing.... It is still
a choice for Angel. Yes, he's driven by guilt, but he's also driven
by a blood-thirst. ...He's not sure if he can [be redeemed], and,
'If I can't be redeemed, what's the point? Why can't I just go
killing people?' That's the interesting dilEmma for Angel. To
afford that kind of conscious choice on a character like Spike
would diminish both of them (David Fury, Zap2it.com, Feb 9, 2001).
So now the argument rests on the fact that Spike is a soulless
demon, or a demonic soul inhabiting a dead body. Whatever, he's
a demon, and that means eternally damned, doesn't it? According
to Fury it means Spike does not have a conscious choice to do
good. (Note the word 'conscious'). If that were so it would diminish
Spike and it would diminish Angel's uniqueness.
My point is, I don't entirely disagree. I agree that for Spike
to seek redemption in the same way as Angel would diminish them.
What I'm saying is, yes Angel is unique, BUT SO IS SPIKE. (In
a different way obviously, otherwise neither would be unique!)
There is a way for Spike, just not the same way as Angel. I say
this because of what Spike did in Intervention, a pure good act.
I'm not saying it would happen, just that it's possible.
Unless of course there is a glass ceiling for demons, that no
matter what a demon did it didn't count, then we're back to my
earlier post on the parable of the Good Samaritan. Also the example
of the Prio demon in Angel 2.01. I suppose it's possible in the
Buffyverse that even a demon who did everything right could still
be denied redemption. But that really is what it comes down to;
that's the only ultimate deciding factor when it comes to Spike.
Apart from that, anything could happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Following up my own post, comments on David Fury/Spike/Angel
-- Nina, 18:59:04 05/07/01 Mon
I know I was one of the person really bothered by Fury's comments
when the article came up. With months passing by and Spike's evolution,
I tend to see it a little bit differently now.
Has anyone noticed that when they like something in an episode
they usually end up saying that Joss is a god and when they don't
they take the writer down?
What we must remember is that JW reads and approves EVERYTHING.
(maybe not Fury's comments in an article ... but then he didn't
come on line saying that Fury's was out of line!) Episodes like
Crush or IWMtLY were approved by JW. Maybe he even was the one
coming with the original idea of a downward spiral for Spike.
The fact is that individual writers may have their views on the
characters. They can be redemtionistas or not. What we see, the
final result after their brainstorming is what JW authorized.
So when it comes to judging who is Spike? Can he love? Can he
do good? I don't believe interviews, I don't believe the script,
I believe what I see. The script is good to get details, to see
what's been taken away. But what was taken away was taken away
for a reason and is not part of the show anymore.
I am working on that musical thread I promised OnM, and I am watching
the whole season again. Concentrating on the music has it's advantages...
I didn't check who wrote what, who said what, I just watched trying
to give some sense to the musical themes this year. Spike evolution
is wonderfully built when you don't concentrate on him exclusively.
When you see the show as a whole and Spike as a part of that whole,
everything that happened made sense and was meant to happen.
Fury may not want Spike to end up with Buffy, but if JW wants
it, that's what we'll get. And if JW doesn't want it... then we'll
get something else. JW is really the god of his own show and whatever
he (or other writers) says... The character's actions and words
speak for themselves. After TL, I read Fury's comment and think
:"Dream as long as you want. The Spike we see on our tv screen
is not the same you're talking about!"
Hope to get back soon with that musical thread! :)
What does the chip mean for Spike?
not equal to soul, but something else? -- abt, 06:53:52 05/07/01
Mon
I know that effectively it's a prison. It's not a conscience or
a soul. What it does seem to do is force Spike down another path
altogether, off the beaten track. Where is that? Normally when
people say 'it's not a obstacle, it's an opportunity', I want
to smack them in the mouth. Maybe in the case of the chip it's
true however, in that it gives a breathing space to stop and think,
perhaps even grow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish, some
spoilers -- verdantheart, 14:07:47 05/07/01 Mon
The way I see it, the chip does not change what Spike is. However,
the limitations that it placed on Spike started to break him down.
Without the ability to prey upon humans, he feels less powerful,
less of a vampire. He was called "harmless" by the SG,
who let him live for this reason (ultimate insult?). He was no
longer the Big Bad.
Then he discovered that he could fight and kill demons. This allowed
him to work out some of his frustrations, but brought him into
more frequent contact with Buffy. I believe that it was these
two factors (the erosion of his self-image and his growing contact
with Buffy) that led his subconscious mind to show him that his
feelings for Buffy weren't hate, but, in fact, love.
Well, that hardly makes him a good guy, and the ways in which
his feelings for Buffy were expressed were frequently negative
(stalking, groping, baiting/tormenting). But the situation put
him at a further disadvantage because he knew his chances with
Buffy were nil. He couldn't admit he loved her; her power to hurt
him was too strong as it was ("Fool for Love"). When
she confronted him, he couldn't help but blurt out his feelings,
but was completely crushed ("Crush"). Her rejection
further tore down what few defenses he had left, but he was still
resilient enough to pretend that he thought he had a chance ("I
Was Made To Love You").
Even this has seemed to have been removed now. The events of "Intervention"
left him beaten and completely exposed. He was actually honest
about his feelings -- although he thought it was the Buffybot
he was talking to.
Now, in "Tough Love" he seems quite fully ashamed of
his actions and was barely able to look Buffy or Dawn in the eye.
He seems to want to behave in human ways (reaching out to pat
Dawn's head), but is afraid to (covering that action). Does he
feel unworthy, or unable to help, or afraid of exposing his emotions
even further, opening himself to further ridicule?
Little by little, his facades (masks?) have been torn away. Getting
back to the chip: I see the chip as a catalyst that allowed potential
change to take place. To continue the chemical analogy, the reaction
hasn't completed and we can only guess where Spike will regain
equilibrium -- if in fact he can.
I suspect that he is near bottom and will have to start rebuilding
himself, for better or worse.
The question is, if the chip were removed now, could he ever revert
to what he was? At this point, would he want to?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul,
but something else? -- Justin, 14:32:11 05/07/01 Mon
I love so many of the analogies Buffy makes for real life. A demon,
or a robot, never seems to me to be really a demon or a robot.
In this case... well I don't know if I can think of one for the
chip.
But I think it's a great device to use to accomplish this:
Spike got to interact in a real way with Buffy and the rest of
the gang. Because he couldn't hurt them, he had to talk to them.
The way Spike's character was built, we couldn't have had this
happen otherwise. I don't think the chip is really so much about
the effects of behavioral psychology, or the reality of a mechanical
soul....
I think that it merely makes Spike more real. And what a great
idea it was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to
soul, but something else? -- LURKER, 15:03:46 05/07/01 Mon
This might be slightly off topic, but I have to believe that at
some point the chip will be removed or else, what's the point?
It will have proven nothing except electric shock therapy might
work if used regularly in a Pavlov's dog-type scenario. Actually,
I often wonder if it's there at all or if it was ever there. The
doctor couldn't find it when he operated--or maybe the chip looked
like a penny and really was removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal
to soul, but something else? -- Rufus, 15:36:34 05/07/01 Mon
When was the last time that Spike tested the chip? He did feed
off that murdered girl in Crush, but when has he done anything
as of late to set the chip off? Has he even wanted to? Is the
chip a factor in his actions at this time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Really excellent point! -- rowan, 17:22:58
05/07/01 Mon
First, as I've said before, when does government issue anything
work forever? That chip has to be close to having its warranty
expire.
I don't know when Spike last tested the chip (I think you're right
and it was Crush), but do you notice that Crush was the last time
he lamented his state? Since then, he's moved on to another level
of acceptance.
I think the scenes with Dawn are the key (pun definitely intended!).
I said this below, so I won't bore you again, but he's gone from
being horrified that Dawn felt safe with him (in Crush) to attempting
to stroke her hair to comfort her (in Tough Love) -- plus, did
you see the look on his face when Dawn tried to take responsibility
for his bruises & limp? Spike's whole relationship to the SG and
even to himself changed in Intervention when he took that beating.
It's time (early next season) for that chip to come out so that
we can see what's to be seen. Spike is missing a soul, so he doesn't
have that shining star, that internal compass to point him to
true north. So, how does he know what right behavior is? He has
to see it to learn it. The more he sees it from the SG and the
more they reinforce his good behavior, the more likely it is he
can repeat it. Plus, we know that Spike is capable of love &
devotion. That's never been in question. If he forms real attachments
to Dawn and Buffy, would the removal of the chip change that?
I'm not sure, but I don't think it would.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point! -- Lyn,
18:00:13 05/07/01 Mon
I have often wondered if there really was a chip. It did seem
to me that the initiative doctor couldn't find it and so substituted
the penny. Could Spike have been so brain washed by his short
time in the lab that he truly believed there was a chip. But didn't
Dru "see" the chip? She's insane so I couldn't tell
if she really "imagined" the chip in his head or not.
I think it would be great if there was no chip. However, what
could push him back to the dark side now so that he would test
the chip? He wouldn't test the chip when Dru came for a visit,
he told her the pain was too bad. I do remember him willing to
endure the pain of the chip when he was going to shoot Buffy with
a shotgun! I loved that whole scene!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point!
-- rowan, 18:07:27 05/07/01 Mon
You definitely have to feel a little something for a guy who's
confused enough to fall in love with his sworn enemy!
I luv these stupid questions --
Emcee003, 10:07:46 05/07/01 Mon
What are the physical limits of vampires, as Spike spent that
time in a wheel chair before so that means that they could just
break. Yet we have seen cases of vampires falling from buildings
time and again. So just where is the vampire limit, becouse its
clear its beond that of humans.
Yet we see phyically weaker charicters on the show (yes I do know
that's just a TV show) seem to "dust" them with ease.
So how can such a soft body take such superhuman punishment???
The only really reason for this I can think of is that the Demon
soul that makes the vampire just some times forget that its only
human(???)
HELP ME PLEASE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I luv these stupid questions -- Justin, 14:43:45 05/07/01
Mon
Yes, and I had this problem.
In Intervention Spike gets taken by a bunch of those stupid hobbits.
(the only time these hobbits have ammused me was when they wanted
to kill Bob Barker). Now haven't we seen Spike be WAY stronger
than that? Buffy and Xander took a bunch of hobbits later in the
show. And Giles knocked one out with a DOOR.
I know, I know, it was necesary to continue a great plot. I loved
that episode. But it certainly isn't clear, I agree, just how
strong vampires are. I don't care how strong the hobbits are.
I want them all to die.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hobbits -- Unsung Hero, 16:49:29 05/07/01 Mon
Spike fought,like,Ten Hobbits- Buffy and Xander took 3. And they
didn't exactly beat Spike as much as they grabbed him and carried
him off and he was too badly outnumbered. I don't see it as a
plot device as much as I see it realistic. He was winning till
they grabbed his arms and they carted him off.
Spike had a church fall on his back, disabling his spine. That's
why he was out of action in a wheelchair, and he healed far quicker
than was apparent as he waited around in his wheelchair for a
chance to whale on Angelus. They fall from buildings(Angel SHOULD
have been pretty badly wounded when he fell from the Wolfram and
Hart building in "Reprise"- THAT was pushing it) and
stuff, but they are superhumans. They may have soft bodies, but
they are supernatural creatures and the natural laws of nature
don't exactly apply.
I think that's the only possible explanation. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Angel's imperviousness vs. Spike's squishiness
-- spotjon, 08:50:25 05/08/01 Tue
I wonder if the reason that Spike was so badly injured was due
to the fact that it was a church that fell on him, and not just
any old building. Crosses can burn vampires, and they generally
avoid the vicinity of churches, so perhaps that added to his wounds.
But, yes, I think that Angel should have had at least a couple
of broken bones after taking the plunge. They would have healed
quickly enough, but he should have been limping and breathing
(?) hard for a while.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Minions, not hobbits (JRR Tolkien is rolling in his
grave) :) -- rowan, 17:05:46 05/07/01 Mon
I'm sitting here LOL reading this post. I guess those little minions
do look a little hobbitlike -- if the hobbits spent some time
buried alive and decomposing. Poor JRR Tolkien is probably rolling
over in his grave!
Anyway, I do think Spike was fighting about 5 minions, wasn't
he? So I think that even though he's strong, they managed to surround
him and pin his arms.
I always think of vampires like dragons -- they have that one
spot on the soft underbelly (well, chest)and a disconcerting tendency
to spontaneously combust in sunlight. They seem to have great
regenerative powers, but can be damaged physically when pushed
very hard(like the burns suffered by Darla or Spike's spinal injury).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: spike and the minions -- Lyn, 17:27:40 05/07/01
Mon
I'm not convinced that Spike didn't "let" the minions
drag him off. He knew they worked for Glory. Maybe he thought
he could find out something to help Buffy against Glory. He just
didn't realize how much trouble he was in until Glory stuck her
fingers in his chest!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: spike and the minions -- rowan, 17:30:26
05/07/01 Mon
Hmm...wasn't he yelling pretty desperately that he wasn't the
Key when they shoved the gag in his mouth?
Although I will say that I'm glad they did catch him, since his
scene with Glory was among the funniest of this or any other season
(especially that hysterical laughter of his after he told her
it was Bob Barker).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: spike and the minions -- Justin,
18:30:57 05/07/01 Mon
His hysterical laughter was great. One of the best moments all
season. A long with Spike's PERFECTLY delivered "And my robot?"
His best insult on Glory? Calling her butt uneven. heh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Minions, not hobbits (JRR Tolkien is rolling
in his grave) :) -- Wisewoman, 17:31:21 05/07/01 Mon
One of the other boards refers to them as HwL (Hobbits with Leprosy).
Not meaning any disrespect to either hobbits or lepers (if any
of either still exist) but it is fairly apt *g* !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ROFL! -- rowan, 17:42:16 05/07/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's Xander-quotage, I forget which
ep -- Masquerade, 20:09:18 05/07/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "Intervention" -- Rufus,
20:26:21 05/07/01 Mon
Xander(to Buffybot): "The guys that work for Glory? You said
they were kinda like Hobbits with leprosy? Well, this was a whole
flock of Hobbits and they grabbed Spike, I think they are taking
him to Glory"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's right, there was alot
of LOTR allusions in that ep -- rowwan, 04:19:32 05/08/01 Tue
What sort of story is the Ben/Glory
story? -- Justin, 14:48:49 05/07/01 Mon
Here's a question. What sort of parallel to the real world could
the writers be telling by having Glory live in Ben?
I liked when he said, "These are MY choices!" But what
sort of thing do people go through in real life where they feel
possessed and they have their choices reversed?
Is Glory an over dominating girlfriend that's taking up all of
Ben's time with her "Me me me!" stuff? Is she a dominating
mother who he needs to break from to get control over his own
life? I really don't think it's sexuality or gender questions...
any suggestions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? -- Lyn, 17:46:37
05/07/01 Mon
The Ben?Glory story line is really complicated. Every time I think
I have it figured out the writers mess with my head. If Ben can
summon the Cueller to earth to do away with the crazy people that
Glory leaves in her wake, what else does he have the power to
do? And why does Glory always get her way when they body shift?
If his powers are so inferior to hers why doesn't she just squash
him?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story? --
Justin, 18:27:51 05/07/01 Mon
All good questions. And MORE importantly, why doesn't Ben squish
all the Jawas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory story?
-- Joann, 20:01:37 05/07/01 Mon
Maybe it is just the way I see it but I think it is so gross when
they come out of each other. I think they must be the most perverted
couple ever on BTVS. Everytime they turn in and out of each other
I just want to look away...ewwwwwww. And did he touch the Slayer?...more
ewwwwww. Dru appears positively sane compared to those two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A Family Affair -- Scott L., 05:24:20
05/08/01 Tue
So far it looks to me like a family business. Ben doesn't want
to be in the family business. He want to be, HORRORS! a doctor.
He has his dreams and ambitions, but his family keeps getting
in the way of that.
Glory and Ben haven't squashed each other because they occupy
the same space at different times. They can't connect with each
other except through minions.
Many sysfunctional families have similar problems. They won't
communicate with each other, but will have others send messages
about what one brother should do or another sister shouldn't do,
etc.
On more than one occassion Joss and company has said that this
season is about family and what defines it. If the Scooby gang
is a functional family, the hellgod trinity is dysfunction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A Family Affair -- Justin, 14:18:59
05/08/01 Tue
Scott that's a great analysis. I think it works quite well, the
two of them being brother and sister and Ben not wanting to be
in the family business. He doesn't WANT to be an evil god. It
works with the distorted form of communicating with one another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory
story? -- swyrlz, 10:00:34 05/08/01 Tue
apparently the writers put in a god just so Buffy could kill one....what
a waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What sort of story is the Ben/Glory
story -- SPOILERS FOR SPIRAL -- Scott L., 20:08:50 05/08/01 Tue
Well, with tonight's facts in place, my analogy needs a little
tweaking, but not much. Ben still wants no part of his destiny.
He's kind of like Buffy of the early years and much like Dawn
today. He doesn't want to face his role. I'm interested to see
what path this takes -- is he doomed or can he hold Glory back?
Is time working for or against him? Will Buffy get to kill a god,
or is there another answer to her gift?
Two weeks to go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What sort of story is
the Ben/Glory story -- SPOILERS FOR SPIRAL -- Rufus, 21:37:03
05/08/01 Tue
Ben has reluctantly shared his body with Glory all of his life.
He was innocent and can't be blamed for the situation. Now he
has to discover if he can murder a little girl he got to know,
to rid himself of his internal roomie. Or, is he willing to sacrifice
his life becoming for the first time himself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> another theory for Ben and Glory (slightly spoilery) --
purplegrrl, 08:18:04 05/09/01 Wed
If Ben and Glory are brother and sister (this is what we have
been told/lead to believe), could they come from a dimension that
only recognizes matriarchal gods, as opposed to patriarchal or
equal-opportunity gods? This being the case, it could explain
why Glory is stronger, more dominant than Ben; why she has worshippers
and he doesn't. The females are the gods, but need the males for
some sort of balance in their existence - balancing their powers
and excesses. Knowing he would never ascend to true godhood, Ben
left his home dimension and came to ours to live his own life.
Unfortunately, what he didn't realize was that the symbiotic relationship
he had with Glory could not be left behind in the other dimension
- Glory is still able to take over Ben's body/spiritual space
whenever she pleases and he can do nothing to stop her. Ben is
forced to continue to deal with Glory much the same way he always
has - trying to keep her excesses to a minimum and cleaning up
her messes as best he can.
Now Ben has a rock-and-a-hard-place choice to make: kill Dawn,
thereby destroying the Key and diminishing Glory's powers OR killing
himself, thereby saving Dawn and destroying Glory. How attached
is Ben to the life he has tried to make for himself? Glory has
done a pretty good job of interferring with it - Ben has no job,
seems to have no friends, and can't even get a date with Buffy.
Will Ben sacrifice himself rather than let an innocent (Dawn)
be sacrificed? If it truely comes down to this choice (after Buffy,
Giles, and the gang have exhausted all other options), I think
Ben will sacrifice himself.
But if Ben does sacrifice himself, destroying Glory in the process,
will the Knights of Byzantium leave Dawn alone? They consider
her some sort of big evil. Wouldn't they be afraid that some other
all-powerful being would try to open all the portals with the
Key?? The Knights are so concerned about destroying the Key that
they seem willing to risk chaos in this dimension to avoid chaos
in all the dimensions. Would Ben's sacrifice be for naught?
Chicks for Spike -- Justin, 14:55:50
05/07/01 Mon
Rowan and I proposed last week that Spike was too good for Buffy
and Rowan asked who WOULD be good for Spike.
Well? Names? Let's set him up. Maybe not with another Buffy character,
but from someone somewhere else in t.v. or literature land. Who
WOULD Spike go well with?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Willow -- Unsung Hero, 16:39:54 05/07/01 Mon
I remember for a while last season there was talk of Spike/Willow
stuff, and I found the idea appealing. She may have crossed over
to the "other side" now, but I always thought they'd
make a cute couple. And of course there's always Dru, who I'll
always say was the best match for Spike- In "Crush"
when they walked in together, it was so cool looking. Anya would
be good for him,too,judging from "Where the wild things are"
last season when he flirted with her in the Bronze. Honestly....anyone
but Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow -- Wiccagrrl, 19:09:15 05/07/01 Mon
Yeah, I saw some Willow/Spike sparkage- although, I still see
some of the same issues facing them as B/S (as in, he's not exactly
one of the good guys.)But then, I thought Riley/Willow had chemistry,
too. (More than B/R) And I've liked both the W/O 'ship and W/T.
Humm...seeing a pattern here. Maybe I just like the character
of Willow? ;)
Back to the issue in question, personally, I was always a sucker
for Spike/Dru. Or Spike/Anya has a lot of potential.
I do take some issue with the "Buffy's not good enough for
Spike" concept, but I will agree that they are not a good
match. I just don't see it happenning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow/Spike -- Joann, 19:54:38 05/07/01
Mon
Ever since "Lover's Walk" I have imagined them together.
Good meets bad, light meets dark and they create a mystique. Of
course, then there is Bad Willow from "The Wish" who
would also make a good match for Spike. Um...no B/S, yes, she
is too good for him. The Slayer is a heroine; He is the resident
permanent Bad Boy. I also like twisted Spike with insane Dru.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow/Spike -- Shaglio, 05:54:29
05/08/01 Tue
I think Willow and Spike would be good together. When Spike first
escaped from the Initiative complete with newfangled chip, he
went to Buffy's dorm room to get her. He then, as you all know,
attempted to bite Willow and couldn't. Their ensueing conversation
was highly comical and I think it showed how comforting Willow
could be to an ex-poet/hopeless romantic. Unfortunately, I prefer
Willow with Tara and Spike with Dru. But maybe now since both
Dru and Tara have gone off the deepend, Willow and Spike will
be drawn closer due to the common tragedy. They have a bit more
in common now that both their lovers are loonies.
I also like the Dawn/Spike scenario, and in a couple more seasons
she'll be legal. I will now be burning in a fiery hell for that
comment. Anybody have a message that I can relay to Holland while
I'm there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow/Spike (and shippiness)
-- Rendyl, 10:20:16 05/08/01 Tue
***I also like the Dawn/Spike scenario, and in a couple more seasons
she'll be legal. I will now be burning in a fiery hell for that
comment. Anybody have a message that I can relay to Holland while
I'm there?***
Tell him to send me something to protect me from the B/A shippers?
(evil grin) The problem with Dawn/Spike (even a D/S pairing in
a few years) is not only age but experience. We could argue that
Dawn is technically older than dirt but in terms of experience
she is only a few months old. She cannot even come near matching
Spike for experience in living (or non-living), and with the opposite
sex.
With Buffy and Angel he was always in control of the relationship.
He chose (with few exceptions) when and where they met, how often
they were together, and the tone of the time they spent together.
He constantly made decisions for Buffy without consulting her.
Even as late as IWRY he was -still- making important choices for
her. They may have been deeply in love (soul mates seems to be
term) but the relationship was still bad for Buffy. His leaving
hurt her deeply and she is still feeling the effects. It has influenced
how she sees herself and how she sees and relates to men. There
is a possibility Buffy will never completely get over Angel. For
the shippers this is great but in practical terms if they cannot
be together then she needs to be able to truly move on.
My concern for Dawn and Spike (other than the obvious ewww factor)
runs along the same lines. Does Dawn really need to have her associations
with men defined by Spike? Would he be as controlling as Angel?
Would Dawn always be subordinate or would they eventually even
out?
-Sorry to swing off topic-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn & Spike -- Solitude1056,
15:50:07 05/08/01 Tue
As I posted on another thread in this forum, I can easily see
Spike taking on a big-brother/Watcher type of relationship with
Dawn. I don't think the sexual relationship part is feasible,
for various reasons - not to mention it's a little eerie for any
older sibling to see that their younger sibling is following almost
exactly in their footsteps!
But the Dawn/Spike relationship, like the Cordy/Angel relationship,
can go places that the Buffy/Angel relationship didn't, because
the B/A setup was pretty, well, traditional. Girl meets boy, girl
loses boy, boy dies in teeth of combine engine. But Dawn & Spike
might explore other areas, such as the good-friends aspects played
up in Willow & Xander, and the sibling aspects played up in Cordy
& Angel. Joss may've played the usual fall-in-love card with the
B/A deal, but that doesn't mean it's the only template we have
in the Buffyverse. There are other ways for two soul mates to
interact and become very close, without sex being an issue.
Dawn's development over the next few years also will designate
a great deal of the extent of their interaction. Not to mention
it opens a lot of doors for the whole question of Spike=evil/soulless;
Dawn=unknown/unknown. There's a matching there unlike any other
two characters in the Buffyverse, and that's bound to bring them
together, if only as very close friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike (and shippiness)
- ignor e the ewww factor -- rowan, 19:25:50 05/08/01 Tue
Okay, this is gross, because JM is 32 years old and MT is 15;
Dawn is 14 and Spike is something like 120? But I think Dawn would
appeal to Spike because she causes his protection instincts to
emerge (much like Drusilla). However, I'm not sure (once she's
legal, of course) that she could keep up with him sexually.
So, Buffy for his Significant Other (now that she's behaving better
towards him) and Dawn for a little sister.
You must admit, Spike and Dawn do have the cutest little relationship
going, though. I love their scenes together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike (and
shippiness) - ignor e the ewww factor -- Solitude1056, 22:39:06
05/08/01 Tue
I still say it's possible to be soul-mates by virtue of bonds
created in something other than sex, that result in a relationship
that isn't based on sex. Who else, for the rest of her life, is
going to be able to relate to Dawn - assuming she lives? What's
she going to do, sit down with her intended & tell him/her that
she's actually an aeons-old energy source that could destroy worlds?
Can she have kids, would those kids carry her energy, could she
have a normal life, would she want a normal life, after everything
in the past year?
Buffy gravitated towards Angel despite the difference in their
age & outlook because he could relate to where she was as a person.
Spike can relate to Dawn, for many of the same reasons: background,
strange chance occurances outside their control, perspective,
values, and fears. But I also think Spike and Dawn have the chance
to do what Angel & Buffy did not do: and that is explore a relationship
based on the similar experiences outside of the sexual arena.
Frankly, I've seen enough moaning 'n carrying on between the sheets
on prime time TV... I really enjoy seeing some other kind of relationship
enacted, cause the godz only know there's more than just man-woman-sex
to the way people interact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree -- soulmates
know no agree boundaries! Vive la Spike & Dawn! -- rowan, 08:08:02
05/09/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Chicks for Spike -- rowan, 17:13:57 05/07/01 Mon
Well, my first thought is that Spike deserves me. But since he's
a fictional character and I'm not, I guess that won't work.
I like the relationship between Spike and Dawn. Unfortunately,
because of both the actors' and characters' age difference, that
relationship would be a little too Lolita for my tastes. Although,
I think she suits him. Ever notice they have the most interesting
conversations? But I guess we'll have to settle for him to be
a big brother to her.
I'm thinking we need an entirely new cast addition for Spike.
Maybe somebody more like Jenny C. Someone mature, intellectual,
who can occasionally put Spike in his place, but who can keep
him interested. I definitely think a witch would be a good match
for him. I do like Willow, but she seems a little soft and unassertive
for Spike. He might walk all over her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Lyn, 17:37:09 05/07/01 Mon
This is a very thought provoking question! At first I thought-Spike
and Lyla (of Wolfram & Hart) but Spike would end up being a boy-toy
because Lyla is way tougher than the new Spike. Then I thought
Spike & Anne (remember Anne from BTVS when Buffy ran away, and
then Anne showed up at the Teen center on Angel. Anne doesn't
seem to be afraid of any "big bads" and spike could
keep her from finding out he's a vamp until after she's in love
with him! I do like Spike and Dawn together but I just can't picture
them having a physical relationship (ewww!) They remind me of
Angel and Cordy, kind of big brother-little sister type. How about
one of the girls from "Charmed"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- rowan, 17:39:42 05/07/01
Mon
Maybe Piper from Charmed, but of course, she's already got a white
lighter, so why would she switch?
I agree that the Dawn and Spike thing is not possible (JM is over
twice MT's age!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Lyn, 17:42:02
05/07/01 Mon
If Pru can handle Balthazar she can handle Spike!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Justin,
18:26:21 05/07/01 Mon
You guys are cute.
I hadn't thought of Spike and Dawn. It's a pity she's too young
because you're right, their conversations are the most interesting.
They've got a very good chemistry. So I suppose it's good they're
friends. But I think he needs someone LIKE Dawn, only older. Of
course....then I'D want her. And Spike would have a fight on his
hands. (lord, keep his chip in.)
What about Spike and Ally McBeal. Heh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike and Aly! -- Wisewoman,
18:31:13 05/07/01 Mon
Oh yes, please! She's been able to find some flaw in every man
she's ever been attracted to. It would be great to have her fall
head over heels for Spike and then find out he's a vamp...I can
just imagine the conversations with Elaine in the unisex! ROFLMAO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, no -- she always
have Robert Downey Jr -- she doesn't get Spike, too! -- rowan,
18:34:47 05/07/01 Mon
Yes, we need someone like Dawn, but only about 10 years older.
I think Willow and Tara need to check out their witchy circles
to see if there are any likely candidates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gosh, I've got
to learn to type as fast as I think! :) -- rowan, 18:36:15 05/07/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, no --
she always have Robert Downey Jr -- she doesn't get Spike, too!
-- Justin, 18:48:43 05/07/01 Mon
I can COMPLETELY see Ally falling for Spike. Imagine Spike with
a bit of capucino on his nose and Ally all looking down shyly
and then dabbing the capucino off and saying,
"I'm McBeally, McBuffy, ur um... Ally. Hiiii."
But how would Spike react. Either flattered with a "Heya
doll. Howabout you and I...," lean in close or...
Crinkle up his face as if wondering what planet she came from.
Lifting her slowly in his arms. And snapping her gently in two
with narry a buzz from his chip. He deposits her in the nearest
trash receptical. Then he sort of looks around and says "Not
a Slayer really, hm? Right then. Whose next."
And RDJ comes up and pushes his glasses up with his little finger
and he's like. "Um...did you just...," gesture, blink,
look up, "Snap my girlfriend in two?"
"That's right. Sod off, lawyer boy."
ooh. cross over heaven. THEN what happens?
Anyway Rowan, I think Ally is done with RDJ. So maybe you can
have him now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Sod
off lawyer boy"....has a ring to it -- Rufus, 18:52:34 05/07/01
Mon
Of course I would never say anything like that myself.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Kyle, 07:30:25 05/09/01 Wed
Pardon me if I am mistaken, but isn't Willow already in love with
Tara? The thought of Willow ditching Tara for Spike seems far
worse than Spike going for a virtually young Dawn. Remember the
age where Spike comes from her parents would be searching for
suitors right about now. And Dawn technically is thousands of
years older than Spike. Bah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- rowan, 08:11:02 05/09/01
Wed
I guess the grossness of JM and MT's age difference is what is
bothering me more than Spike and Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Kyle, 21:03:25
05/09/01 Wed
Hey...in a perfect world age wouldn't matter in a relationship,
they would be based mostly on maturity and such. I can't help
but be sucked into the fantasy world where Dawn and Spike are
equal maturity level. That was one of the things I loved so much
about Rushmore. I could go on forever about that...but not here.
Hey Justin!!! what's up?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chicks for Spike -- Justin,
17:53:55 05/14/01 Mon
Shout outs to San Fran, Kyle. Good to see you! I been avoiding
this board because I CAN'T FIND TIME TO WATCH THE LAST EPISODE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Chicks for Spike -- purplegrrl, 13:48:38 05/08/01 Tue
I was thinking of Susan Sarandan - either her character from "White
Castle" or "Thelma and Louise." Both characters
are older, wiser women who don't take much stuff from anybody
(good for putting Spike in his place), and are down-to-earth,
a little world-weary, and still sexy. I don't think she would
mind that Spike was a vampire as long as he didn't steal her money,
trample her heart, or lie to her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Howabout Spike and Bjork? (NT) -- Justin, 14:09:21
05/08/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike and Mini-bit...ewww...makes me want
to heave... -- Joann, 19:31:00 05/08/01 Tue
Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love
& Possible spoilers for tonight's BtVS -- Brian, 12:38:01 05/08/01
Tue
Glory now knows that Dawn is the Key. How do the Scoobies get
out of her grasp? A friend suggested that either Willow does a
transportation spell on themselves or Glory, or she does the slo-mo
spell again. I suggested that Spike arrives and gets a little
revenge for his black eyes, something involving a large vehicle.
Any pre-show thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible spoilers
for tonight's BtVS -- FanMan, 13:41:12 05/08/01 Tue
Hitting Glory with a cement truck probably would not even stun
her. The teleportation spell reqired a chant and sprinkling Glory
with magic powder, Glory would recognize the spell and have plenty
of time to atack Willow. Also she had help from Tara the first
time. Teleporting the scoobies would be suicidle because Willow
has no control of where she sends things, also teleporting multiple
people would be more dificult and Willow was hurt bad from teleporting
just Glory. One spoiler said that Willow gets even more powerfull
than she was in TL!, I would guess the slow-mo spell. This ep
is about running from Glory and a confrontation with the NofB,
so any real combat with Glory will probably not take place until
The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible spoilers
for tonight's BtVS -- rowan, 14:22:20 05/08/01 Tue
Maybe Willow uses the "thicken" spell long enough for
Buffy and Dawn to run away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Escape - Spoilers for Tough Love & Possible
spoilers for tonight's BtVS -- FanMan, 23:04:22 05/08/01 Tue
You were right about a truck hitting Glory, however it did not
slow her down. Ben showed up, I won't say he saved the day but
he did give Buffy time to get away. Willow is getting more powerfull,
good now but I wonder what the long term consequences will be.
Buffy rambling & speculation --
FanMan, 13:30:12 05/08/01 Tue
The Buffyverse seems to have technology equvilant to our current
state. The energy guns of the initiative are like an upgrade of
tasers. Spikes chip: I realy hope there is no research going on
for something like that, but conspiracy theories describe similar
technology so I can't rule it out.It is a requrement to maintain
military technological superiority that secrecy be maintained
for new weapons, otherwise enemies can simply copy our state of
the art without needing to do as much research. So if technology
increases, the Buffyverse could have space stations, small space
colonies on mars etc... in a few centuries. Timeline for intersolar
space travel is undefined here and there.
I have some speculation that is not relivant to what will ever
happen in the show or various Buffy comics. In one comic it is
300 years since the last slayer; vampires and demons have not
been on the world for that long. Here is a different scenerio:
the human species spreads out in the solar system, then to other
stars. In this situation would there be one slayer per planet?
What about a dyson sphere? For those who don't know a dyson sphere
is a sphere built around a star with the entire interior surface
teraformed. The sphere would have a livable surface area equal
to three million Earths if it was the same diameter as the orbit
of Earth. Possibly that is wrong, the number 3million might be
a quote from Larry Niven and his ringworld novels: same concept,
but a huge ring instead of a sphere. Anyway if people lived on
a dyson sphere it would support a population of 18 million billion,
would there be three million slayers?....WOW!
On another point, new age spirituality has the concept that reality
is an illusion- not just new age- and that belief difines your
personal reality. Psychics claim when tested by scientists that
the skeptisism and "negative vibes" are the reason that
they are unable to produce impressive results. I think that is
Bull! Assuming that thought can affect reality here I would say
that reality has a stabilty factor, IE things work a certain way
and trying to change that while feasable is working against STABIL
REALITY. In the Buffyverse reality is more malleable, IE less
deterministic and easier to influence by belief. Note that magic
exists there despite the disbelief of the majority of humans believing
in a scientific world. In a theoretical situation where all vampires
and demons were banished from that Earth, demons would come back
as long as magic is relatively easy to use. My point is that malleable
reality, magic, and demons are all connected. You could not eliminate
only one. A second point is that the malleability of reality is
what makes magic possible, not belief. Belief is not required
to use magic either; the halloween ep with the fear demon- I forget
the title- has college students who do not believe in magic inadvertantly
completeing a demonic summaning spell.
This oppinion is explained very well in Mage The Accension, and
various roleplaying games when they talk about mana levels for
different worlds or planes of existance. Unknown validity in our
realverse, but I would like any comments about the validity for
the Buffyverse...Here a question like the chicken and the egg
quetion. Were demons realy first? With a malleable reality human
superstion and fear of the unknown could concievably create demons
and Gods. The remembered history of demons is irrelivent: the
subconcious of the human species could create entire demon cultures
retroactively like Dawn was created, but on a much larger scale.
In our realverse there is the creationism vs darwanism debate.
If our universe was created ten thousand years ago, our creater
has a wierd sense of humur, or is there another reason to have
fossils and geoligical "evidance" for a world older
than ten thousand years?
A crossover I would like to see is Moulder and Scully being given
the X-File of "Sunnydayle Hellmouth" I have always loved
their arguments. Moulder is a walking encyclopedia of wierd theories
and info. Even if he has no clue what is going on he is always
ready to speculate on supernatural/extraterestrial causes. And
he is right on a lot of the time. Scully does the same thing,
but tries to explain things according to consensus scientific
theories and research. In many cases they are both guessing, and
maby a third of the cases remain unsolved. I love speculation
in both perspectives. W&H=Alien Conspiracy, Lone Gunnmen=?,
Watchers council=?, I would like to hear Moulder and Scully specualate
about slayer powers and origins, I guess I will just have to wait
for The Gift...:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy rambling & speculation -- Jen C., 17:48:16 05/08/01
Tue
every time I turn on the NASA channel, I think what great Astronauts
Vampires would be...as long as you always kept them on the night
side of whatever they were floating around. Or maybe, they could
have very well shielded anti-sun suits. They don't need air or
heat, and I'm assuming you could send them up with Blood bars
or something like that. - just so you know that you're not the
only one rambling on today....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Lifestyles of the evil and stinky -- FanMan, 23:27:47
05/08/01 Tue
I thought that I had done enough rambling, so I stopped that post.
Here are the other items I had on my mind. In the theme of X-files
vs Buffy, if the general populance found out about demons & magic/aliens
and wierd tech what would the reaction be. Short term is easy;
shock, denial, curiosity. Long term, people would adapt to the
new info. Cival rights for vampires? Demons are peole too you
know... You get the idea. The reaction and cultural change would
be world wide and beyond the scope of a TV show. More scenerios:
withcraft 101 in college, Mage Unions, lifestiles of the evil
and stinky(grin), ecology of slime demons(grin)
Please add any examples, the sillier the better...:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Lifestyles of the evil and stinky -- fresne,
11:09:58 05/09/01 Wed
Well, for speculations in that direction you might want to read
the Anita Blake Vampire Executioner series by Laurel Hamilton.
Not for the squeamish, I mean really, but a very interesting take
on the Creatures of Night out in the open. Vampires do have legal
rights (ACLU thank you very much). Were is a disease and shouldn't
be (but is) discriminated against. Anita did get a degree in Supernatural
Biology in school. She makes an excellent "living" as
an animator (uncle died before he could write a will, no problem.
Make uncle a zombie, have him write a will).
Sometimes my housemate and I idly speculate on Buffy/Anita crossovers,
but Anita is so gun crazy, its hard to wrap your brain around.
Anita works on the theory that while, no a gun shot in the chest
won't kill a vampire, decapitating one with a machine gun will.
Did I mention that these are very violent books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Anita Blake - Very Violent - But great
reads -- Brian, 13:06:37 05/09/01 Wed
A Buffy/Anita crossover would be awesome. I imagine that they
could relate on some levels. Maybe talking about the pros and
cons of dating vampires. Of course, they both believe in doing
whatever is necessary to get the job done. However, with Anita,
there's just a lot more guts, gore, and guns.
So Many Moments, So Little ime
to mention them (Spiral spoilers abound) -- rowan, 19:10:00 05/08/01
Tue
Another gem. I may have heart failure before this season is over.
How can so many side-splitting scenes be included with so much
action and pathos? Another writing triumph.
Tonight, I spend some time honoring each member of the SG (including
honorary member, Spike)in my Top 15 Greatest Moments from Spiral.
1. Giles: "Weapons?" Spike: "You're driving one!"
Tara: "Don't hurt the horsies!" Buffy: "Aim for
the horsies."
2. Dawn tending to Spike's wounds, pointing them out to Buffy,
and Spike calling Dawn "sweet pea" (no blood related
nicknames tonight). If anything happens to Buffy, Dawn will have
a devoted vampire big brother for life, I think.
3. Spike telling Dawn very sincerely, "I should have nicked
the Porsche -- just enough room for you, me, and big sis."
Surely the world's strangest menage a trois.
4. Xander and Spike bondage (er -- bonding), including:
"Fine...shrimp."
"That guy is bloodsucking my last nerve right out of me."
Xander lighting Spike's cigarette: "These things will kill
you...oh, right."
Did you notice they were the first two to attack Glory after Ben
morphed?
5. Spike saving Buffy's life at least once, possibly twice (I
assume the pointy end of the sword through her skull would have
killed even a Slayer, and one of the KofB was about to axe her
after he knocked her down before Spike punched him); Buffy saving
Spike from at least a few missing body parts at the hands of the
same axeman after the chip migraine hit.
6. Buffy relying more and more on Spike's assistance, while almost
failing to see how effective Willow's magick is against Glory?
7. A scabby female minion!!?? With the hots for Ben, yet!
8. Spike and Giles arguing over the driving; Spike's goofy goggles;
"Buckle up kids, Daddy's putting the hammer down!"
9. Anya bringing a frying pan of all things -- and then using
it to save Dawn from the KofB!
10. The chip is in & functional -- Spike hits a KofB and lives
to regret it.
11. Xander threatening the KofB: "We do have your General
forehead guy."
12. Willow's witch ways are getting more and more impressive every
ep. Go Willow!
13. Giles: "As soon as Buffy arrives...we'll feel oddly worse."
14. Spike on Tara and getting burned: "No biggie...go ahead
and play peek-a-boo with Mrs. Sunshine all you like." A contrast
from Spike telling Xander they should make a break because at
least some of them will make it.
15. Buffy and Giles. Enough said.
And now to wrap up, here are the: 'Things That Make You Go 'Hmmm...'
1. Why the sudden sad mention of Riley from Buffy to Dawn?
2. Why is the SG so schizophrenic about Spike? In Intervention,
Giles and Xander were so sympathetic to him, but first thing in
this episode, they wanted him off the RV. Then, by the ep's end,
they're glad he's there.
3. Why did they show that Buffy and Spike scene from Crush before
the ep?
4. On BtVS, we have a Key that can melt dimensions together that
an ex-hellgod wants to use to go home. On AtS, we have a trip
to an alternate dimension and a desire to go home. Too coincidentally,
don't you think?
5. And so, the simplest explanation is true: kill Ben and you
kill Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> a Few of those Moments... -- Solitude1056, 21:49:44 05/08/01
Tue
a few notes, late at night...
6. Buffy relying more and more on Spike's assistance, while almost
failing to see how effective Willow's magick is against Glory?
She didn't fail to see; she had Willow act magickally whenever
possible. But Buffy's also (probably) fully aware that Willow's
going to have her hands full with Tara whenever the going gets
rough. And Willow did, and did her best to assist Buffy but her
mind is back on Tara.
10. The chip is in & functional -- Spike hits a KofB and lives
to regret it.
So much for the theory that the chip is dead, and Spike's just
re-enacting the expectation that he'll get a headache. Unless,
of course, the Key is what's keeping the juice in the chip.
14. Spike on Tara and getting burned: "No biggie...go ahead
and play peek-a-boo with Mrs. Sunshine all you like." A contrast
from Spike telling Xander they should make a break because at
least some of them will make it.
Spike's got his fair share of understanding women who aren't mentally
all there, yanno. Dru certainly had her moments, and I suspect
Spike's got a soft spot somewhere in him for someone who loves
a person in that condition. He's certainly hardly one to have
any ground to get angry at Tara for her lack of awareness of the
consequences, or at Willow for trying to protect and control Tara
in rough circumstances. At the same time, Spike's no dummy, and
given the odds, would probably be willing to sacrifice himself
and any others necessary to make sure that Buffy and Dawn got
away from danger.
1. Why the sudden sad mention of Riley from Buffy to Dawn?
It seemed to me that Buffy was finally registering - and listing
- all the losses she's had this season. Like she said in Forever,
if she stops &
thinks about what's going on, she's overwhelmed by it all.
2. Why is the SG so schizophrenic about Spike? In Intervention,
Giles and Xander were so sympathetic to him, but first thing in
this episode, they wanted him off the RV. Then, by the ep's end,
they're glad he's there.
I don't know if Buffy told them what Spike had said, or not. It
doesn't seem like there's been more than a day or two respite
since Intervention, so I doubt it. While Scoobies were sympathetic
after his Glory debacle, without full knowledge of what's gone
down, I could easily understand their reluctance to have him along.
And one thing you didn't mention: while it was impressive with
the black contact lenses last episode, I noticed that each time
Willow runs through magick this episode, her eyes were black again.
Ok, this is a little creepy, folks, since that's the same eyeball
action that Doc had. Maybe there's something to that whole corruption-of-power
notion that others were suggesting. I'm still not convinced that
there's a risk of "go straight to jail, do not collect two
hundred dollars" in the soul arena, but those eyes bothered
me. It just seemed like that's something that may come up again,
if not in the next few episodes, at least in next season. Foreshadowing
for the next arc, anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- FanMan, 23:46:02
05/08/01 Tue
Willow is getting more powerfull. Her eyes do look like the Docs.
I would say that she will face some consiquences of her new power
next season. One thing is that maby using a certain type of magic
makes your eyes turn pitch black. So what spells does the Doc
use if Willow only got black eyes after using spells from a book
of Darkest Magic?
If Buffy needs pain to make her stronger like a weapon tempered
in fire, she has had plenty this season. This has been the most
brutal season for Buffy emotionally so far. I am looking foward
to the conclusion of this season, but then I want to see some
silly and fun episodes next season. Even though Buffy is fictional,
I care about her and feel sympathetic pain when she is unhappy.
I need to cry...actually I'm not that bad except for The Body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good witch vs bad witch (speculation about next
season) -- Umbriel, 00:34:48 05/09/01 Wed
Whether or not there are any other consequences to Willow's use
of dark magic, she will have at least one thing to deal with because
of this: Tara's reaction when she finds out (I'm assuming she
is restored to her former self eventually). She has been quite
opposed to the use of dark magic in the past, and I'm wondering
if this is just because of what she's learned as a Wiccan, or
if we will discover that she has had a more personal experience
with the negative effects of dark magic. For instance, while she
has mentioned the death of her mother several times, I don't recall
(but correct me if I'm wrong) Tara explaining how she died - which
seems strange. You'd think she would have mentioned this during
one of her conversations with Willow, Buffy or Dawn. Could her
mother have used dark magic and died because of it? This might
be a terrible enough memory that Tara would avoid bringing it
up. It's ironic that the power that the power that Willow used
in her attempt to avenge Tara could also be the thing that drives
a wedge between them. This is just wild speculation at this point,
but it would be a possible way to further develop the Willow/Tara/dark
magic storyline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- Amber, 00:09:01 05/09/01
Wed
>2. Why is the SG so schizophrenic about Spike? In Intervention,
Giles and Xander were so sympathetic to him, but first thing in
this episode, they wanted him off the RV. Then, by the ep's end,
they're glad he's there.
I think the main reason is that Spike is "schizophrenic"
about helping them. Xander and Giles were too nice to stake him
while he was down in "Intervention", but they know he's
a loose cannon. There's no way for them to know he won't turn
on them midway through the battle with Glory. After all, that's
what he did during the Adam sitution last year.
Spike has never tried to prove his newfound "goodness"
to Xander or Giles. So far, he's only attempted to prove to Buffy
that he's a better man, er vampire, now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- bea, 05:36:27 05/09/01
Wed
i like your list of moments ! this episode was a gem, if only
for the goggles... someone commented in an above thread that spike's
speech to xander about buffy and the niblet taking off was "chilling".
i saw it in another light. if he can recognize the importance
of getting the key (dawn) away from danger, even at the cost of
his own un-life, who says there isn't something in him worth saving
? true, he feels something for dawn and buffy, so it colors his
judgement, i'm sure, but... . it's interesting... just pay attention
to the smallest details : who helped buffy block the door with
the machine ? who helped xander get Giles onto the table after
he was wounded ? it seems to me, conciously or unconciously, Spike's
learning how to help. learning what's expected of him in a group,
in a relationship with people who aren't necessarily love objects.
he functioned like one of the SG yesterday. his treatment of dawn
is almost brotherly. and i think the "you can play with happy
mr. sunshine all y'like" scene was definitely different.
i liked your take on spike's understanding of tara and willow.
it's one of those character growth-y things.... i'm not saying
he's a totally changed vampire or you'd want him in your basement,
but... he's not the man he was in season two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- rowan, 07:56:16
05/09/01 Wed
"it seems to me, conciously or unconciously, Spike's learning
how to help. learning what's expected of him in a group, in a
relationship with people who aren't necessarily love objects"
So true! With no soul, Spike's only way to better behavior, IMHO,
is for him to emulate what he sees. Often, he mirrors whatever
he sees from the SG. Notice Dawn. She treats him with respect,
and he returns the favor. Willow apologizes for Tara, and Spike
softens. Buffy has started talking to him like a person, and he
does the same. With Giles and Xander, who still treat him guardedly
(with good reason), he is more sarcastic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... -- DEN,
11:55:54 05/09/01 Wed
In her use of dark magick Willow, more than any of the gang, is
directly confronting what Sartre calls the "dirty hands problem."
In a world where evil does not fight fairly, and where the consequences
of defeat are absolute, where do we draw the line in our choice
of means? Is it justified to bomb Dresden to destroy Auschwitz--or
rather, the system that created Auschwitz? Perhaps saints and
paladins can combat the darkness without risking contamination
by it. But the Scoobs are not saints or paladins. They are just
people, caught up in a war they did not want, having to rely on
their hearts and their spirits to guide them in making decisions.
Me, I'll bet on Willow's great heart any time, to bring her safely
along the dark road.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments... --
LoriAnn, 17:13:09 05/09/01 Wed
"Me, I'll bet on Willow's great heart any time, to bring
her safely along the dark road" eventually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: a Few of those Moments...
-- rowan, 18:19:13 05/09/01 Wed
Yes, I think Willow will be okay in the end. She's great.
The Knights and the Key spoilers
for Spiral -- Rufus, 19:16:27 05/08/01 Tue
When I'm wrong I'm wrong. I thought the Knights were a backup
to the Monks....nope. But now I'm left with a few questions about
the function of the Monks and why Glory knew the General by name.
Glory is part of triumvirate of Gods that ruled another dimension,
til Glory got a little to big for her shoes. Then they got rid
of her by forcing her into a vessel....that is Ben. So Ben is
human and he wants to live. So Glory wants the key to get home...Ben
wants to make sure that the key can't do the job...will he be
able to kill Dawn? I was right about all the dimensions opening
and chaos happening.....but is that all the key was made for?
The key is only slightly younger than Glory...and the monks felt
that it could be used for the side of light. The Knights want
Dawn dead...so it seems does Ben...Glory just wants to do what
it takes to go home(most likely killing Dawn in the process).
My questions are....how do the Knights know about Glory and the
key? How were they summoned or were they chasing the key like
Glory has been? There is the assumption that the Key has only
one function..except for the monks...so what other function were
they grooming the Key to perform? Important enough to make the
key human and sentient? Notice all the reference to light...Buffys
love is brighter than the flame...the monks work for the side
of light....then notice how black Willows eyes have become....and
Spike, he is just along for the ride, right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral -- rowan,
19:33:25 05/08/01 Tue
"The Knights want Dawn dead...so it seems does Ben."
I don't know that Ben wants Dawn dead. I kind of thought the opposite,
once he was confronted with her in actuality. Of course, he did
indicate to the female scabby minion that Dawn's death would allow
him to live, but he couldn't bring himself to do the deed when
presented with the opportunity. My initial impression of Ben is
now firming up: he's a coward and deceitful. I'm not character
bashing here, but I think that's what the writers want him to
be.
"I was right about all the dimensions opening and chaos happening.....but
is that all the key was made for? The key is only slightly younger
than Glory...and the monks felt that it could be used for the
side of light."
Dunno...I have two thoughts. My gut tells me that the Key is for
more than evil. After all, Spike told Dawn "You're not evil"
and Spike is known for begin able to read people and situations.
One thought is that during the last two eps, we'll discover (or
Dawn will) that she's more than just the key to unlock dimension-melting
fun. Or, Glory will be stopped, but the question about Dawn will
wait for next season.
More and more, Spike has become Buffy & Dawn's protector (a strange
role for him). He saved Buffy from death at least once in Spiral
(the sword coming through the ceiling) and from grave harm (the
axe wielding Knight). Plus, he's always the first one in to address
any physical threat to Dawn or Buffy. Where most of the SG hang
back and let Buffy do the rough work, Spike jumps in to help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Simplicity has its own complications.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Rufus, 19:43:12 05/08/01 Tue
The solution to the problem is simple either kill Ben and Glory
dies, or kill Dawn and the key can't be used(are they sure of
that though). The problem with the simplicity of the solutions
is that we then have to deal with conscience, on the part of Ben
and Buffy. The Knights seem to have no problem killing a little
girl to solve the problem as they see it as a step to save the
world. Then you have to consider the fact that they have had no
contact with Dawn and have no emotional ties. Ben wants to live,
preferably at the expense of Glory. But after meeting and getting
to know both Summers girls, can he kill Dawn? Then if you kill
Ben to get to Glory can Buffy do the deed when Ben is basically
innocent(mostly). So Buffy has a gift and the gift is death......how
do you choose? Who is the sacrifice to save the world?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Simplicity (and season ender spoilers) -- rowan,
20:03:12 05/08/01 Tue
"The Knights seem to have no problem killing a little girl
to solve the problem as they see it as a step to save the world....Then
if you kill Ben to get to Glory can Buffy do the deed when Ben
is basically innocent(mostly)."
This a very astute and important point. It is what differentiates
Buffy from these men (who I think are no better than mercenaries
and were treated in Spiral with alot of irony). How can Buffy
sacrifice Ben (who is, in the words of the General) an innocent
vessel selected to house the Beast? If season ender spoilers from
Wanda are to be believed, then Buffy will not be able to do this
and another SG member has to (Giles, although this would be a
perfect role for Spike, since he is evil, after all, and certainly
wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone to save Dawn).
I suspect, in the end, that Ben will turn out to be less innocent
than we currently suppose, and he will probably desire to do anything
to save himself. After all, if you were Ben and you were the vessel
holding a hell god, wouldn't you kill yourself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Death is your gift -- rpcvc76, 20:42:39 05/08/01
Tue
My two cents:
Both Dawn and Ben are innocents. Until recently, Buffy has only
known Dawn as her sister. And she she's learned that Dawn is the
key to other dimensions and using her as the key could bring total
destruction to the world (or something to that effect). She also
learned that Ben's body is just a vessel for Glory and he has
no control over her actions. Now, knowing that Dawn, as the Key,
can be used for world destruction, even though Buffy loves her
sister, may cause Buffy to consider, perhaps at the last moment,
to do the inevitable - kill Dawn to save the world. Especially
when she realizes she can't kill Ben, even if it will destroy
Glory, because Ben is an innocent mortal human, not a demon or
hellgod. In killing Dawn, she's saving everyone else. Especially
since Dawn doesn't really exist. I know it's a stretch to think
Buffy would kill her own sister, especially after losing her mother,
but she did "kill" Angel to save the world before, and
she loved him. Besides, my whole point is that I think that since
Buffy's gift is death, *perhaps* Dawn may live. I know I don't
make any sense. OK, if Buffy kills Dawn, her gift (of choosing
to kill the right? person) may be that she gets her sister back.
She chose the death of her sister, the key, which saved the world.
Her love of humanity was so strong, so as a gift to her, she gets
her sister back, without being the whole key thing. Ok, that's
my theory so far. I hope it makes sense to someone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Death is your gift -- rowan, 21:07:56
05/08/01 Tue
Well, although I see your points, I have a few thoughts.
"I know it's a stretch to think Buffy would kill her own
sister, especially after losing her mother, but she did "kill"
Angel to save the world before, and she loved him. "
When Buffy killed Angel, he was a demon. He was no longer a vampire
with a human soul. Dawn and Ben are human. Although Buffy at first
was repelled by the idea that the monks created Dawn and inserted
her into her family, by the time Dawn cut her hand, Buffy was
firmly convinced that (in her words) Summers blood runs through
both their veins. Every episode since has further reinforced that
Buffy believes whatever Dawn was, she is now fully human and innocent
of the true nature of the Key. I just can't see her sacrificing
Dawn.
"She also learned that Ben's body is just a vessel for Glory
and he has no control over her actions."
Buffy has just learned this information (from the Knights). However,
I think the potential exists that as events are revealed (remember,
Ben did summon the Quellar demon, which was so horrible that even
Spike screamed), Ben may be a tainted innocent at best.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Death is your gift -- Wiccagrrl,
23:00:05 05/08/01 Tue
When Buffy killed Angel, he was a demon. He was no longer a vampire
with a human soul. Dawn and Ben are human.
Ok, I don't think Buffy's going to be able to bring herself to
kill Dawn. Not only does she completely think/react to Dawn as
her sister, but Dawn is Buffy's strongest link to Joyce, and one
of Joyce's last wishes was for Buffy to protect/look after Dawn.
But, about the events of Belonging...the real tragedy of what
happened there was the Angel's soul was restored at the last moment.
He didn't remember any of the things that had happened during
his time as Angelus. So, she wasn't just killing a soulless vampire
who happened to be wearing the face of someone she'd loved. He
may not have been human, but Buffy was killing someone she loved
and who loved her, who had a soul, who didn't remember what had
happened, because it was the only way to save the world. He wasn't
"just a demon" when she was forced to run him through.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Death is your gift -- rpcvc76,
23:02:17 05/08/01 Tue
I first thought that it might be Giles who would die, but after
thinking about it, it makes more sense to me that it might be
Dawn. Especially when Joss talked about the 100th episode in an
interview "'There really isn't much I can give away. It's
a resolution of Buffy's family and her relationship with Dawn.
Who is Dawn to her? All of this will be resolved in the context
of an apocalyptic war - of course.' Rumors that another major
character will die before the end of the season have been percolating
in chat rooms and fan web sites. Whedon offers no consolation.
'You should be very worried,' he said gravely."
I don't think that at this point, well before her current state,
she would have even considered sacrificing Dawn. She may not even
consider it until it's too late, when she sees there are no other
options left. I know that in her heart she feels Dawn is her sister,
her family. Which is why it would make it that much more heartwrenching
to see Buffy sacrifice Dawn for the sake of humanity. Which is
also why I think that in Dawn's death, she gets her "gift"
- Dawn. I know I don't make much sense, but in my mind it makes
sense.
"When Buffy killed Angel, he was a demon. He was no longer
a vampire with a human soul."
When she drove the sword through Angel's chest, I believe she
realized that Angel was back, and that Angelus was gone. She knew
what she had to do to save the world, even though she loved him.
She was ready to kill Angelus, not Angel. Yet she did when the
time came because it was her duty.
"Buffy has just learned this information (from the Knights)[that
Ben's body is just a vessel for Glory]. However, I think the potential
exists that as events are revealed(remember, Ben did summon the
Quellar demon, which was so horrible that even Spike screamed),
Ben may be a tainted innocent at best."
I agree that Ben may be "tainted" but he had no choice
over the matter. He's had to live with Glory inside of him all
of his life - since he was born. His actions of late and the summoning
of the Quellar demon are questionable though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Innocence -- Solitude1056, 22:46:14 05/08/01
Tue
Both Dawn and Ben are innocents.
Innocent of what?, I have to ask. Ben's hardly innocent of Glory
and her intentions, yet he's courted trouble by being near Buffy
ever since he found out she's got the Key. Dawn, on the other
hand, hasn't known her origins, or her purpose, except in bits
and pieces. I'd say that's pretty "innocent," by my
standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Simplicity has its own complications.....
-- OnM, 21:36:22 05/08/01 Tue
Too tired at the moment (12:30 AM Wed. here in the East, and it
was a long day job-wise for the audio man) to contribute anything
muchly useful, but before catching some z's just wanted to thank
Rufus for that *great* phrase!
Masq, take note-- sums up ATPoBtVS even better than 'Profundities
'r' Us'!! ;)
G'nite, all! Back tomorrow...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral --
Scott L., 20:01:40 05/08/01 Tue
The knights are zealots believing a particular dogma. That's the
role of the warrior, to fight without question.
Monks are contemplators understanding a particular dogma. That's
the role of the contemplative, to question.
Perhaps the monks realized that if the key could dissolve the
barriers between the hell dimensions and earth, the key could
dissolve the barriers between the paradise dimensions and earth
as well.
The potential to gain paradise is great, but not without risk
of torment. The knights cannot bear the risk -- or even the thought
of that risk.
<{Where most of the SG hang back and let Buffy do the rough
work, Spike jumps in to help.}> --PASSIONATE SPEECH ALERT--
Tara allowed her mind to be devoured by a hell-god rather than
reveal the key. Anya confronts her mortality with fry pans and
thoughts of pianos. Willow risked her life and her soul to confront
Glory. Giles took a spear in the gut and told the slayer how proud
he is of her. Dawn has fought a quellor and and egg-demon. Xander
gets tossed around more than my shoes and takes more bad guys
out doing it. Spike is super strong, tough, and, yes, even brave.
The gang brings their strengths to the war: Mind, Soul, Heart,
and Hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral
-- rowan, 20:06:26 05/08/01 Tue
Hey, down boy, I'm not criticizing the SG, I just see their role
as usually more passive than Buffy or Spike when it comes to the
confrontations. Given their lesser physical strength, though,
it makes sense for them to hang back. But I also find it puzzling,
since Willow seems to me this season to have really increased
in power. She has alot of power to bring to the fight at this
point.
I also think Spike's jump to action can be a negative, because
he precipitates situations before they've had a chance to think
things through. He also seems willing (much like a good soldier,
I guess) to sacrifice anyone else in the group for the surival
of some of the good (note his speech at the end to Xander, which
was quite chilling, I thought).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for
Spiral -- Scott L., 04:37:53 05/09/01 Wed
Well, as long as you aren't slagging on the gang, I guess I'll
let it slide ... :-)
"Willow seems to me this season to have really increased
in power. She has alot of power to bring to the fight at this
point."
The magicks that Willow has shown have been mostly defensive with
some ineffectual knife throwing tricks on the side. I'd like to
see more of what she can against a "mere" vampire nowdays,
though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral
-- DEN, 21:16:49 05/08/01 Tue
Scott--WORD plus to your take on the gang at war. The scenario
was borrowed from every western since "Stagecoach" --but
the hearts and souls of the characters made it work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral
-- Rufus, 21:27:59 05/08/01 Tue
What sacrifice is worth paradise? What can make gods tremble?
Why create an instrument of Chaos?
What Giles said to Buffy sticks in my memory..."What you
did was necessary..What I've always admired....being able to place
your heart above all else..I'm so proud of you. You've come so
far. You're everything a watcher...everything I could have hoped
for." That almost sounded like a goodbye as much as a pep
talk.
We have the Knights ready to kill whatever form the Key is in....we
have the monks that were very careful in selecting the form the
Key became. I still think those Monks were smart guys...they valued
the potential of the Key so much that they ensured that not only
would the key be protected, but loved as family...loved with all
Buffy and Joyces hearts. In this placement of the key they also
ensured that the key would know love, and know how to love....I
think there is a very good reason for all the choices the monks
made. What value does the key have other that destruction? Why
ensure the key be loved as well as protected? Love will bring
Buffy to her gift....love brighter than the flame...the only thing
to hold Buffy back will be fear. What will Buffy become when she
finds her gift? At what sacrifice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for
Spiral -- rowan, 08:02:55 05/09/01 Wed
Yes, both Giles and Buffy thought he was dying at that moment.
I guess he wanted to make sure things were said that needed to
be said. That's what made Buffy resolve to get the medical help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for
Spiral -- OnM, 08:30:19 05/09/01 Wed
*** "What Giles said to Buffy sticks in my memory..."What
you did was necessary..What I've always admired....being able
to place your heart above all else..I'm so proud of you. You've
come so far. You're everything a watcher...everything I could
have hoped for." That almost sounded like a goodbye as much
as a pep talk." ***
What struck me most about this is how exactly it mirrors the scene
with Joyce in the hospital, before her surgery. It was clearly
foreshadowing to Joyce's eventual fate. Is the same going to be
true of Giles?
He's still my most likely choice to exit-stage-death in terms
of the endseason shows. That being said, I'm still really pleased
that even as we draw closer to ep. 100 I still don't have any
real clue as to how they're gonna wrap this.
Also, Rufus, I agree that there just has to be some other potential
for the Key, one that the Monks envisioned. The Knights may be
correct that they are 'foolish' for whatever idea(s) they had/have,
but fear of the universe ending is a pretty good reason to be
doing what they are doing, so one can hardly pin them down as
one of the 'bad guys' in all of this.
Many other thoughts starting to form re: this ep. Gotta go now,
but be back later on tonight. See ya!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral --
Solitude1056, 22:33:27 05/08/01 Tue
Actually, Ben doesn't remind me of Dawn, so much as Buffy, when
she split town after doing Angel/us in. "All I want is to
be left alone in a quiet room with a roaring fire and a tea cozy,
and I don't even know what a tea cozy is... but I want one."
Something like that - but very much the "why can't I be left
alone, and just be a normal person?"
If Ben is mortal, well, that sucks mightily that they picked him
randomly just because he happened to be male & newborn at the
time that Glory was thrown out of Hell. But your average mortal
doesn't know how to call down Queller demons that haven't been
paged since Da Vinci was in diapers. Who was Ben talking to, that
he got such knowledge? - unless the scabby female minion was feeding
him the lines. I suppose it's possible.
The comment about drugs keeping Glory down explain why we saw
Ben thefting them early in the season... and it does explain some
of his reasoning behind being a doctor: easier access to the heavy-duty
stuff, if that's what was required. But I agree: if it's really
a hell-god in your head, suicide seems like the only other option,
harsh as that may seem to say from someone not in that position.
In some ways it's remarkable that Ben is as tenacious as he is.
And the recent explanations about Ben's past & his role in this
may be pat, but they just don't add up right. He just doesn't
act like an innocent - more like he's guilty by association, somehow,
for enabling Glory.
Dunno! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral
-- FanMan, 00:16:02 05/09/01 Wed
Do the knights know more about the key? Something that is thousands
of years old should be very hard to destroy. Killing Dawn, what
does Dawns blood have to do with anything? The Key was formless,
and could have been turned into a bycicle pump! What in a bycicle
pump is equivilent to blood? If Dawn dies, that should not be
enough to destroy the Key: her physical body, personality, and
soul, are aspects of the Key, not the essance. If simple destruction
of her physical manifestation is all that is required I will be
disappointed! Back to my original question, what do the knights
know and how do they intend to destroy the Key? It should take
more than mundain weapons to destroy the Key. Sorry for the rant...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for
Spiral -- Scott L., 04:33:59 05/09/01 Wed
That's a great point, FanMan. Everyone in the show has been surprised
that the key is in human form. They must have a way to use (or
destroy) the key that has nothing to do with the form it has taken.
It seems that whatever form it takes will need to be cast aside
in order to get at (or disperse) the energy field.
That must be what the clerics were for. Most swords don't slice
through pretty green light -- well they do, but the light comes
back together -- you know what I mean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Knights and the Key spoilers for Spiral
& The Gift -- rowan, 08:05:03 05/09/01 Wed
"If Ben is mortal, well, that sucks mightily that they picked
him randomly just because he happened to be male & newborn at
the time that Glory was thrown out of Hell. But your average mortal
doesn't know how to call down Queller demons that haven't been
paged since Da Vinci was in diapers. Who was Ben talking to, that
he got such knowledge? - unless the scabby female minion was feeding
him the lines. I suppose it's possible."
Yes, if you're saying that Ben isn't as innocent as he's cracked
up to be, I agree. I think he's tainted. But if those season ending
spoilers are true, Buffy may hesitate to do what needs to be done
(kill Ben) because she perceives he's an innocent.
I think Ben should kill himself. That's what an honorable person
would do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Perhaps Ben can't act against Glory -- change,
09:55:08 05/09/01 Wed
A couple of posters suggested that Ben should have destroyed Glory
by committing suicide, or should have told Buffy that he and Glory
share the same body.
I think Glory may be preventing Ben from doing that. Glory can
work magic. We know that there is some sort of magic spell that
caused Dawn to forget that Ben changed into Glory. The shooting
script for Blood Ties says so explicitly. Glory probably put that
spell in place to protect her relationship to Ben since he is
her vunerability. She could also have put spells on him to prevent
him from committing suicide and to prevent him from telling anyone
about her. Those sorts of precautions would make sense. If Glory
was too stupid to think of them, then her minions probably would.
So, Ben's lack of action may be caused by constraints put on him
by Glory, not by his own moral weakness or evil intents. Just
a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps Ben can't act against Glory
-- Anthony8, 12:31:46 05/09/01 Wed
On the other hand, if Glory has that much power over Ben's actions,
then you would think she would have been able to compel him to
tell her minions who the Key was in the first place. Actually,
I think Ben has more control over himself than that and has not
taken any action to really do the right thing because, as human
beings go, he is weak-willed and self-centered.
In a way, he is similar to Angel, since he has a demonic presence
and a moral conscience housed within the same body (albeit not
as well integrated). Ben, however, is motivated mostly by selfishness
(his motivation for becoming a doctor seemed to be more for the
vicarious pleasure of being involved in other human lives rather
than for altruistic reasons). Whereas Angel was willing to commit
suicide (in "The Trial") to save one individual (Darla),
Ben wouldn't appear willing to make the same sacrifice to save
all of humanity. Then again, it's possible (unless I missed something
that the KOB General said regarding Glory's vessel) that Ben's
body is as invulnerable to destruction as it is when it takes
Glory's form. If that's the case, then the best he can do is continue
to try and suppress her with drugs or whatever.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- Lucifer_Sponge, 07:31:59 05/09/01
Wed
I think I figured it out. Joss has been saying that his comic
book, Fray, will be centuries in the future and will be about
the first slayer called since Buffy and Faith. He says that -something-
happens to make all the demon activity stop, thus negating any
need for a slayer.
So, I was reading this post about Spiral, and something suddenly
clicked.
"Dunno...I have two thoughts. My gut tells me that the Key
is for more than evil. After all, Spike told Dawn 'You're not
evil' and Spike is known for begin able to read people and situations.
One thought is that during the last two eps, we'll discover (or
Dawn will) that she's more than just the key to unlock dimension-melting
fun. Or, Glory will be stopped, but the question about Dawn will
wait for next season."
Perhaps Dawn can be used to sort of dissolve all demon species
from our universe, or send them back to their dimensions of origin.
Or something like that.
That makes sense, right?
Then again... if the writers decide to do that (which would be
kind of cool as a series finally next year), then what the hell
would they do with Angel?
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- Darren K, 08:59:58 05/09/01
Wed
I think the previous comments are very insightful and gives us
SPOILERS for the end of the whole series...
Prepare yourselves for some minor speculation
What is the Hellmouth? It's a dimensional portal.
What is the Key? It's a tool for opening dimensional portals,
or dissolving dimensional portals leading to darkness and chaos
What is the GOOD intention the monks wanted to use the KEY for?
How 'bout closing dimensional portals so that the Hell dimensions
are no longer accessible from the Earth.
How that would affect the demons who are already here is another
matter entirely. Would they need to be hunted off? Would the separation
of the dimensions kill them since this dimension isn't a natural
habitat for them? It's hard to say.dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- rowan, 10:53:05
05/09/01 Wed
Well, here's some more rampant speculation. Presuming that Glory
is defeated and Dawn lives (very likely occurrences from all that's
floating around), Dawn is still the Key. After all, her existence
isn't strictly tied to Glory (from what we heard yesterday, she
existed after Glory and her origins are somewhat a mystery). Glory
is just trying to use Dawn, but Glory is not strictly truthful
when she calls Dawn "hers."
So, next season, we still have a Key alive that could be used
eventually for something else -- like a series ending bash that
does just what you've described -- keeps hell permanently where
it belongs -- elsewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- DEN, 11:08:02
05/09/01 Wed
Might the Key eventually be used to close the Hellmouth, and in
so doing provide a Jossverse-logical "happy ending"
for a series that otherwise seems to leve its characters with
extremely bleak prospects. (SPOILER SPACE) *
*
*
* The chase in Tuesday's ep highlighted that because it put everyone
in a "conventional" situation of peril--like a cavalry
western or a war movie. And in a "natural" context we
see just how very thin their ranks and resources are relative
to their foes. That, in passing, is why Tara was still with them.
Could anyone think for a minute Willow would abandon her, to be
sought out by Glory when next she thought about it? You bring
your wounded out! Buffy reminded me so much of Tom Hank's Captain
Miller in "Saving Private Ryan"--trying to keep her
people alive; using the last of her strength and will in a desperate
last stand. What remains for any of the Scoobs in the following
seasons except "slaying and dying?" Maybe closing the
Hellmouth with the Key can provide a closure that is emotionally
and intellectually satisfactory
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: FRAY and the Key -- rowan, 11:13:12
05/09/01 Wed
Such a perceptive comment! After all, even exceptional people
like the Scoobies need more than just "slaying and dying"
to keep them motivated. If it were as hopeless and bleak as the
constant villains and killing suggested, they'd all crack under
the pressure.
Maybe Season 6 will be about hope, for once (although if it's
the "no buffer" season, things may get darker before
the dawn...hmmm...I wonder if Dawn's name is significant vis a
vis a happy ending?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn of a New Age -- Darren
K, 11:36:28 05/09/01 Wed
Spoilers for Spiral ahead... 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Of course! The
name just gives it away.
Dawn wasn't born, she was inserted into the Buffyverse. That means
she wasn't named by Joyce and Hank, she was named by the monks
who made her.
They knew she could herald "the DAWN of a new age."
That is the "foolishness" that Gregor the General refered
to.
Little Dawn has been suffering such severe self-image problems.
It'll have to make her feel better to find that there is a positive
role for the KEY.
I wonder if she'll learn to control its power? Or will she always
just be a carrier of it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn of a New Age
-- Anthony8, 12:52:52 05/09/01 Wed
The name Dawn also signifies the coming of light in each new day
and the time of day when all the evil things must retreat back
into the darkness. It's when the day is young and undeveloped
yet full of hope and potential.
Perhaps Dawn's role in the Buffyverse follows the savior motif
present in many of the world's mythologies. Whether it's a Moses,
Christ or Buddha, these figures have their spiritual origins somewhere
supernatural (i.e.-from the word of God to Mary's ear a baby is
conceived). Each is presented to the world in human form as an
innocent who is vulnerable and must be protected within a loving
(often adoptive) family until the time comes for he or she to
fulfill a world saving destiny.
A8
Joss was slackin'! -- Solitude1056,
22:26:07 05/08/01 Tue
Anyone else catch the continuity screw-up? The camera angle shifts
to a long high view of the RV right after everyone's inside and
Spike hollers that great line about daddy being at the wheel.
That's when you can see the boom mike's shadow across the top
of the RV as it pulls away from the sidewalk. Pretty hilarious,
but a tad distressing - in my experience of watching Joss' productions,
he's usually pretty good about catching such details. Hm, must
be a sign of how crammed for time they were, trying to make the
shows in half the time in order to squeeze in new episodes before
the strike...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss was slackin'! -- Jennifer, 07:42:18 05/09/01 Wed
And another thing ... the demon dimension Pylea, in Angel ...
they live in a medeival style dirty old village, drive rickety
wooden buggies pulled by animals, and barter with pigs, but they
just happen to have radio controlled electric metal shock collars
to keep their "cows" in line?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> dimensional anomalies -- purplegrrl, 08:25:51 05/09/01
Wed
The "medieval living with shock collar technology" struck
me as a little like original Star Trek. Kirk and the boys were
always running into some primitive culture that had some anomalous
piece of advanced technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: dimensional anomalies -- OnM, 08:33:16 05/09/01
Wed
Likewise, I think they just 'borrowed' it from some other being
that passed --possibly accidently-- thru the portal. They may
not even understand how it works, or care, as long as it does
what they want it to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: dimensional anomalies -- Anthony8, 12:00:43
05/09/01 Wed
The whole tone of the episode reminded me of "Planet of the
Apes" right down to the background music.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Joss was slackin'! -- Traveler, 17:51:24 05/10/01
Thu
It says in the shooting script that their culture is a mixture
of medeival and modern. Also, we really don't know how that collar
worked. It could have been magic that just happened to resemble
our technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not for the first time -- Masquerade, 10:11:09 05/09/01
Wed
Actually, it reminds me of the scene in last year's ep--either
"Goodbye Iowa" or "This Years Girl" where
the gang is out looking at a demon dissected and hung spread open
between two trees. The boom man is right in the shot--you can
see him standing there! It was a big-time boo-boo.
The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers
for Spiral) -- spotjon, 07:18:09 05/09/01 Wed
Until the revelation last night that Glory was shoved into a mortal's
body, many of us had assumed that Ben was one of the three hellgods,
who had ruled along with Glory. Now that we know that Ben is only
human, who are the other candidates for hellgodishness? Are the
other two hellgods roaming the earth, perhaps keeping tabs on
their long-estranged sister? Perhaps we haven't seen them yet,
and they will only appear in the season finale. But I'm wondering
about this possible spoiler I read (accidently) a while back:
SPOILER SPACE
*
*
*
*
*
*
"According to Variety, Oscar winner Joel Grey will play an
underworld god in the season five finale." (Found at Buffy
Season 5 News)
Now, Joel Grey has appeared already, but as Doc, the creepy old
demony-thing-with-a-tail who helped Dawn with her resurrection
spell. Will Grey appear again in the finale as one of the three
hellgods, or was this entire spoiler out-of-whack? Of course,
speculation is only speculation. I've been thoroughly and happily
surprised by some of the twists thrown at us thus far. I hope
that the finale is something that I don't expect (that goes for
Angel, too).
I've also noticed a parallel between the three-hellgod concept
in Buffy and in The Sandman comic book. In The Sandman, the rule
of hell was shared by Lucifer and two other demons, though Lucifer
had far superior power than the rest of them. I wonder if Whedon
got the idea for a hellish triumverate from reading Sandman, or
if it's just a coincidence. I doubt there will be any other parallels
between the two, unless hell is emptied out onto earth... oh wait,
I guess that is happening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- rowan,
07:59:09 05/09/01 Wed
Okay, but the other two hellgods don't want Glory to come home,
right? They barely beat the Beast the first time. So, if Doc is
the hellgod, he can't want to help Glory unleash The Key, right?
That means some of the spoilers have to be wrong regarding Doc
performing the de-Keying, so to speak.
I think the other two hellgods are still in hell, ruling, maybe
preparing demon defenses for when Glory comes back. Do they even
know she's out? We haven't seen any demons running around trying
to stop her, only Knights, monks, and Scoobies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I think Doc is next season's news -- Darren K, 08:27:20
05/09/01 Wed
My suspicion is that Doc is a character for next season's plotline.
If he's a hellgod for this season's plotline, then they've drastically
underutilized him.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral) -- VanMoodySenior,
13:26:37 05/09/01 Wed
My understanding of the episode was that these other gods were
still in the other dimension. We definetely could see Glory as
a Satan type who was cast out of Heaven against her own will.
We also can see Ben as a real human being who was created almost
like Dawn was. He is as much human as Dawn is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral)
-- FanMan, 17:12:22 05/09/01 Wed
It would seem to be a good idea for the other two hellgods to
keep an eye on Glory. They could use minions, crystal balls, or
even come to BuffyEarth in person so to speak. Coming in person
might be a bad idea: they might need to create a physical host
body like the Seinor Partner did, and the Host mentioned that
a downside of being in the Buffyverse is that you can be killed.
If Ben was created or born naturally as a normal baby, the other
two hellgods had all the time he was growing up to tell the KofB
the identity of the host body for Glory. It would be an ironic
twist if a hellgod helps the Buffygang for purely evil/selfish
reasons. It has been done with Spike though...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Triumverate of Hell (spoilers for Spiral)
-- predecessors for triumverates, 13:47:00 05/17/01 Thu
He could have gotten the idea from Napolean. Who was one of three
before over throwing the other two and making himself first and
only.
Or there's Caeser. Fraid he was getting too powerful were they.
And stabbed him all up. It's pretty classic this triumverate stuff.
Buffy's Breakdown - a logical
descent (Spoilers for Spiral) -- Brian, 09:34:12 05/09/01 Wed
From the opening image of season 5, (Buffy slays a football),
Buffy has been steadily losing control of her world. She becomes
caught in a downward spiral into darkness. For awhile, she is
"in thrall" to Dracula, but she succeeds in escaping,
but it appears that she can't just slay him like over vamps. Somehow,
he continues to survive. By the time she discovers that Dawn is
the Key, she has started to put her world in boxes in order to
maintain control. (Today, I'll help Mom; Tonight, I'll slay vamps,
and Tomorrow, I'll love Riley.) This results in her losing Riley.
She slays 8 vamps in about 8 secs, including the one that was
"servicing Riley." She appears to be only a lean, mean
killing machine. She has to fight(outwit) the Watcher's Con to
maintain control over her own life and duties. After her mom dies,
she is forced to become Neo-mom to Dawn " I have a life -
Dawn's life." Her friends can't seem to tell the difference
between her and a robot. Her encounters with Glory all end with
her getting the tar kicked out of her. Her Slayer stake-em-all
world just doesn't work anymore. Finally, she has no choice but
to go on the run, and then really bad things happen. She kills
several humans in protecting Dawn. Her friends are in danger,
several are injured, and there is nothing she can do about it.
Finally, she loses Dawn to Glory, and in the few seconds it takes
her to get Willow to drop the containment spell, Glory has killed
all of the Knights. No wonder she sinks to the ground in a catatonic
state. It is all just too much!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for
Spiral) -- Malandanza, 10:35:47 05/09/01 Wed
You left out the part where she invited Ben/Glory into their sanctuary
(so it is "her fault" that Dawn was found and abducted.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers
for Spiral) -- rowan, 10:46:20 05/09/01 Wed
IMHO, this final event was what caused the psychic break -- and
why Buffy in Weight of the World believes she killed her sister.
I agree that this has been a long, slow build to her breakdown.
Buffy has to rebuild her identify from scratch. I have faith in
her: she's strong enough to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers
for Spiral) -- Ramo, 16:20:33 05/09/01 Wed
I agree it's been a long, slow, breakdown. What's happened more
recently triggered the switch, and she just gave up and "went
away."
First, Riley's leaving was bad enough, until her mother died.
That was major damage, but she still had a purpose-- to protect
her sister and the key.
When Dawn was snatched, Buffy came to a realization. The one reason
her and her friends were fleeing and getting injured was to protect
Dawn, and there she was taken in a second.
As the terrible as it was that Buffy's sister might to die, and
it was her fault, she walked out and saw Glory's power. In addition
to all of the other devistating things that have been happening
, Buffy realized the world is going to end, it's her fault, and
that did it for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Slay Rage & Buffy's Breakdown - Spoilers for Spiral
-- rowan, 16:54:39 05/09/01 Wed
In FFL (I think) Spike talks about what makes Buffy different
from other Slayers: her strong connection to family and friends.
This is the thing that mitigates what Spike has identified as
the "Slayer Death Wish".
Buffy has lost her mother. Giles is severely injured, and she
has every reason to believe he could die (Ben tells her Giles
is stabilized but that the injury is very serious and needs further
medical treatment that he presumably can't provide). Dawn has
been taken by Glory and since Buffy has had zero success in stopping
Glory, there is every expectation that Dawn is dead as well. All
the other Scoobies are equally vulnerable, which is brought home
horribly by the mass murder of the Knights.
So Buffy, instead of going on a slay rampage, becomes catatonic.
Catalepsy is a "living death"; in fact, Poe had such
a horror of it that many of his stories dealt with it (Fall of
the House of Usher, anyone?) and also with the fear of being buried
alive.
So, Spike was spot on -- sever Buffy from her connections and
she "dies". Angelus knew this was her weak point as
well as her strong point. Fortunately for us, Willow has a shot
at bringing her back from her living death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's Breakdown - a logical descent (Spoilers for
Spiral) -- Leah, 08:36:01 05/10/01 Thu
I think up untill Dawn was taken there was always something to
keep Buffy from having to see all the problems in her life. When
Joyce died Buffy could destract herself by taking care of Dawn,
but now there is nothing to protect Buffy and she is forced to
look at all the problems she avoided at once. That's where Willow
comes in, to finally allow Buffy to share the pain with someone
so she can move past it.
Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black
Magic? -- WatcherBaz, 13:19:05 05/09/01 Wed
Do you guys remember? Go back and watch The Witch, from early
on in season one. Bad mojo:Black Eyes and those creepy swirling
lights around the head.
Same with the ratting of Amy.
Baz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- VanMoodySenior,
13:22:56 05/09/01 Wed
Didn't you also notice the man/demon who helped Dawn obtain the
spell to resurrect her mother? He had black eyes as well. Hmmmm.
VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- Humanitas,
14:50:25 05/09/01 Wed
Hey, I wonder if Willow is finally powerful enough to de-rat Amy?
That was an on-going project for her for a while, but she seems
to have let it drop lately. Understandable, of course, as she's
had a few things (trolls, brain-sucking hellgods, etc.) to distract
her.
Ooo, I just thought: Wouldn't that be a neat dynamic? Amy was
the more powerful witch when she got ratted. How would she react
to the way things have changed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? -- FanMan,
17:24:48 05/09/01 Wed
Glory has minions with black eyes. We did see an instance of scrying,
but no other magic from them. Usually the Scoobies research new
creatures in Sdayle. Do they know what the minions are? Where
they are from? Etc. Hobbits With Leprosy...LoL but did hobbits
have elven ears? They look like they died and started decaying
before being reanimated...Eeeew! they are ugly whatever they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ummm, speaking of Amy -- Jen C., 17:49:21 05/09/01
Wed
I don't think that Willow had time to relocate Miss Kitty Fantastico
and Amy the Rat when they had to flee Glory. What happens if kitty
gets hungry?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Fancy Feast! :) -- rowan, 18:17:50 05/09/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Minion agenda -- Hauptman, 21:35:44 05/09/01
Wed
I am not sure why, but got a vibe during Spiral that the minion
have their own agenda. Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Gronk's agenda appears to be to
get in Ben's pants. -- rowan, 21:04:12 05/10/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Minion agenda -- swyrlz, 11:29:57
05/11/01 Fri
maybe they're secretly working for Doc (same eyes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Black Eyes: Powerful Magic? Black Magic? (long again!)
-- Solitude1056, 18:30:08 05/09/01 Wed
When Amy does the self-transformation spell in Gingerbread, the
shooting script states:
"Now Amy lower her head and crosses her arms over her heart
- she's GONE BLACK-EYED from her majik-making trance."
Repeatedly in the past few scripts, when Willow's doing magic,
it states that her eyes have gone dark from doing the DARK MAGIC.
Yes, it's true, this is in all caps in the shooting script. (I
guess that's so the props person knows to dig out the opaque contact
lenses!) But I can't recall Willow's eyes changing in any magick
spells previous to this season. She'd just do whatever, open her
eyes, and there ya go. So I'm wondering...
Dawn's got Buffy to be her mentor, and Dawn - especially finding
out she could "destroy the universe(s)" - may be particularly
leery of doing magic, for fear of tapping into that unexpectedly.
But Willow's always acted in magic with a mentor. First Giles,
then Jenny, and then Tara. In some of the recent big spells, Willow's
led, but just as frequently it was Tara's idea (like in the soul-finding
spell when Buffy & Faith switched). Willow's got to have a teacher,
even if those teachers seem to unwittingly be teaching her stuff.
By that I mean the fact that Giles wasn't pleased with Willow
digging around in his books, and Jenny was already gone when Willow
started reading Jenny's books & documents. I get the impression
that Willow's got to have an authority or source of knowledge,
somehow, which she uses as a springboard to extend her own knowledge.
Tara's influence has led Willow to expand on several existing
spells, such as creating the ball of light, for instance. But
this season's difficulties with the god of bad home perms seems
to have pushed Willow especially far.
Let's pretend it really is Giles that's leaving the show, and
that Tara does come back to whatever passes for normality in the
Buffyverse. Setting aside the conflict of dark vs. light magic
(the Willow-intent vs. Tara-intent), let's look at the fact that
in the short time Tara's been vacated, Willow's abilities have
already grown by leaps and bounds. She doesn't need a circle or
special accoutrements anymore; she just repeats the words and
thinks hard. Oh, and her eyes go all dark 'n stuff. So who becomes
her mentor, next, to help her keep learning? I say that because
first, she's surpassed Tara already (or as far as we know, since
it doesn't appear Tara pushes her abilities a great deal, or at
least underplays them). Second, if Giles is gone, so goes Willow's
access to some of the more potent knowledge, and Tara's hardly
a sufficient replacement if Willow's surpassed her in strength.
So, who's left? Gee, would that be... Doc?
I wonder if Dawn will mention later, to Willow and Tara, where
she got the knowledge to ressurrect her mother - perhaps while
defending Spike's participation as a non-participation. (Remembering
that Buffy probably assumed that Spike was the one who'd helped
Dawn.) Or, perhaps, Willow may discover Doc's existence thanks
to Spike, while in the course of struggling with a spell, and
Spike trying to be helpful. Or she may stumble across him on her
own.
Between Dawn and Willow, I've little fear that Dawn would fall
prey to the power Doc exhibited, or the knowledge he had. Dawn
was there to deal with a particular issue, and recently she's
had more than enough reason to fear her own power. Willow, on
the other hand, enjoys her own power, and if the past seasons
are any sign, has no inclination to stop gaining more of it. Well,
eventually you do have to pay the piper, and not just in simple
nosebleeds. The shooting script says - I can't recall if it was
in the final version - that Willow gets a nosebleed from the major
spell she did. When Xander comments, she tells him that she's
gotten used to it. IOW, the price she's paying has gotten smaller,
and she's less bothered by any indication that she's pushing herself
too hard. Alternately, the minimal side-effects are a sign that
she's stronger, but the fact that they still exist make me wonder.
That and the eyes-going-black routine, of course. Next season's
arc is supposed to be "oh, grow up." I'm wondering where
Willow fits into that, assuming she's not the one getting toasted
in the season finale. What if her part of growing up is growing
too fast, and having to come to grips with the fact that she's
on the fast-track to burnout hell? What if part of her growing
up is recognizing that Tara's love for her should be respected,
and that Tara is her equal, and this power-play stuff needs to
stop? We've seen one argument between Tara and Willow, and Willow
was confrontational enough to surprise Tara and blow the argument
off-track. And once again, Willow pulled off another magickal
stunt without anyone around her to reprimand her for causing such
consequences. As a matter of fact, it seems Tara's the only one
who's ever even commented on such. After the Glory-over-Sunnydale
transportation spell, it was only Tara who spoke disparagingly
of Willow's attempt. I think Giles has remarked here and there
that Willow was pushing the edge to do such-and-such, but he's
really Laid Back Guy, and frequently seems to side with Willow
that her actions were necessary, given the circumstances, and
therefore acceptable. Tara, on the other hand, specifically said:
"If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times..."
I don't recall if anyone else has ever cornered Willow and told
her off about her rash acts with magick. On the other hand, in
the gang's current situations, I doubt anyone will, because at
this point her magick is sorely needed to even the odds as much
as possible. So... anyone think that might be part of the upcoming
arcs, assuming Willow's one of the survivors, and Giles isn't?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Black Eyes: Spoiler Speculation & next season
-- FanMan, 18:49:06 05/09/01 Wed
Willow and her power will probably be a big part of next season.
I think Dawn will also start getting real magic training next
season. Then in season seven Dawn will master her key aspect and
do something godlike. I think that Buffy will have a break from
slayer-identity issues and deal more with grownup normal stuff,
she'll still slay at night. But I think in terms of supernatural
stuff, the focus will be on Willow/Tara & Dawn. Anya will take
over the magic shop midseason if Giles survives the Gift. Spoilers
mentioned Xander having a destiny? Spoilers one season early?
I like the big brother Angel&Cordelia and Spike&Dawn, hope
it continues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Black Eyes: Spoiler Speculation & next season
-- Solitude1056, 20:57:18 05/09/01 Wed
Willow's power growth is mostly worrisome because she's had a
perpetual strain of spitefulness over the seasons. Cordelia, Anya,
Faith, that wolf girl, Oz, Xander, who else? Several others I
can't recall now. Most of her spite's been directed towards someone
who's either stepping on her - the wolf girl, Oz, Xander - or
someone who she doesn't like who's either with a friend (Cordy,
Anya) or stepping on a friend (Angel, Spike, Porter). Sometimes
self-righteous indignation is perfectly acceptable if a little
on the selfish human side: I don't think s/he's the right person
for you, even if you do. Or, I don't like the way that person
treated you, so I'm going to be mad at them on your behalf. But
her actions have tended towards the petty spiteful meowy comments,
since until recently she's not had the means to do much about
it more than fuss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Black Eyes: Spoiler Speculation & next
season -- FanMan, 22:47:09 05/09/01 Wed
Willow and Spite. She was offered a "job" as a vengance
demon. Maby Dahafrin(no idea how to spell his name) was watching
her for years...Willow has a self-esteem problem re geekyness
& the worth of her magic. Both are purely intillectual; Willow
is not an intuative wiccan like Tara. She seems to be passive-agressive.
My dad is and so am I. People like that avoid direct confrontation,
and can hold grudges for a long time because they do not like
confrontations. Passive-agressive people also are less assertive/defensive.
If someone pisses you off, it could be an accident. If you don't
complain, you can be sulky/spitefull because you feel like a victim.
Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers
for Spiral -- Rufus, 13:21:07 05/09/01 Wed
I'm surprised that we are talking about death and missing one
line that Buffy finally tossed an axe through(like in Checkpoint).
Buffy tossed that axe at more than a dummy this time. The Knight
was real, and it looked like more than a flesh wound. It was also
mentioned that 10 Knights were killed, but at the same time it
was made clear that the situation was war. Buffy has killed a
human, with plenty of provocation. Has Buffy even considered this
in her descent into herself? We have seen demons of all flavors
get killed and seen lots of humans killed by demons, this is the
first time Buffy has been forced to kill another human. If you
wonder if they are human, a point was made to show Spike react
to punching one of them. Is the killing of humans in the Slayers
handbook that Buffy never got?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral --
The Godfather, 14:40:38 05/09/01 Wed
Buffy has been responsible for the death of humans before..she
has walked away before..admittedly in the heat of battle but just
the same..point is..I don't see her throwing an axe into someone
who would have axed her as that big of a deal..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral --
Humanitas, 14:54:21 05/09/01 Wed
Can't the deaths of the KoB be chalked up to self-defense? They
did attack first, after all. Taking a human life is still a big
deal, of course, but under the circumstances it can hardly be
considered unethical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers for Spiral
-- FanMan, 17:50:09 05/09/01 Wed
Buffy let the firt Knights go after she defeated them. She asked
the General to declare a truce. She has tried to talk things out,
self defence is always just if you have tried other options. Even
a criminal is entitled to defend his life if someone does not
give him the option of living if he surenders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers
for Spiral -- rowan, 18:02:38 05/09/01 Wed
Yes, but it will be interesting to see what she does with the
information from Gregor (if it's true) that Ben is Glory's one
weakness and to destroy the god you must destroy the man.
Buffy passionately cries to Gregor about Dawn: "What kind
of God would demand her life for something she had no control
over?" Will she feel this way about Ben? After all, he was
created by the other two hellgods as Glory's prison: an innocent
without a choice.
I see a difference: Ben has aided and abetted Glory throughout
his adult life. Dawn only knows she has the Key potential within
her, but she's done nothing to tap into it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers
for Spiral -- FanMan, 18:18:15 05/09/01 Wed
In a post below someone said that the monks might have chosen
Dawns name for a reason: Dawn of a New Age...and other ideas.
Yuo mentioned that Dawn has not tried to tap into her Key aspect.
My take is that the monks wanted her to use the powers of the
key herself. From the day she was created she has had an interest
in magic: I say this interest was part of her personality that
the monks chose. The first and only spell she has done is a ressurection
spell! Even if there were problems with the spell, it was her
first spell! What will Dawn be able to do if she actually studies
magic and eventually learns to use the power of the key for her
own purposes? She is an open ended plot thread for Joss, anything
goes with a teens imagination!(grin)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers
for Spiral -- rowan, 18:20:45 05/09/01 Wed
I agree! I'm thinking that season 6&7 (I think that Joss is committed
that far, right) might be about Dawn's journey to discover her
true nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ethical reasons to kill........spoilers
for Spiral -- FanMan, 18:33:36 05/09/01 Wed
Yes, Joss has a two year deal with UPN for 102 Million. Posts
relevant are below.
Buffy and Dawn's journey to discover
themselves (spoilers up through Spiral) -- Leah, 14:49:06 05/09/01
Wed
Dawn said something in Spiral which really struck me, Dawn was
upset b/c she just found out what the key has the power to do
and Buffy tells her, "it's not you, you know that, right?"
Dawn then responds, "but it's in me." This really seemed
to be what Buffy has been strugling with all season-is the slayer
part of her as Buffy Summers? Is it something that is in her?
Is it a real part of who she is?
While Buffy has been searching for what it means to be the slayer
and who she is, she has also been hiding. Buffy has tried to hide
herself from the people around her and from herself. In forever
we see Buffy putting on an act to try to hide how she feels and
to keep it all together. In "Spiral" everything is falling
apart and Buffy can't take it anymore and finally loses it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Dawn's journey to discover themselves (spoilers
up through Spiral) -- Humanitas, 15:11:35 05/09/01 Wed
Dawn and Buffy's dilemma sounds like that of the character Bethany
from Dogma. Her reaction to learning that she is the last decendant
of Joseph and Mary is that "everything I am is a lie."
To which The Metatron (God's mouthpiece) replies that she is still
who she was: "Be everything you were, just be this too, on
occasion." The implication is that her role alone does not
need to define her, but it is part of her.
Buffy is still Buffy Summers, daughter of Joyce and Hank, who
had a childhood, a first kiss, etc. She is also The Slayer. How
much she allows that fact to dominate her identity is up to her.
The progress of the show thus far indicates that if she lets it
dominate her entirely, she'll die a whole lot quicker than if
she stays connected to the rest of the world.
The same applies to Dawn. Being the Key, being the product of
a spell cast by monks, does not change in any way who she is.
If a person is the sum of her memories, then it makes no difference
whether those memories are artificial or not.
Dawn is still Dawn. Buffy is still Buffy.
The hard part for them is to remember that fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn's journey to discover themselves
(spoilers up through Spiral) -- Leah, 16:16:48 05/09/01 Wed
I completely agree that Buffy is still Buffy and Dawn is still
Dawn, but I do think that the slayer is a part of Buffy. In the
episode "The Replacement" the demon's plan was to split
Buffy into Buffy Summers and "the Slayer" because neither
could exist on its own: they are two parts to one person just
as suave Xander is a part of the whole Xander. While I think that
Buffy is who she is as a person the slayer is clearly a part of
her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn, and Spike (spoilers up through
Spiral) -- rowan, 18:10:16 05/09/01 Wed
It's been well-established that this season is about identity,
and now all the crap is hitting the fan.
From the first ep & her encounter with Drac(which echoes Restless
at the end of season 4), it was established that Buffy doesn't
yet know who/what she is. There's a dark side and it's a scary
side. Spike clues her in to it in FFL. That dark side has something
to do with the primal need to kill (First Slayer), something to
do with a death wish, and probably something to do with why she
needs some monster in her man (sorry to bring this up again, but
part of her strong reaction to Spike looks to me like denial because
there is some sexual attraction on her part).
She withdraws and then she perceives she's hardening. Uh oh. She's
a self-fulfilling prophecy. Darkness, here I come. She becomes
isolated from the very family & friends that keep her grounded.
So, she learns, you're love, love, love and death is your gift.
And she starts leading with her heart again, ready to make mistakes.
And she made some big ones in Spiral. But those very mistakes
may lead them all to the right outcome. The verdict's not in yet.
Dawn is just starting the path. She knows what the Key's nature
is and she knows that's part of her. But when the monks made the
Key flesh, they created a sentient being -- and certainly could
not predict how that sentient being would develop and interact
with the world. There's a world of difference between an inanimate
object, an energy blobby thing, and a person. So Buffy and Spike
are both right in their way when they tell Dawn that she's not
just what she started as -- she's herself.
Now why am I dragging Spike into this? That pesky chip of course,
because it's forcing Spike into being something other than what
he was and nobody's quite sure what or how long it will last.
Alot of the eps this season have been about these three and I'm
sure the last two eps will bring some more revelations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn, and Spike (spoilers up
through Spiral) -- Buffstah, 22:45:26 05/09/01 Wed
Buffy is the chosen one, the star amongst many, thus even if she
wasn't the slayer, she would still exist. Dawn, however, was forged
of energy and not pure life -- her existence is unnatural thus
she is not a person, but a figment or caricature. Buffy's love
for her may extend beyong sisterly and actually be an attempt
at maintaining her weakening grasp on the world. I doubt Dawn
will stick around for the next season. Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn, and Spike (spoilers
up through Spiral) -- FanMan, 23:11:16 05/09/01 Wed
If Dawn is killed in The Gift it would eliminate a world changing
plot thread in the Buffyverse. I think she will be around for
the next two seasons. Since the power of the Key is undefined,
Joss can define it later. Actually add more abilities than causing
dimensional armagedon. If Dawn learns to control aspects of the
key, she could have godlike power. An open-ended plot thread would
be a waste if the Key is simply destroyed in this season.
A Thought About Pylea -- Leah,
15:02:43 05/09/01 Wed
It seems everyone gets exactly what they want but it won't turn
out how they hoped. Angel is human-standing in the sun and seeing
his reflection. Cordelia is the center of everything(just like
in high school). I think that the characters getting what they
want will really make them realize that they have changed as people
and what they thought would make them happy won't, and they will
realize something about themselves in the process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Thought About Pylea -- Rufus, 19:04:51 05/09/01 Wed
I think that both Angel and Cordy are going to find out about
getting what you wish for. No such thing as a free lunch in the
land of Whedon and Co. Angel can walk in the sunshine, Cordy seems
to be Queen, but for how long. There are consequences that I think
will become more apparent next week. Being Queen Cordy may seem
nice, but at what cost....I didn't notice her releasing any of
the other "cows"...she seemed to be lost in the glow
of being the Queen. I think the Host has a very good reason for
not wanting to go back. In a land with no grey there is less choice
of how to live your life, less freedom to express yourself. The
world seems very repressive, I can see why the Host wanted to
leave....when hearing music in his mind he may have been hearing
his future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Thought About Pylea -- darrenK, 07:10:43 05/10/01
Thu
To be honest I wish they hadn't done this Pylea storyline. The
Host should have remained mysterious and the lessons Angel and
co. are learning were already learned. They're obvious, part of
their characters.
In fact, taking Cordy back to the whole high school popularity
thing is a 3 year step backward in character development.
There are little moments of inspiration like the cow thing, but
it's obvious that no real attention has been paid to the last
few episodes of Angel in general.
The plots don't feel important either for the characters or the
Buffyverse. Angel no longer seems to be a warrior for good, he
seems to be a second rate Borscht belt comedian trapped at a third
rate Renaissance fair.
I like the idea of the show, but even as Buffy gets better and
the acting, writing and direction seem tighter than ever, Angel
seems to be spinning out of control. I can't believe they're ending
the season like this. dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A Thought About Pylea -- JeniLynn, 11:14:53
05/10/01 Thu
I think the Pylea story line may be essential in each character's
growth and in Buffyverse as well. Gunn realized that he can change
what happened to Rondell but he knows that he can't ignore the
fact that Angel and Wes need his help to find Cordy, he must choose
between his old life and his new life. They say you can never
go home again! Cordy will realize this too, but she must choose
between her dream of acting and the reality of her visions. Wes
needs to find his self worth before he can become the leader that
the Host sees him to be in the future, we cannot live out our
lives to please our parents we must live to please ourselves.
This is hard for everyone I think. Angel is again realizing how
much he want to be human again, I bet he's wondering if there's
a way to bring Buffy to Pylea! But being Human may stop him from
being a Warrior for Good.
This story line is good for Buffyverse in that it may tie into
the season finale of Buffy. General Forhead Guy told Buffy that
the "Key" breaks down the walls of realties and the
dimesions will bleed together. Angel and the Gang are trapped
in Plyea. Perhaps Glory activates the key and before Buffy can
stop it the Buffyverse Dimension and Pylea bleed together allowing
Angel et al to escape. Their return to Buffyverse would dump them
where Buffy and the Scoobies are. This would allow everyone to
help in the destruction of Glory. This is just my vision of things
though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A Thought About Pylea - A very cool
concept -- Brian, 11:45:03 05/10/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey, hey, the gang's all here -- Solitude1056,
20:54:40 05/10/01 Thu
This season's arc is family, isn't it? Or is it identity? Drat,
now I can't remember. Either way, the Angel crew teaming up in
the last inning with Buffy's group seems counter-productive to
the story line. If it's family, then notice the fact that Buffy's
lost a number of her "family" this season. Riley, her
Mom, Tara, now Dawn, and Giles is severely injured. Not much left
but Xander, Anya, and Willow. Talk about cutting back on spending;
her family is reduced by more than half.
If it's identity, it still adds up the same way; Buffy defines
herself to a great extent (like most people) by those whose company
she keeps. Well, there's not many of them left now, and we're
back to the B2 question: "you've got one thing left to lose"
and "when the cards are down, what's left?" or some
such line. The only thing Buffy had left was herself, and we seem
to be at that point again. Having the cavalry - once again - be
anything other than a scared guy with a rock would sort of defeat
the idea that Buffy's got to make another decision, and yet again,
she's got to do it by herself. The distraction of everyone else
arriving to support her would negate that "by herself"
element, IMO.
Well, my two dinar about it, at least...
Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers
for Spiral) -- Humanitas, 15:26:10 05/09/01 Wed
Buffy has been predicatable, from time to time. If there's a problem,
kill it. That works fine for vampires, demons, etc., but it doesn't
help much with life. This season, Buffy has run into a whole bunch
of things that she just can't slay. She lists them to Dawn: Glory,
the loss of Reily, her Mom's death, and so forth. She's been trying
to deal with these things in typical Slayer fashion: with action.
But she's finding out that action won't help her.
The 'spiral' of the episode title is her spiral into dispair.
Attack has failed, defense has failed, even flight has failed.
When you've tried everything, and failed, and the stakes are so
unimaginably high (the end of the world pales beside the deaths
of your friends and family), What can you do?
She can't run away physically, so she runs away mentally. This
is not cowardice, it's simply being pushed beyond the breaking
point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral) --
Leah, 16:13:13 05/09/01 Wed
I think that all the things that Buffy can't just slay this season
has been there to show how Buffy's real strength isn't physical
it's mental. I think it is this mental strength that will allow
Buffy not to be "slain" by everything that has occured
this past year, but will instead make her stronger just as the
guide told her in "intervention"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral)
& Weight of the World -- Brian, 07:54:25 05/10/01 Thu
Buffy is always at her best when she is focused and in touch with
her Slayerness. This season JW has upped the stakes to include
the grey areas of her calling. The consequences are the same,
the end of the world, but the means and methods to stop that action
have changed.
I assume that Buffy will have to take a "journey in to the
center of her being" to find a resolution to her Glory/Key
problem. She will succeed, but at what cost?
JW seems to believe that there is always a price to be paid for
your actions. Surprisingly, it seems to follow a very Christian
concept that innocence (or an innocent) is that price. (Death
of Buffy; sending Angel to hell, Harmony being vamped, Scoobies
being attacked by the First Slayer.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for Spiral)
-- Humanitas, 08:58:28 05/10/01 Thu
I agree that Buffy's strength is mental, as well as physical,
and that she will come out of this stronger ("That which
does not kill us, makes us stronger" - Nietsche). My point
is that she has always thought in terms of physical strength,
and that the realization that some problems are not amenable to
physical solutions has shattered her sense of competence, her
sense of self-worth. This happens to a lot of people in growing
up (albiet in not so dramatic a fashion). You go through a period
of depression and self-doubt, then find new ways to deal with
the world, and with any luck emerge a more mature individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for
Spiral) -- Brian, 09:24:36 05/10/01 Thu
I agree. Buffy has demonstrated that she is very strong mentally.
She was able to meditate to get to work that counter spell where
she discovered that Dawn was the false one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Has the Slayer been Slain? (Spoilers for
Spiral) -- LoriAnn, 12:02:40 05/10/01 Thu
What makes you think Nietsche knew what he was talking about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That which does not kill us... -- Humanitas,
13:34:27 05/10/01 Thu
Owch! :) Ok, here goes:
The analogy is to physical conditioning, in which the relevant
muscles are worked until they start to break down, and when they
heal, they are stronger than they were before conditioning. When
someone takes damage, the way Buffy has, there are two possible
outcomes:
1. The person dies or remains in a catatonic state, in which case
the question is moot.
2. The person survives and recovers, in which case she is stronger
than she was going in, if only by virtue of the fact that she
now knows how much she can take.
Thinking about it, there is a third possibility: the person survives,
but is broken (in this case mentally). In such a case, the person
would be weaker than before. It seems to me that this would be
analogous to practicing throwing a baseball so much that you tear
your rotator cuff, leaving your arm weak. Nietsche would consider
that being killed (and indeed, I've heard baseball players talk
about someone 'killing their arm'). Let me be clear: I certainly
do not think that Nietsche is correct on all points. His worldview
is a little black-and-white for most realverse applications, I'll
admit, but this particular element works pretty well for those
who follow the Hero Archetype, as Buffy clearly does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Corrections wanted! -- Humanitas, 13:54:50
05/10/01 Thu
By the way, anyone who knows their Nietsche and thinks I'm talking
out my butt, please feel free to say so, and tell me why. Making
mistakes and being corrected is my favorite way to learn! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Corrections wanted! -- Cleanthes,
20:47:01 05/10/01 Thu
I believe, Humanitas, that your application of this quote, by
itself, fits the Buffyverse very well.
The quote comes from `Ecce Homo`, Nietsche's bold, egotistical
self-examination. {sample chapter titles: "Why I Am So Wise,"
"Why I Am So Clever," and "Why I Write Such Good
Books."!} I hoped to pin down the German text - some English
translations have "destroy" while others have "kill".
This matters because it's worse to be "destroyed" than
"killed" if one believes in the eternal recurrence.
I don't have a copy of this book in my home library. Perhaps someone
else can guide us? In any event, `Ecce Homo` ends with Nietsche's
declaration: "I do not want to be a holy man; sooner even
a buffoon"
I suspect that this seemingly "tough guy" quote, like
the even more famous "God is dead" quote, disguises
a whole lot of ironic subtlety.
The Ethics of Suicide -- change,
17:14:45 05/09/01 Wed
It's been suggested that Ben is morally weak because he has not
destroyed Glory by committing suicide. Assuming that this would
work, is it ethical for Ben to commit suicide. Most religions
do not allow people to commit suicide. It is considered an affront
to God to destroy yourself since you are his creation. The Catholic
church teaches that suicide is a mortal sin and that you will
go to Hell if you do it.
Suppose it is against Ben's religion to commit suicide. Suppose
doing so is an affront to God in his religion. Suppose it is against
one of God's commandments to do so. Then what is the ethically
correct thing for him to do? Should he obey God's commandments
and stay alive, thereby letting Glory live? Or should he disobey
God's commands and sacrifice himself to destroy Glory? The easy
answer is to say he should sacrifice himself to save the rest
of the World, but what if he really believed in his religion and
believed that God commanded people to never commit suicide. Remember
that religious people base their ethics on what they believe God
instructs them to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- ann, 17:26:56 05/09/01 Wed
Sorry, if Ben were at all ethical he would have already told Buffy
his little secret. I think Ben is more evil, in a way, than Spike.
There is something really creepy about his passive self-pity and
whining. He is the vessel for Armageddon, for pity's sake!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- FanMan, 17:43:27 05/09/01
Wed
I agree ann. Ben should have had a "real talk" with
Buffy long ago! If he was afraid of Glory finding out, he could
have written a letter, or voicemail. Any warning would have stopped
Buffy from calling Ben to help with Giles. As I posted below I
think Ben is an ass. Someone did mention that maby Glory can prevent
him from doing some things, either by magic or by simply being
in the same body. It does seem to be a fight of wills between
Glory and Ben. The last few tranceforms have shown us that they
try to resist the others dominance of identity. Maby Ben is not
an ass. Only two more eps to find out!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- rowan, 17:46:41
05/09/01 Wed
I'm with you, Ann. I took a minute and looked at the shooting
script today. Here's the conversation between Gronk (the scabby
female minion who is surprisingly lustful) and Ben.
Gronk: "This life was never really yours anyway, was it?"
Ben: "It doesn't matter how I came by it. It's mine. And
I intend to keep it."
Ben's main motivation is not stopping an apocalypse. He's shown
bitterness over cleaning up after Glory (although he continues
to do it) and a complete self-absorption. Now, when push came
to shove in the gas station, he couldn't kill Dawn -- yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- change, 19:02:49 05/09/01
Wed
I think you are missing the point. I'm not asking if Ben should
have told Buffy about his relationship with Glory. I think he
should have. I also think that Glory was preventing him though
some sort of spell. I posted about that in another thread.
I'm not really even asking whether or not Ben has a moral compass.
What interests me is that a lot of posters have said they feel
that Ben is immoral for not committing suicide. Well, suppose
that it is one of his deepest beliefs that no one should take
their own life. This is common in many religions. If he has that
belief, then is it ethical to demand that he commit suicide to
save the lives of others? If you believe that it is right demand
this of him, then you are saying that people must be willing to
yield on their deepest beliefs to do what OTHERS feel is for the
greater good. If that's the case, then can anyone have a religion?
My personal opinion is that it is ethically reasonable to ask
people to bend their beliefs to accomidate what the majority feels
is for the greater good. But, I'm not very religious. I suspect
that the religiously devout would have a different view on this.
For example, I think the majority in this country accepts the
right of women to an abortion. However, there are many deeply
religious people who are completely opposed to that on religious
grounds. If you accept the view point that people must yield to
what the majority believes is for the common good, then you are
saying that these people should change their religion to accomidate
federal law. So, if you accept this view point, can anyone have
a religion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- OnM, 20:59:35 05/09/01
Wed
The dilemma here is analogous to the old 'Irresistable force vs.
the Immovable object' conundrum. If one's belief in not taking
one's own life is 'immovable', then what happens when an irresistable
force (the need to save the universe, for instance) comes into
play?
The answer is that the question is illogical, because the two
opposites cannot exist simultaneously in a given universe or plane
of reference. If in a given universe, one declares that there
shall in fact exist an 'Irresistable force', then BY DEFINITION
an 'Immovable object' CANNOT exist. The reverse is true. Mathematically,
you could define it like so:
A does not equal B A does equal B Both of the above are true simultaneously.
So, any religion or system of belief that defines anything, any
concept, in terms of an unalterable absolute, simultaneously defines
its opposite and precludes its existence in that 'universe'.
(Which is a very bad idea, and why I personally prefer logic and
reason to religious dogma.)
Ben can't have it both ways, but to be fair, Buffy may not be
able to have it her way, either. In the end, she may have to choose
her sister or the World. I think that if it came down to it, and
there was absolutely, positively, no alternative, she would kill
Dawn (and quite possibly herself). I think Ben would choose himself
over others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- freshwater,
09:06:47 05/10/01 Thu
Ok, so this is my first post here, so forgive me if I don't make
sense.
First, I want to reply to the idea that religious dogma creates
logical absurdities. And then I want to see how that relates to
the Buffyverse and Ben's suicide.
In OnM's opinion, dogma results in the following:
Givens: 1) Belief B must be true for the proper order of the Universe
(U if and only if B) 2) Event E is absolutely necessary for the
order of the Universe (U if and only if E) 3) Event E can only
occur if B is disregarded. (E if and only if not B)
Therefore: The order of the Universe (U) cannot be maintained
because it is simultaneously dependent on mutually exclusive objects.
Obviously this would lead to the idea that dogma and logic are
incompatible. Now, I know "...there will be no St. Thomas
Aquinas at this table..." but let's see if we can't at least
show that those who hold religious dogma are at least not illogical.
The above "proof" looks convincing on the surface, but
it leaves out a few givens held by the truly religious (as opposed
to those who just spout out a bunch of "dogmas" that
they've never even thought about). The first "given"
that must be accepted by the religious is that there is a God
who created the Universe and he has a Plan and this Plan brings
about the perfect ordering of the Universe. Also, there's the
belief that He's let humanity in on the ground rules (these become
"dogma").
So, back to the proof (modified to the point of view of the "believer"):
Givens: 1) Belief B must be believed for the order of the Universe
(U if and only if B) 2) Event E will prevent the (D) destruction
of the World (D if not E) 3) E if and only if not B
Therefore, to maintain order in the Universe: B, therefore: not
E, therefore: D (Destruction of the World)
Now, this is a purely consistent logical argument, however, it
results in the destruction of the World. But that's where the
whole belief in a Plan comes in. I'm not going to comment on the
absolute Morality of such a situation, I just wanted to show it's
not internally illogical.
Now on to the matter at hand - Ben. Ben lives in the Buffyverse.
To my knowledge, there's never been mention of a God with a Plan
exactly. We've got the PTB, but I think it's debatable whether
they are working for an ordered universe (one in which our logical
arguments even have validity). So what could Ben's religion be?
Has there been a history of Divine revelation or ancient traditions
that he could hold on to? The only order that seems to exist is
that the PTB seem to work towards the destruction of Evil (not
that evil has been really defined in relation to anything). It
seems that our only direction on the Path are visions of people
like Buffy and Cordy and an ethic that boils down to "help
the most people not to die".
So what should Ben do? From what we know of the Buffyverse - no
single God with a Master Plan & minimize human death - it would
seem ethical for Ben to kill himself. Now, what if he has a religion
that bars him from that? As unpopular as this might sound, religion,
really, should be based on truth and knowledge about the Universe.
(let's not start on the epistemology of religious knowledge!).
Obviously, all religion is Faith, but the dogmas should match
up with reality. So if Ben holds on to some religion that is inconsistent
with his Universe, he should really abandon his beliefs, otherwise
he's just fooling himself.
That's a little harsh, probably. And I guess we're really in a
better position to make judgements about the Buffyverse than Ben
(or anyone living there) might be. We have kind of an insight
into things that a lot of people there might not know. Ok, so
now I rambling, so I'll stop. If the Buffyverse doesn't have a
Divine Plan which is the basis for Ben's not killing himself,
he should get over it and kill himself to minimize human death.
If it does have a Plan, that we seem to be in the dark about,
he shouldn't kill himself (as long as such a position is based
on belief and not cowardess) and should have Faith that the Universe
will turn out for the best.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Abandonment -- Solitude1056, 10:46:54
05/10/01 Thu
All the logical arguments are great, but there's only one issue
with bringing up religion in the Ben-Must-Die discussion. We've
assumed that the Buffyverse's mainstream religions are roughly
like our own, since Wicca, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism
(all of which have been mentioned) exist there as well as here.
But the idea that Ben doesn't kill himself because it might be
against his religion seems to have a few holes to me.
First, we've never seen him whining about his options. He's steadfastly
and stubbornly insisted that he will be the best "him"
to win. He's not interested in rationalizing that desire; he's
clearly got his eyes on the prize to the exclusion of all else.
A deeply religious person would - in my experience - bring that
religion to the forefront in the her-or-me body question. Tara
brings up her own religion when explaining or deciding, so it's
not an unknown character action in Joss' world.
Second, let's assume Ben was raised with mainstream religious
values. Oh, let's say: he looks middle class, doesn't speak with
an accent, so I'd bet 75% chance it was a Christian household.
Well, gee. What happens when he hits adolescence and Glory pops
out for the first time? We're not talking a good girl, here. We're
talking the kind that will torture your cat just to let you know
she's been there. That'd be bound to make anyone doubt their sanity,
let alone the whole religious structure they were taught. And
then at some point the minions show up - yikes. If Ben didn't
jump a foot the first time he dealt with a scabby minion, I give
him credit. So first you have some sort of demonic multiple personality
symptom with malicious intentions. And then you have various icky
looking peons showing up and fawning about the fact that your
other personality is a god.
Well, that'd turn me into an atheist, pretty fast. If this is
a God, and these are her minions, well... that's real hard to
put up against the Xtian system of One-God-One-People. On top
of that, the Xtian god has been mostly an absentee landlord for
the duration of its church's history, excepting the odd miracle
or ghostly appearance at random points. I imagine it'd be real
hard to keep putting your faith in some nebulous Old Guy In The
Sky when there's a real-life God wrecking havoc everything you
do if you "go away" for five minutes. That's why it
seems unsurprising that Ben didn't tell Buffy, even if a part
of him wanted to. He's probably spent a lot of his life convinced
he's insane - in which case, some Xtian branches would consider
him about as close to damned as you can get without actually committing
a crime. Or he's been convinced that somehow he's sharing his
body with (Xtian-system) Devil and is therefore doomed even if
he can't remember doing anything to deserve this punishment. He
may have been attracted to Buffy simply because she's the first
person to have dealt with Glory as a "real" event and
not look at Ben as the true culprit. In her world, his predicament
is downright ordinary - and I'd also imagine that this jadedness
is pretty attractive to Ben, who's otherwise isolated in the Two's
A Crowd routine. So the whole religion idea, while interesting,
seems to me to ignore the context of Ben's most likely experiences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Abandonment -- freshwater,
13:06:51 05/10/01 Thu
*So the whole religion idea, while interesting, seems to me to
ignore the context of Ben's most likely experiences.*
It seems very appropriate, to me anyway, to discuss religion (as
defined as a structured system of beliefs) in the context of the
ethics of suicide in Ben's situation. It would be impossible to
understand ethics outside of belief, whatever those beliefs turn
out to be.
I think the overall question here is whether it would be "right"
(that is, ethical) for Ben to kill himself given the knowledge
that that would kill Glory and save the world. If we ignore all
religious influences completely, Ben should be completely selfish.
If we deny a Faith in some sort of Supreme Entity, what is Ben
left with except his own understanding of the world the way he
sees it and what he wants. Why should he sacrifice himself for
others? Even if it might mean the end of the whole world? If he
has no religion, if there is no religion, if there is no Good
higher than himself, than his own interests are all that really
matter in the end. He should do whatever makes him feel good,
even if that means killing Dawn to free himself. Or kill as many
people as needed to bring a smile to his face. If he has no religion,
it would be stupid to kill himself to save the world. If he's
dead, how could the salvation of the world make him happy? This
seems to be, in a way, how he's acting. Which would point to the
possibility he either has given up on religion or never had one.
As you said, he never brings it up as a reason when weighing his
options. So he seems to be at least acting consistently with his
(lack of) beliefs.
Only if there are systems of belief can we even discuss ethics
beyond "do what's best for me". That's why I think it's
very appropriate to consider Ben's possible beliefs to understand
his motivations, and, therefore, pass some sort of judgement on
the ethics at hand. And that's why I inquired as to what the "ultimate
good" might be in the Buffyverse. In the real world, Christians
would see following Christ's law as the ultimate good; Wiccas
might see doing their will, but not harming another as the way,
Eastern mysticism would look to separation from sense consciousness
and attainment of Nirvana as the ultimate goal of humanity. The
ethics of people's actions stand in relation to the end goals
of the Universe. What are the highest goals in the Buffyverse?
Then we can talk about ethics of suicide in that world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Abandonment -- Humanitas,
13:43:31 05/10/01 Thu
Um, I'm a little confused about what question you're asking, freshwater.
Let me make a stab at it:
So the question is not so much "What is the best way to live,"
but "What is the authority which tells us the best way to
live?"
Is that correct?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Abandonment
-- freshwater, 14:24:32 05/10/01 Thu
You're confused? Man, I almost confused myself on that one!!
My question is (I think) "what is good in the Buffyverse?"
Then, anything working towards that end is ethical, anything working
against it is not.
That's an easy question to pose, but the answer, "what is
good?" has been the subject of the greatest minds of our
Universe since the dawn of Reason itself. I think your two questions
"what is the best way to live?" "what is the authority
which tells us the best way to live?" are meant to determine
my point of view as to who is to say what is good: myself or some
authority outside of myself. As I'm sure you can tell from my
two posts, I believe in an Authority outside myself.
Descartes is well known for saying "I am thinking therefore
I exist." This was at the end of his search for Truth, the
search to know what can be known with absolute certainty. He was
able to deny everything else: that there was a world, other people,
even that he had a body, but he couldn't deny he was thinking.
But more importantly he realized he didn't have the ability within
himself to create himself. That's when he concluded there must
be a Creator. From that (and his belief that the Creator must
be perfect) he was able to extend his faith to the idea that the
external world existed because "God could not deceive."
So, yes, the question, for me, is "what authority tells us
the best way to live?" Because if I'm left to my own, I can
logically and emotionally accept that everything outside my mind
doesn't exist, and I'll will to do whatever brings my mind pleasure.
But, along with Descartes, I believe that I didn't create myself,
so there's a higher power than my will, and it's my job to learn
what that higher power wants me to do.
So, back on topic (I could go off in any number of tangents, all
at the same time!), where is Ben on his search for meaning? The
Buffyverse seems to admit to the same logic Descartes used: they
seem to have thoughts, they know they exist, they didn't create
themselves (Dawn, especially must feel the implications of that!),
what is the purpose of the creator of the Buffyverse. Actions
following that purpose would then be ethical, going against it
would not. I don't think the concept of a Creator has been developed
in Buffy's world. That brings me to the restatement of my actual
question: "what is good in the Buffyverse?"
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Authority
& Walking Away -- Solitude1056, 17:12:28 05/10/01 Thu
While I agree that an investigation into "what is the Good"
(two Os on purpose) in the Buffyverse may be an enlightening way
to analogize our own universe (as it is in so many other topics),
my point is that Ben is a rather crummy example. ;)
If Ben ever had that old timey religion, he sure don't seem to
have it now, and I for one couldn't blame the character. As I
said, it's gotta be hard to keep faith in an invisible Authority
when a second, very visible, Something is ripping your life apart.
Then again, people sure lose faith when they're faced with repeated
pointless wars - and yet at the same time it's said there are
no atheists in foxholes. So who knows... if we all reacted the
same way, the world would be pretty boring. A pat way to tie it
up, but true.
Ben hasn't demonstrated a selfish streak other than to stubbornly
hold onto his life, and a bit of stupidity in how best to do it.
He gets points for tenacity, but it's hard to know what to do
when all you know is that you're in the last hand of the game
and you're down to your last card... and it's only the two of
spades. Glory's holding all the aces. Ben doesn't have family,
or friends, that we've seen; he's got no job, no visible connections,
and has to deal with scabby minions kissing Glory's backside when
she's not even present. That alone would be enough to turn anyone
off of extreme religious types! ;P
But Ben's also a coward at the same time he's pragmatic. It's
not like a bunch of people mysteriously going "ill"
is not going to be noticed, nor the fact that they all seem to
disappear in the neighborhood near his apartment. The evidence
has to be removed; Ben's able to do it because he's able to be
distanced from the clean-up. Dawn's proving to be another matter.
He knew her from when her mother was ill; she came to him, of
all people, when she discovered she's the Key. She can look him
the eye and recognize him as a fellow human being. And that's
got to be disconcerting. So he's paralyzed. He's not asking an
Authority what to do, because it probably seems that any Authority
with insight or control over his life should've prevented Glory's
entrance in the first place! And he doesn't have anyone else to
ask, either. And I imagine that getting on a plane to Singapore
risks Glory's reappearance and the subsequent death of anyone
in his near vicinity when she gets angry at being removed from
Sunnydale. Besides, if he removes himself physically too far,
then he risks losing track of what's going on with the Key and
thus having any chance of an upper hand himself. So he stays.
It's a rough position, and ethically I think there are a lot of
questions to be asked. But I'm not sure religion comes into play
here - as a matter of fact, this may be one of the few circumstances
where we could more appropriately ask: what does one do without
a "religion" or "faith" or "belief"
in some sort of Higher Power? Ben's pretty much on his own, and
fighting for survival. How can we measure his actions once we
separate them from a social Authority-based moral system?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Authority & Walking Away -- freshwater, 08:32:22 05/11/01 Fri
"How can we measure his actions once we separate them from
a social Authority-based moral system?"
That, I think, is exactly my point. All judgements and measurements
require a frame of reference. I can't say the distance from here
to there is 10. Ten what? It's meaningless without a commonly
accepted standard. I can't say "that's unethical" without
a similar frame of reference. And how hard is that!! How many
people offer seminars and classes, how many religions try to teach,
how many parents attempt to instill a framework of ethics? How
many variations do we have? If it seems impossible to agree in
our world exactly what is ethical, can we hope to judge the ethics
of whether or not Ben should kill himself to save the world?
But now if we add to the argument your desire to strip ethics
of a social-Authority framework, and by this I'm accepting all
social and all external authority, then the ethics of Ben's behavior
are determined by his own internal sense of happiness. And this
is why I think he's a coward more than a pragmatist. If we strip
away belief, socially imposed habit, religion, etc. I think we
can agree that one of the highest natural laws is self preservation
(a mother's protection of her offspring, based on the natural
world, seems like it might be higher in some cases, but we're
not dealing with that here). Given that, the most ethical thing
for Ben to do is kill Dawn, this will both save the world and
free himself.
I think it's only if we accept society, belief, or religious based
ethical frameworks that any other alternative would be considered
ethical for Ben. It's only if we, as society, say, "You don't
kill little innocent girls to save yourself," that his actions
can be questioned. Society, to maintain itself, must impose standards
different from "you're free to do whatever brings you happiness".
If we deny social-authority based ethics, I don't see what would
hold a society together.
So, back to your question: How can we measure his actions once
we separate them from a social Authority-based moral system?
We don't.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Authority & Walking Away -- Solitude1056, 21:13:15 05/11/01
Fri
I observed in a newer thread that Ben's made comments that suggested
he's grown up somehow isolated from humanity. In that case, judging
him by social standards is even more difficult, because it doesn't
seem like he's had much exposure (other than pop culture and a
few peers here & there) to guage the social ethics on any given
behavior. Raised by minions, too, to boot, perhaps? So in that
case, we're dealing with a person in somewhat of ethical isolation.
He's definitely an anomaly, especially so when compared to the
Scoobies who are so interdependent. That makes him twice as interesting
to me, philosophically, but it also means that I'm dubious about
introducing elements that don't appear to have major influences
on him, unlike the average person with family, friends, society
- such as religion, morals, dogma, or external authorities in
the form of parents or pastors.
All in all, dunno, really.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Parallel
lines... -- OnM, 21:09:06 05/10/01 Thu
*** "From that (and his belief that the Creator must be perfect)
he was able to extend his faith to the idea that the external
world existed because "God could not deceive." ***
Some questions to consider--
1 > Why presume that the Creator is perfect? Does the principle
fall apart completely if such is not a given, or does it just
need to be modified?
2 > Why couldn't the 'outside authority' be the collective
knowledge and experience of human society, gathered over 1000's
of years of existence?
One short(ish) comment regarding my definitiion of 'dogma', whether
religious, scientific, or philosophical-- dogma implies absolute,
certain, irrevocable, incontrovertable. These qualities of knowledge/action/existance
define not only themselves, but their opposite, which cannot simultaneously
exist in any given universe. If the opposite turns out to actually
exist in the same universe, than the dogma is in error, and therefore
ceases to be dogma at that instant. Parallel lines, by definition,
never intersect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Parallel lines... -- freshwater, 07:57:43 05/11/01 Fri
"1 > Why presume that the Creator is perfect? Does the
principle fall apart completely if such is not a given, or does
it just need to be modified?"
Well, you caught me editing Descartes! In between "I didn't
create myself" and "God cannot deceive" is another
concept that I didn't include. Descartes knew that he had the
concept "perfection" in his mind. He knew that nothing
in his sense experience had ever shown him the idea, since he
had never seen, felt, heard, etc. something that was truly "perfect."
So, it was his belief that nothing imperfect could have, without
assistance, created the idea or concept of perfection. From that
he believed the Creator was perfect, and it was the Creator that
instilled the idea of perfection in him. Therefore (according
to Descartes), since he was convinced by his senses that there
was an external (outside his mind) world, and the Creator was
perfect, and deception is the enforcement of a lie, and a lie
is non-truth (therefore non-existent), the Creator could not enforce
a deception that the world didn't exist, therefore there is an
external world. And, yes, the argument falls apart if the Creator
isn't perfect. In that case, the external world could be an elaborate
deception that doesn't exist. Again, I'm back to believing my
mind is all that is.
"2 > Why couldn't the 'outside authority' be the collective
knowledge and experience of human society, gathered over 1000's
of years of existence?"
This would result in a invalid circular argument, given what we're
trying to prove. I am looking for an authority other than my mind
to prove there is an external reality. If my authority for proving
the external world are the people in that external world, I haven't
proven anything, I'm back to believing my consciousness is the
only thing that exists, ever existed, or will exist. Again, going
back to Descartes' argument, I know I didn't create myself, some
creative Will created me, and it seems right to search out that
Will and see how It might want me to live an ethical life, since,
after all, It did give me existence.
About dogma, our definitions are probably the source of our disagreement.
Maybe not the definition exactly put the decision of what to call
a dogma. I would agree that dogma creates an absolute. So, for
a Christian for example, "Christ is God" is a dogma,
an absolute belief, which creates the opposite "Christ is
not God". Like you said, mathematically, logically these
can't exist at the same time. And I can't think of a situation
where they would be; either the Christian line of thinking is
right or it's wrong, pretty straight forward. Now, something like
"Thou shalt not kill" I would call moral teaching, not
dogma. It isn't as "absolute". The "spirit"
of the idea becomes the direction not the letter. The problem
people run into is to equate morality with dogma. That's when
you run into condemnations for things that are ethical, like a
person stealing a loaf of bread because he's starving and no one
will help. The right to life is higher than the right to property,
and the moral teaching "don't steal" becomes subservient
to "life is precious". Obviously I've now gone completely
off topic! But, overall, I just wanted to express my belief that
dogma and logic aren't necessarily inconsistent, that it's at
least not illogical to believe in a Creative Will, and that unless
we acknowledge a "higher good" than our own wills, pure
selfishness is the most ethical course of behavior. What we acknowledge
that "higher good" to be is obviously the open question
here.
Oh, and by the way, depending on how curved space-time turns out
to be, parallel lines might intersect!
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
This statement is false. -- Malandanza, 12:20:34 05/11/01 Fri
About mathematics...
Mathematics is the hardest of the hard sciences. If a mathematical
proof is done correctly (and no unwarranted assumptions have been
made) the result is undeniably true. In no other field can truth
be ascertained so completely. It is the language of God.
The basis of mathematics rests upon a handful of axioms -- everything
else is derived from these. In 1900, David Hilbert proposed examining
the logical foundations of Mathematics -- which had never been
subjected to rigorous inspection. Obviously, a flaw in the foundations
would result in flaws in all the material based upon these foundations.
Hilbert drew up a list of 23 unsolved problems that he felt to
be of paramount importance to establishing the logical base.
However, even in math there are paradoxes. Consider the statement
"This statement is false." If we assume that the statement
is true, we arrive at a contradiction since the (true) statement
tells us that it is, in fact, false. Therefore, the statement
must be false. Which means that "This statement is false"
is incorrect, so the statement is true -- another contradiction.
In 1931, Godel published "On Formally Undecidable Propositions
in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems" where he proved
that:
1) If an axiomatic set theory is consistent, there exist theorems
that can neither be proved nor disproved. 2) There is no constructive
procedure that will prove axiomatic theory to be consistent.
Slightly rewriting the "liar's paradox," he came up
with a statement like "This statement does not have any proof"
-- if false, the statement is provable, so it's true (contradiction)
-- so it must be true.
Paul Cohen, building upon Godel's work, discovered how to tell
if some problems are unprovable - and one of those problems was
in Hilbert's list of 23 questions vital to mathematics.
So, perhaps our system of mathematics is consistent (and things
analogous to irresistible forces and immovable objects cannot
exist) and perhaps not -- it is impossible to determine. The entire
foundation of mathematics may be a lie -- and it may not. Descartes
was a mathematician (we get Cartesian coordinates from him)--
I doubt he could imagine anything more perfect than math (I cannot).
Yet there is an imperfection.
As number theorist Andre Weil said, "God exists since mathematics
is consistent, and the Devil exists because we cannot prove it."
I don't have a problem with paradoxes in the universe, Descartes
"evil genius" argument notwithstanding. So let the irresistible
forces exist alongside of immovable objects -- the universe is
flawed -- that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or will cease to
exist when small self-aware pieces of the universe recognize its
inconsistencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: This statement is false. -- Humanitas, 12:35:40 05/11/01
Fri
It seems that, like Spike (ATLtS), mathematics is useful, and
we must get over it. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: All bachelors are married men ;) -- freshwater, 14:10:42
05/11/01 Fri
Does anyone mind if I continue this tangent (what was this thread
about anyway?)?
Descartes, along with Augustine, Plato, Pythagorus (sp?), and
countless others think of nothing much more perfect than math
(Augustine relates it to Wisdom itself). I'm not sure if he was
the first, but Hume definitely had a problem with putting math
on such a high pedestal (hey, if cause and effect can be called
into doubt, why not math?!) Being the skeptic he was, he saw no
purpose in math beyond counting sensibly perceptible things. All
abstractions were useless, you're never going to see or have use
for an absolutely perfect circle in the sensible world.
Now, you'll have to forgive me for getting in a bit over my head,
I dropped Calc 4 right after finding surface areas of 6 dimensional
spheres - ouch!!, and I've just started reading Kant's "Critique
of Pure Reason". But I like his view that math, specifically
Euclidean (and, I guess by extension, Cartesian) math/geometry
is an expression of the mind's a-priori structure for making sense
of sense data. Like I said, I'm just getting started on it, but
I find that to be a really interesting way of looking at things.
What the "real" world looks like, moves like, changes
like, isn't as important to the mind as making sense of the sensory
inputs. It seems Kant takes that "blueprint" of the
inner workings of the mind to be represented by math and geometry.
So the inconsistencies in math become expressions of the inconsistencies
of the mind's underlying workings. Ouch!!
"This sentence is false." This one just annoys me. I've
had an idea why, but couldn't put it into words until I read an
essay in (I think) Blackwell's guide to Epistemology. The sentence
isn't so much of a paradox as it is useless. Language transmits
ideas, only real (metaphysically) ideas can be expressed by language.
The sentence "this sentence is false" was never intended
to express an existent idea, to transmit thought, it's intended
to show the inconsistencies of linguistic structure, this doesn't
affect language's ability to express ideas, it shows that words
can be put together that fail to transmit something true. We,
as humans, have free will participate in falsehood. I find it
interesting that the very nature of math/geometry/language allow,
within their structure to admit to the same falsehood. It seems
to be the very nature of Nature to allow inconsistencies. Isn't
that what makes life interesting?!!
Or maybe it's all in my head, none of this really happening outside
my mind, and this is all just stimuli of my subconscious trying
to tell me I'm internally inconsistent!!!
Oh, and I know the subject line isn't of the same form as "this
sentence is false", but, hey, if immovable objects and unstoppable
forces can coexist, if things can be and not be, than, darn it,
bachelors can be married!!
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: All bachelors are married men ;) -- Cleanthes,
18:48:25 05/12/01 Sat
"This sentence is false" is just form of the liar's
paradox, of course. I think it's interesting that the liar's paradox,
pretty much alone among the mathematical/logical paradoxes, has
a bit of scriptural authority when St. Paul makes an ironic joke
about it: Titus 1:12,13. So, what's the dogmatic answer to this
puzzle?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> NO, not Godel, puhleeeeeeese! :) -- Solitude1056, 14:49:29
05/11/01 Fri
Don't MAKE me come over there!
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Math isn't a science. It is without empirical content. --
Masquerade, 16:29:25 05/11/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Math isn't a science. It is without empirical
content. -- Malandanza, 18:38:21 05/11/01 Fri
Sixty years ago, this might have been true. Even then, mathematicians
have used empirical methods to arrive at their conjectures --
granted, they still had to provide a rigorous proof before the
conjectures could be accepted as fact. I understand that no matter
how many examples one provides of a conjecture being true, mere
empirical data proves nothing in mathematics.
Unless you find that one example out of the infinite possibilities
that cannot work -- then this counterexample disproves the conjecture.
In modern times, computers have changed mathematics. Numerical
mathematics is not like the pure math of former times. There is
a strong empirical content. Computers are very good at performing
millions of calculations -- but with every calculation comes the
potential of error. There are theorems and proofs in numerical
math, just as in pure math, but the important theorems are those
that estimate how much your results will differ from reality.
Add in Godel's undecidability theorems to mix uncertainty into
pure math and making sure mathematical results agree with real
life does become important. Empiricism also helps with belief
(alot of faith is required to be a mathematician these days:)
- there are counter-intuitive proofs (like the logarithmic distribution
of numbers -- an odd concept: there sre more numbers beginning
with 1 than 2, more that begin with 2 than 3, etc.) that are hard
to believe until you've actually seen the data confirming the
proof.
I believe empiricism does have its place in mathematics. Observations
lead to mathematicians in the right direction; once they know
how things ought to work, they can set about proving it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well, thats a thorny question -- fresne, 13:13:16
05/11/01 Fri
My main difficulty in addressing the central question of whether
one's individual beliefs should bow to the will of the majority
with "Ben should/not? suicide" as an example is several
fold:
1) The use of suicide as an example is problematic because I can't
think of a religion with an absolute principal on it. Lets look
at suicide in the medieval Catholic Church.
Suicide is/was bad wrong, straight ticket to hell. Unless, you're
a virgin attempting to preserve your Bride of Christ status (see
Christine de Pisan's Book of the City of Ladies, part III for
a whole passel of examples) or as someone pointed out Christ.
Because there is a difference between suicide and sacrifice. Suicide
is giving away God's greatest gift (your life) for selfish reasons
(I feel sad). Sacrifice is giving away God's greatest gift (your
life) for selfless reasons (it will save lives). All of which
is in itself a hopeless simplification because it was an issue
for schism and conflict and reams of exegetical discussion.
2) We know at least one aspect of Ben's religion/belief structure.
Ben is a Doctor (Or at least was very close.) He has already taken
all of the classes, engaged in all the discussions, etc., of what
it means to be a Doctor. He knows the Hippocratic Oath even if
he has not gone so far as to swear to do no harm.
Given Ben's motivation to be a Doctor (to be around and presumably
help people) and the way he treats patients like Joyce/Buffy/Dawn,
I would assume at least a partial investment in the ethics and
beliefs involved in being a Doctor.
Since I don't know what other religion Ben follows, I'm boggled
at the sheer number of possibilities and shades of religious nuance.
3) We've seen Ben cause deaths. He summoned the Queller to kill
Glory's insane "children". He also stabbed the minion
to protect Dawn. And then there's the question of Ben's motivation
in going to help Buffy. His intention had to be to kill Dawn because
he certainly didn't do it to get Glory near Dawn. All of which
just muddies my mental waters.
All of that aside, lets say that Ben does have a moral/religious
objection to killing himself. And the majority of people in the
world feel that the world should be saved (but not necessarily
Ben. He could be longing for the Rapture.). Presuming that there
is nothing else he could do to thwart Glory, does he have an ethical
obligation to do something that will damn himself to hell (taking
the religious stance) but will save the world, which he doesn't
necessarily want to save.
Presuming of course that he knows the world is in jeopardy (not
just his own existence. That nothing less than Ben's death will
save the world. And ignoring the conundrum that Ben has a choice
of killing himself/saving the world/damning himself vs. letting
the world be destroyed/he would still die/but he might be going
to heaven.
Well, not wanting to imply that I have the right to dictate anyone
else's religious beliefs, (since he is not actively trying to
destroy the world/impose his beliefs on others, which is where
I draw the line) then no. But I do reserve the right to the opinion
that he should be a little more active in the world destruction
thwarting and he might (under the circumstances) want to rethink
his religious position. I'm not sure I'd want to follow a religion
that would allow me to save my soul at the cost of the entire
world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, thats a thorny question -- Humanitas,
13:53:06 05/11/01 Fri
There's a new twist: What profiteth a man to lose the world but
save his soul?
One would think that this would clearly be sacrifce, rather than
suicide.
Ben doesn't seem too self-sacrificing, to me. His only stated
motivation is to preserve his own life, independant of Glory.
Maybe there's more there, but the writers haven't seen fit to
show us yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- FanMan, 17:34:29 05/09/01 Wed
If I was carying a horrible plauge virus, but was immune to it
myself; killing myself would be for the greater good. Suicide
for the reason of giving up on life is a sin, I have been very
depressed myself. Suicide is not a solution, it is avoidance and
cowardice. Killing yourself to prevent disaster is an act of a
hero/martyre. Putting yourself in front of a gun to protect a
friend vs killing yourself to keep your friend from dying of a
plauge? Both are honorable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- rowan, 17:56:49 05/09/01
Wed
This post is very thought-provoking. I was one of the posters
that suggested Ben was a coward for not doing away with himself.
But then, we have to ask why Dawn doesn't kill herself, either.
Hmm. Of course, she is still a child, really, so I don't think
we can have the same expectations of her as we do of a mature
man. Also, there's no evidence that she can destroy herself --
goodness, that might activate her power!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- Rufus, 18:49:44
05/09/01 Wed
The reason that Dawn has less of a reason for suicide is this,
even though alot of deaths have happened to gain the key, the
key never directly caused any death. Ben has had a direct hand
in covering up the existance of Glory...he is no innocent. What
will be lost with the destruction of the key?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- Wisewoman,
21:51:05 05/09/01 Wed
Can we play around with the definition of "suicide"
here? Is it really suicide to sacrifice yourself to save the world?
Isn't that what Christians believe that Christ did? I've never
heard it referred to as suicide.
Does it come down to who pulls the trigger/wields the knife/pounds
in the nails? If Ben were both devoutly religious and ethical,
could he not find some way of ending his life for the good of
the world without *technically* committing suicide, thereby sidestepping
his religious imperative?
Maybe that's where telling Buffy comes in--he could have told
her who/what he was with the full understanding that she would
then have to kill him to save the world. Would that be suicide?
Just a thought...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Ethics of Suicide -- Rufus,
23:14:09 05/09/01 Wed
In suicide a person intentionally takes their own life. A Sacrifice
in the instance of Ben or Dawn would be their death for the sake
of the world. One could see a suicide as an escape where a sacrifice
has a direct benefit for others or an ideal. In religion sacrifice
can be seen as a death to benefit others or giving up a way of
living or comfort for a belief. In Ben or Dawns case it would
be a benefit to the world for either party to die. But, how to
choose? Who has the right to choose who lives or who dies. Both
parties entered the situation innocent, Ben was a baby created
to hold Glory, Dawn created to save the key from destruction.
Who is the more appropriate sacrifice? Did either Ben or Dawn
ever have a choice?
Have the seeds of Spike's departure
been sown? -- LoriAnn, 17:44:40 05/09/01 Wed
I didn't see this in any posts, but if it's already been brought
up. . .sorry. In "Spiral" Xander walks over to help
Spike get his cigarette lit. Then, what may have been a little
male bonding ensues. As the two of them speak, Spike tells Xander
they should all make a break for it; perhaps some of them will
survive instead of all of them staying and dying. Buffy walks
in and states no one leaves, no one dies. Spike, and maybe Xander,
walk off grumbling. The KofB general says, "Dissention in
the ranks, always a bad sign," or close to it. He doesn't
seem the kind to make small talk or to make spiteful comments
for the sake of pettiness. Are we being shown that Spike may be
moving away from Buffy, just a little? He didn't like her minimizing
the wounds he received saving her life either. Will this affect
his actions in the next two eps? Is he starting a downward spiral
himself? Still, he sprang to attack Glory, even before Buffy did.
However, I just can't see the "dissention in the ranks"
remark as gratuitous. Is JW giving us one of his maddeningly obscure
clues?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- rowan,
17:54:24 05/09/01 Wed
I don't know. IMHO, I don't think so. Spike is a man of action.
He gets jumpy just sitting around. His answer to this whole thing
is to do -- whether it's running or fighting. As part of Buffy's
spiral, she's indecisive at points, and that doesn't suit his
style, but I think he's still clearly willing to defer to her.
I thought Spike and Buffy worked very well together. Notice that
Buffy and Spike immediately began searching for the weapons and
giving Giles instructions when the Knights arrived. Spike saved
Buffy's life by grabbing that sword (certainly even a Slayer couldn't
survive a sword into the skull). Spike also prompted Buffy to
take action (time for heroics).
They also worked well together in the gas station -- moving the
candy machine, and teaming up on the first Knight through the
door (again, Spike punched the Knight to save Buffy, who had been
knocked to the ground and then Buffy saved Spike from dismemberment
when the chip activated and he was helpless). I contrast this
with the Buffy and Riley tag-teaming slaying, which always seem
out of sync somehow.
I think Spike got a little disgruntled when Buffy didn't show
concern over his wounds -- especially after Dawn's gratifying
performance. His face was further rubbed in it when she was so
appreciative of Ben.
But of course, the whole Ben thing is a disaster for Buffy. Again,
a horrible misjudgement about a man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown? -- FanMan,
18:02:51 05/09/01 Wed
Spike is someone who likes action, both Spike and Buffy would
prefer to fight than worry. Buffy was in charge and overwhelmed
emotionally even before her breakdown. Spikes wounds; any injury
he survives will regenerate vs Giles serious condition. Spike
is practical vs Buffy being Heroic and trying to keep everyone
safe. Safety is not feasable for anyone. You can be in a safe
place/situation, but you cannot be safe all the time. Spike is
loyal to anyone he loves regardless of good/evil urges. Buffy
has always been short with Spike, if she was friendly to him he
would be shocked! Spike will remain part of the group unless he
sacrifices his unlife for Buffy/Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been sown?
-- rowan, 18:16:26 05/09/01 Wed
Thoughtful reading!
I'm not sure about Spike sacrificing his life, though. How we
he do that exactly? The only way he can be killed is by being
dusted, or burned alive, right? Not to get too literal here, but
how much abuse can he take before he loses his undeadness (remember,
he's already dead -- what can Glory do to him exactly?) Would
he die if his head were cut off? Or an arm? No, he'd fully or
partially regenerate and survive. That type of death is not an
immediate threat to Spike.
What could he do in the last ep as a sacrifice? Through himself
through the portal? I mean, Spike is a demon, so I assume he could
survive the demon dimension, right?
I'm wondering if any sacrifice Spike makes might be more metaphysical
in nature (sacrificing the old vampire Spike personality for the
newer Scooby Spike) -- and I go back to what others are mentioning.
If Spike tastes Dawn's blood, what happens to him? (could be an
injury to him that requires some human blood to repair, and you
know Dawn would die it, especially if he was horribly injured
for her and Buffy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure been
sown? -- FanMan, 18:29:44 05/09/01 Wed
I do not think Spike is going to abandon Buffy because she is
rude to him, that is normal. Spike has been very rude to Buffy,
and I mean everything besides trying to kill her. Spying, betrayal(sort
of) to Adam, biting comments(grin), stealing her clothes, the
whole Crush episode!
Anyway, rowan I was saying Spike will be in for the long haul,
grey morality included. Unless Joss decides to write him off the
show, or JM contract negotiations go south.
Spike would die if his head was removed. Adam ripped a vampires
head off=dusty. Glory is much stronger than Adam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure
been sown? -- Lynn, 19:50:26 05/09/01 Wed
I would say it is typical Spike/Buffy interaction, they are usually
prickly with each other even while working well together. Spike
loves her but doesn't put her on a pedastal. Buffy did take the
time to look at his hands, but she also knows he will heal fast,
and at the time she didn't have the luxury of fawning over him,
the Knights were coming and she had to secure the building, and
Spike was well enough to help her. Of course her treating Ben
nicely grated on him, anytime she pays attention to any man but
him will make him jealous, but he is committed to helping her
and Dawn, no doubt about it.
As for contract negotiations with JM, I'm hopeful they want him
back and that he will be back, he has a good relationship with
Joss, and if they intend to keep his character on the show I can't
forsee any difficulties. After all, they will likely have more
money to work with being with UPN.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's departure
been sown? -- Hauptman, 21:16:04 05/09/01 Wed
I agree. What was Buffy to do, fawn over Spike even though she
knows exactly how much punishment a Vampire can take? She could
probably time his recovery to the minute. Also, she knows that
Spike will milk any little kindness for all it's worth right now.
I think she really appreciates him and she showed that by taking
what amounts to an order from him when he saved her hairdo on
the RV.
As for Spike's feelings for Buff, we may see an actual crack in
them before the season is over. However, though his feelings for
Buffy are misguided, I think what he feels for Dawn is the real
deal. If she dies, he will be crushed for a long time. Provided,
of course, Joss doesn't pull a Dallas on us and wipe out the whole
season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of Spike's
departure been sown? -- Lynn, 21:45:46 05/09/01 Wed
True, it was almost an order, in true Spike fashion, sarcastic
and pithy :) But I think his feelings for Buffy are real, and
won't crack, she just doesn't return them, at least not now; right
now it's enough for him that at least she acknowledges his feelings
are real and appreciates his help without overly encouraging him.
Spike and Dawn have a mutual affection, though, and he will feel
her loss deeply if it happens, but if anything happened to Buffy
he would be devastated. Spike's feelings don't come and go with
the wind, when he loves, he usually isn't the one to leave. If
he didn't give up when before, he won't now, at least that's how
I see it.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds of
Spike's departure been sown? Possible Spoilers! -- LoriAnn, 04:22:07
05/10/01 Thu
I agree with almost everything that has been written in response
to my original post. I agree that Spike really loves Buffy and
Dawn. In a way, his feelings for Dawn might even be stronger.
Additionally, Spike is faithful to a person he loves, and we haven't
seen him do any leaving, although he doesn't seem to treat past-loves
quite so well. However, last season, would anyone have expected
Spike to be head over heels for Buffy? Things change and Spike
changes too, and my question was have we seen a clue that Spike
will be changing. He could become disgruntled with Buffy's insistence
on certain things; with her breakdown, weakness; with his situation
in general; with, could it be possible, guilt for one thing or
another. As we all know neither true love nor any other kind of
love travels a straight road in the Buffyverse. So despite the
catagorical statements to the contrary, all we really know is
that the road will turn, probably several times, before this storyline
plays out, and all we can do is look for clues that MIGHT be harbingers
of one of those changes. Even I think what I noticed is mighty
"iffy," but I cannot get the general's, and my, last
words on this subject out of my mind: "always a bad sign."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Have the seeds
of Spike's departure been sown? Possible Spoilers! -- Lynn, 07:54:48
05/10/01 Thu
I tend to take the general's remark with a grain of salt. After
all, he doesn't know any of the SG and their connection to Buffy,
has no idea how close they all are, that even though they may
talk and voice their opinions, as they always have, they stick
together no matter what, and for now, I put Spike in that category
too. He is a man of action, and was just letting off some steam,
but it does show he is thinking and trying to help. He and Xander
did not look disgruntled to me, they looked a bit chastened at
being caught talking about the possibility of some of them not
surviving. Poor Buffy can't stand to lose anyone, she will feel
responsible even if it isn't her fault, but now she feels it is
- she called Ben to help Giles, and he morphed into Glory and
she took Dawn. Right now, it is good that she has friends and
allies who will keep up the fight while she is trying to deal.
As for Spike's past loves, the only one we know of is Dru, and
he hasn't done anything to hurt her - sure he offered to stake
her for Buffy, but at the same time he acknowledged what she meant
to him, and I don't think he really would have gone through with
it - he wasn't in his right mind at that time.
One thing is for certain - Joss loves to torture us :)
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike acts
like the vampire he's always been -- darrenK, 08:08:47 05/10/01
Thu
In the Buffyverse, vampires are tribal, working together in groups,
living together in "nests." Most vamps seem to stick
with the vampire that made them. And most seem obedient to other
stronger vamps.
Vamp leaders like the Master require absolute obedience. And vamp
underlings seem to obey them while grumbling and plotting, just
as Spike plots with Xander.
Spike was part of a powerful vamp group--Dru, Darla, Angel--but
also a rebellious group who rejected the Master and went their
own way.
Strangely, Buffy's situation as the Slayer is similar. The Watcher's
council has been the traditional support network for the Slayer.
Traditionally, the Slayer was only a girl who did their will and
saw the world according to their narrow prescriptions. Buffy is
a woman, who has rejected the Watchers just as Spike and co. rejected
the Master. She has formed her own support network that defies
the Watchers definition of good and evil. She harbors and has
harbored vampires, witches, ex-demons and ditch diggers.
Most of these posts look at Spike as an individual while ignoring
his vampiric tribalism. The Scoobies are his new tribe, the only
one he can join with that chip in his head. Just as he loved Dru
as his "maker," and reluctantly accepted the authority
of Angel as the leader of his vamp group, Buffy is the leader
of the only group of cosmological outcasts that he now fits into.
P.S. Buffy might not have been so sensitive to his wounds, but
this is a woman who once stabbed her "love" and sent
him to hell. Spike knows that she not only has repeatedly failed
to dust him, but has asked him to join them. He knows the value
of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike
acts like the vampire he's always been -- Hauptman, 08:38:48 05/10/01
Thu
Vampire tribalism. That is an excellent point Darren. That had
not occured to me. Spike is alone in the world for probably the
first time in his unlife. It makes sense that with his vampire
nature he would seek out a new tribe and a new "master"
even if he is unconscious of the pattern. Bravo.
To chime in on something else, there is some talk of whether or
not Buffy will kill Ben (an innocent?) to save Dawn. I echo your
point: Buffy stabbed Angel (That's Angel with a soul, Kids) through
the gut and sent him to what she thought would be eternal torment
in order to save the world. She will slice Ben up like a baked
ham if she has to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
...slice Ben up like a baked ham -- Jen C., 11:30:51 05/10/01
Thu
Dear Lord, we can only hope! I'm a veggie, but if she does that,
I'll show up with applesauce!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: ...slice Ben up like a baked ham -- Brian, 11:43:10 05/10/01
Thu
Heck! Add spices and salt, some potatoes and cabbage, and we'll
have us an old fashion New England Boiled Dinner: Mustard optional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- rowan, 20:58:37
05/10/01 Thu
Yeah, but...Buffy didn't think Angel/Angelus was an innocent,
did she? She might think Ben is because he was created by the
hellgods just to house Glory. That might force her to think about
him the way she thinks about Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- Vickie, 12:35:39
05/11/01 Fri
de-lurking here...
Gang, my memory's never perfect, but didn't the General say that
Glory had been put into a newborn male? If so, Ben wasn't created
to house her. He's a normal human man with a stowaway.
He is certainly responsible for his acts since becoming aware
of Glory. But a non-human vessel? I don't think so...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike
acts like the vampire he's always been -- Lynn, 08:44:17 05/10/01
Thu
Interesting take, Darren, we do tend to forget Spike is a vampire
sometimes :)
And you put it better than I did - Spike is in love but is not
stupid. Buffy coming to him for help now is different than before
- now she comes from a position of respect, as he has shown genuine
concern and compassion for her and Dawn, and he appreciates it.
And didn't they save each other's lives when the Knights tried
to attack the gas station - Spike hit one that was about to kill
Buffy, the chip went off and she saved him when the Knight turned
on him.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Spike acts like the vampire he's always been -- rowan, 21:00:43
05/10/01 Thu
"And didn't they save each other's lives when the Knights
tried to attack the gas station - Spike hit one that was about
to kill Buffy, the chip went off and she saved him when the Knight
turned on him."
Yes, I noticed that too, as well as when they pushed the candy
machine together, got the weapons in the RV, both told Giles how
to drive, and then Spike saving Buffy from a sword in the head.
It's nice to see Buffy do some fighting with someone her equal
in strength. It makes a nice variation on the fighting scenes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good to know Spike won't be walking around
headless! :) -- rowan, 20:56:08 05/10/01 Thu
Question about the General and
Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rufus, 18:55:29 05/09/01 Wed
Something is bugging me about the Knights and Glory. Glory didn't
know who Buffy was when they first met, so I have to assume she
can't read minds. When Glory sees Gregor(the General)she knows
him right away and makes a point of killing him. Then when Glory
punches her way through the barrier she kills the army of Knights.
She knew them....she had a score to settle with them. So, question....why
kill all the Knights and not kill the Slayer and her friends?
Makes no sense to me. I understand she sees Buffy as no threat
but if it were me I'd take no chances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for
Spiral -- FanMan, 19:55:20 05/09/01 Wed
Glory should have killed Buffy at least. Not what I want, but
it would be logical. Plot problem: Glory is too powerfull, so
Joss has to fudge the scene so that there is still a story to
tell. It only took her 5 seconds or so to kill 20-30 warriors.
She has just as much reason to kill Buffy as the Knights. Unless
the knights have a secret weapon like kryptonite for hellgods...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Scott L., 20:12:23 05/09/01 Wed
We're just assuming that the knights are dead and that Glory killed
them.
What we saw was them lying sprawled out all over the place. No
one checked for a pulse or breathing. They could have been blown
over by the force of Willow's field being destroyed. That makes
the most sense to me considering how they were all sprawled out,
not like an organized attack formation.
Even if Glory did fight or kill the knights, she did it to get
herself and the key out of there. Buffy and the gang were already
incapacitated, she didn't need to do anything else. She's a god.
They are gnats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Solitude1056, 20:19:16 05/09/01 Wed
I just realized something: Glory didn't have to fight and/or kill
Buffy et al. That's not because Buffy is or is not a threat...
but because Glory's quite aware that shooting Dawn to beat Glory
is not in Buffy's game plan. The Knights are another matter. They
know they're no match for the Beast, but they also know the Key
is a young mortal girl. One good arrow, one good slash, and the
Key's toast. While the spoilers say that Dawn's blood is somehow
part of the deal, I'd imagine a dead Dawn, outside of a ritual
circle, doesn't quite fill the ticket. Glory knows that fleeing
through a circle of Knights means they'll avoid her and strike
for the Key. So she spends her energy clearing out the Knights
because she's protecting the Key - but not worrying about Buffy
& the Scoobies, because they're no threat to the Key itself. Seems
reasonable to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Rufus, 20:27:53 05/09/01 Wed
Buffy has become quite the bug on Glorys splatter screen....you
would think that would warrant a big swat. But Glory just left
them.....Gregor was tied up and wasn't a threat to Glory leaving
so it was plain old revenge to kill him like she did. Why kill
the tied up guy and leave the people with a motive to keep following
her? So, I wonder how long the Knights and Glory have been dancing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and
Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Solitude1056, 20:49:58 05/09/01
Wed
Perhaps there's the chance that Gregor knows more than he told
Buffy, and Glory wasn't interested in leaving Gregor behind to
team up with Buffy? Ok, that's a stretch. Or, maybe Gregor was
part of the deal that put Glory in Ben's body... hence her immediate
wish to destroy him. The clock's ticking, and maybe Glory just
figured the Scoobies wouldn't figure out where she was headed,
so clear out fast & leave 'em behind. They're not going to hurt
the Key, like I said, and they can't hurt her, so they're not
really a threat in her mind. Annoyance, yes. Threat, no. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and
Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- purplegrrl, 09:37:37 05/10/01
Thu
I think Glory believes she will be able to use the Key for whatever
purpose well before Buffy and gang would be able to organize and
come after her. (Besides if Glory killed the Scooby Gang, especially
Buffy, we'd sort of be left without a show - and not just because
it's moving to UPN!)
Were the Knights more of a threat to Glory? Possibly, since they
had sharp-edged weapons. Definately more of a threat to Dawn.
Glory didn't want "her" Key hurt.
Perhaps Glory was just being perverse enough to allow Buffy and
the gang to live with the knowledge that she (Glory) had the Key.
With all the badness and chaos that might ensue from that.
Sorry if this seems a little disjointed, I think a migraine is
coming on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General
and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Rob, 09:55:23 05/10/01 Thu
I believe the reason Glory left without killing any Scoobies is
a mixture of different things:
For one, Willow has already proven herself to be a very powerful
witch, one who has hurt Glory in the past. She may not want to
press her luck.
Another reason may be is that, as a god, she sees them as inconsequential.
She has the key now. They are nothing to her. She knows that,
as a god, there is no way they could ever get the key back from
her. So she leaves them alone in their suffering. The knights
she either kills or beats up because (a) they are in her immediate
path and (b) have been her enemy for a long time now. Buffy and
her friends are only enemies in that they are keeping her key
from her. They have never however actively tried to destroy the
key or Glory, as the knights have.
The third part of this, I think, is that Glory loves to gloat.
She is tickled pink with the idea that she has kidnapped what
Buffy wanted so much. If she killed Buffy and her friends then,
they wouldn't live to feel miserable about what she did to them.
Also, if she used the key, they would all be dead anyway. She
sees them as no threat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tick tock [was:Re: Question
about the General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral] -- spotjon,
10:06:39 05/10/01 Thu
Tick, tock, tick, tock...
Perhaps Glory was simply in a hurry to get out of there and use
the Key. For some reason, time is running out quickly for her,
and she doesn't have any more time to play around. Which raises
the question, why is time so short? When the "chief forehead
guy" revealed that Glory was living in a mortal body, and
thus would eventually die, I immediately assumed that this was
why Glory is in such a big rush to get the Key. But now that I
think of it, it doesn't just seem that she's worried about Ben
dying, but of something else entirely. What's going down that's
causing such a ruckus? Are outside forces working against her
somehow? Does she think that the other hellgods are planning an
attack on her? Why the rush?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tick tock
[was:Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for
Spiral] -- Shaglio, 10:28:39 05/10/01 Thu
I thought there was some mention about stars aligning or something.
I really should tape the episodes so I can refer back to them
since my memory doesn't work too well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Tick
tock [was:Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral] -- rowan, 20:53:22 05/10/01 Thu
Me too. But surely if one were going to use something as important
as a dimension-melty Key, there would have to be some appropriate
astrological alignment required, right? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the
General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- Humanitas, 10:27:30
05/10/01 Thu
"Glory loves to gloat."
Of course she does - she's a Villain! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about the
General and Glory.....spoilers for Spiral -- rowan, 20:52:15 05/10/01
Thu
Well, Glory didn't kill the Scoobies because then there would
be no show! :)
I figured she had a big score to settle with the Knights because
they were trying to destroy the Key. Since the SG is trying to
save the Key, they're like the bugs on the windshield that she
can squash as needed.
Also, why didn't Glory brainsuck the Knights? In too much of a
rush (that timetable that she conveniently forgets she has).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- rowan, 20:48:07 05/10/01 Thu
Hmm..well the shooting script doesn't say if it's Willow or Glory
who causes the carnage, but when Willow put the barrier up, did
that kill those Knights then? I rather thought they were only
injured, not destroyed the way we saw them at the end. The shooting
script does make it clear they are all dead except Dante, who
breathes his last after saying, "The Beast..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for
Spiral -- OnM, 20:31:35 05/09/01 Wed
I wondered about that also, in fact, why didn't Glory ever try
to torture the truth about the Key out of Buffy? She obviously
had no compunction about doing it to anyone else she came across
that she thought might have the knowledge, why not Buffy? She
knew very early on that Buffy knew about the Key.
There really seems to be a certain theme of predestination running
through this entire story arc. It's almost as if everybody is
playing a part in some cosmic play, like that point of time that
we have reached is carrying with it some inevitability. The minions
and the braindrained bystanders are all chanting 'Time, Time..'
Ben turns into Glory before Dawn's eyes quite a few eps back,
yet she almost immediately forgets this very crucial fact. Joyce
is alive one minute and dead the next. Everybody is getting hurt
in their hands (well, not everybody, but Xander, Tara, and now
Spike) and Buffy is 'The Hand' in the tarot cards. The Knights
appear, then vanish, then reappear as the 'Time' draws nigh. The
term 'Spiral' seems all too appropriate, like water swirling down
a drain or a plane falling out of the sky, inevitable like gravity.
Starting to wonder if Tensai's idea of time loops (think 'Groundhog
Day', but with evil hellgoddess) and a decision made by Buffy
in a previous loop that was the 'wrong' decision has brought all
this about, maybe repeatedly. (I think it was Tensai over at the
C&S, am I right, Rufus?)
Is the 'right' decision one that Buffy refuses to make because
it involves killing Dawn to save the world, and so the catatonia
state (the time loop) has resulted?
The more I think about it, the more questions I have than answers!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How about the hands on a clock??? spoilers inside
-- Rufus, 20:40:31 05/09/01 Wed
The Hand of Glory, the unjuries to Xanders hand and arm, Spikes
hands being covered in blood.....what is in the constant references
in the hand that Buffy should pay attention to?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How about the hands on a clock??? spoilers
inside -- Rufus, 21:47:23 05/09/01 Wed
We are getting alot of references to the hand one from the minion
speaking to Ben:
Gronx: "We play the hand we're delt."
So we have the Hand of Glory, Xanders and Spike injuries, constant
references to time, with that how should Buffy play the hand she
has been dealt?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Shaglio, 10:05:23 05/10/01 Thu
"Starting to wonder if Tensai's idea of time loops (think
'Groundhog Day', but with evil hellgoddess) and a decision made
by Buffy in a previous loop that was the 'wrong' decision has
brought all this about, maybe repeatedly. (I think it was Tensai
over at the C&S, am I right, Rufus?)"
This sort of reminds me about a fantasy series I am reading called
"The Wheel Of Time" by Robert Jordan. In it, the protagonist
(Lews Theron Telamon) battles the antagonist (The Dark One) over
and over again throughout history. This loop is so long that by
the time it cycles around again, thousands and thousands of generation
have passed. In this story, however, Lews Theron, nicknamed the
Dragon, is reborn in another person's body. This person is refered
to as the Dragon Reborn. To anyone out there who likes fantasy
series', I cannot recommend this one enough. Feel free to email
for more details if interested (since this is a philosophical
Buffy board and not a book review group).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- spotjon, 10:08:09 05/10/01 Thu
Another WoT fan! Too cool!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Rob, 13:41:48 05/10/01 Thu
My explanation for why Glory hasn't tortured or killed Buffy are
that perhaps Glory, although fully capable of beating the crap
out of Buffy, acknowledges her great strength, and knows that
Buffy would never give her an answer, even if she killed her.
Since she knows Buffy is protecting the Key and is thus one of
her only clues to finding the Key, torturing and killing Buffy
would be counterproductive. Without the clues Glory has her henchmen
pick up as to who the Key is given off by Buffy's home life, her
friends, etc, Glory wouldn't have any leads to go on. Also, with
Buffy alive, there's the possibility she will slip, give something
away, etc. Besides that, Glory realizes Buffy will never say who
the key is, but thinks that perhaps her friends, if tortured,
will. Glory does not understand human love and loyalty, and why
someone would not tell a friend's secret to save one's own life.
I think, in a way, it's akin to Buffy's relationship with the
Council. She told them this year that while they pretend to be
in charge, she is really the one with the power. Likewise with
Glory. She may be a god, but Buffy, up until "Tough Love,"
had the advantage over her of knowing who the Key is. Glory can
rant and rave, but Buffy has the knowledge she needs. Further,
Glory is of course held back by her prison, Ben, into which she
disappears for lengthy periods at a time. Recently however it
seems she is taking more and more control of "their"
body, which probably is one of the signifying factors that the
huge event, whatever it is, is about to happen. It will be interesting
to see if the show delves any further into how Glory takes control
of Ben. Is it dependant on how many brains she sucks? Or is it
something based on fate or prophecy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers for
Spiral -- Traveler, 19:22:14 05/10/01 Thu
In most of the posts below, people seem to be assuming that Glory
didn't kill the scoobies because they weren't a real threat. I
think it is for the opposite reason. The scoobies together are
far more of a threat than a group of measily knights. Both Buffy
and Willow have stood up to Glory ALONE and survived. Buffy even
managed to escape with the key once already. Yes, Glory knocked
them down pretty easily, but they were not out. My guess is that
once Glory had the key, she didn't want to take any chances that
Dawn would get away again. Thus the fast exit. She only killed
the knights because they were in the way. (And she DID kill them:
see shooting script).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- Rufus, 20:10:53 05/10/01 Thu
It was clear on the show that they were all dead....that made
me wonder why only take out one threat and leave the other. I
have to also consider how long Glory has known the Knights because
she knew Gregor and made a point of killing him. I think it's
hate that made her kill all the knights as they represent her
"failure" and she left the SG because she is arrogant
enough to think they can't fight her and win. So Glory may have
alot of power but I wonder how much of it is compromised by the
drugs Ben takes,and exactly what she gets from the brains of her
victims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- swyrlz, 11:27:46 05/11/01 Fri
I don't have a tape but I'm pretty sure the General said "the
beast's key" once ...and that she never did anything wrong
for all we know, the other gods just didn't like her
what else..
the ending was total movie of the week ~abused wife shoots and
runs away, etc
they even threw in a trailer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Question about the General and Glory.....spoilers
for Spiral -- swyrlz, 16:03:03 05/11/01 Fri
but in a way this parallels the Willow/Tara fight and how the
council treated Buffy
how long have the Knights been
around? -- celticross, 19:03:49 05/09/01 Wed
Delurking here to ponder a question that's been bugging me since
last night...The General says that generations of his people have
fought "the Beast", aka Her Insert Minion Bootlick here,
Glory. But he also said that she had not come to the