November 2002 posts

Previous November 2002  

More November 2002

First thoughts on Spin the Bottle, Spoilers included -- Tess, 08:42:58 11/11/02 Mon

Delurking to post for the first be gentle.

It made me laugh so much it took twice as long to watch because of the constant rewinding to see what I missed.

I loved seeing everyone revist their earlier personalities. Most of them we already knew. Gunn as the tough street kid. Wesley as the self-important inept watcher to be. Cordelia as we remember her. Fred's intelligence didn't really come through, but her flakiness did. And Liam as a teenager, teetering on the edge of being 'scared straight' by his father's hell and damnation upbringing. But we all know he went the other way.

I expected this episode to be all about how Angel revisiting his past and ending up learning how to relate to Conner as a parent. At times it almost seems like the kid is crying out begging Angel to 'be a father." But at first glance it seems its Conner that learned things about his father, and that Angel is going to continue being clueless in the parenting department.

And while I'm on that subject of Conner/Angel, did anyone else find it odd that while Wesley didn't remember the cutthroat fighting techniques he's mastered, Liam still kicked Conner's butt? Which I enjoy watching any day of the week.

I'm glad they are finaly vocalizing some of the antaginism that Gunn has towards Wesley. I knew it had more to do with him feeling threatened in his relationship with Fred than it did with Wesley's 'betrayal' of AI. Than again Gunn has shown turst issues with Lorne also. And an unwillingness to even consider forgiving Conner. Wander how he's going to feel when he's the one on the outside wanting forgiveness?

Next week promo had me drooling wanting more. I can't wait.

[> Welcome! -- Masq, 09:41:26 11/11/02 Mon

Great first post thoughts.

"I expected this episode to be all about how Angel revisiting his past and ending up learning how to relate to Conner as a parent. At times it almost seems like the kid is crying out begging Angel to 'be a father." But at first glance it seems its Conner that learned things about his father, and that Angel is going to continue being clueless in the parenting department."

I'm beginning to suspect the Angel-Connor father/son reconciliation is going to play out over an incredibly long arc. If the spoiler's I've stumbled upon are true, Angel is going to have other priorities in the near future, and his relationship with Connor will change again, and not in a good way.

As for Angel now, I think he loves his son, he'd die for him, but Connor has issues that Angel doesn't know how to deal with. Connor wants to find reasons to hate his father, whether it's the vampire thing, or the Cordy thing. Ironically, though, Connor's biggest teenaged problem--his identity--can only really be answered through Angel. And I agree, deep down, Connor wants a better relationship with his father. He just doesn't want to want it.

Angel, on the other hand.... He didn't have a great role- model in the father department. I think Angel wants to reconcile with Connor, teach him, guide him, be friends with him, and if he'd been himself last night, he would have had some fatherly things to say to Connor. As it was, I agree, hearing Liam talk about his father was enlightening to Connor. Daddy's been there.

[> [> Oh yeah, and 4.6 spoilers above -- Masq, 10:54:29 11/11/02 Mon

[> Re: First thoughts on Spin the Bottle, Spoilers included -- Darby, 10:53:18 11/11/02 Mon

I wonder if Fred was one of those bright girls, desperate enough to fit in (gee, did we see any indication of that?) that they hide their intellect.

Maybe it wasn't Liam that fought Connor, but the vamp demon inside him - they all seem to be "born" with the moves.

And welcome!

[> [> Re: First thoughts on Spin the Bottle, Spoilers included -- J, 11:00:04 11/11/02 Mon

Despite the fact that Liam was in control, it's just a typical case of those fancy martial-arts they inevitably seem to pick up!

[> [> Re: First thoughts on Spin the Bottle, Spoilers included -- Freki, 12:34:05 11/11/02 Mon

Fred didn't really seem that desperate to fit in, to me, but I could have missed something. Since she's so bright, she probably wasn't very challenged by high school, and may have done drugs to relieve the boredom.

[> Re: First thoughts on next week's promo, *spoilers for same* -- Arethusa, 10:58:22 11/11/02 Mon

"He has to survive the coming darkness, the apocalyptic battles, a few plagues, and some - uh, several, - not that many - fiends that will be unleashed." (To Shanshu in LA)

It looks like the Aberjian prophecies mught be coming true soon. (How would the vampires of LA react to a river of blood, like in Moses' prophcies?)

Is the fiend in Cordy's vision slouching towards Bethlehem as we speak?

Was that Connor in bed with a girl?

Who was Wes ripping the shirt off of? She had braids and glasses like Fred, but (to put it delicately) her boobs were too big. Lilah is wearing costumes, now?

Welcome, Tess.

[> [> I slow-mo'd... (AtS promo spoilers) -- Masq, 11:04:39 11/11/02 Mon

They had two bed scenes in the promos. One with a guy on top, one with a woman on top. In the guy-on-top, it's definitely Connor, and I think the woman with him is Cordelia. In the other, it's an unknown blonde woman on top, but we can't see the guy because we are in his p.o.v.

My theory? Connor hooks up with the hooker (maybe he steals some of Angel's money), and then fantasizes that he's with Cordelia.

[> [> [> Re: I slow-mo'd... (AtS promo spoilers) -- Arethusa, 11:14:23 11/11/02 Mon

"...then fantasizes that he's with Cordelia."
Phew. For a second there you had me worried. ;-)

The blond hair is baffling me. I'm pretty sure the guy was Wes, although not totally sure. Do he and Connor both substitute other women for the ones they want?

[> [> [> [> Re: I slow-mo'd... (AtS promo spoilers) -- alcibiades, 12:44:14 11/11/02 Mon

The blond hair is baffling me. I'm pretty sure the guy was Wes, although not totally sure. Do he and Connor both substitute other women for the
ones they want?

I couldn't figure out the first woman at all.

The second guy is definitely Wes.

Someone elsewhere suggested it was Lilah dressing up as Fred. (Ewww, shades of Spike and Harmony.) Which I checked and think is right.

[> Re: First thoughts on Spin the Bottle, Spoilers included -- Jarrod Harmier, 12:15:07 11/11/02 Mon

I didn't see Wes as "inept" in "Spin the Bottle", even though season three of "Buffy" appeared to paint that picture of him. The fact that he was "head boy" at the academy is just another piece of evidence that suggests that his bad decisions in season three of "Buffy" were not caused by any lack of intelligence or knowledge, but were due to Wes trying to over-compensate and try to gain his father's approval even after all of the cruelty his father bestowed on him as he grew up. All of his conclusions about the situations that happened during "Spin the Bottle" were understandable based on his educational background.

Jarrod Harmier

Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.

One Question (Spoilers for "Spin the Bottle") -- Purple Tulip, 11:23:23 11/11/02 Mon

As I ahve stated here beore, I am not a regular Angel watcher, and only catch parts of the show once every couple of months. But I read the things that are posted here, so I'm kind of up to speed. Anyway, last night I flipped over to Angel during commercial breaks on Alias, and they had all ben reverted back to their younger selves (around 17 I believe?) But it didn't seem that any of them knew each other. And wouldn't Cordelia have known who Angel and Wesley were? She knew them when she was 17, even though they didn't know her, and that was when she was infatuated with Wesley and she knew that Angel was a vampire. So were they really reverted back to themselves at 17, or to just kids at age 17?

OH! Sorry, I have one more small question---I was just wondering if the actors who played Forest on Buffy during season 4, and Gunn on Angel are the same person, because boy do they look an awful lot alike!

[> Re: One Question (Spoilers for "Spin the Bottle") -- Masq, 11:28:47 11/11/02 Mon

Cordelia explicitly mentions that she thinks this is a "sophomore" hazing thing. In other words, she was "put back" to the beginning of her sophomore year, her first year of high school, before she met Buffy and Angel, which occured in the second semester.

So I'd say she's 15 or 16 here.

[> [> Re: One Question (Spoilers for "Spin the Bottle") -- PT, 12:18:44 11/11/02 Mon

OH!!! Ok, that makes perfect sense then! Thanks Masq, I knew that there was a likely explanation! See, that's what I get for not watching the whole thing!

[> My guess on that... -- ZachsMind, 12:30:25 11/11/02 Mon

I think they were around about their middle teens but not necessarily at 17. Actually I guessed Cordelia was de-aged to the point about season one of Buffy, before she acknowledged that there were vampires in existence. Had she de-aged to exactly 17, you're right she should have recognized Wes & Angel. The fact she didn't means we're talking season one, which would put Cordy at about 15. Also she was way self-conscious about her hair, which was something that she might have done at 17, but definitely would have been doing at 15.

[> Two different guys... -- Dichotomy, 14:12:09 11/11/02 Mon

Gunn is played by J. August Richards and Forrest was played by Leonard Roberts. (Thanks to!)

[> [> Have you noticed. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:42:20 11/11/02 Mon

That all black males who've gotten a recurring role on Buffy or Angel have had the whole shaved head thing (though I'm not positive about Mr. Trick).

[> [> [> Another question (spoilers for StB) -- yabyumpan, 15:30:53 11/11/02 Mon

I won't get to see the ep till next year (uk person), but from reading the Wildfeed etc, Lorne seemed to imply at the begining that the spell didn't work as it was supposed to because of the W/G/F situation (and boy have I had enough of this love triangle, but anyway), is that right and if so, was any explaination given as to why it would have spoiled the spell?

Also, I don't think this spells the end for C/A (sorry Masq). From what I've read, it was JW's idea to go there and I think he's commited to it. I think we're just getting one road block after another. I'm personally not into all the angst, love really doesn't have to be like that but JW/ME seem to have the same view of love as Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Oh, I agree -- Masq, 16:25:29 11/11/02 Mon

with the thing about Cordy/Angel. My only point was that we weren't going to see them getting together any time soon. And that that would lead to angsty goodness.

As for the spell going wrong because of the W/G/F love triangle, I don't think that's the case. I think it was just a kooky spell that had the main effect of causing memory loss for any memories after adolescence. Or, if it was meant to restore memories normally, it was screwed up by Cordy stepping on the bottle.

Haven't figured out that little metaphysical detail yet.

The Spin on Spin (Spinthebottle spoilers yeah!) -- neaux, 13:35:49 11/11/02 Mon

The Spin on Spin

It is an interesting title. The obvious relevance of the game being used to bring back Cordy’s memory. Its a teenage game and therefore the teenage memories emerge. But the Spin on this seance/spell is that the main rule of spin the bottle is still in effect but ultimately challenged.

If I remember spin the bottle correctly, one spins the bottle and where it lands.. either the spinner kisses the “pointed” target or the spinner orders the target to do something like a dare.

Incidentally, didnt Xander play this game at a frat party? (but I digress)

You can tell where the episode is going because if the Bottle tells you what to do.. and then the bottle represents authority, Cordelia steps on and breaks the bottle.

Why Cordy? Probably because she is the one who first challenged the Powers that Be. You could also argue that all the entire cast is challenging the PTB as well by trying to get her memory back.

Then if you remember the first scene that Lorne narrates, he says this is a story about a boy. Connor who obviously has authority problems.. but then Lorne scratches that and starts with Cordy.

but you can see the cycle of questioning authority
from Connor's problem with Angel
to Cordy
to the gang’s arguement over who should be in charge and who to trust.
Angel/Liam’s gripes about his father.
Gunn’s hassle of “THE MAN”
and We know Wesley has father issues.

anyone have a take on Fred and the government and how this fits in?

[> Fred's challenge -- neaux, 13:49:22 11/11/02 Mon

Ok.. I just had a thought that maybe Fred really wants to challenge government and that her desire for weed is a step in that direction. Breaking a minor law i.e.

What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) - - PepTech, 15:28:25 11/11/02 Mon

Something's been bugging me about this ep that I haven't seen discussed here; maybe it scrolled off to the archives already. If so, point me there, and never mind. :-)

So there are a couple of refs by Lorne that make me wonder exactly when it is that he is telling the story. One is the reference to "starting" with Connor in the beginning; we never really got back to how the story "started" with him. We got the nice, tidy "start" where the previous ep had ended, and the nice, tidy, end where we were back to the same question at the end of the ep, but what was Lorne referring to when he said it all started with the boy? We certainly didn't "end" anything that "started" with Connor, not in StB.

The other thing nagging me is the re-do on Cordy's getting her memory back. In Take 1, they showed her kinda freaking, but then Lorne reset things and it showed a few frames of a beastie prior to her freaking. So if Lorne knows - as he is narrating - that the beastie is coming into play, and he has the time on his hands to tell the story, he must be doing his narrating *after* the beastie has run its course, or at least at a time when there's no immediate danger. Unless Lorne is the Omega Man and just amusing himself... no, there has to be some reason in the context of the seasonal arc that they re-shot Cordy's POV to include the beastie.

It was also nigglingly troubling that there were instances of audience feedback during Lorne's chat - notably the "Finish it!" near the end - but then we were led to believe the audience was a null set. Did Lorne imagine up the feedback? Or did the audience just leave before Lorne's exit shot?

It just seemed like there is more importance to the metanarration than I've been able to figure out. Sure, it was a nice gimmick to wrap the main story in... but beyond that, figuring out stuff like when (how long after) the StB events Stage Lorne is speaking seems like it would help us in the long run.

[> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- Apophis, 15:53:39 11/11/02 Mon

I figure Lorne was either reflecting back on events of the past, meaning he was in our future, or he was completely outside of continuity. I'm leaning toward the former.
As for Connor, maybe he meant either the whole Angel/Cordy/Connor triangle or perhaps even the coming Apocalypse.
Speaking of the Omega Man... we have no idea how long Lorne's species lives. Maybe he was narrating things long after everyone else was gone and was imagining the audience. Or maybe he's just the only one to walk away from what's coming.

[> [> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- PepTech, 16:05:48 11/11/02 Mon

>As for Connor, maybe he meant either the whole Angel/Cordy/Connor triangle or perhaps even the coming Apocalypse.

I'll buy the latter. But it still seems discordant; Lorne walking out at the end would appear to signify some sort of "end" of the story he was telling, and if he's just discussing the prologue to the Apocalypse (as "starting" with Connor) then "Whuh"?... of course this theory neatly fits in with the wording of the trailer for next week. Which generally means a massive swerve :-)

The idea of Stage Lorne being way off in the future is intriguing, as is the issue of his species' longevity. I thought it was a bit odd that everyone else went back to approx. 16-yo memory sets, but Lorne appeared to know everyone and everything. This could be a function of his role in performing the spell, or perhaps he's only 16 years old now?

[> [> [> Or... -- Masq, 16:34:16 11/11/02 Mon

Or the spell doesn't effect his species. You know, except to knock them out stone cold.

[> [> [> [> Re: Or... -- GreatRewards, 22:10:00 11/11/02 Mon

My take on that issue was that the "16-year-old-memory- thingy" happened to everyone only AFTER Cordy smashed the bottle. At that time, everyone was in "blast range" (for lack of a better term) EXCEPT Lorne, who had already passed out BEHIND the counter (sheltered from the storm, as it were).

Of course, I also toyed with the thought that it was a species thang.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Or... -- Darby, 06:53:58 11/12/02 Tue

Everyone was reduced to adolescence (rather than a particular age). Lorne might be a Pylean adolescent. And Angel's vamp demon is a perpetual adolescent, so only his human side changed. Or did it?

There are suggestions (see below) that the soul Angel carries isn't Liam's - can that be reconciled with Spin the Bottle? Well, maybe, if the spell regressed the level of memories and personality accessible to the vamp. I'd have to say that such an explanation seems too much of a reach, though.

Has anybody read the Joss-penned Angel comics miniseries where it was suggested that the soul isn't Liam's? I haven't been able to track it down, so I'm relying on second-hand info here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> A couple thoughts -- Masq, 07:10:57 11/12/02 Tue

1. They weren't so much reduced to adolescence as wiped of any of their memories after adolescence. Cordelia was back in the 10th grade, memory-wise, likewise, Angel was back in the 1740's. If Lorne had been effected by the spell, he would likely have no memory of Earth (depending on how old he is now) and be wondering how he got out of Pylea and why he's stuck in a weird building with a bunch of cow- slaves.

2. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Buffyverse "soul" is merely the conscience. Beyond being stronger or weaker, souls are pretty interchangeable. The issue of whether Spike or Angel got their "old" souls back is relevant only to the extent that they got a stronger or weaker conscience than they had before. Buffyverse souls, IMO, have nothing to do with an individual's personal identity. Perhaps Angel didn't get Liam's conscience, but it's like saying he didn't get his car's old carburetor, or spark plugs or something. He got a soul that was a little stronger than he had before, because that would torment him more from the gypsy's point of view.

Of course, the spell the gypsy's did was supposed to restore "his" human soul, and the cave demon said to Spike he was going to return "his" soul, so I believe they both got the old parts back.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple thoughts -- Darby, 07:54:38 11/12/02 Tue

I'm not sure that Buffy's experience in Heaven supports the interchangeable-souls thing - she specifically said that she was herself, wherever she was, implying that her soul retained some aspects of her personality or whatever you want to define as "self." From a religious standpoint, being "survived" by something that's really one-size-fits-all, with no individuality, could be really disturbing too. Add to the evidence that Spike was supposed to have been specifically given "his" soul (yeah, the ibfo source was a demon, but still...) to return him to "what he once was," implying a specific rather than a generic souling.

Maybe those spheres used to manipulate souls are attuned to particular souls (an homage to Babylon 5?), so what Angel had in S1-2 may have been different than after his return - maybe it wasn't just his season in Hell that changed him...

Of course, another alternative is that the entirety of the Buffyverse mythology is mistaken, and the original soul is not gone but is trapped in the vamp body, totally subjugated, and what appears to be a return is just a change in dominance. Kind of a "What if Alan Moore wrote Buffy?" Not that far-fetched, since I know that Joss is a Moore fan...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple thoughts -- Masq, 09:26:56 11/12/02 Tue

"I'm not sure that Buffy's experience in Heaven supports the interchangeable-souls thing - she specifically said that she was herself, wherever she was, implying that her soul retained some aspects of her personality or whatever you want to define as "self." From a religious standpoint, being "survived" by something that's really one-size-fits-all, with no individuality, could be really disturbing too. Add to the evidence that Spike was supposed to have been specifically given "his" soul (yeah, the ibfo source was a demon, but still...) to return him to "what he once was," implying a specific rather than a generic souling."

Well, part of my theory is that the "soul" in the Buffyverse is not the personality of the person. I have given that a separate name based on my analysis of the show, the "spirit". What went into heaven with Buffy was both her spirit, or ghost, personalities and memories, and her soul, conscience.

My support for this has to do with whole vampire/soul quandary. I think that when a person is vamped, they get a demonic body and they lose their conscience. Their spirit remains--their personality, who they are, is still in the body. They still have all their memories. The things that mattered to them in life still infect their hearts. Angelus is Liam sans conscience and with a demonic body. Spike is Williams sans conscience and with a demonic body.

This theory helps make so much more sense of how the vampires we know act and speak of themselves. It gives Angel and Angelus, Spike and SouledSpike some responsibility for their actions.

And it makes oodles of more sense, and is a simpler theory to explain the musical chairs of gaining and losing souls that happened to Angel in Innocence, I Will Remember You, etc., or with Darla gaining and losing souls rapidly in Season 2 of AtS. They are the exact same person, the same spirit (personality + memories), the only thing they are gaining and losing is their conscience.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple thoughts -- tost, 10:04:36 11/12/02 Tue

This makes perfect sense to me. Especially considering Joss's comments about the soul being a guiding star. It's tough to imagine everyone being guided to the same place using a different star.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple thoughts -- Darby, 11:28:50 11/12/02 Tue

I guess I don't need it to be an either / or. The brain left behind retains an image of the person, but there's no reason that the soul can't, too, to one extent or another. The persona of the vamp continues to develop from the turning, which can make a soul return, as in the original gypsy curse, a jarring experience. Angelus didn't just react like he'd recovered a moral compass, I think that he gained or regained a dominant personality appalled at his evil and very willing to take on the responsibility for the demon's actions. Something that has not happened as strongly in Spike, incidentally. Or when Angelus had opened Acathla.

Adding the spirit just seems an unnecessary complication, not that that particularly means anything.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spirit/soul dichotomy -- Tchaikovsky, 11:33:51 11/12/02 Tue

Have to agree with Masq here. There has to be a difference between the spirit and the soul in the Buffyverse. My reason for this is a 'strangely literal' one.

We all know that Willow is the 'spirit' quadrant of the super-Buffy. Now if we assume that Buffy is the hand part because she's the strongest and deftest, Giles is the mind part because he is the most knowledgable and intelligent, and Xander is the heart part because he is the most loving and emotionally honest, then it follows that Willow has, in some intangible sense, a 'better' spirit than the other three. A stronger sense of the spiritual. Whatever.

But this really wouldn't concur at all with either conscience or soul. Souls are crucial things to the show's mythology. The idea of 'soul' seems a lot more complex now, with Spike's towel-guilt inducing one, than with Angel's desoulment, which just made him evil. I think it is not entirely possible to explain away the lack of consistency here. But anyway, the difference a soul makes has nothing to do with Willow. Willow doesn't have a stonger soul than Buffy, or the others, in any sense. There are numerous occasions on which she makes more morally ambiguous choices than Buffy would ever do. Her conscience isn't stronger.

Soul and spirit should be kept well apart in discussions of this matter.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, also in agreement re soul/spirit dichotomy (Spoilers, Spin the Bottle) -- Rahael, 06:02:53 11/13/02 Wed

Rather than complicating, I think what Masq proposes actually cuts through the confusion.

Angelus may look like he'd been hit with a personality, but I'd have to disagree - Spin the Bottle showed that Liam's father espoused a very strong moral line which Liam both rebelled and internalised. Angelus rebelled completely by desecrating all his father held dear. Angel's conscience tapped into the internalised morality, and this combined with the deprativities he committed lead to terrible guilt.

This dichotomy actually solves one of my main attitudes toward the Angel/Angelus character - that they are really the same person, not different entities at all. They are the same spirit, but the souled version has a conscience.

I think this solution, in fact, is really really neat (in both senses of the word!).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plus it makes sense of some episodes that are otherwise metaphysically muddled -- Masq, 09:29:18 11/13/02 Wed

Like was human Darla in AtS Season 2 the same person as the 400-year old vampire was the same person as the 1609 prostitute was the same person as Dru sired? In a word, yes.

Where was Angelus when Marcus took over his body in "Carpe Noctem"? Simple, he is just Angel, and Angel's spirit was in Marcus' body.

Was the vampire Buffy was talking to in last night's "Coversations" episode really her old acquaintance, the same guy who took the psych classes he was drawing on. Yep.

Is Spike William? You bet. No pesky arguments over "how much" of William is still in Spike and "how much" of William went away with the loss of the soul, all of him was still there in Spike, except the "spark" of William's moral compass.

When they implied that Angel's demon is a mindless beast during the "Pylea" arc, it seemed to take away Angel's responsibility for the things done as Angelus. In fact, saying that the demon is a mere beast and not a "demon spirit" gives Angel more responsibility for his actions as Angelus. Because Angelus is not a demon spirit who took over Liam's body and did evil in his name. Angelus just is Liam with a demon physiology and no conscience. So Angel just is Angelus with a conscience.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- Rahael, 09:47:07 11/13/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plus it makes sense of some episodes that are otherwise metaphysically muddled -- yabyumpan, 11:32:21 11/13/02 Wed

"Angelus just is Liam with a demon physiology and no conscience. So Angel just is Angelus with a conscience."

Absolutly. I've pretty much always seen Angel like this. I think to seperate Angel from Angelus is to take away what, for me, is so fasinating about him and makes him sympathic. It's that constant battle to keep the demon under control while tring to do what is right and having to live with the knowledge of all the bad stuff that he's done.
One of the things I found interesting in S3 was that Angel was talking about his time as Angelus more, and refering to 'I' and not 'Him'. That was a big step forward from S2 and 'Guise will be Guise' where he says to the fake swami that he can't let the demon control him (not an exact quote). It seems that he's intergrating all parts of himself more and more. I wonder how his time spent as Liam in StB affected him (I'm presuming they all remember what happened). I doubt he spends much time thinking of his human self as he was. Maybe he won't be so hard on himself if he can see that he wasn't always 'evil'. I wonder also, if the others see him in a slightly different light as well, that has got to be the strangest trip for all of them. I'm not sure if I'd like to meet up with my 17 year old self again. I hope it's in some way followed through, even just with passing remarks to each other.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmmm -- Masq, 12:35:15 11/13/02 Wed

"he says to the fake swami that he can't let the demon control him"

I don't see that as not taking responsibility or denying his relationship to Angelus. "Angelus" is not one and the same as "the demon". The demon is the vampire physiology of Angel's body (going of Pylea stuff here). When Angel says he can't let that control him, it's like saying you don't want your bodily urges to control your decisions. Getting a vampire physiology wasn't anything Liam asked for. Thinking of it as something a little alien to who he really is is not necessarily denial.

"Angelus" is both Angel's spirit (personalities, memory) and his vampire physiology, together, but without conscience. It is Angel's conscience that gives him motive not to give into the desires of the demon physiology, and it is Angel's conscience that tells him not to give in to the fears and hatreds that his human personality and memories carry.

As for the gang following up on what they've learned as a result of the bottle spell, I'm hoping to hear one of them call Angel "Liam" again. I don't think they ever knew his original name until now. I'm betting if anyone calls him "Liam" it will be Cordelia, in a moment of intimacy (meaning they are alone together, not necessarily a romantic intimacy)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm -- yabyumpan, 16:06:45 11/13/02 Wed

I don't think I explained what I meant very well. I don't think he was denying his relationship to Angelus but I do think that he wanted/needed to see Angelus as a seperate part of himself. What I found interesting in GWBG was that even though he was a 'fake' Swami, he pretty much nailed him.

Magev: "....- But how do you expect to triumph over the soldiers of darkness when you're still fighting yourself?"
Angel: "You think I'm fighting myself?"

Angel and Magev are staff fighting on a covered bridge.
Magev: "You're holding back. What are you afraid off?"
Angel: "Nothing."
Magev: "You're whimping. This isn't River Dance. Fight!"
Angel: "I am fighting!"
Magev: "Yourself. You're fighting yourself. Fight me! Why are you holding back? Why can't you let go?"
Angel: "Because."
Magev: "Why?"
Angel over their locked staffs: "If I let it, it'll kill you."
Magev: "It?"
Angel disengages and steps back: "The demon."
Magev: "Ha! But the demon is you!"
Angel: "No."
Magev: "Yes! That's the thing you spend so much energy trying to conceal!"
Angel shakes his head: "No, I just - I can't let it control me."
Magev nods: "Ah. I see. (Hits Angel's knee hard then hooks the staff behind his legs to drop him onto his back) You *don't* think it controls you?"

He spent so much energy trying to control his 'demon' i.e. Angelus, the 'bad' part of himself, that it became almost a compulusion. Like being on a diet and constantly thinking 'I mustn't eat chocolate' or a recovering smoker constantly thinking about how long it's been since they had a cigerette. I think he saw himself as sort of like Jeckle and Hyde (sp), having to be constantly on his guard in case the 'bad' version got out. I think it was partly because of that that Darla was able to have such a hold on him. She made Angelus, molded the angry and resentful young man into a monster. She was the 'chocolate factory' and because he'd spent so much energy trying to resist what he was/is, when she came back on the scene he had to destroy her once and for all but at the same time, still craving her.

I see him now as being much more intigrated, accepting that he is Angelus but that he also has a soul which means he can choose not to let his darker impulses come to the surface. I think he sees his soul as a blessing now and not just as something that he was given to make him suffer and have to atone.

I don't know if I've explained any better and looking back over your post I think we pretty much see it the same way any how :-)

quotes complements of Psyche

[> [> [> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- KKC, 20:04:37 11/11/02 Mon

>The idea of Stage Lorne being way off in the future
>is intriguing, as is the issue of his species' longevity.
>I thought it was a bit odd that everyone else went back
>to approx. 16-yo memory sets, but Lorne appeared to know
>everyone and everything. This could be a function of his
>role in performing the spell, or perhaps he's only 16
>years old now?

I have a bit of a radical interpretation here... It seems to me that Lorne's stage show is in fact set in the far future, long after the apocalyptic events have occurred. This is meant to do one of two things; I took it to mean that everybody is okay, and that we're being shown this framing device to reassure us that everybody survives to tell the tale. Of course, the fact that Lorne is performing for the empty hotel lounge could cause a body to interpret that the opposite is true, and that nobody survived.

Sorry, rambling. When are they gonna add Halett to the regular cast list?

-KKC, recovering from nine continuous hours of fishing video games. :)

[> [> [> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- meritaten, 10:55:42 11/12/02 Tue

Lorne seemed to imply that the spell went wonky because of the angst among the group that he hadn't known about. Everyone except Lorne was upset about something. Lorne was the only one unaffected.

I'm honestly not sure that I like this explanation, but it is how I thought it was explained.

[> [> [> [> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- Masq, 11:39:47 11/12/02 Tue

There does seem to be that implication.... Although, then Joss does something confusing like have Cordelia stomp on the bottle. Did that cause the spell to go wonky? It seems a likely candidate, too.

And then we can ask, why did Cordelia step on the bottle anyway? I guess she thought it was the source of her dizziness and wanted it to stop and wasn't thinking clearly about its possible effect on the spell.

[> [> [> [> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- PepTech, 12:40:14 11/12/02 Tue

>Lorne seemed to imply that the spell went wonky because of the angst among the group that he hadn't known about. Everyone except Lorne was upset about something. Lorne was the only one unaffected.

Erm. That's not the interpretation that leaps to my mind. I thought at the time, and still do, that the spell was (for lack of a better word) imprinting people's memories back on themselves, starting from birth, I guess. It had restored everything up until 16 or so when Cordy smashed the bottle and stopped the process. Why it did it that way, and how Lorne was able to complete the process, well, Star Trek writers used to just put "insert tech gobbledygook here"...

The metanarration about not knowing all that had gone on between the characters didn't strike me as having an effect on the spell. Sure, it was exposition for new members of the audience, but also it lends credence to the theory that Stage Lorne is talking way, way out in the future, after he knows the entire backstory of all the participants. Since no one is talking yet to each other about those things - I doubt anyone is going to take the time to brief Wes about Gunn snapping the Prof's neck; not during one of the periodic Apocalypsi - Lorne's complete knowledge is telling.

[> [> [> [> [> yeah, I think that is right -- Masq, 13:10:23 11/12/02 Tue

Lorne's fussing over who-knew-what about Fred's vengeance thing and the Cordy/Angel/Connor thing, well, he was mostly feeling guilty for throwing the six people together in the same room in the first place. It only added to their issues with each other. Then Connor busts in and it muddles things up because Angel is unable to deal with him due to his memory loss.

Lorne felt bad for creating a situation in which that happened, but I don't think he thought it was responsible for how the spell went.

[> [> Let's not forget -- Isabel, 21:10:15 11/11/02 Mon

That Lorne's species is especially hard to kill. Beheading/skewering doesn't do it.

Was I the only one expecting the gang to cut off Lorne's head and then freak out when Lorne woke up and started asking what the hell they were doing?

The staging of the empty bar scene reminded me of the scene in the play "Les Miserables" where Marius, who survived the uprising, is sitting in the bar where he drank with his fellow students who were killed. He sings the song "Empty chairs at empty tables" to their ghosts/memories who stand silently there watching him. So I'm inclined to lean towards the 'Lorne being a sole survivor' theory.

[> [> [> Spoilers for Spin the Bottle above -- Isabel, 05:01:19 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> Empty chairs at empty tables -- Tchaikovsky, 11:41:40 11/12/02 Tue

Just in case anyone's interested:

There's a grief that can't be spoken
There's a pain goes on and on
Empty chairs at empty tables
Now my friends are dead and gone

Here they spoke of revolution
Here it was they lit the flame
Here they sang about tomorrow
And tomorrow never came

From the table in the corner
They could see a world re-born
And they rose with voices singing
I can hear them now
The very words that they had sung
Became their last communion
On the lonely barricade at dawn

Oh, my friends, my friends, forgive me
That I live and you are gone
There's a grief that can't be spoken
There's a pain goes on and on

Phantom faces at the window
Phantom shadows at the door
Empty chairs at empty tables
Where my friends will speak no more.

(Excuse minor mistakes- it's off the top of my head)

TCH the world's biggest Les Miserables freak

[> Re: What is Stage Lorne's timeframe? (Spoilers for StB) -- alcibiades, 11:57:58 11/12/02 Tue

So there are a couple of refs by Lorne that make me wonder exactly when it is that he is telling the story. One is the reference to "starting" with Connor in the beginning; we never really got back to how the story "started" with him. We got the nice, tidy "start" where the previous ep had
ended, and the nice, tidy, end where we were back to the same question at the end of the ep, but what was Lorne referring to when he said it all started with the boy? We certainly didn't "end" anything that "started" with Connor, not in StB.

I think it screams two year arc.

The story that started with the boy was last year's story -- although this is purposefully obscured by the "text" by showing us an enraged Connor wandering streets at the moment.

Last year was the story of how the birth of Connor started the dissolution of the six such that by the time this story comes around Angel is clueless about what the six even means.

And did you get that symbol that Lorne drew -- an empty center and six trajectories moving out from it. The empty middle is Connor. His is the story that happened last year that changed everything and bifurcated the group. When the center cannot hold there is axial spinoff in two directions.

Within the story told in Spin the Bottle began, the six were Angel, Cordy, Lorne, Gunn, Fred, Wes. Yet, both before the story begins and after it is finished, Lorne is all alone and Connor makes up a point on one of the two triangles: Cordy, Angel, Connor and Gunn, Fred and Wes. It makes me wonder if when Lorne was talking about being alone and how horrible that was, even though the camera panned to show Angel -- not alone, but dealing with Cordelia -- what he was really talking about was himself and what will happen with his story trajectory this year. He seemed to provide an awful lot of warnings about the ill effects of magic, more than seemed warranted by the story told on Sunday to my suspicious eyes.

Because whereas the story started out with six people, all of whom had once been close, by the time it was over, it had broken off into two triangles -- Fred, Wes, Gunn and Cordy, Angel and Connor. And although Lorne was administering the drug and framing the storyline, important roles both, he seemed outside of the framework of the two triangular relationships which were claiming emotional immediacy from the people involved in them.

[> [> So Lorne isn't one of the "true six"? -- Masq, 13:51:47 11/12/02 Tue

Which, when you think about it, makes sense. Lorne is appearing in almost every episode, but is he in the credits? No, it's Angel, Cordelia, Gunn, Fred, Connor, and Wesley.

[> [> [> Re: The last cast member of that ilk -- pr10n, 15:16:39 11/12/02 Tue

That was the case with Tara, of course. And that came to a fairly bad end. Also Joyce.

Good thing your Connor is in the credits!

Pursuing this thought: Is Lorne getting the screen time that Oz or Riley used to get? And those guys are gone, but available for occasional filler eps, apparently.

Or is that my raging message/medium paranoia?

Looking at the pieces... (S7 spoilage & speculation) -- ZachsMind, 16:01:58 11/11/02 Mon

[Zach opens a large jigsaw box with a picture of characters from Buffy season seven on the top. He spreads the pieces out on the large table and tries sorting through them.]

Let's see what we have here..

A schizophrenic Dawnie, who talks about self-resilience and female empowerment but when push comes to shove falls back on her old habits of suicidal tendencies and screaming "go away" at people.

Xander in a construction helmet, sometimes in a suit.

Uberwench Willow with a fallible safety catch. If she were a gun she'd get recalled to the factory.

Amoral, Ex-demon Anya with no powers and an occasional conscience that she doesn't know what to do with.

A vampire with a soul with more split personalities than there are seasons in the series.

A mysterious shapeshifting force which gives the writers an opportunity to allow anyone from the past episodes of the series to make a cameo appearance, but can't seem to take corporeal form and needs to drive Spike (and maybe others?) crazy enough to kill one another, since it can't kill anything directly itself.

There's an unspecified number of women who appear to be potential slayers running all over the planet. They may also be potential keys, or they could be something completely new. They're getting killed by dudes in brown robes with sacrificial daggers.

They introduced Cassie just to kill her off, but she was just too good a character to not bring back again in some capacity. There's a reason why that piece of the puzzle was thrown into the box.

A dead Tara. A dead Joyce. A dead Warren. A lotta dead stuff in this box making it smell gamey.

The puzzle's missing a lot of pieces. A missing Clem. A missing Jonathan & Andrew. A missing Amy.

Rack's either dead or missing, or both.

Foreshadowing catch-phrases like "Beneath you it devours" which sounds reminiscent of "something wicked this way comes" doesn't it?

Oh. And here's a piece of Buffy. Sometimes a kid trying to be a grownup. Sometimes a grownup pretending she's still a kid. This piece has two settings: "kill" or "be killed" and someone took a ball point pen and scratched out the "be killed" setting but you can still almost make it out.

Okay. YOU try putting all these pieces together and come up with something that doesn't look like it's been carved up with a candle in it and left out on the front porch one week too long.

[> Re: Looking at the pieces... (S7 spoilage & speculation) -- Pilgrim, 19:07:31 11/11/02 Mon

Hehehe. Good post.

Here's what I think of the burned-out, squashy jack-o- lantern:

Under the theory that it's all about Buffy, and that this will be Buffy's last season (and probably the end of the series), I think Buffy will end the season all grown up, moving out of Sunnydale to start her new, grown-up life. As you say, this young woman can't decide whether she's a kid or an adult. So, how to get her to cross over that divide?

First, destroy the hell mouth. As long as it exists, Buffy is stuck in her hometown doing her duty to defend against evil. I sorta think the whole town ought to be devoured or go down in flames, but that might involve an unacceptably high loss of civilian life. :)

Second, end the series with the mother-of-all-battles over the hell mouth. Demons and humans alike will be forced to choose sides and fight. Buffy's heart (Xander), her soul (Willow), her mind (Giles), and her own strength [thanks to shadowkat for these] will spend the rest of the year coming to their full force by acknowledging weaknesses, overcoming temptations, and practicing their powers. All four of the core gang will end the season victorious, in reflection of Buffy's successful growth into adulthood.

I think the shapeshifter probably will be the bigbad only through the first two-thirds or so of the season. The SS's power comes from its ability to deceive, manipulate, and pervert; it can't act directly, as you say. Its pronouncement in Lessons that right and wrong don't matter, but only power matters, will be proved deceptive: without power, right and wrong don't matter, but power always serves some purpose. The scoobies will discover their power and their purpose as they battle the SS.

But wait, the SS is only the warmup act. The end will be cataclysmic, and the real bigbad will show up. The players will align themselves on either side of the good/evil divide. The core gang will all be on the side of good and will prevail. Somewhere in here is where it will become clear(er) (maybe) what's up with the CofW and the killing of SITs. One thing that bothers me about this apocalyptic senario is that it will reify that there is such a thing as a good/evil divide--shades of grey are always best, imo. But I can't figure out how to have an apocalypse without such a division.

Spike, Dawn, and Anya? Principal Wood? Clem? I don't know . . . I sorta think Anya is going to get killed at the end of the SS arc and won't be around for the finale. Robin Wood may get killed too--that guy just has to be a good guy, with a name like that. I think he's probably connected to the CofW and will provide some sort of bridge between battling the SS (which I think won't involve the CofW) and battling the really big bigbad (which will involve the Cof W). Clem, the thoroughly decent demon, will of course survive and flourish.

Dawn I see as representing either Buffy's childhood/innocence (and therefore a character who needs to be done away with before Buffy can move on into adulthood) or Buffy's responsibilities (in which case we're stuck with Dawn, since Buffy can't shed responsibilities as she grows up). Maybe Dawn will turn back into the shimmering green light she really is, frozen for all time as the essence of childhood.

Spike? The vamp could go either way, imo, and I like to think the writers will figure out a way for him to be both good and evil, even in the midst of a cataclysm that forces people to choose sides. I think maybe, in terms of Buffy's psyche, Spike represents desire. So if she survives, he survives--and he survives as a potent force in her life, even if his actions work sometimes to good, sometimes to evil, and maybe both at once.

[> [> On Moral Greyness. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:57:41 11/11/02 Mon

I think that maybe this season will become is some ways a statement by ME and Joss that there are limits to moral ambiguity and the grey zone. The fact that the shapeshifter (who appears to have Big Bad potential) hails to the line that there is only power, no good and evil. Joss and Co. may be saying that if you descend too far into the grey zone, you risk amorality, which is little better than the evil-for- evil's sake many demons express.

Also, Clem needs to die! I predict he'll die before episode 17.

[> [> Re: Sacrifice (S7 spoilage & speculation) -- Just George, 00:16:58 11/12/02 Tue

Pilgrim: "Second, end the series with the mother-of-all- battles over the hell mouth. Demons and humans alike will be forced to choose sides and fight. Buffy's heart (Xander), her soul (Willow), her mind (Giles), and her own strength [thanks to shadowkat for these] will spend the rest of the year coming to their full force by acknowledging weaknesses, overcoming temptations, and practicing their powers. All four of the core gang will end the season victorious, in reflection of Buffy's successful growth into adulthood."

While I would like to see something like this happen, I have a different idea where ME may be going. As shadowcat mentioned in a previous post, Buffy is a tragic heroine. I believe that Buffy is at her best when she is sacrificing something precious to win the day.

Season 1: Sacrificing any chance at a normal life by embracing her destiny, even though she knows that by embracing her destiny she will die.

Season 2: Sacrificing Angel to close the portal, even though she loves Angel more than anything else in her life.

Season 3: Sacrificing her childhood by attacking Faith ("Look who's dressed up in big sister's clothes") and blowing up the school ("We survived." "It was a hell of a battle." "Not the battle, high school.")

Season 5: Sacrificing her own life so that Dawn could live.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Season 4 and 6 feel less than complete to me was because Buffy didn't have to sacrifice anything in them. She lost things in those seasons, but the endings were not based upon her sacrifice.

So what can Buffy sacrifice at the end of Season 7? Not her life. Been there, done that. Something bigger. Her future. I have this horrible feeling that Buffy will end up taking the Master's place, stuck in the Hellmouth like a cork in a bottle, fighting endlessly and keeping the forces of evil at bay for an eternity (or at least until Fray several centuries from now).

I would weep for Buffy to come to such an end. But it would be in keeping with her heroic capacity to sacrifice herself for others.


[> [> [> Yikes, that's really dark. -- Pilgrim, 04:05:27 11/12/02 Tue

I could go there with you, I also like stories with dark endings, but that seems like terrible punishment for a person whose "tragic flaw" may be nothing worse than growing up. A young woman giving up her future to save humankind? Trapped for eternity as the gate-keeper of hell? No chance of further growth? And the whole notion of women sacrificing themselves for others, I don't know--it's noble and all, but wouldn't you like to see some balance where women find the power to live for themselves too?

[> [> [> [> Oh, I so agree with that -- Rahael, 04:18:11 11/12/02 Tue

"And the whole notion of women sacrificing themselves for others, I don't know--it's noble and all, but wouldn't you like to see some balance where women find the power to live for themselves too?"


I think Joss is aware of the politics of this - he comments on it in "Innocence". He says he had to be careful, but that drama was created by having a consequence for every decision, whether it was a good decision or a bad decision. He was just careful that it would never be a physical decision, only emotional.

That said, I still think we need to see strong women who escape punishment. Emotional or physical.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I so agree with Rahael -- pr10n, 08:55:46 11/12/02 Tue

That said, I still think we need to see strong women who escape punishment. Emotional or physical.

Amen to that, especially needless punishment that serves to further the plot, or punishment as a response to doing the right thing. I trust Joss so much more than that. I can't believe he'll hang Buffy over the Hellmouth like a sacrificed Queen.

My understanding of Buffyverse storytelling makes me think that after everything you go through, there is a reward for valiant service. Buffy died in S5 and went to "heaven," a hero's reward. I can't imagine Joss's storyline ending without a powerful and positive resolution for at least those characters who represent the forces of good.

[Whoa, sap-check. Am I a Pollyanna? check... check... no.]

I really believe that people can be happy, but I also realize that life is horrific for most of the people who live on the same planet as me, probably on the same block as me.

But the STORY says that a hero wades barefoot through shattered babyfood jars and plague-bearing snapping turtles and emerges finally with an eye-patch and no cloak, but clearly victorious and inspirational. That's not like most people's lives: it's the STORY. And that's where Joss should take Buffy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> An option (**Spoilies'n'Spec**) -- Wisewoman, 09:54:49 11/12/02 Tue

Great thread. I just had a mini-epiphany. How can Joss end the series with a bang, close the Hellmouth, sacrifice The Slayer either to close it or to get stuck in it to keep it closed, stay true to canon, and keep Buffy alive? Simple, really.

Have Faith return with bleached/highlighted hair.

Buffy keeps saying she's "The Slayer," but she isn't. Faith is. Buffy is "a slayer" now. Faith is the Chosen One. The only issue here is that canon (Fray) says the Hellmouth is closed early in this century when The Slayer (a young blonde girl) is trapped inside.

Of course, it could be as simple as the hair colour becoming confused with the passing years. Or Faith could in fact sport a new 'do. I'm tellin' ya, if I see ED anywhere with the blondiness (which I'm thinkin', eeeewwww!) I'm gonna be crowin' for joy!

;o) dub

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The problem is... (tragedy turns to farce) -- KdS, 10:01:56 11/12/02 Tue

If the Hellmouth has to be closed from the inside, or someone has to act as a cork, I can't see any of the Scooby Gang letting any of the others do it without a fight.

I can see it now - Buffy, Spike, Willow, Faith, Anya and Xander in an all-out brawl over who gets to sacrifice themselves while the Legions of Hell quietly sneak past them...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! -- dub ;o), 10:16:00 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A sense of the absurd being vital no matter the occasion :o) -- Pilgrim, 10:29:51 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: An option for dyeing (**Spoilies'n'Spec**) -- pr10n, 10:11:04 11/12/02 Tue

Eew, sneeky!

And there is this Slayer continuum thing going on, where Faith is the realio-trulio, and Buffy is the past, and (apparently) their are legions of young women in some limbo state because their Slayer-ness can't activated.

That's some Cosmic Wonkiness right there, and they're the good guys! Implying either a Good/Evil imbalance thereby, giving Evil a chance to strike, or some Impending Balancing Effect (Mayhaps a certain SoCal Beast?).

Either way, Faith and a Bottle of Miss Clairol sounds like a decent redemption scheme to me, and I heartily approve.

Dare I? "Slay, flay, or lay: no one rides for free." Sorry.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Warning: there/their/they're infraction in above post ^ -- pr10n, 10:12:36 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There,'s okay... -- dub ;o), 10:24:55 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I so hope Rahael and pr10n are right -- Just George, 11:44:12 11/12/02 Tue

pr10n: "But the STORY says that a hero wades barefoot through shattered babyfood jars and plague-bearing snapping turtles and emerges finally with an eye-patch and no cloak, but clearly victorious and inspirational. That's not like most people's lives: it's the STORY. And that's where Joss should take Buffy."

I hope you are right. I'd like that ending. That sounds like the end of an adventure story. But Buffy is seldom a pure adventure story. Sometimes it is a tragedy.

I guess part of my problem is that I no longer trust Joss / ME to do "right" by the character of Buffy. There have been too many instances recently where the show has either missed or ignored chances to help the audience engage / relate to her character. The distance that has been created between the audience and the character makes it easier for the writers to do something drastic and final and have the audience accept it.

I think this might be even more likely if SMG decides to leave the series for good, The temptation to create an amazingly tragic, touching, emotional, and dramatic end for Buffy's character might be too much for the writers to resist. I may be projecting here. When writing, I find the temptation to do something heroic, tragic, and FINAL to be very strong.

This debate also relates to the dramatic question of how do the writers top what has gone before? For instance, how do you make an enemy that presents a credible threat after your heroine has defeated a goddess? In ME's case, you create an enemy that seems to encompass every enemy (including the goddess) that has gone before.

The mirror question in this case is what sacrifice can Buffy make to save the day that will be bigger than the sacrifices she has already been willing to make? Willingly accepting a life of eternal torment to save the world seems about as big as I can think of. I don't "want" Buffy to end that way. But ME may decide that I "need" it to end that way.


[> [> [> [> [> [> I have grave doubts about Buffy's future (purely spec) -- KdS, 14:38:41 11/12/02 Tue

But the STORY says that a hero wades barefoot through shattered babyfood jars and plague-bearing snapping turtles and emerges finally with an eye-patch and no cloak, but clearly victorious and inspirational.

Um, depends what stories you're reading...

I understand what you, Pilgrim, and Rah are saying about the punishment of strong women, but I also think ME have been very consciously following European myth. And in European mythic structures (Greek, Nordic, Celtic... don't know much about non-European myth) the hero *almost always* gets the shaft (sometimes metaphorically, often literally through the chest) in the end. The macho man walking victoriously away into the sunset is a product of a more modern and less fatalistic age. No sexism involved.

Jason, Sigfrid, Theseus, Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus, Cu Chulainn (sp?), Robin Hood, the entire Nordic pantheon... None of them ended up retiring to a little farm and raising kids.

I really don't think ME will go as dark as to consign Buffy to eternal damnation, but I consider it a safe bet that Buffy will leave feet first. And not alone. Whether she makes it to heaven - that depends on precisely how you interpret end-S5-early-S6.

One word for any educated British viewers. Blake.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have grave doubts about Buffy's future (purely spec) -- Wisewoman, 14:48:25 11/12/02 Tue

Which Blake? This Blake?

O for a voice like thunder, and a tongue
To drown the throat of war!-- When the senses
Are shaken, and the soul is driven to madness,
Who can stand? When the souls of the oppressed
Fight in the troubled air that rages, who can stand?
When the whirlwind of fury comes from the
Throne of God, when the frowns of his countenance
Drive the nations together, who can stand?
When Sin claps his broad wings over the battle,
And sails rejoicing in the flood of Death;
When souls are torn to everlasting fire,
And fiends of Hell rejoice upon the slain,
O who can stand? O who hath caused this?
O who can answer at the throne of God?
The Kings and Nobles of the Land have done it!
Hear it not, heaven, thy Ministers have done it!

;o) dub (who is Canadian and so may have got it wrong-- Blake's Seven, maybe?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I *was* thinking of Blake's 7 :-) -- KdS, 05:09:56 11/13/02 Wed

...and the way that series ended.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have grave doubts about Buffy's future (purely spec) -- leslie, 14:55:20 11/12/02 Tue

"I understand what you, Pilgrim, and Rah are saying about the punishment of strong women, but I also think ME have been very consciously following European myth. And in European mythic structures (Greek, Nordic, Celtic... don't know much about non-European myth) the hero *almost always* gets the shaft (sometimes metaphorically, often literally through the chest) in the end. The macho man walking victoriously away into the sunset is a product of a more modern and less fatalistic age. No sexism involved."

Yes, but by this argument, if the whole point of BtVS is to turn paradigms on their heads (starting with the punishment of sexually active little blonde girls), shouldn't it end by overturning this paradigm as well? I agree ME know their mythic structure and play with it mightily, but after all, in order to overturn a paradigm, you have to know what it is in the first place. Then you kick its legs out from underneath it. (Or stake it through the heart.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes! -- Rahael, 15:38:10 11/12/02 Tue

Joss is always pretty playful with the mythic and cultural narratives and resonances he uses. Even the self sacrifice of the Gift was not unambiguous and Season 6 itself added many major correctives to it.

Even after the big moments, you have to go on living life. And sometimes, the most meaningful moments of life - the people we spend it with, ordinary things, love, laughter, pain, melancholy, boredom - that might become the most important parts of our lives.

I always am in agreement with Matching Mole in that I love the eps which don't always contribute to the major arc of the season - because our lives are composed of more than the 'big' things.

In fact, if you live a life of constant threats, the knowledge that you might die tomorrow, the adrenaline rush of danger, the euphoria of still being alive this is all so painfully intense. So intense that you can't bear feeling all that emotion all the time.

The things which you treasure are the harmless little moments. Sipping a cup of tea. A peaceful night's sleep. A meal. A shared moment of laughter. Something mundane and ordinary.

That is enough. More than enough. It's what makes life worth living. I find it difficult to explain how much intense joy looking up at a sky which does not harbour bombs, missiles and implements meant to kill you can bring to a person. The tears of joy you can feel looking up at a harmless, ordinary cloudy sky.

I really think that BtVS is moving toward showing a really complex and mature view of life, in all its colours (and not just black, white and greys).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moments of being -- ponygirl, 19:39:40 11/12/02 Tue

Lovely post, Rahael!

I've always believed that OMWF was about burnout, emotional, creative, and physical, for exactly the reasons you describe. Both for Buffy and sometimes I suspect for Joss.

I think we all have these times in our lives, in which, whether through tragedy or joy, everything seems turned up to an almost painful level of emotion. Living on a grand scale can certainly become addictive. The intensity becomes too much, you pour everything into sustaining a level of passion... but no one is limitless, no emotion boundless. The grand gestures end up becoming meaningless.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moments of being -- Rahael, 09:04:32 11/13/02 Wed

Thanks Ponygirl!

This response is mostly inspired by Alcibiades and Age.

I was thinking of Buffy's big moments - the epic, heroic ones. Becoming - Buffy thrusts a sword into Angel's heart, as the mouth of Acathla opens behind him. If I'm remembering correctly, everything around this sacrificial couple shines. A moment of high tragedy, lost love, and pain.

Then there is the Gift - again, tragedy, pain, love, and the air around Buffy shines.

Age did a lot of posts about the Diamond - those moments that are frozen into all their glory. But throughout Season 6, we have the constant image of the shattered Diamond.

Buffy tends to get stuck in those moments because that's when she tends to have her finest hours. But as you put it, grand gestures and epics can become meaningless.

I think Season 6 attacked the grand gesture again and again -
Warren and the trio, with their 'grand' plans to take over Sunnydale. Their adolescent dreams are both dangerous and empty.

Willow's pursuit of power, and the her final grand gestures. She puts aside Tara's body, forgotten as she pursues veangeance against the whole world. The simple act would have been to bid farewell to Tara.

Buffy - is stuck, frozen in past moments, like Becoming and the Gift. The diamond must thaw into the dew drop:

The dew-drop carries in its eye
Mountain and forest, sea and sky,
With every change of weather;
Contrariwise, a diamond splits
The prospect into idle bits
That none can piece together.


Spike - the grand dream of love and self abegnation. But that too turns to ashes.

In OMWF Buffy talks about the glittering things that she can't appreciate. Family and Friends. Because there is a greater, more glittering lure. The lure of the big moment, the heroic gesture.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> August -- Tchaikovsky, 03:22:31 11/13/02 Wed

Royal like the emperor once pretended
Crimson air is cream-like; cream that sours
Holidays make holes by work-ants mended
Others fill the break with sunshine hours.

Stress inveigles holiday's vacation,
Vaccinate cos heartbreak's on the cards
Cards now full of checkout's machinations
While the husband tans his torso-lard.

Happiness lives on in children's life-dream;
Frantic leisure, laid-back hurrying
Now they're paradoxes- age's strife-theme
Melts to merely abject worrying.

While nostalgia lies in donkey's braying
And the subtler seas's song stroking sand,
It never captures youth's insouciant playing
Echoing through from decades we once manned.

Moments passing joy entrance our senses
Waves slow-breaking swoop into the shore
Sun goes out when dipped in sea's expanses
Twilight just a memory of before.

Dangerously close to frail September
Melancholy month of gathering song
August's carefree castles can't remember
Frost, its Jack-the-lad now lopes along.

Coming like Death's scythe to aged parent,
Winter's warner will its whiteness bring
Till then, let's rejoice in meagre fragmnets,
Truer hidden joy than August's King.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Songs of Spring and Autumn -- Rahael, 05:19:25 11/13/02 Wed

That's lovely - is it your own?

Very nice Keatsian references too!

Where are the songs of Spring? Ay, where are they?
Think not of them, thou hast thy music too

born 19.6.32 -- deported 24.9.42
Undesirable you may have been, untouchable
you were not. Not forgotten
or passed over at the proper time.
As estimated, you died. Things marched,
sufficient, to that end.

(I have made
an elegy for myself it
is true)

September fattens on vines. Roses
flake from the wall. The smoke
of harmless fires drifts to my eyes.

This is plenty. This is more than enough.

Geoffery Hill

(One of my top ten faves)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks Rahael... -- pr10n, 10:19:58 11/13/02 Wed

You made me cry at work. I appreciate that depth of feeling.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awww, pr10n -- Rahael, 10:43:29 11/13/02 Wed

Let me send cyber chocolates your way to make up!

There are three poems, Keats' Ode to Autumn, Hardy's "During Wind and Rain" and Hill's "September Song" which resonate and resonate together. Hardy references Keats, and Hill so subtly and beautifully plays against the two earlier poems to comment on the tragedy of the 20thC.

Anyway I'm terribly jealous of Tchaikovsky. I have no talent for the discipline of writing good poetry, which I think of even more highly than the ability to write prose.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magical; and some more Hardy -- Tcahikovsky, 11:31:08 11/13/02 Wed

This thread is getting dreadfully off topic now, but never mind.

Firstly, that poem was my own. I've never really put one out in a public forum before, so I posted it here for two reasons. Firstly because your completely unspecial, unspectacular moments in everyday life reminded me of my 'meagre fragments'. Secondly because I thought hiding it away in the middle of a long thread would let it die more peacefully than if I'd played a big fanfare and posted it new. I did write it in August- in a stuffy call centre, thinking about my childhood views of holidays. Then it occurred to me that Augustus, the big cheese of Rome, had a month named after him that is fitting- it is very bombastic, sunny, intense. But the real joy isn't in the apparently intense happiness of summer. It's in those random moments, and the moments of memory.

Keats is probably my favourite poet. I can't ever read 'Ode to a Nightingale' or 'Ode to A Grecian Urn' without being deeply touched. I suppose it's the combination of beautiful, melodic sound and a brainy argument that does it.
Thinking about Buffy's sacrifice in 'The Gift' reminds me of the lines:

Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain,
While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!
Still wouldst thou sing, and I have ears in vain—
To thy high requiem become a sod.

Buffy has found a moment of sadness and beauty where dying seems somehow right- 'rich' even, because she's doing it for the person she loves more than anyone- more even than herself- her sister.

Going in a different direction, (but staying with birds), the poem which really gets me through the long, dark evenings of this time of year is Hardy's 'The Darkling Thrush':

I leant upon a coppice gate
When Frost was spectre-grey,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
Had sought their household fires.

The land's sharp features seemed to be
The century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
Seemed fervorless as I.

At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.

So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope whereof he knew
And I was unaware.

More wonderful than any of my poetry could ever be.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love it. -- Rahael, 15:19:20 11/13/02 Wed

I love Darkling Thrush.

I really really love Keats too. I wrote a post about Spike and Grecian urns - it's in the July archives somewhere - if you do a google search for Rahael and "Consume my heart away" you should find it, if you're interested.

But I'm glad my post prompted you to post your poem. I really enjoyed it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have grave doubts -- pr10n, 15:42:02 11/12/02 Tue

Ok, good point, with the Hero on the pointy end a lot.

Isn't there a storytelling aspect to the Hero's "failure" that makes a point to the audience about character flaws or bad luck or capricious deities? If Buffy's ultimate failure or ultimate sacrifice or ultimate victory makes the best sotry, than I hope Joss will tell that.

[Less typing, please, and more thinking.]

I'm trying to de-deconstruct here. The point of this post is that somewhere behind Buffy is a storyteller. Instead of tearing the story into symbols and allusions and proto-forms (even though that's great fun and let's not ever stop) I want to hear the end of the tale and decide for myself if I want to hear it again.

That's where a myth comes from -- Does it play in Peoria? Does it have legs? Will I honor the storyteller with dinner and my best sleeping mat, next time?

Or does it dwindle and fade, like the Tale of Mouse-Knee Gorlock, the Slipper Eater of Frowl? You never what?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The perfect finale (IMHO) -- Tyreseus, 16:28:48 11/12/02 Tue

Buffy and the scoobies in the knock-down, fall-out battle to prevent the hellmouth from opening and devouring the entire world. It's a battle they're losing.

They lose.

The Hellmouth opens up and the world is blasted apart.

Then they wake up from the aftermath. The Hellmouth has devoured every demon, vampire, werewolf, portal, magical object, etc. Buffyverse has died and all the humans are just... humans. Buffy isn't a slayer, Dawn isn't "the key," Willow is just your run-of-the-mill lesbian...

They mourn their dead undead friends. Somewhere we hear Spike singing "Life isn't bliss, life is just this, it's living, you have to go on living."

But Spike is gone. So is Anya.

And the scoobies go on to live their mundane lives.

OKAY - so this ending would also kill off any future Angel episodes, but still, it would be kinda neat. First we think everyone dies, then they don't (at least, not the human ones), but the universe is so dramatically changed that Buffy gets her one wish - to be a normal girl.

[> [> [> Re: Sacrifice (Spoiler for Him, and future spec) -- Rahael, 04:08:52 11/12/02 Tue

I agree with you Just George, that Buffy is a tragic heroine.

But, the whole dying for the world thing, isn't that part and package of the whole experience of adolescence? Isn't this pointed out to us by the fact that Dawn tries to die because she feels so distraught in Him?

I think, that BUffy's tragic role has to be different this year.

Pilgrim, I thought your post was very good - the only thing is, thinking metaphorically about the Hellmouth, can our personal hellmouths ever be closed for ever? The journey into adulthood might mean that life is not filled with apocalypse after apocalypse. Perhaps it will be transformed into something less epic - the everyday pain of life. That is not apocalyptic, not the end of the world but still entailing emotional sacrifice.

[> [> [> [> Re: Sacrifice (Spoiler for Him, and future spec) -- Pilgrim, 04:45:34 11/12/02 Tue

That's really well-said, and I agree that our personal hellmouths never close. What scares and challenges us, what requires sacrifice, maybe just changes over time--and even the old teen-age bugaboos are probably still hiding down there for lots of us. But I would like to see Buffy move beyond adolescence, her home town, her high school. And going "back to the beginning" seems to me a set-up for putting "the beginning" down and laying it to rest (at least sort of). Perhaps there's a better way of showing that effort, symbolically, than closing the hellmouth? Hmmm.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Personal hellmouths never close -- Just George, 11:59:30 11/12/02 Tue

Pilgrim: " That's really well-said, and I agree that our personal hellmouths never close."

But if Buffy ended up "taking the Master's place, stuck in the Hellmouth like a cork in a bottle, fighting endlessly and keeping the forces of evil at bay for an eternity" then her personal hellmouth would never close either. It would close for others, but never for her.

I think I'm getting too maudlin here. Joss and ME have delivered for me in the past. I can hope that my nightmare scenario is just a bad dream and ME will deliver for me in the future as well.

I think I'm going to go read an old Honorificus review or go over to Television Without Pity and read the Evil Fashion Nazi board. Those things always cheer me up.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Aww, cheer up, JG! -- HonorH, 12:39:58 11/12/02 Tue

I can't imagine them doing quite that to their audience, Buffy, or the Scoobies. I mean, how would her friends live, knowing that every moment they walked the earth was purchased by Buffy, who must spend eternity in a literal Hell? You saw how bad it was for them in "Bargaining"; if they knew, truly knew that Buffy was in Hell, it would kill them. Not to mention that the fans would send letter bombs en masse.

Honorificus, incidentally, thinks you're adorable and will dedicate her next review to you. My advice: watch out! You have no idea what it's like when she takes a shine to someone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aww, cheer up, JG! -- Just George, 15:50:10 11/12/02 Tue

The EFN didn't help much (too many reminiscences about Tara) but Honorificus is always a good read.

BTW, I live in fear of the Big H's next review. I am not worthy.

But then, no one is.


[> [> [> [> Re: Sacrifice (Spoiler for Him, and future spec) -- leslie, 12:38:41 11/12/02 Tue

You know, you can only go so big in terms of a bang-up ending, and aren't apocalypses and sacrifice getting a little tired? I am starting to think in the opposite terms, spurred on by Giles's uncontrollable laughter at the end of last season--it's all suddenly going to become very small, very absurd, very "oh god, what were we getting so overwrought about?" Buffy's going to realize that this slaying stuff is something that she can do without (literally) killing herself over it, and everyone, or nearly everyone, is going go on living their lives trying to make a difference as best they can--I am thinking here of Willow's decision to go to UC Sunnydale instead of the most prestigious university in the universe because she wants to make the best use of her skills that she can, and this is where she can do it, and I'm also thinking of the fear demon. (And is this just a coincidence: the word for "true" in Irish is fir--there's a long accent mark over the "i" that won't come out here--and it's pronounced "fear." The "fear" demon is the "true" demon. Yeah, maybe stretching it, but that caption that said "actual size" was legitimately understandable Irish, so someone knew what they were saying.)

[> [> [> [> Dawn's Sacrifice is too late... (major Speccy SPOILAGE) -- ZachsMind, 13:32:35 11/12/02 Tue

Dawn was supposed to be the one to jump into the dimensional rift at the end of season five. From a temporal perspective, it's theoretical that had she done that then, everything that happened after her magical creation by the monks would have become null & void. She would have potentially never existed. Time would have reset to the point at the beginning of season five, immediately after Dracula's departure. Without Dawn.

Dawn's a temporal anomaly. Had she done what she was created to do, close the portal like a good little Key, everything would have reset. The temporal schism was created when the monks foolishly hid the green ball of energy by turning it into a her and then retroactively affecting reality to slip her into the lives of Buffy & her friends. Dawn's as much a temporal screw up as was Jonathan's spell in "Superstar" or Cordelia & Anya's discussion in "The Wish." Spock Must Die! Y'know whut ah'm sayin'?

Perhaps the real reason Dawn has this macabre tendency towards attempting suicide every time things get over her head is because deep down she was designed by the monks to go harikari at the drop of a hat. She was meant to sacrifice herself, and her very purpose - her destiny - was stole from her by her artificial sister. I think by the time we get to the end of the season, that's gonna have to be brought into sharp relief. Dawn's not supposed to be there. She never was supposed to be there. She'll sacrifice herself, and everything will...

Oh my God! THAT's why Glory comes back! Because if everything resets... Holy expletitive!

[> [> [> [> [> Whoa doggies! -- Wisewoman, 14:28:08 11/12/02 Tue

I don't think Dawn was created to close the dimensional portal at all! The monks weren't sure exactly what the Key was, because it was so old, they just knew they had to protect it from Glory. All Glory knew was that the Key was capable of opening dimensional portals. Giles found out it was also capable of closing them. But because the Key (and therefore Dawn) is capable of both opening and closing portals does not mean that that is its purpose. It's immensely powerful; it could have many uses, many purposes.

Also, it seemed that Dawn's (or Buffy's) death could close Glory's portal because Dawn's blood was what opened it. We don't really know what originally opened the Hellmouth, do we? Dawn's death might have no effect on it whatsoever.

;o) dub

[> S7 speculations and ramblings (spoilers up to "Him") -- HonorH, 23:13:59 11/11/02 Mon

First of all, Dawn's not "schizophrenic"--she's a teenager. There is a difference, slight as it might be. Furthermore, the only suicidal tendencies or screaming she's done this year were under the influence of a love spell, so I'm going to give those a pass.

Dawn's real deal, IMHO: she's a girl trying to become a woman, and it's a dicey process for all concerned. She talks about empowerment, and also wearing high heels. She wants Buffy to stay away except when she needs someone to stroke her hair and say it'll all be all right.

Agree on the Xander and Willow pieces. They're blending uneasily from their adolescent personas into their adult personas. You've got this whole smear of their pasts into their present selves, with something big coming down the pike at both of them. Willow could go off the deep end. Xander could end up the Sacred King--the sacrifice.

And Anya? She has the least clue of who she is of anyone, save perhaps for Spike.

Identity is the theme:

"I want to be Willow."

"Am I flesh?"

"I don't know if there's a me left to save."

Willow, Spike, and Anya have simply voiced it. As for Buffy, Xander, and Dawn, I think we'll see an equal search for identity--or a slow revealing of what's underneath the surface. A new paradigm for the Slayer. A new identity for the Everyman. A new possibility for the Key.

"You're not the source of me," Buffy told the First Slayer.

"You think you know who you are . . . what's to come. You haven't even begun."

Who is the Slayer, and more importantly, who is Buffy? Unless I'm greatly mistaken, we're going to find out this year--and the answer will be anything but what we expect.

[> [> Identity; finale; cross purposes -- Tchaikovsky, 09:13:42 11/12/02 Tue

Sunnydale; May 2003.

Season Seven- the last season of Buffy in its current form, (this is sweepingly general, I realise) has to end. I'm trying to remember how some of my favourite television shows ended. The trouble is, I don't have many, and of those I do have I can't often remember much about them.

Certainly the end of Blackadder was wonderful. All the people, regardless of their age, class, pomposity- had to go over the top, into the no-man'sland of the First World War. There was the ulitmate sacrifice for nothing. And then the warfield transmuting into a field of poppies. Beautiful and moving.

Quite why it was moving has several answers. Considering death can often be moving, (because it seems so pointless, because it seems so real). But also, it was a shock because Blackadder was a comedy series, and this was a completely serious, unfunny ending. In its death, Blackadder behaved differently to in its life.

And this is what brings me back to Sunnydale. Because how does this visionary, this crazy, overworked genius, finish off his firstborn show?

Whedon is a lot like Shakespeare. Shakespeare was prolific. He examined themes of life and death, with equal measures of light and fluffy absurdity, (much of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', 'As You Like It', ''Much Ado About Nothing'), and deep wounding pain and tragedy, ('King Lear', 'Macbeth, 'Hamlet'). In the bard's vocation though, it was already a given the fate of the characters. In 'The Tragedie of Macbeth, King of Scotland', it's a given that virtually everyone will die. In the comedies, there will be a nasty moment, but no-one will die. Shakespeare, while playing with so many conventions of writing, and exploring so many facets of human existence, never had to worry too much about what to do with his characters once the hurly-burly was done.

Also, Shakespeare wrote in disconnected chunks. It's interesting to consider how his history plays overlap, but he already had a model of English history from which to write, (his plays were often based very loosely on it, however). Whedon and his team write in episodes. 'Everything's connected.'

So to pull these two thoughts together- how does this prolific man finish an episodic show satisfactorily. There's a sense of cross purposes here. Unless he decides to do a Shakespeare blood bath, (which I doubt), most of his characters are going to be alive at the end of the series. Their characters will have been developing organically, as they always have done. But at the end, Whedon has two choices. Each have their problems.

1) Leave them living at the point where he's got to at the end of the Season. This would be true to the series' original style. No happy endings, no contrived matyrdom. Just a bunch of people with supernatural powers, struggling through life. Struggling on towards nothing in particular. The problem with this is, evidently, the lack of resolution. Life doesn't come in chapters. It's continuous, not discrete. You can't just cut it off. But the big, fight, apocalyptic happenings, ultimate victory that everyone deep down desperately wants, (we still love those Hollywood endings), just couldn't happen then. Like 'The Body', it would be frustrating because of the lack of resolution.

2) Do the resolution. But then feel bad about it. Everyone's happy, except Anya's dead. Or fiddle with your own permutations. In this case, life has been artificially made simple. Hold on long enough, and you'll find the end theme tune. One day, your life will black out to 'Joss Whedon' and a short rock instrumental. Life isn't like that. And Buffy is about life. Metpahors about life, and life about life.

Will Whedon do the 'Blackadder' thing? End his series with something incongruous, appease the commoner, and leave us with a taste of saccharine. Or will he once again make us compare him with Shakespeare, experimenting with form in the ending as much as he has experimented with form in the action.

It's not about the destination; it's about the journey. But what will lie at journey's end?

TCH- replying in a rather loose way to HonorH's post, for which apologies.

[> [> [> Perfectly okay. (Oh, and Shakespearean spec) -- HonorH, 10:38:10 11/12/02 Tue

I was stream-of-consciousness; you were stream-of- consciousness. There's a connection.

The last play Shakespeare ever wrote was "The Tempest". The final scene? The sorcerer Prospero gives up his spirit familiar, his staff, and his book, and goes to live an ordinary life. Could we be looking at something similar with Buffy? Perhaps she'll be required to give up her Slayer-ness for some reason--after, of course, she's truly, once and for all, come to a full embracing of it. As we've seen with Kendra and Faith, and also "Helpless", Buffy's already somewhat proprietary over being "The Slayer". It could end up being a wrenching choice for her.

Just something to think about.

[> [> [> [> Brilliant link -- Tchaikovsky, 11:11:18 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> Re: Identity; finale; cross purposes -- Pilgrim, 10:50:27 11/12/02 Tue

I vote for this: at journey's end we find the start of another journey for our heroine. Resolution, yes, but only of one stage of life, then the resolution dissolves into further complication. Which we carry on with in our imaginations.

And the complication we go out on could be as horrible or as silly as Joss can come up with: After much fuss, trouble, blood and sacrifice, Buffy discovers that the hellmouth just opened up again, this time in Tahiti-- Here we go again, but this time in paradise. . . . Or, Buffy could look at the camera and say, Holy crap! I can't be pregnant! . . . Or, oh, I don't know.

[> [> [> [> "Baywatch, the Vampire Slayer"? -- HonorH, 12:44:58 11/12/02 Tue

Darling, it doesn't even bear thinking upon!

[> [> [> [> [> "Baywatch Nights--the Next Generation" -- cjl, 13:06:51 11/12/02 Tue

Pamela Anderson as "Buffy"
Yasmine Bleeth as "Willow"
Parker Stephenson as "Xander"
David Hasselhoff as "Mitch"


William Daniels as the voice of the GILES2000 Computer

Executive producers: Joss Whedon and David Hasselhoff

[Okay, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm in a lousy mood, but it doesn't give me the right to make everybody else miserable...]

[> [> [> [> [> [> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- HonorH (crazy as Spike), 13:16:35 11/12/02 Tue

Oh, the mental images! Oh, the pain, the agony, of imagining Pamela Anderson trying to act . . . or staking vampires in that overstuffed bikini!

And the GILES2000 computer?!? What's the use if we can't see the man, or hear ASH's mellifluous voice?

*Smack!* Get out of that bad mood right now, cjl! THE FLOGGINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm. Maybe I should explain that last post. ("Baywatch Nights" spoilers) -- cjl, 13:58:48 11/12/02 Tue

Didn't anybody else on this board tune in to "Baywatch Nights"? At least out of morbid curiosity?

I did.

If you never did, "Baywatch Nights" was easily one of the freakiest, head-scratching-est, out-of-left-field vanity productions you could possible imagine. About eight years ago, David Hasselhoff wanted to expand the Baywatch empire away from the beach, and decided the template for his new, night-time, action-oriented series would be...

The X-Files.

Visualize Baywatch's Mitch Buchanan as a low-rent agent Mulder, and you pretty much have the concept.

But that wasn't the strangest thing about this abomination. What I found positively unnerving was that some of the people on this show--in front and behind the camera-- actually had talent. Maurice Hurley, one of best writers on Star Trek: the Next Generation in its first two seasons, was the story editor, and contributed a number of really good scripts. Hasselhoff's co-star and resident "Scully" was Angie Harmon--pre-Law and Order--who can REALLY act.

In fact, Harmon's acting ability and the occasional quality script made Hasselhoff's complete lack of talent and the lunatic absurdity of the premise all the more obvious. I watched at least two episodes all the way through and bits of another four, and I kept asking myself: "What the hell is Angie Harmon doing there? Does Hasselhoff have blackmail photos of Maurice Hurley with sheep?" And then there would be an fairly ingenious idea, like the whole pseudo-Freemason plotline, and I would say: "You know, this could be pretty good stuff if DAVID FREAKIN' HASSELHOFF weren't the star of the show!"

But he was. And I watched, mesmerized, as he took his more talented co-stars and staff on a two-year trip through TV hell. "Baywatch Nights" gets regurgitated to the tip of my temporal lobe when I'm under extreme stress or just the right visual/verbal cues trigger an acid flashback. Both conditions were present at the time of my last post.

Once again, I apologize to the board.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Fascinating! -- Rahael, 15:58:12 11/12/02 Tue

I speak as one whose first experience of western popular culture was Knightrider and the Cosby show. (We had a tv for 5 months before the electricity cables supplying our town were cut).

My grandmother kept trying to persuade me that Hasselhoff's character actually was intending to marry all the girls he kissed, a piece of sophistry that grew less convincing with each ep.

Though since my reading matter at the time including Lady Chatterly's Lover and Gray's Anatomy, I don't know why she even tried.

[> [> "Identity is the theme.." -- ZachsMind, 15:27:53 11/12/02 Tue

All the major characters have had identity issues throughout the series. Agreed that this is a major element -- another "piece of the puzzle" if you will, in understanding the themes of the series. Giles in season four was trying to find a life after being a Watcher. Xander never bothered trying to figure out what he was gonna be when he grew up until after he grew up. Buffy's been told she's The Chosen One, but the actual definition of what that means was largely left in vagueness. She was given a.

X: "I'm finished being everybody's butt-monkey!"
B: "You're not the source of me."
O: "I'm going through all these changes!"
A: "I don't know if there's a me left to save."
S: "Am I flesh? Am I flesh to you?"
D: "This is blood, isn't it? It can't be me. I'm not a key. I'm not a thing. What am I? Am I real? Am I anything?"
G: "In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed."

Well, in that case I won't wear my button that says, 'I'm a Slayer. Ask me how!'

Faith's entire problem was a matter of identity. That she was the Slayer and yet because Buffy was still around, Faith was never THE Slayer which helped perpetuate rebellious tendencies already within her. Oz knew who and what he was and seemed to have his head on his shoulders, until the darkness of lycanthropy crept up on him. Then he had to leave the safety of his own home to seek a cure, or at least find some compromise between bedlam and peace. And the Big Bad? The shapeshifting, First Evil, "from beneath you it devours" thing? It doesn't even HAVE an identity, and it's power comes from making its enemies question their own identity.

One could argue that it's not about right or wrong. It's not even about power. Without one's identity, one is nothing. It's about knowing who you are and what you are capable of doing.

Joss interview from Houston Chronicle -- aliera, 17:22:25 11/11/02 Mon

URL for Joss Interview, today's Houston Chronicle, from tensai:

Hadn't seen this posted yet; also, haven't read it yet so don't know how good it is or what all is in it.

[> Link to article plus the chat transcript for the AOL chat with Joss last night... -- Rufus, 17:46:22 11/11/02 Mon

Yup, got that one, it's called TV's Cult Hero

Trollop Group

And for the cleaned up transcript of the AOL chat with Joss during Angel last night some minor spoilers.....

Trollop Group

[> [> rufus, can you tell the unspoiled masses how spoilery these are? -- anom, 20:45:53 11/11/02 Mon

Or should we just consider the "Trollop Group" links a big ol' honkin' hint?

[> [> It depends just how unspoiled you are -- Rufus, 21:09:39 11/11/02 Mon

In Cult Hero...Joss mainly talks about the past and Firefly, but then a few spoilers for Buffy 7.7 and later Angel eps are thrown in.

The transcript (took me forever to edit that sucker) was mainly a Q&A session that had a few minor spoilers about Buffy and Angel that many of us are already spoiled for...goes into Firefly a bit.....and some things considered spoilery are questions that are asked but not really answered for sure....making me wonder if that is a spoiler at all.

I didn't find either very spoilery......but that is me and we know I'm spoiled beyond just about anyone here.

[> [> Here's a juicy, and yet unspoilery quote! -- Rahael, 03:56:47 11/12/02 Tue

Joss Whedon: I haven't read any scholarly books. I'm very flattered. I wish I could be there. "Buffy" is made by a bunch of writers who think very, very hard about what they are doing in terms of psychology and methodology. We take the show very seriously. We are perhaps the most pompous geeks of them all. When somebody says there is a philosophy behind "Buffy" that is the truth. When they say there is symbolism and and meaning in what we're doing, that's true to. On any show sociological patterns we are not in control of. I think it is absolutely great. I wish I could go there and be all opinionated.

[> [> [> Re: Here's a juicy, and yet unspoilery quote! -- MaeveRigan, 06:25:14 11/12/02 Tue

JW: "I wish I could go there and be all opinionated."

He was answering a question about the UEA conference. Everyone would have loved it if he'd been there, of course. But also, I suppose, he'd have been mobbed with reverent questions and no one else would have said a word--maybe! We're all fairly pompous, too!

[> [> [> Where is this quote from??!! -- Masq, 06:55:19 11/12/02 Tue

I need references. Dates, times, names, people involved.

OK, I just need to know the date and where you got the quote from so I can copy it in its original if possible.

Thanks Rah!

[> [> [> [> It's from the spoilery AOL chat that Rufus links to above!! -- Rahael, 07:06:49 11/12/02 Tue

If you wait a little, I'll pull out more non-spoilery stuff for you.

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks Rah!! -- Masq, 07:16:26 11/12/02 Tue

You saved my purity : )

What's left of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Joss Interview - spoilers for eps up to Spin the Bottle and Him -- Rahael, 08:21:31 11/12/02 Tue

Here are some more quotes - okay, I just took some of the spoilery stuff out.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Tell us about tonight's episode, which you wrote and directed. What inspired the idea of having the characters revert to the teenage persona?

Joss Whedon: It started with Alexis. We talked about how cool his character had become. But we said a fond farewell to the blithering bumpkin he was when he arrived. I got the idea of doing the show where everybody used to be. We got the same feeling about Cordelia, she became wonderful and fascinating, wasn't it fun when she was the biggest in the universe. Wouldn't it be fun to go back to to old days.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: We have our first question from where'smydude 8. You are awesome, Joss. Is there any chance of adding younger cast members?

JossWhedonLIVE: Joss Whedon: Vince is a couple of years older than Dawn, who plays Angel's son, Corner. --connor. It is more 20-something than the rite of passage youth of "Buffy." It is possible. It looks like "Angel" could continue to run for a while. It is not our focus like on "Buffy."

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Joss, you are a gene quas and a really -- genius and a really sweet guy.I loved the Vegas episode.

Joss Whedon: That was filmed at the Tropicana. Andy was actually singing in Vegas. The biggest production values we have probably had and probably the last.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: We have a question from heyforman 124 who wants to know if you read to web sites about your show?

Joss Whedon: I do. I look for comments and what people are liking, not liking, what they are talking about. All of that stuff. I'm fascinated by it.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: How important has the medium of the internet been to spreading the word about your shows?

Joss Whedon: I think it has been essentially. The way "Buffy" and the internet have interacted has been unprecedented. I knew I had fans before I got a chance to see and understand what ratings were because I would go on sites and meet people. You know, the community that started out from, you know, the very beginning has just grown and grown. It is a mob scene now.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Was it fun being able to write Cordelia vein and shallow high school character she started out as?

Joss Whedon: Oh, my god. It was so much fun. It is always fun to write people who are extreme like that. When you do a show for a long time, you get to know and love your characters. They eventually become sort of heroic. The worst thing that could happen is the last year of "mash" syndrome. Everybody is lovable and you can't create conflict. We are not going through that. There is real conflict on "Angel." It is nice to go back to the raw beginning when everyone is completely in their own world.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: We have a question from Boxen360. What is the theme song for "Angel." I love it and it touches my soul.

Joss Whedon: I was thinking how underrated it was and how beautiful it is. The name is "the theme from Angel." We went to a bunch of local bands and said, here is the basic idea for the theme. The basic idea for "Angel" was cello rock. Soulful and rocky. Not like "Buffy," but its own medicalo dram attic space. Darling violetta recorded it. I think it is really extremely underrated and it does touch me.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Speaking of theme songs, you wrote the theme for "Firefly" in addition to writing a musical episode last season. Have you always wanted to write songs?

Joss Whedon: Always, always, always. I just started writing and playing music, more writing than playing. I have all written lyrics as a kid, but never had music to put
them to. This is kind of a new field for me. The idea of "Firefly" was to write something that sounded old and bluesy. I don't know if you have a special font to make it go foxfall.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Question from a member, I'm a very dedicated "Buffy" and "Angel" fan. Which is more complicated to write, "Buffy" or "Angel"?

Joss Whedon: Everything is equally hard to write. Writing is hard. They are hard for different reasons. "Buffy" is hard because it is completely grounded in human
experience. Every episode has to be about what, you know, what it feels like to go through a certain period in your life. In the rite of passage that is your life. We can never do an episode that is purely fan tast -- fantastical and exciting because the show is about growing up. "Angel" is not like that. It has become a noirish medical
drama of action. -- melodrama of action. We can tell stories in itself. We are not slavish to, what does it feel like to do that like on "Buffy." Although that is a limitation on "Buffy," it is more grounding. On "Angel" it is more difficult to find a storyline that is truly compelling and feels true to the universe. So they are both hard. It is all hard. It's work. I'm sorry. Do they have a complaining font.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: What were your teenage years like or where did you fit
in in the high school social hierarchy?

Joss Whedon: I didn't really fit in. I was very much an outsider and felt myself to be. I was, you know, I wasn't despised or picked on, I just sort of didn't really matter.
I tended to come in and make jokes and leave before anybody told me that they wanted me to leave. So I didn't have to hear it. That was sort of -- I decided when I was 14 that was my purpose in life, walk into a crowd, say something funny, and leave while they were laughing.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: The episodes you have directed have been most memorable.

Joss Whedon: If I could direct every one, I would. I would be tired and cranky and hateful, but, yeah, I only get to do four or five a year. That is way more than somebody
running a show should be doing and I'm running three. So clearly I have lost my head. I love directing. I love directing all three shows for very different reasons.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Will you do a musical episode of "Angel" like "Buffy"?

Joss Whedon: David and Charisma have informed me they know people who can kill me, so probably not any time soon. I did a ballet episode. What more can they ask.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: How much time are you able to spend on "Angel" vs. "Buffy" vs. "Firefly," because you are doing three shows?

Joss Whedon: It kind of equals out. "Buffy" and "Angel" I spend an enormous amount of time breaking storys with the writers. Trying to find the heart of the story. That is the most important part. I don't have to spend as much time on the set as "Buffy" and "Angel" because they have been in play and I have producers I trust who can watch the directors and make sure the actors are doing what we are looking for. I have actors on "Firefly" I trust, but it is the first year so you spend time on rewriting, costumes, being on set. When you first start out with a show, you have to be involved with everything. After a while you can let things take care of themselves.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: A member wants to know what your favorite "Buffy" episode is, if you can name one.

JossWhedon: It varies, very often. I have to say that innocence, the episode where Buffy slept with Angel and he went crazy, will have a huge lace in my heart. That show more purely showed us what we were going to be able to do with that series, kind of took it to the next level. Hey, you never forget your first time.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: This weekend, as you may or may not know there is an academics conference devoted to "Buffy."Are you flattered by that? Have you read any scholarly works written about your show?

Joss Whedon: I haven't read any scholarly books. I'm very flattered. I wish I could be there. "Buffy" is made by a bunch of writers who think very, very hard about what they are doing in terms of psychology and methodology. We take the show very seriously. We are perhaps the most pomp pouse geeks of them all. When somebody says there is a philosophy behind "Buffy" that is the truth. When they say there is symbolism and and meaning in what we're doing, that's true to. On any show sociological patterns we are not in control of. I think it is absolutely great. I wish I could go there and be all opinionated.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Are you frustrated that the emmy awards have acknowledged you or the show with nominations?

Joss Whedon: You know, how much time do I have to devote to being frustrated to that? Every now and then it tweaks me. The fact of the matter is it is It doesn't fill my day.
It's not why I got in the business. I have other things to have rage about.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Like what?

Joss Whedon: When you are making a show you have rage at everything that doesn't come out exactly as it should.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: What was the most difficult episode of "Buffy" to write and/or direct?

Joss Whedon: The hardest to direct was the gift. The 100th episode, just because it was right in the middle of the fox/wb wars. My spirit left the building while I still had a week of filming to go. It was a big action ep with tons and tons of pieces. I think that was the hardest one for me to shoot. To write, they're all hard. And, you know, I've spent, you know, two weeks trying to rewrite half a page of, you know, somebody else's show and written an episode of my own in three days. You never know which is going to be. I have ones that were challenges, like hush and the body and the musical and whatnot. I can't describe that as hard because it was so much fun.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: An interesting question from aimesy who says, is there a point in the writing process where someone stands up and says, that is going too far or
is the sky the limit?

Joss Whedon: No. I think there are times when we say, I think Buffy should not have intestines on her head. Some things are too gross or unsettling or too sexual, even
for us. We don't limit ourselves so much. We are not looking to shock people. At the same time, we are not looking to censor ourselves. We will explore something to the limit to get to the most primal experience.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: You have had main characters die, main characters commit murder.

Joss Whedon: The networks get hot about teen suicide as well as expected. I have never approached them something where they said, that is something you can't do. That is a person you can't have.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: What episode or development are you most proud of on "Angel"?

Joss Whedon: Episode? You know, I really -- are you now or have you ever been, episode two of season two. The 1950's flashback, where we introduced the hotel. That still stands out to me as just like innocence. An extraordinary piece of work. Sort of explaining to me what a truly classic circian noir the show can be. That and Billy from last year, episode six of season three, about the fellow who could basically make men just hate and beat on women. It made a lot of powerful statements and was extremely creepy. I thought it hit on all cylinders. I was really proud of those. Oh, yeah. And the ones I did.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: In your last episode of "Firefly," we characterized you as making up language. How did you create that language and do you have a dictionary you take that from?

Joss Whedon: We don't have a dictionary, but certain phrases become common. And used a lot. I try and introduce new ones to keep it fresh so it is not the same thing all the time. The language comes from every source. Some from Shakespeare and Elizabethian times. Some from movies. Some comes from just how I feel like language might get corrupted in the future a little bit. Some of it, you know, I read a book about the Pennsylvania dutch that was written at the turn of the century. They had some interesting phrasing. Some of them were Irish. You take everything.
Add a little Chinese and stir.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Raven wants to know, besides "Buffy" and "Angel," can characters have you had the most influence developing of a supporting character?

Joss Whedon: Well, I developed all of them. That is my job. So I'm not sure I understand the question.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Question from another member names --

Joss Whedon: Sorry.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: That's all right. K.r.c. wants to know, do most shows have a shelf life and if so, how do you keep the characters alive and interesting?

Joss Whedon: If the writers are still excited when they come into a story and the actors are still doing their best, the show is fresh. With "Buffy," it's easy. Easier because the show kind of recreates itself every year. Every year we have a different sort of mission statement. At the same time, it is the same bunch. People do change, but it is the same core group. But it doesn't feel more difficult now than it did in the second year or the third year. It is really about the enthusiasm. When that goes away then the
show goes a way. Also a lot of shows are -- and usually the more successful shows are formula shows where you know what is going to happen. Jessica fletcher is going to solve the murder. There is a shootout in the wear house.Sonny Crocket is going to be depressed. Scully is not going to believe it is a monster. Feel like that. That makes for hit shows as opposed to Cult shows. The problem is that really does get tiring. Those end up having a shelf life because it is so difficult to find something new to say about all of that. So we have that advantage. Although it is also kind of a disadvantage.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: "Firefly" is part science fiction and classic western. Would you have liked to make it a purely western show or the sci-fi more important?

Joss Whedon: I grew up on sci-fi more than any single thing. I love sci-fi. The reason I chose to combine it with the western elements as well as many other elements is
because I'm interested in history, the history of this country and I'm interested in life when it's hard. And, you know, that sort of feeling, we're barely making it and we're all in this together as opposed to the distancing shiny, alien-filled Spandexysci-fi there has been a lot of. I wanted to do is show that felt like it wasn't so contemporary it would be dated. So I basically took the past and the futurened made a very conscious decision to say, well, they are just about the same thing.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Do you have any more plans to write for comic books like Dark Horse called qup fray?

Joss Whedon: I plan to finish Fray. I have hundreds of plans to write billions of comic books and create an entire comic book empire. Unfortunately, like an idiot, I
started running three TV shows. So those comic books will not appear in the near future. I have overextended myself and I am dying.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: What have influenced you, if any?

Joss Whedon: When I grew up, very much reading the Marvel universement Spiderman, warlock, devillock. The x-men, of course. Now a day, you know, pretty much anything Brian Michael Ben dis, warren ellis, mike Moore put on the page,ly pick up.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Looking through some question right now. All right. A member wants to know if you foresee "Angel" going for years and years the way "Buffy" has,
seven or eight seasons

Joss Whedon: You can't say. It is hitting its stride creatively and in terms of ratings this year. We have a great, great cast and a great staff. As long as they want to do it and the network wants it, it feels viable. So you can never say. It works for me.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Has the complex characters on TV spoiled you from wanting to write or direct movies

Joss Whedon: No. I'm very anxious to make movies. TV is an extraordinary medium. I'm wicked fortunate. The fact is I love movies dearly and TV is also an endless grind. I would like a grind that is

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: I'm looking for one last question.

Joss Whedon: Mm-hmm.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: Wesly has evolved as this season has shone. At what point did you realize that character was going to be more complex?

Joss Whedon: Well, you know on "Buffy" we had a great time just having him be as dorky as possible. possible. There comes a point with every character where you say -- where they say, can I be cool now? Alexis was like, how can I be dorkier. What can I do to be sillier. How can I fall down more? Let's think this through. When we brought him on "Angel" we knew we would want to find what made that character tick. It really is fun, particularly with tonight's episode to see exactly how he has evolved. When somebody becomes a regular on a show, you know they can't be a caricature. on a show, you know they can't be a caricature. You have to find out what makes them behave in such a silly fashion. You know, in Wesly's case it had a lot to do with the way people perceived him and a lack of self- confidence and a lot of naivete, a lot of which he has lost.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: A member named stargirl wnts to know if you knew spike was going to develop into the complex enigematic character?

Joss Whedon: You never know. They can be the great remember or be killed quickly because they are dull. It is impossible to tell. We thought we had lightning in a
bottle with James and Juliet. But, no, we never knew -- with James and juliet. You keep throwing the things at actors. James can handle everything. In the genre you work in, if you kill a character and want to bring them back, you can. That is a nice feeling.

JossWhedonLIVE: AOL Host: "Angel" airs 9:00 eastern on the wb. "Buffy" on Tuesday 8:00 on upn. Is "Firefly" Changes time slots?Joss Whedon: We should be Fridays at 8:00 for the foreseeable future, at least up until Christmas.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What's the date of this interview? -- Masq, 09:00:10 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus said last night, so I presume 11 November? -- Rahael, 09:22:29 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sunday, November 10/02 AOL chat -- Rufus, 16:15:56 11/12/02 Tue

It started in the second half hour of Angel.

one minor question about "Spin the Bottle" (mild spoilers, of course) -- Wolfhowl3, 20:10:39 11/11/02 Mon

Was Lorne's audiance a bunch of ghosts, or memories of an audiance, or did they just leave before Lorne did?

I know it seems stupid, but it's kind of buging me.

I would say that they were still there, and Ghosts, since we heard them talking while Lorne was walking away.


[> Re: one minor question about "Spin the Bottle" (mild spoilers, of course) -- Chris, 22:06:48 11/11/02 Mon

I really didn't give Lorne's "audience" much thought. Maybe there was no audience. Although I did like Lorne's narration as a nice way to frame the story

Here's a thought I had, though. Didn't StB seem very similar to "Tabla Rasa" on BtVS last season?

[> Re: one minor question about "Spin the Bottle" (mild spoilers, of course) -- Darby, 06:39:28 11/12/02 Tue

It was shown at the end that the room Lorne was "playing" opened onto a busy street, and the doors were open. I'm assuming that the noise we assumed to be audience feedback was just street noise, but I'd have to go back and listen to be sure. It would definitely be a Jossian touch.

Jealousy and Tragedy, Gunn as Othello -- Rufus, 22:55:31 11/11/02 Mon

In watching the relationship of Fred and Gunn it has become clear to me that there is more than just syrupy kisses at work here. In Supersymmetry we get to see how physical the relationship has become, and the first clear evidence of how insecure Gunn is when it comes to Fred. I'll quote some dialogue between Gunn and Wesley in "Spin the Bottle"

Gunn: So, I guess I'm the muscle...huh?

Wes: Sorry?

Gunn: Angel's the man on the card, it's his world....I'm not a leader no more. Don't got that champions heart like Cordy. And the brains.....well that was you..That leaves muscle.

Wes: What about Fred?

Gunn: That's the question isn't it. She's pretty brainy too.
Maybe you two are kindred souls. Maybe that's why she went to you for help getting revenge on that professor. Killin takes brains.

Wes: I did what you weren't prepared to do.

Gunn: You go NO idea what I've....what I would do for her.

Wes: Is there some reason I should need to know?

Gunn: You think I don't smell this a mile off? You think I don't know why you keep coming back here?

Wes: Because you keep needing my help.

Gunn: I say this move on Fred ....I will put you down hard.

Wes: I'm glad to see you have such faith in your relationship.

Gunn: Keep pushin English.

Wes: Do you think you could get out of my way? (a blade comes out of Wesley's sleeve, pointed at Gunns throat)

Wes: Not all of us have muscle to fall back on.

Gunn: What happened to you man?

Wes: I had my throat cut, and all my friends abandoned me.

Waiting in the Wings, the Joss penned episode from last year established that both Wesley and Gunn were in love with Fred......Fred could only see Gunn. Wesley backed off out of friendship, his heart broken. It was the start of Wesley's alienation from the gang that led him to take Connor. His fears and distrust made it impossible to confide in those who could have helped him the most....they then abandoned him when he needed them and forgiveness the most.

Now to Gunn. Gunn has been a leader.....he had his own people on the streets, they looked up to him as a brave protector, a leader.......and he walked away from it feeling his talents better served working for Angel. But I doubt he realized how much emotional investment he had in his past leadership and how insecure being a second fiddle would make him. In Spin the Bottle, the regression to the teenage state exposed what all the gang once were. Gunn a leader, a vampire killer from the age of 12, confident as a leader and one to look up to. Wesley was head boy, insecure, not at all in control of his instruments....weapons. Fred was well, Fred...more worried about scoring some weed than getting the attentions of either man....but she did gravitate towards Wesley......

Gunn: I ain't a civillian I been killing vamps since I was 12.

Wes: Which only supports my must be here in an advisory capacity.

Gunn: I think I'm here in a chop-that-green-bitches-head-off capacity. And I don't give a damn about no test.

Fred: Are you always this grouchy?

Gunn: Only when I wake up with a bunch of insane white folks tryin to tell me what to do. The day I take orders from guys like you.....Is the day...not going to happen.

I see Gunn and his situation as being similar to the tragic character of Othello. Both men were outsiders and of a different race than those they keep company with. Both fell hard for women they feared couldn't possiblt love them. Both were willing to kill to keep that love. Gunn started his life in a different way than the others. He was poor, he was seemingly without parents for a good part of his life, he became a leader. Working for Angel, Gunn can only see how different from the others he is....his life experience something the white people could never comprehend. Now, under orders of another man, Gunn feels he has no place that makes him feel valuable. Yet he was able to connect with English/Wesley, become friends despite their differences. Othello was a Moore/black man living in a world where he may be a leader but because of his race his leadership is always under threat. He has to be the muscle to keep what he has. His tragic end was a result of jealousy, and lack of trust. He was too willing to listen to words that reflected his fears but were untrue. In the end he is destroyed by himself, his own selfdoubt.....all taken advantage of by a man who wanted the mighty to fall.

I don't say that the whole Wesley/Gunn/Fred triangle will go exactly as the play, but there are similarities that exist. Fred does love Gunn, but Gunn can't understand how Fred can truly love him back. Now with the knowledge that Fred went to Wesley, Gunn is becoming paranoid. Wesley is taking a certain amount of advantage of Gunns self doubt by saying a few things to fuel Gunns discomfort. After talking to Wesley, Gunn feels more and more worried that Fred will be taken from him. Jealousy in very small doses is not that bad a thing, but when it takes over your life, it becomes impossible to be objective in your dealings with others. Gunn has lost his leadership of the past and recent summer, he fears the loss of Fred to Wesley (who he secretly believes is the better partner for Fred) after killing for Fred, Gunn has guilt to add to his already festering jealousy. One comment Angel made caught my ear.....when Gunn and Wes were arguing while under the spell Angel says he's on the side of the slave......I wonder.........nah maybe I'm getting paranoid.

[> Othello -- Rahael, 05:12:15 11/12/02 Tue

This is very interesting! Argh! dH, where are those Angel tapes already? lol.

Now Othello and Angel has been commented on before here, only with different characters.

Okay, I have to go do some reading before I can do a proper reply to this post!

But until I do, I'm just going to requote dH, because we have discussed this before:
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Othello and "Sleep Tight" -- d'Herblay, 00:37:00 07/21/02 Sun

Back in February, I went through a couple of sleepless nights (bah! all my nights are sleepless) working up a comparison of Othello to the "Sleep Tight" arc on Angel. I was pretty certain that Sahjhan was Iago, and Holtz Roderigo, Wesley the Moor, and Angel Desdemona. Wait, I said, Wesley is Cassio, and the translation the napkin, making Angel the Moor and Desdemona . . . no, no, no -- Gunn is Lodovico and Fred is Emilia and Wesley is, um, Iago? The faithless lieutenant? But then who's Sahjhan? The Duke of Venice, using the Moor but secretly resenting and sabotaging him? Can't be. Wesley is 70% Othello, 20% Cassio, 10% Roderigo; Angel is 60% Desdemona and 40% Othello; and Iago is 80% all of Sahjhan and 20% 40% of Holtz (the remainder the remaining 90% of Roderigo); and I am 100% buggered if I can make heads or tails of this and what's so great about iambs anyway? This is why my posting is generally limited to snarky no-texters and links to my apocryphal scenes, which I wrote back in November and December when I still had 50% a brain.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Come to think of it, Angel smothering Wesley with the pillow was important to this train of thought -- d'Herblay, 00:59:44 07/21/02 Sun

Making Wes Desdemona and Angel Othello and me absolutely bonkers.

[> [> LOL Rahael and d'Herblay. Thanks for reposting that. -- alcibiades, 05:34:33 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> [> ditto the thanks & the lol! how'd i miss that 1st time around? -- anom, 23:44:41 11/12/02 Tue

[> [> Actually Angel did kinda resemble Desdamona when he was going on about.... -- Rufus, 16:22:20 11/12/02 Tue

"I'm a vampire they're gonna kill me"......snerk....;)

[> Re: Jealousy and Tragedy, Gunn as Othello -- Isabel, 05:25:37 11/12/02 Tue

You know, Othello did occur to me watching this episode. Unlike the play, where Desdemona was blameless and in love with Othello to the end, Gunn may have already planted the seeds of the destruction of their relationship last week with the murder of the professor. That is what may destroy them, not anything that Wes may do.

[> [> Re: Jealousy and Tragedy, Gunn as Othello -- Rufus, 16:26:05 11/12/02 Tue

In some way when Wes was being all sarcastic he was being a bit of an Iago....he was finding the thing that made Gunn feel the most insecure sticking it in and giving the blade of truth a little twist. You'd think he would have learned when he was in the same sort of position last year not to push someone on the edge...but as Gunn pissed him off he did. Gunn ended up more jealous after their little confrontation that if he had just kept his mouth shut.

[> Re: Jealousy and Tragedy, Gunn as Othello -- Cactus Watcher, 05:27:02 11/12/02 Tue

Very interesting. 'Odd man out' is always excruciatingly painful in affairs of the heart. I think it's fair to say that losing Fred last year was one of the factors that isolated Wesley and led him to the bad judgement which resulted in kidnapping Connor. Now it looks like Gunn feels things are swinging the other way. All I can say about that now is get ready to duck.

This also brings up a slightly different, but related question. Gunn feared that if Fred killed the professor things would change, that Fred would change. He didn't want to lose the person she was. But, now something has changed. Gunn saved Fred from being a murderer, but at a price. We don't know yet what that price is. Perhaps, what we are beginning to see is another aspect of Othello, and Fred no longer feels that Gunn trusts her, even concerning him.

[> Change partners and dance. -- Darby, 06:36:14 11/12/02 Tue

Sorry, out of my league with Othello, so I'm picking up on something else here...

Wesley is now running some sort of street crew, presumably fighting the fight, doing what Gunn used to do.

Gunn, for the summer, more-or-less ran AI, until Angel returned and supplanted him, as happened to Wes back in the day.

Same situations, played out very differently because the characters are quite different, but now they have more in common than they did back when they were friends. I'd love to see a comparing-feelings scene like the Connor-Angel "Daddies" scene. It would also be interesting to see Gunn have to run Wes' crew...

[> [> Good point.. but maybe its just exchanging hats -- neaux, 07:02:02 11/12/02 Tue

could it be that Gunn is just trying to wear one too many hats? or is he just trying each one out?

I think when Gunn snapped the neck of the professor, that was indeed his attempt at being Angel/Angellus. I dont think he muched like that role, so it will be interesting to see what hat he puts on next.

[> [> Bringing us back to Spirals and Yeats -- Rufus, 16:36:43 11/12/02 Tue

Cause we know that the writers never stick to just one story to take themes from. Othello rings true for me because of Gunns always simmering distrust of the white people he is forced to work with. He is a kind loving man, but he has that tendancy to be unforgiving when people make mistakes...and that is part of the reason he couldn't let Fred become a murderer, he could never have seen her the same unblemished way again....of course Fred got involved in murder up to the point of Gunn taking on the chore himself. So, now Gunn has seen that Fred is imperfect, and that she went to another for help. So being insecure about love in the first place his fear of losing a loved one has kicked into high gear.....all it needs is the right person or happening to push him into acting similar to Wes in Billy.

As for Spirals and Yeats, both shows have characters reliving moments from their past, now from an adult or more experienced perspective. This also means that they also experience things that another person has, or gets to walk a mile or two in their shoes. I'm glad that Spin the Bottle happened, we get to see parents through Connor and Angels eyes....Cordy gets to revisit the bitch....Fred, well Fred just wants to score some weed.....but Gunn and Wesley have changed positions....Gunn getting to feel like the isolated one...his fears compounded by his feeling that the white people he works with can never be fully trusted, his love may stray to someone that was his friend, and he just may do something that will make him the man on the outside looking in with longing for what he has lost. So, all we need is an event to make Gunn act like Wesley did after consulting the Loa. Jealousy and tragedy walk hand in hand...but only if you allow them to. I wonder if having had experienced this type of pain before can Wesley take the chip off his shoulder about being abandoned and not let Gunn make the same mistakes?

[> Thanks for posting this Ruf! -- Masq, 06:47:54 11/12/02 Tue

Current board | More November 2002