November 2002
posts
This makes the third time in a row -- Deb,
14:28:22 11/14/02 Thu
that a new post of mine has been moved to the archives. (#4)
I only posted it late this morning. Makes one think: "Why
bother?" So what's up? So what does this program have
against me? I can understand it happening once in awhile,
but three times in a row?
[> You could ask me to bring it back... -- Masq,
14:37:00 11/14/02 Thu
The day or two right after a Buffy ep airs, posts are
archived VERY quickly unless they get a lot of replies in a
short period of time. I wouldn't take it personally. You
happen to notice that yours is archived because it's yours,
but others are getting archived too.
There isn't any magical thing you can do to get people to
respond to a post, unfortunately. People ignore my posts,
too. But if you feel your post deserves the attention, ask
me, I'll bring it back to the main board.
[> [> Would you? It's in 2 not 4. -- Deb,
14:48:25 11/14/02 Thu
And if people don't want to read/respond, then I just won't
post.
[> [> [> But your posts are great ! --
Etrangere, 15:01:07 11/14/02 Thu
Don't let yourself be discouraged. When I first arrived
here, i had very few answers to my (sometimes quite long)
posts but after a little bit of time it went better. Also
lots of people read posts and don't necessarily answers
them, or only to say a quick "great post". That doesn't mean
they don't enjoy what you say. Actually you more often find
people answering posts they do not like or disagree with
that posts they agree with :)
So please, go on posting, I find that your thoughts bring a
lot to this board.
[> That's strange. I've been checking the board pretty
regularly all day, and I never saw your post. -- Rob,
14:37:16 11/14/02 Thu
[> Re: This makes the third time in a row --
Slain, 14:50:35 11/14/02 Thu
My advice is to, whenever you can, add your thoughts to an
existing thread, rather than starting a new one - that works
for me. Often it's mostly just a lottery which thread gets
the most replies, as the topics are usually similar.
[> [> Look at it in reverse -- Tchaikovsky,
14:54:57 11/14/02 Thu
Last week I posted what I thought was quite an interesting
point about Spike and Xander being in the basement. It had
gone by the next morning.
The week before, I wrote a post called 'Has Spike Changed?',
which had no useful content, and a link to a very tedious
article. The thread survived for four days.
Sometimes, the quality of your initial post is inverse to
the length of time it stays. If you've nailed something,
there's nothing else to say. If you leave something very
open-ended, many people have their own thoughts.
TCH
[> [> Re: This makes the third time in a row --
Deb, 14:58:25 11/14/02 Thu
I've done that also, but no feedback/discussion there
either. Perhaps this is not a board where I fit-in.
[> [> [> Re: Fitting in -- pr10n,
15:23:44 11/14/02 Thu
I've posted this feeling myself and had some encouraging
feedback, so I have some teeny advice.
I decided that I fit in here long before I posted anything,
amd certainly before I interacted with the reg posters. When
I finally steeled up and sent something I checked back often
to see if anyone else thought I was as neato as I think I
am. This was a disappointing approach to posting, as you can
imagine.
One day I decided to tear off a comment from my gut, and it
went well. Although it vanished quickly I knew that it had
been valuable, because I did get a little feedback.
Lately I've been pulling off my style stoppers and writing
with my personal "journal" voice about things I observe or
care about. I'm kind of a 1-Note Johnny on certain topics,
and a polyboor on lots of things, so what the hey? Talking
too much has always worked for me, except for dating. :)
The lack of competition and sniping here has made this the
only board I frequent. I think it compares favorably to
working in DOS (stay with me here folks): If you aren't
getting error messages, that means you're OK. And here, I've
even received positive feedback!
I've enjoyed your postings, and I hope you'll continue to
contribute.
[> [> [> [> So, what you are saying is that
we are "Interaction Whores"....;) -- Rufus, 16:35:29
11/14/02 Thu
It takes time to find your place at any board. For one
remember we are awake at different times.....I'm on the West
Coast but tend to post in the middle of the night, don't
even start posting till the late afternoon. And there is the
voy monster, I can read posts but if they are on the next
page can't reply. So, I find the best thing to do is reply
to existing posts because the small one get bumped first.
I've made posts before that people didn't reply to at all
only to have someone comment in chat that they liked
them....so don't assume that cause there is no reply that no
one has read or liked your post. And yeah, interact with
us.....get our attention every time...chocolate bribery
works for me too.
[> [> [> [> [> Hey, I know I'm a
communication addict! -- Sara, who's favorite hobby is
chit-chat, 06:26:55 11/15/02 Fri
[> Well, here's something I've been thinking about
lately. . . -- Deb, 15:38:28 11/14/02 Thu
I'm really beginning to question this notion that Buffy is a
feminist icon. First of all feminism covers a broad range of
beliefs regarding the "place" of women and other groups. I'm
been kinda wondering if she isn't becoming the next female
stereotype of the single mother.
She has so many roles and responsibilities, there is no way
she can be proficient in any area, even with "super human
powers." Buffy is running a household (paying bills, upkeep
of property, mowing the yard, cleaning, shopping, etc.);
caring for an adolescent "daughter" and so is parenting and
all that comes with that; she can't get a good, half-way
stable job that pays anything because of her obligations;
she's the Slayer and we all know what is involved in that
(thank you God for not making me a Slayer!); she ends up
taking care of her friends problems; she's broke all the
time; she is not involved in any social outlet; and she's
reached that point where having a "boyfriend" (hate that
word) is more trouble than it is worth so she doesn't even
attempt to develop a relationship. She assumes it will end
in disaster. She gets little if any credit for what she does
for the community, and she is saving the world at least once
a year. She can't look into the future and see anything
because she is so busy just acting and reacting.
Feels like a typical single-mother lifestyle to me. You can
do anything, but you must do it all at the same time, then
you die young.
To be honest, if Buffy is being presented as a role model
for girls as the "modern" independent woman who can take
care of everything herself and never needs anyone . . . that
stinks. This is not a "strong" woman. She is a culturally
mediated slave who can only say "no" to having any fun. Just
how does she pay all her bills with the income we are given
to believe that she makes? Joyce's death left her in debt
and minimum wage jobs won't support the household she has.
She would have lost that house last year if she were in the
real world. She'd also be getting food stamps and SSI for
Dawn if she were in the real world and didn't feel too
superior to accept help.
She has no time to get an education to get a decent job. . .
This presentation of a single mother household with a
"daughter" is as bad as "The Gilmore Girls."
Somehow that high school Slayer with "power" has been lost
and replaced by a lonely, tired, over-worked, overly
responsible woman with low self-esteem.
YUCK!!
[> [> Forgot the cost of medical insurance and care
for Dawn -- Deb, 15:41:58 11/14/02 Thu
or dental care. Thank God Buffy self-heals.
[> [> Re: Something you've been thinking about
lately. . . -- pr10n, 17:12:35 11/14/02 Thu
See, now that's interesting, and here we all are!
Do you think she's becoming stereotypical because many
people can relate to her struggle?
--> Spoiler for AllBuffy Finale:
"You must pay the rent."
"But Ah cain't pay the rent!"
"But you must pay the rent!"
"Oy'll pay da bloody rent, wif me fist of vampiric
powah!"
<-- end spoiler
How does Buffy do it? That's part of ME's 3-card Monty with
reality: Willow has parents but we never see them
interacting even though they live in town; Xander has
crashed through union levels to become a suit; Anya is
living on insurance money; Dawn stopped shoplifting by force
of will alone...
We get to see into their lives in snippets, and they even do
us the favor of talking about "off-stage" events. Still,
when we discuss them in terms of Reality, like She has no
time to get an education to get a decent job..., they
seem like the reverse of Woody and Buzz in "Toy Story" --
when we're in the room, the Scoobies are alive and
functioning. As soon as we leave, they collapse into props
on a darkened set. It's easier to be a hero if someone
writes you.
Counter-argument to myself: Feels like a typical single-
mother lifestyle to me. You can do anything, but you must do
it all at the same time, then you die young. Lots of
people would claim that life is exactly that, and they
relate to Buffy because her life seems as crappy as theirs.
That's why she's heroic -- she's just barely keeping her
family afloat, and she's does the Slayer gig too.
That's been true about heroes for a very long time: for
example, folks could relate to a guy growing up on a farm,
adopted and low-income, and not all that popular. The flight
and x-ray vision, that would be COOL!
Buffy IS a lonely, tired, over-worked, overly responsible
woman with low self-esteem, from The Freshman, on and
growing more so. Are you saying that portraying her more
realistically as the show has progressed was a bad call by
ME?
[> [> [> Hummm. I need to think a little about
that last question. -- Deb, 01:23:19 11/15/02 Fri
I really don't have any idea how others "see" Buffy
regarding this issue. I guess it is just really beginning to
hit home, after watching her plunge into marginalized
society for 4 years. Add ten years, take away a house,
subtract super human powers, add an advanced degree (this is
a big laugh), add a firm belief that there is a God, quotion
in no self-healing powers, change literally killing demons
everyday to figuratively whacking them with one quick
decisive blow or spending months and years to tend to other
demons . . and you pretty much see my life.
My daughter is always telling people I'm her role model, and
she sees my "Slayer" skills as something remarkable, in
particular the ability to literally "cut" things and people
out of my life simply because that choice is the least
"worst" of all "worst" choices, and not ever look back. (So
she thinks.) And my little "apocs now -- the world is
ending" situations do not always include a threat of death
of myself, or worse, my daughter . . . or anybody else,
there have been those moments. And my daughter believes that
if Napoleon had had me commanding his forces, the world
would be speaking French today. Then she watches Buffy and
thinks its so cool the way she can fight, and she gets
totally lost in that part of the story (I do too at times --
plus other things). And she thought Spike and Dawn's
"parenting" relationship was real cool, because he promised
he'd take care of her and he did. And of course he had great
scary stories, and he showed her he cared when he told her
he'd take her head off when she came home late.
I try to show her that you can expect good, great things
from the world, but you must always be prepared for the
worst to happen; do not confuse your life with a fantasy.
Basically, don't run from it when it shows its monster face,
but confront it, and get through it. When you do something
that society would consider to be "heroric" just do it, and
then turn and never let anyone know. The world, for a good
part, can't tolerate the individual, perfectly human,
"heros" of the everyday streets to live. They are supposed
to die to fully complete their role as "hero." The public
fascination is short-lived when they see that you really are
only human.
I guess I'm afraid, that's the word for it, that in the end,
Buffy's death will result from placing complete trust in
someone who has been her friend for years. Someone who
worked at earning her trust, who went out of the way to help
in bad times. I can just imagine, the one time she really
counts on, say Spike (great example), he shows her that he
is truly evil. That he has been waiting all these years for
just the right moment to relish in her moment of
comprehension of the fact that he is a monster all the way
to the soul, and he has been playing her like a well-tuned
violin. This is a real consequence in real life. Our head-
shrinker vamp of the past episode tells Buffy that everyone
is lonely until they die. True, true, true. He forgot to
tell her that you never know anyone completely until you die
also, so you have to live your life with faith, hope and
charity, and you must take risks if you want any fulfillment
at all in this world. So, while Spike is draining her of all
life, will she in that moment be able to forgive herself?
Will she be able to say that "My life had meaning."? To
choose to love is a risk. To choose to love completely is a
walk on a tight rope, and most people don't ever, not once,
even consider loving completely, with every breath, with
every thought, with every action, with every choice, with
every bit of energy from physicial, to mental, to spiritual
to the essence.
So, yes, I'm a little concerned about the motivation behind
portraying Buffy in a more realistic light if what is
presented are the "real" problems, trials, pains, puzzles,
growth of life, and then no solution is offered. Instead we
are given a fairytale, nightmarish ending, pointedly
bringing home the fact that life is hell and you just made
yourself into a victim. So, go, take a coffee break, and
come back and do it all over again.
I'm concerned that we will just have a new version of the
same old stereotype of woman as victim by choice if she
oversteps her "role"; if she doesn't keep her place.
But, then again, everyone has issues.
[> [> Keeping that feminist icon thing going --
Sara, 06:37:25 11/15/02 Fri
I've been getting that same feeling, that Buffy as feminist
icon was getting kind of wilted around the edges. The single
mother thing is an interesting aspect, but I'm not sure
whether I quite agree. I think it's just difficult to keep
the icon thing working, while moving into a more realistic
portrayal. Real people aren't icons, real life doesn't allow
it. I admit I like Buffy better when she's in a perky, take-
no-prisoners, mode, and don't enjoy angsty, paying the
bills, gotta get to work Buffy nearly as much. On the one
hand I admire ME for taking an artistic chance by really
changing the tone in season 6, and yet I really liked the
old tone, and really enjoyed the iconic Buffy a whole lot
better than the real-life Buffy.
- Sara
[> [> [> I liked season 6 too. -- Deb,
06:58:25 11/15/02 Fri
I just think that by doing things in this manner, the ending
will need to restore the Icon status. Otherwise it is a
hopeless story of victimage. Things must go back to the
beginning to do this, and find the solution to show that the
characters have really grown through their experiences.
[> [> [> [> I actually didn't like Season 6
but... (Normal Again Spoiler) -- Sara, 08:20:25
11/15/02 Fri
I admired the courage to go out on a limb creatively. I tend
to like happy shows, and Season 6 didn't have alot of those.
Although, Normal Again, was highly cool! But back to the
feminist icon thing, it seemed awfully ironic that the whole
little blonde girl who beats up the bad things in the alley
might only be a little blonde girl in a straight jacket in
an asylum. Which, by the way, could still be true.
[> [> [> [> [> for what its worth, I think
we were supposed to think that really, Buff always was in
that asylum -- Helen, 09:01:24 11/15/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> So the whole show is
Buffy's solipsistic fantasy? Somehow I doubt that! ;o) -
- Slain, 11:46:18 11/15/02 Fri
[> [> [> and I know everyone has talked this to
death .... -- Helen, 08:58:13 11/15/02 Fri
but I hated hated hated the attempted rape. It actually made
me angry - was that all they could come up with to make
Spike the bad guy again in Buff's mind? What the hell was
wrong with her falling in love with him anyway?
And though I know domestic scene with someone well known to
you is how most rapes occur, it just felt really really
wrong. His actions, her reactions. Frankly, no matter how
vlunerable she was at that moment, she would have kicked the
shit out of him. No question.
This isn't directly relevant, but it is part of the
stereotyping of Buffy that has been going on. Not only is
she now downtrodden single mother in minimum wage
employment, but she's a rape victim too.
[> [> [> [> Not quite -- Finn Mac Cool,
09:52:01 11/15/02 Fri
She's now someone who would have been a rape victim but
kicked the would-be rapist across the room. Considering that
Spike is roughly her equal, strength-wise, this isn't a
petty feat. Also, Seeing Red was an episode where Buffy
twice kicked some sense into guys hyped up on masculine
power (she even (not-too-subtlely) metaphorically castrated
Warren). I think that the Mutant Enemy writers do intend
Buffy to be viewed as an icon in her present state because
of the simple fact that she has the courage to press on and
accept all these responsibilities.
[> [> [> [> You tell it like it is! ;) --
Deb, 11:03:56 11/15/02 Fri
I'm rather relieved that I am not the only woman who has
considered this *situation* It's really been bugging me this
season.
And another thing regarding rape: What did Buffy do when she
became invisible last season?
Spike: This vanishing act's right liberating for you, innit?
Go anywhere you want. Do anything you want. Or anyone.
When Spike kicks her out, Buffy does something that's "not
fair" and then complains that he is insensitive.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You tell it like it is!
;) -- Sarand, 12:39:42 11/15/02 Fri
You're everywhere in this thread. I don't know where to
respond. But, in response to your message above about
fitting in, keep posting. I read what you write (well, I
pretty much read everybody's posts, when I can get to the
board), even if I don't always respond (or understand).
In response to this message, you might want to read an essay
posted at "allaboutspike.com" which discusses feminism and
"Seeing Red" and "Gone." It's a work in progress, I believe.
I don't know if I agree with everything the author said but
I found it interesting and it made me think. And, yeah, this
*situation* bugs me too.
[> [> [> Interesting sub-thread ;) -- Slain,
12:30:58 11/15/02 Fri
This sums up a lot of my initial feelings about Season 6 -
that while the show was getting more 'realistic', it was
losing its feminist punch. Buffy is supposed to be the
blonde girl in the alley, getting attacked by the vampires,
who fights back and kicks their arses. In Season 6, the
vampires (Spike) had an unpleasant amount of power over her
- sexual, in the sense that Buffy needed Spike as an escape,
and violent, in his ability to attack her. Add to this the
unpleasant suggestion that Buffy likes to be abused and
we're a long way from 'Innocence' in Season 2, where Buffy
gets hurt by Angel, but fights back. The problem I had with
the attempted rape scene (let's lose that cop out
abbreviation) was not that it went against Spike's character
- Spike is, in part, a misogynist, who hates women as much
as he needs and fears them - but that, to an extent, it went
against Buffy's.
The point about the show was that it wasn't supposed to be
'realistic', or to portray gender roles equally; rather it
was to reverse the norm, and have women portrayed 'better',
as more capable and (literally and metaphorically) stronger
than men. Buffy does kick Spike across the room, and lay him
low with a few words, but she doesn't take back the
power.
Season 6 appears to go against this - super-women like Buffy
and Willow aren't capable any longer. Relationships and
'emotional' stuff, as well as the day to day pressures of
life, get in the way of their being super. They don't seem
to be able to use their power effectively any longer, and
are unduly influenced by, or even in the thrall of, men like
Spike and Rack. An essay along with a title along the lines
of 'Season 6: Where did the Feminism Go?' was in my
head.
But ultimately I've decided that Season 6 wasn't just about
the breaking down of the feminist icon. That definitely was
part of it - but it wasn't done in such a deliberate way as
that implies. Rather, the point of Season 6 was to show the
weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the women in BtVS (we
already know the men are weak!), and the ways in which they
aren't super. Joss liked the Season 3 episode 'Helpless'
because Buffy was stripped of her powers, and became the
archetypical defenseless girl in the alley, which was new
ground. But at the end of the episode, Buffy shows herself
to be equally powerful even without her slayer strength; the
episode only reinforces Buffy the Patriarchy Slayer, as she
kills the vampire in the end (ironically, played by the same
person who played Rack).
So, the ending of Season 6 does seem to go against this -
Buffy ends up doing the 'emotional' sister bonding, while
Xander saves the world. But this is, I think, the point. At
the start of Season 6, the show had existed for five
seasons, 100 episodes, of Buffy being portrayed as someone
whose flaws were realitively minor, and could be got over
when necessary. I think Season 6 was inevitable, because it
looked into the heart of Buffy's character, looking at her
as just Buffy and not as a representation of anything
else. Perhaps the title of the series could have been "It's
Tough Being a Feminist Icon".
It's true seeing Buffy lose her powers, physically or
emotionally, is not nice. But it is good drama, and in the
context of 100 episodes of positive Buffy I think the
character still stands as predominantly feminist. Season 6
was not feminist, and was a departure, but I don't think it
was anti-feminist; rather, it was more interested in the
individual characters, and their flaws.
But I do feel that Season 7 has largely returned to the
fold, to the kind of non-reactionary, cooperative feminism
the show has always portrayed; 'Conversations with Dead
People' was a microcosm of Season 6-style, with all the
characters split off from each other. But, and I'm thinking
of Buffy in particular, it was about their acknowledging
their flaws, and coming to terms with themselves.
[> [> [> Re: That feminist icon thing --
pr10n, 13:30:38 11/15/02 Fri
[Oh, I've got to stay on task at work, yet I creep away to
the Board -- someone's going to notice and...]
Oh, hi! Look what I founf while hunting for red-headed
stepchildren (see thread above somewhere)
From Bad Eggs, mid-S2 (gracias a Psyche por supuesto):
Xander: Yeah, the only thing that stresses me is when do
we tell them that they're adopted?
Buffy: I'll just lay that one off on my partner. (looks up,
worried) Who'd I get?
Willow: Well, there were an uneven number of students, and
you didn't show, so...
Buffy: (in shocked disbelief) I'm a single mother?
Xander: (nods) No man of her own.
Buffy: Do you know what this says about me? That I am doomed
to lead my mother's life! (paces back to them) How deeply
scary is that?
Oooh the rich foreshadowy goodness! "You're the Chosen One.
Um, don't buy any matching towels, OK?"
[> [> [> [> Re: That feminist icon thing
-- Deb, 15:23:31 11/15/02 Fri
Do I feel vented! I've been carrying that around for awhile,
thinking no one else would notice this "situation".
I can sleep at night now. And today I went out and slayed
myself not one, but three big, pompous, playing-God, HMO
medical review demons. You know, the ones that tell the
doctors how to practice medicine? (of course, anyone posting
on this board who works in this capacity has a true, noble
calling to assist the needy.) I boldly told the guy at the
garage that I wanted Penzoil and not Quaker State oil in my
car, and I stared him down to show that I met it. (The Death
Stare that silently forces the viewer to think about just
how dangerous I might be.) I used power tools with great
skill in putting together a desk, and I changed the
batteries in my smoke alarms. I released a big black spider
from my apartment and back into nature, and changed my ink
cart. I had not one ambiguous nor ambivalent moment of
weakness. And all the time, I was flying high on sinus meds,
which was a good thing because I gave my daughter a driving
lesson during rush hour. "Can't I drive the freeway around
the city?" 'No. We're going in and right through it to the
other side!" "Not the triangle! Please! Not the triangle!
Even middle-aged, white males avoid the triangle!" 'You
avoid the Triangle, you give it your power and it controls
you. Who has the power?' "You do." 'You have a wise, old
soul inside your 15-year-old body.' "Does that mean I'm not
grounded from the Internet anymore?" Death Stare.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Clearly you're feeling
the power -- pr10n, 17:53:19 11/15/02 Fri
[Applauding]
Except you let the spider live, which is a valid lifestyle
choice. :) At my house all spiders must die lest they breed
or migrate or clone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm drowning in the
power. Tomorrow I might rotate my tires. -- Deb,
18:35:46 11/15/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> Yea! We have a new feminist
icon! -- Sara, who wants to be one of your scoobies,
19:26:39 11/15/02 Fri
If Buffy starts getting all angsty again, will need you to
post some new adventures of "Deb with Her Death Stare!"
- Sara, who truly loves scary women!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yea! We have a
new feminist icon! -- Deb, 09:21:49 11/16/02 Sat
I truely love scaring people with it, but it is a gift and
must be used for good at all times. ;)
[> [> I could not disagree with you more --
Rahael, 02:45:53 11/16/02 Sat
And now I'm breaking my rule about replying to hot button
issues.
My mother looked after me and my sister by herself. She was
a feminist role model to many women around her; She was and
still is an inspiration to many men and women as to how a
human being retains their humanity in the face of
inhumanity.
Even when I heard her sobbing wiith fear and pain at night,
I knew she would get up strong the next day to mark her
student's papers, teach and do dangerous human rights work
in the evening. Facing death, facing down men with guns in
order to ensure the safety of others.
She neglected me; she could be harsh and cruel; she made
tons of mistakes; many respectable people called her a whore
for living without her husband; she took insane risks; she
got herself killed by 35.
Where do people get off telling women what is strong and
what is weak? How dare society find yet another excuse for
condeming, judging; an declaring that those who struggle and
sometimes falter that they are to be sneered at?
Is this feminism? Bah!!!!!!!!
I want more than one idea of woman; a multic^plicity of
female 'role models'.
Anyway, the point of BtVS is as a feminist narrative and the
narrative aint over.
[> [> [> I totally agree with you on -- Deb,
10:12:06 11/16/02 Sat
wanting more than one role. I haven't lived your life. I
didn't know your mother. I don't know the backstory, but you
obviously have strong feelings about this and I respect
that. It sounds as if your mother had to do what she felt
she had to do and you admire her for it. I do what I have to
do too, and it sounds like nothing near the choices your
mother had to make. I cry some nights too, but I've always
stuck to my priorities. I appreciate your responding,
because sometimes I need to hear other world views in order
to straighten things out in my mind. I'm not sneering at
Buffy. I'm concerned about how this thing will be played
out. I've had a man hold a shotgun to my head in my own home
while my daughter and her friends were asleep in another
room, promising me he was going to kill me and them because
I filed for divorce. This wasn't the only time I've been in
a similar situation, but this was the thing that made me
start fighting back. I do volunteer work at a womens' and
childrens' shelter, and I've done a good deal of lobbying,
(and other things which I should not talk about) in their,
our interests. I'm sure it still is not equal to what your
mother did. Feminism covers a wide range of beliefs just as
any ism does. I know that women everywhere have a much more
trying life than I do, living in the U.S. Midwest. But I do
have concern for how this feminist text ends, and I was
expressing that concern. Things are not getting better here.
In the city where I live, there were five murder/suicides
(husband/boyfriend on wife/girlfiend and a child) in one
week. I can't save the world. I can only attempt to make a
difference in a very small way, and I'm certainly not going
to sneer at any woman because of the choices she makes to do
what she feels she must do. If it sounded as if I was doing
so, I apologize. I should probably have been more clear
about the context from which I was speaking. Again, thank
you for your thoughts and your sharing of a part of your
life.
[> [> [> Did you read my reply to PR10N
above? -- Deb, 10:29:27 11/16/02 Sat
If you haven't, perhaps it speaks more directly to what my
concern is. Perhaps not. I don't know.
Answer to Maladanza's "It's all about power" post that
got archived too fast -- Etrangere, 14:36:27 11/14/02
Thu
Well, i did think it was nice of you or any "Snarkist" not
to go for the kill and starts the "told you so" posts about
Spike :)
And no, comparason to Andrew isn't exactly flattering
lol.
But Spike is currently weak. He's weak because he is
powerful. He's powerful because he is weak.
Exaclty in the same way that a superiority complex can
springs an inferiority complex. Or in the same way that, as
shadowkat explained us, a sexually submissive partner can
have more power in a relationship.
There's many kind of power and when you say : There are
three people on BtVS with whom I would be comfortable having
great amounts of power (and two of them are dead -- Tara and
Jonathan -- Buffy is the third).
you mention two. There's power in the first sense of the
word. The abilities you have, the control you can have on
the worlds, on other people. And then there is the power
that allows you to control your own power. To control your
desire to have power. Like Black Willow who was so powerful
but who was so weak the power controlled herself. It's the
Hanged Man vs the Devil.
It's all about power, but what kind of power ?
Spike used to be powerful, like any vampire. He was
confident in his own abilities, he was, like psy-vampire
described today, connected to a powerful source of evil.
Then he started not having so much power anymore. Chipped,
in love with the Slayer and her lapdog. And not even with
the power to control himself not to hurt the one he loves.
Spike realised you didn't have much power when you were a
vampire. Souls are power, they allow you to choose, to
control yourself.
But for that he had to remove everyother kind of power he
had. To be stripped of everything, of his identity. I don't
know what Spike is right now, and I have no clue about
what's happening currently. I'm sure the Big Bad
Shapeshanger is trying to control him because he has power
(like he is killing those Slayers in Training because they
have power - the Slayer power), he has a soul.
But the soul makes him weak, makes him suffer from guilt,
doubts, despair. Like Willow suffers from it, like Buffy
does.
Spiderman would say that with great power comes great
responsabilities. I'd say that Power IS
responsabilities.
[> Sorry to butt in , but very nice post! --
Dariel, 19:07:14 11/14/02 Thu
I especially like your point about the soul being a source
of power. Giving you the potential to make decisions, to
control your own actions.
[> [> A "snarkist" replies -- Dochawk,
19:31:40 11/14/02 Thu
Mal is down there defending Spike, now its my turn. What has
CWDP wrought?
The reason none of us are gloating about Spike is that none
of us hate him (well I hate Spuffy but that seems to be mute
for the moment). What we hate is the way Spike, who has done
little "good" except for women who bear the name Summers,
has been deified by many of his fans. I love complex Spike.
he's a fascinating character and tremendously well acted by
JM. But the story was never about him, except in how his
journey interacts with Buffy's. This season has been much
clearer about that. But, I will say I don't think Spike
would bite/vamp humans on his own accord. I think his
behavior is being influenced in some way by Morphy or
whatever you want to call the entity. I think Willow (maybe
Buffy) or Dawn will find some way to exorcize this and we
will have Spike back. If ME were sure that this was the last
season, I think Spike would be making the ultimate sacrifice
and like Jonathan reach redemption at his death. (I do think
this will happen with one Scoobie, probably Anya).
[> [> [> Re: A "snarkist" replies --
Etrangere, 00:39:12 11/15/02 Fri
Mal is down there defending Spike, now its my turn. What has
CWDP wrought?
The reason none of us are gloating about Spike is that
none of us hate him (well I hate Spuffy but that seems to be
mute for the moment).
Yeah, but the sex was so good :^p
No actually it's because my plot to take control of your
mind and transforms you all in mindless worshipper of Spike
is working ! (insane laughter)
What we hate is the way Spike, who has done little "good"
except for women who bear the name Summers, has been deified
by many of his fans.
The jacket effect, hehe ?
Well I don't think i defify him, I'm just extremely
interrested in his character and feel compassion with him. I
actually resented that thread lately condamning shippers as
not being able to see the whole of the show. Knowing your
own bias is the best way to be objective, calling myself a
shipper is a way to relativise my own pov on the show. Sorry
i'm ranting :)
I love complex Spike. he's a fascinating character and
tremendously well acted by JM. But the story was never about
him, except in how his journey interacts with
Buffy's.
I never got the point about "all about Buffy". Sure, Buffy
is the main character, but that doesn't mean that the story
is only about her. It's about a lot of things through her,
IMO, and though the other characters. Spike was never the
character that was shown the most on screen, would it be
only because he interract only a little with most of the
cast, of course he might have been the character we talked
the most about, but that's another problem :)
But, I will say I don't think Spike would bite/vamp
humans on his own accord.
I'm gonna play Devil's Adovcate, i'm not so sure of that. I
remember someone (maybe James Masters) jokingly saying that
if Spike got a soul it would probably mean he would go evil,
just so as to surprise us :)
In Spike's situation right now, broken by guilt and
suffering, i don't think it would be impossible for him to
go back to the whole evil mindset. He might not even realise
that's counter-productive with his current situation with
the scoobies, as a vampire he always made a different
between his relationship with strangers and with people he
knew.
Of course I don't want to believe that. As I said before, i
cannot yet make any kind of conclusion about Spike right
now, we lack too much informations.
I think his behavior is being influenced in some way by
Morphy or whatever you want to call the entity. I think
Willow (maybe Buffy) or Dawn will find some way to exorcize
this and we will have Spike back. If ME were sure that this
was the last season, I think Spike would be making the
ultimate sacrifice and like Jonathan reach redemption at his
death. (I do think this will happen with one Scoobie,
probably Anya).
Oh !, but an ex Dark Boy dying for redemption is so Cliché !
I'm serious it's one of the kind of story you find wayyyy
too much (or maybe it's just because i read too much manga),
I hope they won't go that road. I think BtVS right now is
more about the importance of living, keep on fighting day
after day, than the big, dramatic sacrifice.
What Buffy said to Dawn in Him works also for Spike,
y'know.
[> [> [> [> Re: A "snarkist" replies --
Malandanza, 08:19:49 11/15/02 Fri
"I actually resented that thread lately condemning
shippers as not being able to see the whole of the show.
Knowing your own bias is the best way to be objective,
calling myself a shipper is a way to relativise my own pov
on the show. Sorry I'm ranting :)"
I'd go further and say that the people who are deeply
invested in loving or hating a particular character often
add more to a discussion than those who look at the
character objectively, but superficially. For example,
Dochawk and Sophist have well-known biases against Xander,
but they often contribute the best insights into why Xander
isn't an exemplary character -- because they've spent the
most time examining his character. For many of the rest of
us, Xander just isn't that important. I'd say my feelings
for Willow are the same. But caring passionately about a
character, or hating a character, does not automatically
invalidate everything you say about that character. To
dismiss Sophist's comments about Xander, my comments about
Willow, LeeAnn's comments about Buffy or Spike Lover's
comments about Spike as biased without bothering to read the
argument stifles debate more all the 'shipping on the
board.
"I never got the point about "all about Buffy." Sure,
Buffy is the main character, but that doesn't mean that the
story is only about her. It's about a lot of things through
her, IMO, and though the other characters. Spike was never
the character that was shown the most on screen, would it be
only because he interact only a little with most of the
cast, of course he might have been the character we talked
the most about, but that's another problem :)"
When I read the Arthurian myths, I was surprised to discover
that most of them were not about King Arthur at all --
Camelot formed a backdrop for the independent adventures of
individual knights (often the court at Pentecost was the
starting point for an adventure or quest). Like the
Arthurian legends were not all about King Arthur, BtVS is
not exclusively about Buffy. I think the "snarkist" position
was never that Buffy was the only important person in the
Bufffyverse, but that Spike was not the only important
person in the Buffyverse. Just as we wouldn't say that the
stories of the Round Table were all about the adventures and
spiritual development of Sir Sagremor the Unruly, we
wouldn't say that BtVS is all about Spike.
"I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate, I'm not so sure [that
Spike wouldn't vamp people of his own accord]. I remember
someone (maybe James Masters) jokingly saying that if Spike
got a soul it would probably mean he would go evil, just so
as to surprise us :)
In Spike's situation right now, broken by guilt and
suffering, I don't think it would be impossible for him to
go back to the whole evil mindset. He might not even realize
that's counterproductive with his current situation with the
scoobies, as a vampire he always made a different between
his relationship with strangers and with people he
knew."
I think it's unlikely that souled Spike would vamp people of
his own accord. The problem is that he's insane and he seems
to be being controlled from without -- and not just
manipulated like Andrew. In either case, it's not Spike
who's responsible for the vamping, so it would be hard to
classify a moment of insanity or period of psychic slavery
as "evil." Before I would be willing to argue that he can go
evil again (although I wonder when he ever went good, so
maybe "again" is unnecessary), he needs to be healthy and
capable of making his own choice once more.
When you say "broken by guilt and suffering" you come back
to my point about power. Spike doesn't have it. I do not
believe that weakness is strength and vice versa any more
than I believe that rational numbers are irrational numbers.
Weakness is weakness. It is possible, by feigning weakness,
to acquire power over someone else -- certainly, we saw this
with Spike during his time in the wheelchair. He pretended
to be weaker than he was to acquire power over Angel,
striking from a position of strength (from behind) after
making an alliance to further strengthen his position -- but
I wouldn't categorize treachery as a weakness (Othello may
have been physically stronger than Iago, but Iago has
sources of strength other than the physical).
"Oh !, but an ex Dark Boy dying for redemption is so
Cliché ! I'm serious it's one of the kind of story you find
wayyyy too much (or maybe it's just because i read too much
manga), I hope they won't go that road."
An odd statement for a Redemptionista to make... :)
Although if the "Dawn gets vamped" speculation turns out to
be correct, I don't think you'll have to worry about the new
Spike being redeemed -- he's indiscriminately vamping people
right now and would be the best candidate to vamp Dawn
(since she has a measure of trust and affection for him and
he has a standing invitation to enter her house). In such a
case, we would have Buffy compelled to kill Dawn, feeling
guilty because she didn't tell anyone about Spike's siring
activities and wanting him very dead. Even without Dawn
being vamped, I think Spike's in serious trouble right now -
- Buffy was willing to kill Anya when she found out Anya had
returned to evil, I don't think she'll be asking too many
questions about why or how Spike is killing again
. We may get to see Buffy as the huntress and Spike as the
Slayer slayer, which, to me, is more compelling than 1000
"Dark Boy[s] dying for redemption." Don't get me wrong, I
like the metaphor, the angst and even the Soap Opera, but I
love the action.
As a final note, I think the Redemptionistas have long
harbored mistaken views of the Snarkists. It's not about
hating Spike, it's more about balance and whether or not 1)
soulless creatures can be redeemed, 2) if we allow that
soulless creatures can be redeemed, does this particular
weak, unrepentant, soulless creature even desire redemption?
The Snarkists weren't dancing in the streets after the
attempted rape when this debate mattered, why should we be
celebrating Spike "going evil"
after the debate ceased to be meaningful? (We know souled
creatures can be redeemed)
[> [> [> [> [> This is a great thread
-- Sophist, 09:06:39 11/15/02 Fri
Lots of excellent points by all. I only have two points to
add.
But caring passionately about a character, or hating a
character, does not automatically invalidate everything you
say about that character. To dismiss Sophist's comments
about Xander, my comments about Willow, LeeAnn's comments
about Buffy or Spike Lover's comments about Spike as biased
without bothering to read the argument stifles debate more
all the 'shipping on the board.
Putting aside my own inclusion in this group so as not to be
accused of bias, I completely agree. Like Ete, I thought
that earlier post was demeaning and offensive (it also
contained several factual errors and the analysis was weak).
Shadowkat criticized it, and I agreed, but felt it best to
follow the nihil nisi bonum approach.
I do not believe that weakness is strength and vice versa
any more than I believe that rational numbers are irrational
numbers. Weakness is weakness
I see the triumph of the "weak" as a common theme in many
stories. LOTR makes it explicit, not just at the beginning,
but at several points along the way. I would reconcile this
with Mal's point by rephrasing "weak" as "having an
unrecognized strength".
[> [> [> [> [> [> Expliciting my point
about Weakness and Power -- Etrangere, 09:38:52
11/15/02 Fri
I have a double edge approche to many things. I think flaws
might be qualities, if they are used in the good way, and
qualities may be flaws, if used in a badder way :)
Actually it's exaclty what I'm doing when i said that
reckoning I was a shipper was way a not to be biased. I turn
it around.
Knowing your limits is a way to gain power, to use your own
flaws as a quality. In the same way, your qualities can make
you blind to some things, thus turning into weaknesses. I
really believe there's no simple "power is power, and
weakness is weakness". It's all a matter of context, of the
way you use it.
No one is simply weak or powerful either, they are powerful
in some areas, and weak in others.
Instead of Spike, let's take Buffy as an exemple. She's
strong, she's the Slayer and she has a strong morality. Yet,
in season 6, this morality, this sense of duty made her weak
because it blinded to the fact that life was also about
pleasure, about beauty. She was only living because she
though she had to for her friends, and thus she was more and
more disconnected of what she could enjoy from life, and in
turn it deprived her of her strenght, as a Slayer and as a
moral person.
All in all it's all a matter of balance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Since y'all are
invoking my name, may I weigh in? -- Spike Lover,
10:17:36 11/15/02 Fri
I have a question: Overall, do you think the audience loved
Conversations, or not?
I thought it was great, and posted so. Rather than get any
responses, it was archived immediately...
Or is it that I am so unpopular on this board, posters just
avoid reading my posts all together? -figuring they have
heard it all before?
I got sort of an angry reply from Sophist above or below
which I think was unwarranted.
Here is another question: If (somehow) Buffy turns out to be
the BB this season, will a great majority of the audience be
upset?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think
the post you meant was by -- Sophist, 11:06:26
11/15/02 Fri
Sophie, not me.
A quick note in response to your first question:
Overall, do you think the audience loved Conversations,
or not?
I thought it was great, and posted so. Rather than get any
responses, it was archived immediately...
Or is it that I am so unpopular on this board, posters just
avoid reading my posts all together? -figuring they have
heard it all before?
I loved it and judging by the posts here, I'd say most of us
did.
Did you see the thread by dream of the consortium about
posting and responses? Don't take the lack of responses
personally. There are many reasons. As D'H explained above,
we set a new record for threads after CwDP, which means
threads get archived faster than usual.
Personally, I read a lot of posts here, including yours. I
never mind if someone takes an unpopular position (and I
don't agree with many of your views about Spike and Buffy).
I usually learn the most from those who disagree with me. My
only concern is with personal or ad hominem comments in
posts, though occasionally we all phrase something too
strongly or misunderstand an argument.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Slow to the plate, if that's the right phrase... --
Sophie, 18:29:56 11/16/02 Sat
Caught napping again, eh?
I enjoyed the episode. I have nothing against you, Spike
Lover. Curiously, exactly what was posted that indicated
this?
S
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tiptoeing
out of lurk-land -- dream of the consortium, 11:26:28
11/15/02 Fri
Yes, I loved Conversations.
*Here is another question: If (somehow) Buffy turns out to
be the BB this season, will a great majority of the audience
be upset?*
This is the part I have to answer.
Yes.
And again,yes.
I don't think that people will be upset beyond measure if
Buffy goes dark-ish for a short while, particularly if under
the influence of a big morphy brain-twister. But if the
series ends with Buffy evil or worse, evil and dead, the
audience will be very, very angry. And with good reason. For
the same reason that ending the series with Normal Again
would infuriate most viewers. It's a hook. On a superficial
level, it's a big, shocking twist.
But it gives the viewer no gift.
This show seems to understand that great works do offer a
gift to their audience, a gift of understanding about life.
I know I am showing my biases in some ways, but I do believe
that the greatest works are affirmative in some way,
ultimately offer hope and strength. Why take an audience
along on a hero's journey just to destroy the hero at the
last? Our hearts are not meant to take such abuse - that's
why tragedies are usually (relatively)short plays, and great
novels, in which the audience comes to know the characters
the way we have come to know these characters, do not end
quite so bleakly. I don't need a Shakespeare comedy, don't
need marriages or the closing of the Hellmouth and the
beginning of an age of peace and prosperity - but I do want
to see Buffy "actualized," so to speak, and at peace with
herself, and to see the journey we started with her end with
a sense of accomplishment. I was willing to let Joss tear my
heart out with Willow last year, because I knew that she had
a year in which to redeem herself. I would be willing to let
Spike go evil, though it would hurt terribly, because I can
accept that he may have been too far gone to save. But I
couldn't forgive an ending in which all of Buffy's struggles
came to nothing. I'm just not that pessimistic and have a
hard time accepting works that are as having emotional
truth.
I still haven't gotten over the ending of Twin Peaks. Which
I was reminded of, by the way, with that singer bathed in
blue light at the beginning of Conversations, and that damn
well better not have been some sort of foreshadowy
allusion.
And while I'm here, I might add that although I haven't made
up my mind for certain about Joyce being real or not, I did
notice that Dawn said "Mommy?" almost exactly as Buffy did
when she heard the "resurrected-Joyce-zombie-thing" come to
the door in the episode after The Body with the name I can't
remember. Was that supposed to be a hint that Dawn was, like
her sister, hoping for her mother when she was really seeing
something else?
And, no, I don't skip your posts based on your name.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Catharsis -- ponygirl, 12:01:48 11/15/02 Fri
Hey dream! Nice to see you posting.
I'm not sure I agree with your views on tragedy (though I
will back you on the ending of Twin Peaks, that was evil). A
true tragedy is supposed to provide exactly the gift you
mention, a gift of understanding and wisdom, and an
emotional release. If BtVS had ended with The Gift, the
series could be termed a tragedy, yet for me I was left with
a sense of the rightness and the perfection of Buffy's
actions. Of course I knew the series was coming back so it
was certainly easier to bear. Leaving aside what I wish to
happen to Buffy, I do believe that a tragic ending can still
allow her, and us, to experience an actualization and a
completion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You're right -- dream, 12:45:01 11/15/02 Fri
Actually, I agree with you. The Gift would have been a fine
ending - Buffy dead, but at peace. I shouldn't have brought
up tragedy, because that's not quite right - I'm mixing two
issues. (Memo to self - write, wait, re-read, post.) True
tragedy does give us a gift, because in a real tragedy
(Othello, Lear, Oedipus Rex)the protagonist does learn
something, becomes aware, usually in the final moments, of
the horror of what he has done. Trauma, catharsis. Buffy
going evil - especially going evil and dying evil - would
not offer that. Nor would the idea that really she's a sick
girl and every thing she has fought for has actually been
making her more and more mentally ill.
I do, however, believe that there is a difference between
the short forms for tragedy and the long forms for sprawling
novels and serial television. I don't think the emotional
explosion and catharsis of a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy
would work with characters we know as intimately as we know
these. If we had watch Othello for seven years, come to love
him, cheered his successes, could we find the catharsis in
his final clarity after his terrible madness? I don't think
so, though some might disagree.
The Gift was painful, but beautiful at the same time, Buffy
accepted her calling, found her peace, saved the world. Yes,
she was dead, but a death she could be proud of. EvilBuffy
would be something else entirely, something darker, bleaker
in its view of the human condition (again, only if
permanent). If Buffy, who has managed to do the right thing
again and again, has shown her great love again and again,
cannot maintain her moral compass at the last, then where
are we?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> It all comes down to... -- ponygirl,
13:10:03 11/15/02 Fri
I have to have some faith in Joss' love of his creation, not
just Buffy the character but the series as a whole. There
have been grim moments to be sure, but we have never seen
the darkness completely overwhelm. For me what is arguably
the bleakest sequence on show - watching a dead-eyed Buffy
and the Scoobies kill each other in The Wish - ends with
Giles destroying his reality out of his hope that there must
be a better world.
Of course if I'm wrong and the end is nothing but a plunge
into the dark, I'll be the first at the bar to buy you a
drink. We'll be needing them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> The key to Buffy's fate -- alcibiades,
19:38:48 11/15/02 Fri
The Gift was painful, but beautiful at the same time,
Buffy accepted her calling, found her peace, saved the
world. Yes, she was dead, but a death she could be proud of.
EvilBuffy would be something else entirely, something
darker, bleaker in its view of the human condition (again,
only if
permanent). If Buffy, who has managed to do the right thing
again and again, has shown her great love again and again,
cannot maintain her moral compass at the last, then where
are we?
What about if Buffy went evil for a while after killing
Morphy or whoever we are all thinking is the big bad now,
and then redeemed herself in death or some kind of frozen
state?
That is what I am thinking may happen.
Because if Buffy manages to kill Morphy -- who seems to be
something like the pre-existent void or chaos incarnate or
the demiurge or whatever -- it would mean that she was the
most powerful creature ever (besides God and Buffy does not
know if God exists) -- and that superiority complex which
has been coming more and more to the fore, and which she
finally mentioned, will flower into a monster, I believe,
just like Cassie's smile. She might find a way out for
herself, but the price will be "her ending." And I think
that is the ending Spike mentioned dreaming of in BY.
It is not unusual for heroes to "sin," make an error right
at the very end of their journey: case in point, Frodo
claiming the ring for his own as he stands on the brink of
the abyss and rescued from his own hubris by Gollum.
As for the mom, mommy issue -- this is also what Buffy says
to Joyce in the Body after she finds her -- so it doesn't
relate only to the supernatural but to death. I wonder if
Joss said something like that in RL and that is why he put
it in. It is certainly powerful, made more powerful by the
repetitions through the various episodes.
Here is something I noticed in No Place Like Home which may
provide a clue about the current BB:
this year:
The monk is explaining the key to Buffy:
MONK
The Key is energy. It's a portal. It opens the door...
BUFFY
That round glowy thing?
MONK
(shakes his head)
For centuries it had no form at
all. My brethren... its only
keepers. Then...
He tries to point back to the factory.
MONK
The abomination... found us. We
had to hide The Key... Gave it
form. Molded it flesh, made it
human. And sent it to you.
The interesting bit is that for centuries according to the
Monk, but really millenia, the key had no form. And then
they were able to mold it flesh, make it human, just as the
BB has currently been doing, molding himself flesh of all
the other Big Bads. Dawn is also a door, a portal. And if
that great seal we saw last week, with the goat's head (head
of azazel? - the wilderness) wasn't a portal to some
otherdimension, I'll be surprised.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Catharsis -- leslie,
17:07:34 11/15/02 Fri
"Leaving aside what I wish to happen to Buffy, I do believe
that a tragic ending can still allow her, and us, to
experience an actualization and a completion."
The thing is, Buffy's self-sacrifice was done from a
position of her giving up her life knowingly and for the
greater good, and at a kind of peace. (Which I have to say I
am thankful also was basically the case with Jonathan--not
willingly killed, but at least having reached a kind of
peace with his past and a mature and compassionate
understanding of the world--which, tangentially again, makes
me wonder if this will give his spirit, should it return,
the strength to overcome the evil that tries to control it.)
Uh, where was I? Oh yeah. If Buffy went evil herself and had
to be killed or died in an unworthy battle, *that* would be
the slap in the face to the audience; if she were to die
again in defense of everything she has spent the last 7
years defending, it would be tragic and wrenching, but
acceptable and cathartic. It's the warrior ethos, after all,
to die in battle in defense of what you hold to be the
truth.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Except Buffy that dying is SO done already. It just
wouldn't hold the same punch this time around. -- Finn
Mac Cool, 20:34:14 11/15/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> "End" Spec based on Joss's interview posted
last week.... -- Briar Rose, 14:58:34 11/16/02
Sat
In the post last week that was linked from here, there was a
line where Joss said that he wrote "The Gift" with the idea
that the series was ending and that he was writing the final
act if the life journey of Buffy the Slayer.
He chose to give her the death that she deserved as the Hero
and Champion, just as the deaths of Cucchulain and Arthur
and so many others have earned. Peaceful in knowing that
they have fought the battle with Passion, Truth and
Universal Love on their side.
In the case of Buffy (particularly) with a sense of self
fulfillment in having completed her journey to the ultimate
"good job" by sacrificing herself for the love of all and
especially Dawn and the ones she loved personally. This is
also why her resurrection was all the more poignant: She had
recieved the ultimate reward of the Warrior of Light. She
was in a place where fighting was over and beauty surrounded
her. She was finally a soul at PEACE in all ways. Then she
was torn out of "heaven" by the same people she loved and
had sacrificed herself for.
Having said that - I don't think that Joss will kill the
girl again. I do think that he will give her an out that is
nobel and honorable and filled with mystery. She may not die
in so much a literal way as in "The Gift", but she could be
in a situation such as Cordelia was in on Angel; becoming
one of the PTB.
But I seriously doubt that Joss could take his Champion and
turn her evil at the end. He has had a problem turning her
evil all along, even when it was intrinsic to the story line
HE set out to begin with and I doubt that he would allow any
other ME to do so, IMO.
And on a personal level... I am pretty sure that I can't
continue to watch the show if SMG calls it quits after this
season. I can't hang with Dawn the Vampire Slayer and Faith
the Slayer is a really long shot and not as emotionally
stimulating. And maybe a spin off with Willow and Zander,
but not as BtVS. But if ME were to truly go the road of
turning Buffy to evil and killing her in a way that doesn't
honor the memory of the Buffy and friends I have come to
love? I couldn't watch any more ME stuff - period! I would
always be thinking that they had sold out the myth for the
sake of revenge against an actor that wanted out. True or
not wouldn't matter. That would be the flavor I would be
left with.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Well Said - All that would be left
would be bitter -- Dochawk, 20:31:12 11/16/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well said. I agree. -- Sophist, 12:42:09 11/15/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you for your kind input, Sophist & Dream...
-- Spike Lover, 18:29:26 11/15/02 Fri
I do think Conversations was great. One of the perfect
episodes.
And thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my
posts, whatever they say and for comforting me now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Weakness *is* a
weapon -- KdS, 10:56:49 11/15/02 Fri
... if you're fighting someone who likes to consider
themselves as honourable.
Spike got away with incredibly ugly stuff post-chipping and
pre-lurve because his inability to resist made the Scoobies
think it would be dishonorable to kill him. Ethan "Please
don't hit me!" Rayne did much the same thing.
On a more elevated real-life level, consider Mahatma Gandhi
in India. Or the civil rights people in the States - seeing
nonviolent people get dogs set on them does rather bias you
towards them regardless of the actual merits of their
position (not suggesting that their particular position
wasn't highly merited).
Of course, you do come unstuck if the other person *doesn't*
worry about their public image and decides to just shoot you
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Luckily,
I was studying Gandhi last week in school -- Finn Mac
Cool, 15:16:19 11/15/02 Fri
Actually, Gandhi did not believe weakness was a weapon. I
offer these quotes to back this up:
"But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not
believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does
not come from physical capacity. It comes from an
indomitable will."
"My creed of non-violence is an extremely active force. It
has no room for cowardice or even weakness."
"Non-violence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die
and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not non-
violent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly
eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee
from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by
nature to behave no better than he does.
"But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse,
is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred
in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without
hurting himself. He is a stranger to non-violence. All
sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to
his nature. Before he can understand non-violence, he has to
be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the
attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids
fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm
his cowardice and take him further away from non-
violence."
Or were you only talking about physical weakness, which
changes this a little?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Luckily, I was studying Gandhi last week in school --
Malandanza, 16:53:35 11/15/02 Fri
Nice quotes, Finn! I think these quotations fit well with
Sophist's remarks:
I would reconcile this with Mal[andanza]'s point by
rephrasing "weak" as "having an unrecognized
strength".
I feel a bit odd following up a Gandhi quote with a Buffy
quote, but I think that, in this forum, I will be
forgiven:
ANGEL That's everything, huh? No weapons, no friends. No
hope. Take all that away and what's left?
Buffy stares at him, his words hitting home. She looks
exhausted, and terribly sad. She shuts her eyes.He lunges,
shooting his arm out, the sword straight at her face.Without
opening her eyes she slams her palms together over the
blade, stopping it an inch from her face.She opens her
eyes.
BUFFY: Me.
Buffy's weakness didn't save her from Angelus --she found a
source of hidden, inner strength that enabled her to
overcome him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeah, clarifying... -- KdS, 08:50:35 11/16/02
Sat
I was talking about physical weakness...
[> [> [> [> [> [> Just a few words
based upon what I've read so far......spoilery -- Rufus,
21:31:34 11/15/02 Fri
Is Buffy the Big Bad this year.........ummmmmm don't count
on it. Is Spike a bad man and screwed after what we saw in
CWDP....all I'll say is that some Spike fans will get a hell
of a lot more pissed off before the season is 3/4's of the
way through. What to remember when you think about
Spike.....all goes back to Fool for Love.....
DRUSILLA
Oh, I see you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see his
strength, his vision, his glory. (beat) That and burning
baby fish swimming all around your head.
She (Drusilla) points to his (Williams) heart and head in
succession.
DRUSILLA
Your wealth lies here... and here. In the spirit
and... imagination. You walk in worlds the others can't
begin to imagine.
What is it about the spirit and the imagination that will
make the difference for who Spike is now? Could it be
possible that the Big Bad could be foolish in its
assumptions of control? Remember Hearts, Spirals, and
Sacrifice.
[> [> [> Exactly! -- Earl Allison,
14:44:42 11/15/02 Fri
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Although I am a tad offended that people would assume that
ANYONE would gloat about what happened to Spike.
Take it and run.
[> Re: Answer to Maladanza's "It's all about power"
post that got archived too fast -- Wisewoman,
19:25:16 11/14/02 Thu
If it's all about power, then maybe we should remember:
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
;o)
[> [> Absolutly ! ^_^ -- Ete, 00:40:38
11/15/02 Fri
[> [> Re: Answer to Maladanza's "It's all about
power" post that got archived too fast -- ponygirl,
09:21:46 11/15/02 Fri
Oh yeah. I also keep thinking that the true test of
character for anyone in a position of power is what happens
when they're asked to share power or relinquish it -- does
the strong leader accept the results of a democratic
election or go all dictator? Can Buffy share her burden even
if it means that her judgement is not absolute?
Loving the Redemptionista and Snarkist peace summit!
ponygirl (a snarky redemptionist who secretly 'ships!)
[> Request for Rufus re "spoilery" content --
Dyna, 12:22:43 11/16/02 Sat
Not a reply to Ete, but a quick note to Rufus regarding a
post upthread--didn't want to start a new topic and hasten
the demise of something really worthwhile. :) Rufus, I'd
like to request that you be clearer in your subject lines
when you are planning to talk about *future* spoilers in a
post. With so many posts about episodes 7.1-7.7 bearing the
label of "spoilers," attaching just the word "spoilery" to a
post doesn't seem to me to be sufficient warning. At least,
in my experience the distinction hasn't been clear enough,
and I've been burned several times.
I do enjoy your posts and would like to read the ones that
don't contain, allude to, drop hints about or otherwise
spoil for future events. Do you think you could help me out
a bit on this?
Respectfully and with no snark intended, :)
Dyna
[> [> Many of my posts are spoilery speculation if
I think I'm directly spoiling I'll say it. -- Rufus,
16:49:11 11/16/02 Sat
I guess if you want to be safe you could consider just about
anything I say a spoiler but in fact I'm only spoiled up to
episode 10....anything past that is guessing. And most of my
guesses are based upon information from early season and
last year taking that information and comparing it to what
has been done in the past. On this board I haven't given a
direct spoiler but I have nudged people in certain
directions and if it is about Spike my comments are based
upon what they have steadily done from season four on.....it
always looks like Spike is going in a specific direction til
just about at the end we have been shown to have been
misled, that not a spoiler but an observation. So I guess I
could say that most of my hints are telling you to look to
the past to get a hint at what the future may hold.
[> [> [> rufus is right and The twisty turns of
Spike (Spoilers for Btvs Seasons 1-6 and 7.1-7.7) --
shadowkat, 21:09:48 11/16/02 Sat
"On this board I haven't given a direct spoiler but I have
nudged people in certain directions and if it is about Spike
my comments are based upon what they have steadily done from
season four on....."
True - you haven't. I have friends who are spoiled who've
testified to that. There's a TV guide preview and lyrics
from Aimee Mann posted in a thread above that are
spoilers.
This wasn't one.
"it always looks like Spike is going in a specific direction
til just about at the end we have been shown to have been
misled, that not a spoiler but an observation. So I guess I
could say that most of my hints are telling you to look to
the past to get a hint at what the future may hold."
Exactly. This character is impossible to predict. What's
that song? Rumpleteaser from Cats - "when you think I want
to go out? I want to go in. When you think I want milk, I
want water? When you think I want to be petted? I couldn't
be bothered..." Or something like that. From Spike's
introduction in Season 2? I never knew what he was going to
do next. Hey wait, isn't that what the Mayor says in Lover's
Walk: "Spike. He drove us crazy last year just trying to
figure out what he was going to do next."
Let's look at his arc for a moment?
1. in Season 2 - he's the BB, supposed to be staked after
five episodes. joss changes his mind puts him in a
wheelchair and then voila - Spike turns out to be Buffy's
ally and helps her do in Angelus.
2. in Season 3 - he comes back to Sunnydale, kidnaps Willow
and Xander and visits with Joyce, but doesn't kill any of
them. Then buggers off again to reclaim Dru.
3. in Season 4 - he's BB again, but whoopsie he gets chipped
so becomes the cranky neighbor and looks for their help, he
appears to be assisting them for money up until Yoko Factor
where he plays Iago and betrays them, only to turn around
and help them out in Primeval b/c he serves his needs better
- hey better than getting killed by Adam.
(If you've been watching Firefly - this Friday's episode
sort of reminded me of Spike in Primeval - Whedon seems to
like mercernaries.)
4. In Restless he is portrayed as a lad training to be a
watcher and a circus freak doing vampire poses.
5. In Season 5 - he starts out appearing to want to kill
Buffy, tries to get chip out, tries to attack her, can't,
realizes he's madly in love with her, tries to force her to
love him back, fails makes Warren build him a buffbot (who I
thought at the time was going to be like April and try to
kill Buffy but nooo instead she's almost nicer than Buffy,
odd.), ends up almost sacrificing himself and getting
horribly tortured to save dawn, helps the SG save the world,
and is grief-stricken when Buffy sacrifices her life in the
Gift.
Season 6: Spike starts out Mr. Tenderhearted/Confident
(although there are little hints that he is trying to seduce
her into the dark with him, brought out here and there, I
still fell for him - old softy that I am, sigh.)
Then she makes with the kissing. They get into a S&M
style abusive relationship. He starts doing evil things on
the side. She dumps him. He doesn't quite believe it, so
still helps her - in Normal Again. Finally we end up with
the AR scene (which I saw coming as far back as Dead Things
- even though I dreaded it), then horrified by the fact that
he could actually hurt the girl he loved, he angerily takes
off. We and the poor actor playing him think to remove his
chip, but no - to get a soul so he can deserve the girl he
loves.
Season 7 - He comes back nuts, the big morphy creature or
hallucinations or joss only knows what tormenting him. He
seems to still have the chip. He's helping the SG or trying
to and is oddly contained at times. Then whoopsie - the flip
he's biting people again. (Something I also saw coming but
dreaded, a friend of mine called me on it recently - she
said "why are you so upset? You were the one who predicted
this would happen way back in September? You said sometime
mid fall they'll show him killing people again and it's
probably b/c Big Bad is controlling the chip or some such
thing." Yeah yeah...but I was hoping I was wrong.
Changed my mind now - beginning to think this is going to be
one whopper of a good story.)
Even the actor is NOT completely sure what they'll do with
him. But if you read any of Marsters interviews he did
say:
1. They like to mislead us. Remember Joyce? First she's
sick. Then's she's better. Then she's dead.
2. (Question from fan - what would you really want to do
next year? Marsters: I'd like the chance to be evil one last
time - let him unleash it.) (See Shore Leave interviews for
these quotes.)
Spike is the most changeable character on the show. Not
static in the least. Investing emotionally in Spike's
redemption is a bit like jumping on a rollercoaster without
a seat-belt, you have 0 idea what will happen. You take your
life in your own hands. Just like investing emotionally in
Spike being evil or unredeemed or staked is like riding a
rollercoaster without a seatbelt. Either way?
(shrug).
This is going to be a cool story line. Painful maybe but
really cool. Actually as I think on it...I start realizing
how great it really can be. Instead of mopey broody guilt
ridden vamp in Season 3 - we have an ensouled vampire that
we have no clue about. Is he evil again? Is he being used?
And if so, why? What does his soul mean? What about the
chip? What about how he feels for Buffy? etc. Enough fodder
in that for about twenty posts. As a friend pointed out -
broody, tender hearted, crazy Spike of the end of Beneath
You, in Selfless, Him, and Lessons - would have gotten a
little old after a while. (Heck some fans were already
complaining).
Now here's what I'm convinced of:
1. Spike is doing the killing - it ain't a double.
That was the real Spike. Willing to bet money on it.
2. Something is up with the chip. Either the BB has found a
way to turn it off or the BB has found the way to use it to
control Spike. Or it stopped working and Spike is lying
about it. (Doubtful - I saw it work in Help.). Or Spike has
found a way to work past the pain - the burning of the soul
may cancel it out.
(Personally I'm laying my money on the BB using it to
control Spike - b/c that's the most interesting option and
lends itself to the other character's arcs and the overall
plot. But Spike finding a way to work past the pain works
just as well - just seems a bit well too pat for me and well
does not answer certain burning questions like uhm...why not
kill Xander?)
3. Buffy as town sheriff has just met worse nightmare number
three.Should she stake him? Should she help him? What did
she learn from Selfless and Him??
[> [> [> [> Re. #2......spoilery speculation
cause I really don't know for sure. -- Rufus,
21:24:40 11/16/02 Sat
Again the answer may lie in this little dialogue with
Dru.......Fool for Love
DRUSILLA
Oh, I see you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see
his strength, his vision, his glory. (beat) That and
burning baby fish swimming all around your head.
She (Drusilla) points to his (Williams) heart and
head in succession.
DRUSILLA
Your wealth lies here... and here. In the spirit
and... imagination. You walk in worlds the others can't
begin to imagine.
So I ask again, what is it about the imagaination that makes
so much possible in human behavior?
As for number one.....we will know soon enough......as for
number three, how about some "Tough Love"?
[> [> [> Fair enough, and thanks for the
reassurance. :) -- Dyna, 21:18:54 11/16/02 Sat
Do my eyes deceive me? (Spoilers 7.7) -- Valkyrie,
15:09:34 11/14/02 Thu
I don't have a tape of the show, so I can't test this
theory. Maybe one of you can take a look? Anyway, I just saw
a still photo from the final scene with Spike in game face,
apparently feeding, and my first thought was, "That's not
Spike." I compared it with other photos of him, snarling,
and it seemed to me there were significant differences. For
instance, the hairline of the "biter" in 7.7 appears lower
and the overall proportions of the face are not as long as
Spike's. The chin is more pointed. The open mouth doesn't
look the same shape and the nose appears shorter. Maybe it's
just the angle of the photos- or a difference in make-up
artists- but it made me wonder. Early on, we see Spike
approached by a blonde woman, at The Bronze. But from then
on, all of the action is observed from a distance. I've seen
several theories- probably more sound than mine- but I
wonder if ME might be deliberately misleading us about who's
doing the biting. Anyway, this whole weird theory is based
on a couple of photos, but I thought it might be worth a
second look. …for someone whose VCR actually works. I've
loved reading everyone's ideas about the series to date!
Thanks!
[> Re: Do my eyes deceive me? (Spoilers 7.7) --
Slain, 15:23:52 11/14/02 Thu
I'd make you a screencap if I could - but it's definitely
Spike, physically speaking. I think it's just that we
haven't seen him bite someone for so long, it looks
alien.
[> [> Re: Do my eyes deceive me? (Spoilers 7.7)
-- leslie,
15:29:19 11/14/02 Thu
Also, his vamp face seems to be deliberately uglier this
season--as in the Bronze scene in Beneath You, when we
definitely saw him change.
[> [> [> Re: Do my eyes deceive me? (Spoilers
7.7) -- PepTech, 16:55:54 11/14/02 Thu
>his vamp face seems to be deliberately uglier this
season
Along with that, Lorne's makeup is a lot more detailed this
season, or it seems so to me. More detail around the
hairline (almost Daxian), redder reds, and blacker eyes.
Anyone pay enough attention to know if the shows have
switched makeup personnel?
[> [> [> [> Maybe this page helps --
oboemaboe, 23:52:13 11/14/02 Thu
I dunno about a switch, but whoever came up with Dinza needs
a promotion/raise.
http://www.cityofangel.com/council/crew.html
dub makes me tell a joke + 7.7 spoilers --
BabblingBrook, 15:31:36 11/14/02 Thu
Dub is forcing me to de-lurk and post this joke because she
thought it would be appreciated, seeing as it was sent to me
by a non-fan (who thinks I'm pathetic for watching six
seasons in a row on tape over the course of 8 weeks
[courtesy also of dub] - incidentally a good way to nurse a
broken heart - AND then visiting the Board on top of that).
Oh yes, I threatened to post her name on the Board too and
give her credit for sending me the joke, so her initials are
RICHMAL and she lives in London, UK tee hee
Here goes:
It's midnight and a vampire is walking down the street alone
when something hits him on the back of the head. He stops
and looks around but all he can see is a sausage roll on the
floor. As he continues on his way, a vol-au-vent hits him in
the back. He walks on and suddenly he hears footsteps behind
him. The vampire turns around and a cocktail sausage on a
stick comes flying through the air and pierces his heart. He
stares in unbelief at the pork product protruding from his
chest and just before he is reduced to a pile of dust he
looks up to see a woman standing beside him holding a tray
of assorted quiches (suitable for vegetarians). With his
last undying breath the vampire asks the question, 'Who are
you?' and as his damned soul is dragged back to the
underworld he hears the woman's chilling reply..."I'm
Buffet, the vampire slayer!"
Okay well now I'm out I just want to say that the scene in
7.7 where "Cassie's" smile widens until it devours itself
was CREEPY. So it was a good thing I watched the episode on
tape the next day around noon... Otherwise, no deep thoughts
on the episode but I really enjoyed everyone's speculations
about who was & wasn't the Big Bad. E.g., whereas upon
initial viewing I thought "Joyce" was a trick, thanks to the
Board I now I think she might be real and we're being faked
out to think she's also the BB in disguise. Haven't re-
watched the episode yet cuz, you know, it's dark at
night.
Cheers!
[> 7.7 spoilers -- Tymen, 15:52:15 11/14/02
Thu
It may be Joyce, but who's to say that she hasn't been
deceived, deliberately given bad information.
[> You DID it!! Welcome!!! -- dub ;o), 16:03:58
11/14/02 Thu
It's about time!
I can't believe you used BabblingBrook as a
nick! I laughed so hard I snorted soda up my nose!!
Can we call you BB, for short? Oh no, then we'll confuse you
with the Big Bad, that won't work.
And I still think that joke is hilarious...hope these guys
haven't seen/heard it yet.
;o) dub
[> What the Buff?? -- neaux, 17:05:39 11/14/02
Thu
Honestly that was a pretty good joke..
it was definately better than UPN's slogan What the Buff
Tuesday.
Welcome the board!
[> Re: dub makes me tell a joke + 7.7 spoilers --
kty_fantastico, 17:41:23 11/14/02 Thu
That smile creeped me out too! Reminded me of the video for
the song "Black Hole Sun"-- anyone remember that?
Maybe it's cosmology, Beneath you it devours (OT) --
Sang, 16:16:57 11/14/02 Thu
After this ep aired, everyone started speculaion about what
is 'it'. No wonder that posts were archived so fast. It is
not because other posters don't reply to you, it's this
crazy board that you are not allowed to reply once it is
archived.
What was I trying to say? Oh.. From beneath you, it devours.
I was sitting in my office and just thought about it, and
two words came to my mind. Dark Energy!
I know it is off the topic, but anyway. Have anyone heard of
this term 'Dark Energy'? The term 'Dark matter' was around
here for decades and quite well known to public. But I never
heard anyone mentioned 'Dark Energy' in public place.
At the end of 20s century, two groups of physicists
discovered really weird cosmological phenomena.
One group was looking for billion years old supernova in
deep space using Hubble space telescope and other most
powerful telescopes. They found out really disturbing
fact.
Our Universe is expanding, it is well known fact and
supported Big Bang theory. Because of the gravity, matters
attract each other. Gravity is a natural break for the
expansion of universe.
But obersvation of ancient supernova shows us that the
expansion speed of now is greater than past. How come?
There was another group of physicists who flew baloon
installed with device to measure ancient cosmic rays. They
do this experiment at south pole, since that is only place
(other than north pole) that the baloon stays in the same
place in the sky.
They found out that our universe has invisible energy which
spread out all over the space homogenously.
Now we combined two facts and concluded that there is
something in our universe which we cannot see or detect, yet
it can push stars and galaxies away to each other.
They are not 'Dark Matter' DM only can slow down the
expansion. It must be a completely new stuff. So we decided
to name it 'Dark Energy'.
Whatever it is, it is ridiculously tiny amount of energy,
which existed from the beginning, or even before the time.
It is not an ordinary matter, it doesn't generate anything,
no radiation, no heat. It cannot be diluted or destroyed. It
is everywhere yet cannot be seen, thus it is the ultimate
vacuum, ultimate darkness.
Because of the expansion, there will be less and less stars
in the future, but DE cannot be destroyed, it will be there
always, waiting. Slowly it will dominate and eventually
devour whole Universe. There will be no star, no light, not
even a single dust. This ultimate nothingness, absolute
darkness is the only thing which is imortal.
Well, many cosmologists now believe that we finally found
out how our world will end. Don't need to be depressed or
scared. The doom will not come within billion years. Noone
thinks that humanity can survive that long time. What really
make physicists crazy is the fact that there is no
scientific theory which can explain it.
Ed Witten, the smartest man among us (who was cited in
'Supersymmetry') once announced that DE is the single most
important mystery in this new century. Yet, this subject
kept low profile to public for couple of years. But I guess
you will soon here this world Dark Energy in every SF. 'From
beneath you, it devours.' Indeed.
[> Thanks, Sang -- Wisewoman, 18:37:58 11/14/02
Thu
It's always interesting to read your insights into
things.
I think we're going to be treated to a mix of cosmology and
metaphysics this season...it's starting to get really
interesting!
;o)
[> I'm confused...a few questions from a non-
physicist -- Sophie, 19:34:25 11/14/02 Thu
I have heard of dark matter. A friend who was working on a
Ph.D. in physics talk to me about it one time.
So you're saying that dark energy is what pushes the
unending expansion of the universe? That dark matter is what
"fills" the resultant "holes"?
When I think of "beneath", I think of something coming from
the center of the earth. Could dark matter be inside a
planet? Could I end up with dark matter (a hole) in my
bedroom?
S
[> [> explanations from a non-professional
physicist (*OT*) -- Corwin of Amber, 22:01:59
11/14/02 Thu
This just comes from my general interest in things
scientific, so if there are any professional, degreed,
physicists on the board, please correct me if I'm
wrong.
"Dark Matter" is simply that. It's matter. It's dark. We
can't see it, but it's there. Physicists figured out that
that matter we can see in the universe - in other words,
matter that is generating or reflecting light - can only be
a very tiny percentage of the total matter in the universe.
The rest of it has to be "dark". Hence, dark matter.
Unfortunately, the semi mysterious sounding name they
gave to it - "Dark Matter", sent "science" fiction writer's
muses into overdrive. We got poorly researched episodes of
The Outer Limits, Star Trek: Voyager and Futurama which
ascribed properties to dark matter that mainstream physics
never has. Actually, The Outer Limits episode was pretty
damn good otherwise, but for other reasons.
I've never heard of anything referred to as "dark
energy". I've heard the terms "negative energy" and "zero
point energy", but what Sang seems to be referring to most
closely fits cosmic background radiation. CBR is an "echo"
(completely my term) of the Big Bang
As far as the universe ending...so far as I know, there
are only two possible outcomes. Either there is enough
matter in the universe for gravitation to stop expansion,
and the universe will eventually collapse in on itself into
a black hole. (and possibly another Big Bang). Or, there
isn't enough matter in the universe, and it will keep
expanding into infinity, in which case all the stars in the
universe will eventually burn out, and we'll be left in a
bleak, cold, dark universe. :)
[> [> Re: DM and DE are different. -- Sang,
22:03:43 11/14/02 Thu
Dark matter is a matter which dosen't radiate, thus
invisible to us. In the early cosmology, people found out
that the visible matters (stars, dusts, gas) are not enough
to explain the dynamics and chemistry of stars and galaxies.
We need 10 times more matters than we can observe.
So people called the missing, invisible matter, whatever it
is, Dark Matter. DM can be anything it can be big planets
like saturns. cold gas or black holes, neutrinos, WIMPs (If
you remember Gunn's misunderstanding about it)... But all of
them are 'normal' in sense that they slow down the expansion
of universe.
If DM is a big object, we call them MACHO (MAssive Compact
Halo Object), like planets, dense gas, black holes, neutron
stars, they can exist in or around galaxies.
If DM is WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) like
neutrinos, axions, LSP (Lightest Supersymmetric Particle),
they will clustered around galaxies by gravity. And they
should be everywhere around us. But they are so weakly
interacting with other matters, it is very hard to detect
them.
Problem is that we found out, even if there is DM, several
things cannot be explained. New obeservations lead us to the
conclusion that at least some of the missing part is not
even a matter at all.
Dark Energy, is something, whatever it is, which can push
away stars. It is not matter. It should be everywhere, in
you, side of you, beneath you, above you. Yet it should not
exist in normal sense. There is absolutely no way to see or
detect it.
The reason that 'From beneath you' strikes me, is that DE is
totally negligible if there are enough amount of matters and
energy. So universe were expanding and also slowing down
according to standard Big Bang theory. Then in some point,
that the density of matter was below that of DE, it appeared
to us. Suddenly we found out that some kind of darkness is
slowly devouring our universe from beneath it.
[> [> [> Re: DM and DE are different. --
Corwin of Amber, 22:10:18 11/14/02 Thu
>Dark Energy, is something, whatever it is, which can
push away stars. It is not matter. It should be everywhere,
in you, side of you, beneath you, above you. Yet it should
not exist in normal sense. There is absolutely no way to see
or detect it.
The stars are being "pushed" (not a good term) apart because
of the expansion of space-time from the big bang. An
analogy. Take a sheet of rubber and mark two dots on it.
Then pull the sheet apart from the edges, and the dots are
"pulled" apart from the expansion of the sheet itself, not
from any force between the two dots. That's whats happening
to the universe.
[> [> [> [> Re: that is -- Sang,
22:23:24 11/14/02 Thu
very basic analogy but outdated. DE is different.
Universe expands, but it cannot be accelerated, or cannot be
pushed if there is no DE, since all the matters and energy
attract each other via gravity. Cosmic background radiation
is actually normal matter, since we can detect it easily.
And it slows down the expansion.
DE has a negative pressure. Using the rubber analogy; If you
streach it, a normal rubber has tendacy to pull back to
original size, that is a postive tension.
But if there is DE, the rubber will have negative tension.
i.e. If it expanded to some size. Then it will try to expand
by itself, instead of shrinking. So at the end, the rubber
sheet will expand to infinite size and the sheet become so
thin, there will be nothing.
It's about Power......so, who has it? for the purel, this
is spoilery speculation. -- Rufus, 17:22:46 11/14/02
Thu
The Big Bad.....well you have gotten a few hints as to what
is going on and one thing to remember...."Rules" even Big
Bads are subject to certain rules. It, the Big Bad, First
Evil, or whateveritis was so damn powerful it would just
take what it wants....but instead it can only hijack bodies,
and trick people into doing what it wants/needs........and
Willow....it's all connected and Willow is connected
directly to the power that counts therefore the Big Bad
wants her out of business.....but cause of the stinky rules
it can't directly kill her, so it tries to trick
her......but they have only pissed her off. Remember back to
Amends when the First Evil tried to get Angel to kill
Buffy......Buffy of course is also connected though she
really doesn't understand just how connected she is, yet.
So, we see a typical divide and conquer like the Yoko
Factor....make everyone insecure and hope for the worst.
But, the gang is older and hopefully remembers tactics from
the past. And the First Evil.....well it wanted that seal
exposed but neglected to use the vampire it can control to
do it.......so I'm thinking maybe Spike can't be used to do
that task. He is used however to make more evil minions (if
you believe what Holden says about siring, and take at face
value Spikes goodnight bite). So, it's about power, who has
it.....and I suspect that Buffy, Willow, the other Scoobies
will be the main people for the side of good.....aw hell
throw in Spike if he can gather all his marbles. The First
Evil/Big Bad/Whateveritis it needs evil troops, and
something about that seal makes me guess it wants access to
power that it doesn't have now.
[> Re: It's about Power......so, who has it? for the
purel, this is spoilery speculation. -- vh, 17:30:38
11/14/02 Thu
Have we forgotten what Dawn is? And that we don't really
know exactly what she is? And what she is is capable of
controlling reality? I think TFE has a special interest in
her -- it started the very first day. If TFE is interested
in undoing reality, it might well need Dawn; Dawn might be
in some ways its natural match. I think she is more than a
"troop." She may be "key."
[> [> Re: It's about Power......so, who has it? for
the purel, this is spoilery speculation. -- Rufus,
18:19:23 11/14/02 Thu
What is going on is that we are getting an idea of who the
Big Bad thinks will be someone to worry about.....and yes
Dawn is one and I don't know if it is more her connection to
Buffy or if it is her Key properties that the monks were
trying to harness for the forces of light....meaning she is
a Key for more than just one lock.
[> [> [> Re: It's about Power......so, who has
it? for the purel, this is spoilery speculation. -- gds,
19:06:38 11/14/02 Thu
I very much believe Dawn is key to this season and it will
be in large part due to the fact she is The Key. I have
always believed that the key was not sent to Buffy as a "4th
& 10" manuver, but that she was always intended to be
given to Buffy - from the beginning.
The whole time I watched CWDP I was thinking of TYF. Using
the images of the honored dead to divide the scoobies. Since
I didn't see Spike grab his head, I am also skeptical the
chipped & souled Spike bit anyone human. If not: was it
not Spike or was she not human?
[> [> [> [> Re: It's about Power......so, who
has it? for the pure, this is spoilery speculation. --
Rufus, 19:51:25 11/14/02 Thu
I'd still say that The Yoko Factor is the best way to
describe the type of emotional attack that Big Bad will
attempt, cause as I said before there are rules that even
the Big Bad seems to have to follow.
So, how about that seal.....Danzathar....what does it
do....why didn't the construction crew ever trip over it?
Remember I did a post quite awhile back called Hearts,
Spirals, and Sacrifice.......I stand by that post and some
of it keeps coming up....Jonathon as a sacrifice at the
seal...Xander established as the heart, Buffy taking Anya to
her home....spirals, the mortal coil...isn't a coil spiral
like?
And I stand by the idea of getting troops for a battle of
sorts...if the Big Bad can't do things without the help of
corporeal hands, then it needs all the hands it can get to
achieve what it wants.
The pursuers in Istanbul (spoilers for 7.1 through
7.7) -- luna, 18:00:27 11/14/02 Thu
I apologize if someone has already debated this to death. I
can't get everything read fast enough. Here's my question:
at the very beginning of this season, the first scene of
Lessons, we saw strange cloaked creatures pursue a woman
over some roofs. At the time, some speculated that she might
be the next slayer, etc. But there's not yet been a clear
connection back to that scene. That must have been
significant--and perhaps connected to "it," as it becomes
more clear in BY and now in CwDP. Any thoughts, or want to
tell me to search archives?
"Mother's Milk is Red" (spoilers) -- 110v3w1110w,
18:18:35 11/14/02 Thu
the only possible thing i can think of that could be
connected to "Mother's Milk is Red" is when a vampire feeds
blood to a victim when it wants to sire another vampire. now
when you add that to the image of dawn having a mouth full
of blood and what joyce told dawn that when the time comes
buffy will not choose her which could mean that buffy would
kill dawn if she was vamped and choose to be a slayer
instead of her sister. It could all be pointing to dawn
being vamped.
[> Woo-hoo! -- Wisewoman, 19:14:31 11/14/02
Thu
Nice catch, 110v3w1110w! I was wondering what that was all
about, but I like your theory.
:o)
[> And remember in "Lessons" (spoilers) --
Retread, 05:43:46 11/15/02 Fri
during Dawn's training, she said to Buffy wtte 'I'd come
back as a vamp and bite you.'
[> I thought it was a ref to "Vino de madre" in
Bargaining -- Rahael, 06:10:45 11/15/02 Fri
[> [> Me too, then... -- Haecceity, 13:20:41
11/15/02 Fri
...started wondering about all the (to my mind, downright
peculiar) references to Buffy as Dawn's mom--"Mom hair",
etc. And, of course, that classic throwaway someone above
mentioned, about Dawn coming back to bite her. (Double-
meaning, much? Will Buffy have good reason to regret saving
Dawn last time the BB was in town?)
That plus the bloody scrawl was on the wall near where Buffy
taped the terribly parental note re: dinner, wasn't it?
(Might be wrong on this, haven't re-watched ep yet.)
Just remember a flash of "Boy, that looks a creepy grocery
list" before my brain caught up to what was happening.
Way off?
---Haecceity
[> Interesting. That baffled me. -- yez,
06:24:11 11/15/02 Fri
[> interesting - Will Spike be her Sire? -- Spike
Lover, 09:49:49 11/15/02 Fri
Welcome to the new family unit- Dad and daughter. vs
X,B,D.
[> [> Re: interesting - Will Spike be her Sire?
-- 110v3w1110w, 10:37:41 11/15/02 Fri
well that is the massive hole in my theory it would have to
be a female vampire inorder to be her mother so it would not
be spike and there are no female vampire characters around
at the moment. the only thing i can think of is if morphy
was apearing to spike in the image of drusila and getting
him to sire her some "children" and she convinces him to
sire dawn. that seems unlikely to be the case and after
thinking about it it seems unlikely that dawn will be turned
into a vampire ( although i like the idea of dawn being
turned and buffy having to fight the source of vampireism
the demon that that first created them or somthing in order
to cure all vampires and save dawn because that would be a
great way to end the series having buffy defeat all vampires
to save her sister) but i have a nasty feeling that this
season is going to end in a way i won't like at all.
Psychiatry style of VampHolden (spoilers 7.7) --
Tyreseus, 19:08:30 11/14/02 Thu
"Demons do not exist any more than gods do, being only
the products of the psychic activity of man." [Sigmund
Freud, New York Times Magazine, 6 May 1956]
Sometimes a stake is just a stake, right?
I'm really no expert in this department, so I hope someone
who knows more might be willing to chime in on this subject.
I did pass Psych 101 in college (aka no brainer elective
course for the Theatre major), but it's not a subject I've
kept up on.
As I understand, modern psychiatry owes most of its current
practices to the work of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.
Although there are similarities in the two, for a very long
time there were essentially two branches of psychiatry,
Jungian and Freudian. Of course, today, there are people who
blend the two, reject the theories of both, and a few who
still hold to one or the other.
I'm trying to analyze VampHolden's approach to
psychoanalysis, to see if it might give an indication
whether he was "messing with Buffy" as Morhpy/Cassie did
with Willow. Neither branch of Psychiatry seems to apply
strictly, and I'm unfamiliar enough with modern techniques
to know if he's practicing a particular form of
psychiatry.
Here's some thoughts on Holden and Phsychiatry
1. Common to most psychiatry post-Freud, VampHolden
attempted to determine what causes Buffy to feel/act the way
she does. In a fashion that we typically blame on Freud, he
goes back to her childhood and questions her regarding her
father. The issue is pretty quickly passed over, though.
2. Being connected to a great evil - fits in with Jung's
theory of a collective subconsious. For vamps, they kind of
"know" that they, for instance, reject God and all his
works. Jung argues that there are certain mythical
archetypes which we all inherit as instinct, which are not
formed by individual experiences.
The collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual
heritage of mankind's evolution, born anew in the brain
structure of every individual.[The Structure of the Psyche,"
The Collected Works of C.G. Jung. 8, par. 342.]
3. Another Freudian concept is that all subconscious urges
stem from our desire for pleasure. Buffy pretty much rejects
this notion (paraphrasing: "That's what I hate about you
vamps... Sex, violence, love, lust... they're all the same
to you.") But we might ask if Buffy herself is suffering
from displacement. If (as we are told over and over) the
Slayer enjoys the hunt and the kill, and she's trying so
hard not to enjoy it, could that spill over into,say, a
violent relationship with Spike?
Okay, I'm about tapped now for my meager psychological
analysis. But, I challenge those who know substantially more
to help us understand. Through his psychoanalytical
approach, where was he leading Buffy and what factors did he
play up in the process.
Tyreseus - who has more experience on the couch than in the
comfy chair with a clipboard.
[> More thought, different subject (spoilers thru 7.7
but oddly lacking in speculation about BB) -- Tyreseus,
19:38:32 11/14/02 Thu
Not wanting to start a whole new thread and contribute to
the Voynok demon sending another brilliant post into
archive, I'm chiming in to my unrelated post with another
post.
I also noticed, down below, that a few poster were reluctant
to get into the whole Freud/psychoanalysis thing, but now
I've gone and tried to let that cat-demon out of the
bag.
On to my new thoughts...
If I'm not mistaken, this is only the second time this
season when Buffy has gone patrolling or on some other
slayer-duty alone. First was when she infiltrated the demon
raising in "Help." But even then, Spike showed up - invited
or not. Same with the worm-demon in "Beneath You."
Arguably, she went alone to deal with Anyanka, but it just
doesn't seem the same. Does going to fight a scoobie count
as going into a fight without the scoobies?
Every other slayer-outing has involved at least one other
member of the scoobie gang - including the staking of the
frumpy old housewife vamp in the funeral home at the
beginning of "Help" (another victim of Spike? he's gotten
some terrible taste in victims if so).
The message of aloneness was hammered home to me even more
when Dawn was unable to reach Buffy by phone and didn't even
try to get Xander, Anya, Willow, Giles or even Spike. I
mean, heck, even Clem would have been better than trying to
face it alone. But then again, she does seem to have picked
up magic overnight.
Anyway, just a thought that is bugging me because I'm
guessing it has some significance in the long or short run
of things.
[> [> It was only one vampire... -- Charlemagne20,
21:32:50 11/14/02 Thu
Buffy knew it was coming up and probably no one wanted to
waste slayer duty on something that she's completely capable
of handling herself.
How many vampires "en masse" has she killed with
experience.
Holden was only surviving so long on his own because of his
past connection and ability to mess with her head.
Holding was basically following a Freudian analysis.
Basically he addressed her issues with her family, her
sexual habits, and her relationships with other human beings
being affected by such (basically occupational
counselling)
[> [> [> Agree -- Deb, 09:45:53 11/15/02
Fri
I liked the visual allusion to Freud when Buffy "layed down
on the couch" and Holden sat to her side, slightly behind.
And then there was the little "transference" regarding Vamps
-- Spike? lumping all those things together. Typical
vampire.
Oh and the crashing through the stained glass windows was
more Jungian. Crossing a threshold, literally smashing her
denial and fessing up to her part, and her feelings, about
the relationship with Spike.
Now my frosted side says: I loved Holden. Such a
professional, yet relaxed and witty therapist. I wonder
though. Since she did transfer her feelings about Spike onto
Holden, was she possibly dusting Spike in her mind? And was
he also baiting her anger when talking about the guy she
dated who said she was gay, then later came out of the
closet himself? Who's living in a closet right now, and used
to "date" Buffy? Date? They never dated. It was a workplace
fling.
[> [> About that phone call...(focused spoiler
) -- Darby, 08:01:57 11/15/02 Fri
I wonder if in the original script, Dawn tried to call
someone else but got the nasty demon instead, by voice or
poltergeist activity - it would fit into the whole monster-
in-the-microchips (see? all things DO lead to Spike) thing.
It might have been cut for time, but as we've seen from
discussion here, it was an important detail to cover.
[> Vamp as Self Actualization (spoilers 7.7) --
Sara, 06:24:36 11/15/02 Fri
I don't know much about psychiatry (why do I all of sudden
have Art Garfunkel's voice echoing in my head? hmmm... a
nice thing) but I have noticed that vamps seem awfully
happy. Maybe one of the reasons that Buffy finds it easier
to confide in vamps is because they have a clarity of
thought that we confused humans are lacking. I've been kind
of growing into looking at the vamps less as serial killers,
and more as really motivated predators. (Which strangely
enough, makes me think about going vegetarian, I just which
I liked vegetables!) When they become vamps they seem to get
this "hey, I'm evil, and it's ok" feeling with a clear and
solid purpose to their life. I think that Buffy, being the
chosen one, without having done the choosing, is very
attracted to that clarity of purpose. I know I keep using
the word clarity, but it just seems to capture the essence
of the vamps. The evil part actually makes them more honest,
they're not concerned about hurting feelings, and when they
look at the world they seem to cut right to the chase. No
wonder they make great sounding boards!
- Sara, who probably could use some time on the couch,
anyone know a good vampire she can talk to?
[> [> I think it depends upon the vampire --
Deb, 07:19:48 11/15/02 Fri
They all seem quite happy with things, but not all of them
are quite all there.
[> [> [> Re: I think it depends upon the
vampire -- Sara, 08:11:37 11/15/02 Fri
You're right. I think that the insight comes alot from the
person who was, but even the ones that don't seem as
intelligent or self-aware, do seem to be pretty content,
happy-go-lucky, where's lunch kind of folks. Sometimes it
looks pretty good to me!
[> [> [> [> Re: I think it depends upon the
vampire -- Arethusa, 11:34:04 11/15/02 Fri
I love that-"happy-go-lucky, where's lunch kind of
folks."
There's definitely a sense of happiness or being at peace in
people with an absolute belief in something, either good or
evil. They gain a sense of purpose, are given rules to live
by, and are less likely to fell unprotected and alone. The
only price is giving up free will. The vampire no longer has
his own moral compass, so he no longer has to face an
endless number of decisions on what to believe, how to act,
and what is right or wrong. He simply follows the rules of
his order-vampire tradition. And no wonder Spike was so
confused after he was chipped-it provided a conflicting set
of moral values, and Spike had to choose between them.
Another price the demon pays is the lack of emotional
growth. The gods/demons become responsible for the moral
decisions of the vamp/person, depriving the being of the
kind of emotional growth that comes from internal conflict.
Buffy can dismiss Angelus' actions because the demon made
him do it, but Angel can't because all that brooding,
counting and catagorizing of the sins he's committed has
made him realize that the anger, violence and cruelty were
always in him, and must be carefully monitored to be
controlled.
Please, everyone, don't take this post as an attack on
religion or the devout (or very evil). Despite my (lack of)
beliefs, I go to Mass every Sunday and respect the enormous
comfort religion gives most people.
[> Nemesis (Spoiler 7.7) -- Deb, 10:43:12
11/15/02 Fri
I thought Holden's observation that he and Buffy were
Nemeises was interesting. She is the Roman/Greco goddess of
justice and revenge who punishes dead men for lying, or
breaking an oath, and escorts souls, along with the Furies,
to Tartarus. She is a winged griffon. She is related to/also
the Greek goddess
Erinys "who beneath the earth punish dead men, whoever has
sworn a false oath." Her head is covered with snake-locks.
Both goddesses were raped by BB gods and had daughters who
were taken to live in the Underworld. (Related to
Demeter)
Buffy punishes "dead men"
When Buffy was res . . . brought back to life, she stood in
the graveyard at one point and she appeared to have
wings.
Notice Buffy has been wearing braids bound around her head?
Kinda of like snake-locks.
In "Once More With Feeling," Dawn was almost abducted and
taken to live in the underworld.
Questions: What about Dawn's birth could be a metaphor for
rape? And, which dead man broke an oath? (Don't
automatically scream in horror "Not Spike! No, not
Spike!")
There are plenty of dead men. And not just literally.
"From beneath you it devours."
Crystallizing some CwDP thoughts: spoilers through
7.7 -- HonorH, 20:00:32 11/14/02 Thu
Well. This was quite the episode, wasn't it? I've never seen
the board quite this full of activity. I had to think a bit,
and by the time I had (and my Super-Evil Alter-Ego had
gotten her ya-yas out), a lot of thoughtful discussion had
gone by. That being the case, I hope you'll forgive me if I
use your ideas and don't give you credit. I apologize in
advance and state that a great many of my thoughts can be
owed to other people doing the thinking for me. And now that
the disclaimer's out of the way . . .
This episode was structured completely unlike any other BtVS
ep--or most episodic TV in general. What we had was a total
of five encounters, none of them overtly connected. Buffy
didn't know what was happening to Dawn didn't know what was
happening to Willow didn't know what was happening to the
remainder of the Geek Trio didn't know what Spike was up to.
Nonetheless, a common thread ran through them.
Let's start with a few assumptions. First, I'm going to
assume that both the demon in the Summers house and Joyce
were part of the Big Bad Whatever (BBW). Second, I'm going
to assume that yes, that was really Spike, in the undead
flesh.
Now for the common thread: vulnerability, emotional and
otherwise.
The most obvious example of this, of course, would be Dawn.
She comes home to an empty house and acts like a typical
teen, getting pizza with her dinner money, listening to
music, messing with her sister's things, and watching TV
while chatting on the phone (to Kit, one notes). From this
happy scene, she's dragged into a nightmare. She sees and
hears her mother and an unknown malevolent force and,
unconnected to Buffy, must fight both the force and her own
fear alone. In this, she appears to succeed--at great cost
physically and emotionally. After the demon is cast out,
Dawn collapses, spent. Only then does Joyce appear to her to
deliver one final blow: Buffy's not going to be there for
Dawn when it all comes down. Then Joyce disappears, leaving
Dawn a battered, exhausted, sobbing wreck on the floor.
Then there's Willow. She's also alone, studying by herself
at the library, when she's approached by Cassie. Cassie, or
the being imitating her, reveals to her several things only
Willow and Tara would know and claims to be an intermediary.
Willow cries, opening up about how much she hurts, and how
scared she is. That's when Cassie tells her not to use magic
anymore, or she'll kill her friends.
The next part is strikingly reminiscent of the First Evil's
MO with Angel. It got him vulnerable and tried to drive him
to attack Buffy. When that failed, suicide would be good
enough. Same here. When Willow frets that not using magic
might not work, suicide is presented as the answer.
Of course, that wakes Willow up to the fact that this isn't
Cassie, and it sure as hell isn't Tara. The BBW acknowledges
the gig is up and delivers threats and intimidation before
leaving.
Then we go to Buffy. She's in a typical vampire-Slayer
fight, except this vampire 1) remembers her from high
school, and 2) wants to chat before they get down to the
killing. And Buffy opens up. This is not so strange--Dracula
referred to the Slayer and vampires as "kindred," Angel
served as Buffy's confidant for a time, and, as Buffy noted
in "Lover's Walk", she's never been able to lie to Spike
effectively. Too, it's often easier to open up to someone
not immediately connected to you. What Buffy tells Holden
would be difficult, if not impossible, to say to a friend or
family member.
It's only after Buffy's opened up completely to Holden,
laying herself bare, that they get back to fighting. Before
they do so, though, Holden delivers one big shock: Spike, he
says, is his sire. Which leaves Buffy with one hell of a
dilemma.
Gotta go now, but I'll be back later to finish this up and
try to tie it all together. Talk amongst yourselves,
please.
[> Part II: Crystallizing some CwDP thoughts: spoilers
through 7.7 -- HonorH,
23:04:08 11/14/02 Thu
Okay, so Buffy's dilemma. She's presented with a few
possibilities. To wit:
1) Spike didn't do it. Holden was lying. That's a tough one
to sell. He'd have had to size up the situation in a second
in order to swing that lie. Besides, from Buffy's pov, he
hadn't been lying all evening; why start now? Another
possibility is that Holden was misled. Some vampire claiming
to be Spike (you know how they like to talk big over a pint
o' blood) sired him, but it wasn't our Spike. It's something
Buffy has to consider.
2) Spike didn't do it. The BBW was lying through Holden.
Buffy may think this after hearing about Willow's
experience. Can she really take that chance, though? The
correct answer is, "No."
3) Spike did it. He's been lying this whole time about the
soul and everything. From Buffy's pov: bloody unlikely.
Truth is, Spike's a rotten liar. Manipulative as hell, yeah,
but outright lying? He's terrible at it. Besides, Anya
sensed the soul, too. Why would she lie? Finally, Spike's
just not that stupid. He doesn't do Angelus-style "go for
the pain, not the kill" type things. He just goes for the
kill. He wanted to pick a fight with Buffy, he'd just do
it.
4) Spike did it. His personality has finally fractured
enough that he's committing murders and sirings in spite of
the soul. It's gotta be considered.
And can Buffy tell anyone? If Spike is killing, Xander's in
great danger, as is any Scooby who trusts Spike. OTOH, if
he's not really killing and Buffy alerts the Scoobs, some of
them (*cough*Xander*cough*) may take preemptive action.
Besides, it wouldn't do Spike's mental health (such as it
is) any good to have him under suspicion, especially unjust
suspicion. Bottom line: Buffy's again in a position of
having to decide just how best to protect her friends.
Okay, now to the Geeks. Jonathan wants to do something
right. He knows something about the BBW and wants to help
Buffy. He thinks Andrew wants the same. Jonathan shows great
growth as a character in this ep. In "Superstar," he used
magic to become the paragon of everyone's imagination. As
part of the Geek Trio, he tried, childishly, to take that he
thought was owed to him by a world that didn't care about
him. In this ep, though, he's grown up. High school doesn't
last forever. Some people you couldn't stand then actually
turn out well. The popular ones may fall off their
pedestals, and the unpopular ones may blossom. It just
doesn't matter, ultimately, and Jonathan realizes they're
all just people. And he wants to help them.
Andrew, OTOH, has never grown up. He followed Jonathan
because Jonathan was there, but when Warren's doppleganger
showed up, Andrew returned to his crush. His mind was so
twisted by then that he became willing to lead Jonathan to
his death--and do the killing himself.
Their respective positions in the gang are interesting, too.
Jonathan was a warlock. Minor talent, yes, but a warlock.
The BBW also tried to remove Willow as a threat. Could earth
magic be dangerous to it? Andrew, meanwhile, is a demon
wrangler. He knows how to raise and summon demons. Having
him as the one who sacrifices Jonathan implies something big
is being raised right there, and right now. Perhaps what he
did will allow the BBW to manifest more directly. This week,
it was all about manipulation of mind and emotions. What
will the sacrifice allow it to do?
Finally, Spike. Buffy has several options, as stated above,
but they don't quite match up with ours. We know Spike is
killing again. He meets a girl at a bar, they talk, he walks
her home, and it looks like she was giving him an implicit,
if not explicit, invitation. Without dialogue, it's hard to
say precisely what was going on, but I think we can all
guess if we think about it really hard.
And he kills her. There's no question of this. Her blood was
on his lips, he dropped her body, she was dead and perhaps
sired. So what are our options?
1) Spike was pretending to be insane and guilt-ridden.
Bloody unlikely. We saw him performing for an audience of
rats, not humans. Yes, he was insane. Yes, he was guilt-
ridden. So is the answer:
2) He got over it. Still unlikely. We saw the chip hurting
him because he was helping someone just a few weeks ago.
It's hard to believe he'd be able to swing back to killing
so quickly. Besides, there's the whole siring argument.
Spike, as I said before, isn't that stupid, and siring's not
his usual MO anyway. That was more Angelus-style (see
"Phases").
3) The BBW is possessing him. I don't think it's likely. If
it can do that, it could've killed Buffy weeks ago. So
either it's unable to possess him, or it can possess him and
it's going for something other than a Slayer-kill.
4) His just plain Stark Staring Crackers, and his brain has
finally divided itself up well and good. Part of him is
Souled Spike, a good guy, and part of him is Big Bad Spike.
Again, possible, though a tad cheesy.
5) He's being influenced by either the BBW or something
else. We can't rule this out, but it's too nebulous to make
any comment on right now.
What I'm seeing here is a big battle on the basis of trust
being built up. Can Buffy trust Spike? Can Dawn trust Buffy?
Can any of them trust their own perceptions anymore? Can
they trust loved ones who want to speak to them from beyond
the grave (and I say, always be suspicious)? My hope is that
Willow will tell immediately about her experience. That may
help Dawn to open up, and I think Willow would peg
immediately that Dawn's being manipulated, too.
Which leads us to something truly scary: the nature of the
BBW. It knows things no one should know. It knew about
things that were private between Willow and Tara. It knew
how to talk Star Wars with Andrew. It knew what position
Joyce died in. Furthermore, it was able to be in all three
situations at once, influencing three (at least) people. It
used Andrew to make a sacrifice that will lead to what we
know not. It tried to take Willow, who's connected to a
great power, out of the equation. It attacked Dawn, who is
a) Buffy's strongest link to the world, and b) an unknown
quantity herself. And was it truly lying to Dawn, or was it
telling a selective truth?
This is one of those eps that answers one question and
creates twelve more to replace the lost one. My guess is
that it'll take the entire season to play out what got
started here.
Thanks for reading, and please comment.
[> [> I read it, I loved it, but I'm too tired to
comment! I'll do it tomorrow, I promise! :o) -- Rob,
23:22:20 11/14/02 Thu
[> [> Re: Part II: Crystallizing some CwDP
thoughts: spoilers through 7.7 -- EB, 23:33:36
11/14/02 Thu
It's obvious that it wasn't spike for two reasons. Firstly,
the chip didn't go off. Secondly, the entire theme of the
show was of misdirection.
Another thought. I believe that spike or buffy will die in
the end, more likely spike. He was told by the psychic girl
that "don't worry, you will" or something to that effect.
The writers of the show deal with major themes in general,
and a major theme here is redemption. Spike has to end up
redeemed for his sins. However, redemption like angel's has
already been done, therefore his can't be the same. There
are several possiblities. one, he becomes bad and does not
get redeemed. I don't think that will happen. My personal
theory is that spike will end up saving the day, get killed
in the process, and the last words he hears will be buffy
saying she loves him, or she will say it right after he
dies. That is probably what the psychic girl meant, "you
will" . After all, what does he want most, what is it he
wishes for, what else could she be referring to? But I think
he will die in the end. The happy redemption ending has been
done with angel. This one won't be a happy ending.
incidentally, Spike may turn bad at first, only to repent at
the last minute and turn the tide of the battle, or win it
entirely, with his life as the cost.
[> [> [> Counterargument re: Spike --
HonorH, 00:18:51 11/15/02 Fri
First of all, we saw characters being manipulated and misled
in the course of the episode, while we as viewers were given
more of a clue as to what was happening. Thus, we knew that
Jonathan was in danger, we could suspect that Willow was
being lied to (I knew when Cassie said Willow had to give up
magic), and by what happened to Willow, know that it was all
too likely Dawn was being lied to as well. We're shown Spike
killing somebody outright. So unless we're being lied to as
well, Spike is killing again for an unknown reason, and the
chip's apparent failure to function is a clue.
Second, even if you don't accept that we weren't being
misled along with the characters, the misdirection in our
case would be that Spike has apparently gone evil again--
killing and siring again without conscience. So the question
is still: why is he doing it?
I have a feeling we'll find out soon.
[> [> [> [> Personal Theorizing -- Finn
Mac Cool, 08:05:48 11/15/02 Fri
1) The comment of "someday, she'll tell you" isn't talking
about Buffy, it's talking about Drusilla. Someday, Dru will
say that she loves him (it could be that, despite their long
years together, her vampiric nature stopped her from saying
"I love you"). Another possibility: Cassie forsaw the
Shapeshifter telling Spike lots of sweet things in
Selfless.
2) Spike is acting of his own free will, but is caving in to
the desires of the Shapeshifter. After all, he's been
tormented by it for months and he can't take it any longer
and just lets his demon side come out to play.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Personal Theorizing
-- eb, 09:21:24 11/15/02 Fri
Doubtful. Drusilla is not a major theme. Buffy is. He could
be caving in though. It could be that he caves now, and in
the end gives up his life to save everyone. It does not seem
to be the most likely scenario.Anyway, I don't know why more
people don't recognize the show. It is undeniably the best
show on television. It's the only show I watch with any
regularity.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Personal Theorizing
-- Slain, 11:43:42 11/16/02 Sat
Was the vision of Buffy that Spike saw in 'Selfless' the
BBW? I assumed it was his own mind - but perhaps not.
Perhaps IT was trying to draw a contrast between Buffy's
fairly sensible coldness towards him, and how he wanted her
to behave. I don't know. But either way, that scene
functions as an insight into Spike's feelings about
Buffy.
My understanding was that by "someday she'll tell you",
Cassie meant "someday she'll tell you whether she really
loves you or not", based on the assumption that Buffy hasn't
been honest about her feelings for Spike, be they love or
hate, up till now.
[> [> [> Was Cassie psychic or under IT's
thrall? (speccy & spoilery) -- ZachsMind,
12:36:11 11/15/02 Fri
PREFACE: "Bottom Feeding Shapeshifter" is my nomenclature of
the moment for "From Beneath You It Devours," "The
Primeval," "The First Evil" or whatever you wanna call IT.
This is something I haven't seen touched on anywhere yet.
There is still a question of where Cassie got her psychic
abilities; the very abilities which foretold her own death.
Just as we never learned where RJ's father got the magic
jacket, we don't know if Cassie always had that ability or
if it was a recent phenomenon. Due to the fact her father
& others around her were oblivous to her abilities,
either she kept them secret all her life or it was a
relatively new thing for her. Now, since she was letting it
slip to a complete stranger like Buffy, it's probable that
her experience with psychic phenomena was relatively
limited, as was her ability to keep her mouth shut about it.
She probably wouldn't have been able to keep it a secret for
long, so we can safely assume she was new at being psychic.
So where'd these powers come from? Well The Hellmouth of
course. It does strange things to just about everybody.
However, where specifically? Is it possible that all of
these strange happenings in Sunnydale, from The Master's
presence in season one to the magic jacket in season seven
have all been influenced either directly or indirectly by
this Bottomfeeding Shapeshifter? Have we met the puppeteer
behind the scenes for all evil influences in Sunnydale? Is
the primeval force in "Amends" the same force that the
Scoobies called upon in "Primeval" and later fought in their
dreams in "Restless" and is it the same force now bubbling
from beneath the surface this season? The arrival of The
Gentlemen in Hush. Adam suddenly turning on his creator. The
bad eggs. The haunted lovers in the school. The strange
force that seems to becon evil entities towards the city
from all over the world, like ships following the bead of a
lighthouse. Anything that's not directly answerable to some
other influence, are they ALL linked to this creature?
And was there a meeting with Cassie & The Bottomfeeder
that we did not see, in which The Bottomfeeder convinced
Cassie that she's going to die soon. Whenever we saw Cassie
in the episode "HELP" was there a faux relative of hers
hovering over her, telling her that Buffy was going to stain
her blouse and Dawn was trying too hard to be her friend?
Was Cassie being led by the nose by the Shapeshifting
Bottomfeeder just as we now see Andrew being led?
Watch Help again. It's like Cassie's listening to something
that's not there. Like she's mildly distracted, but trying
to retain her sanity. With this realization, it makes the
episode even more creepy.
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Cassie psychic? (speccy
& spoilery) -- pr10n, 17:48:00 11/15/02 Fri
Ok, so I ran back to look at Cassie's site, which ME has
maintained and even updated. And whoo hoo if there wasn't a
pic like this:
http://www.geocities.com/newcassie/graphics/paintings/2.jpg<
BR>
So there's a little support for the thrall idea!
[> [> [> [> [> Ooh. Thanks for pointing
that out. -- Dariel, 12:06:30 11/16/02 Sat
Creepy picture; Cassie and her shadow. Just like ME, too, to
put a clue in an accompanying web site. And then, unlike
other shows, to not make a fuss about the site at
all.
[> [> or it could be... -- LeeAnn, 03:44:45
11/15/02 Fri
I wonder if the FE is controlling Spike more directly
...through the chip. When the FE pretends to be Warren does
it have access to Warren's information on the chip and how
it works? Could the FE/Warren be using the chip to cause
Spike tremendous pain? In addition to the pain of the soul,
has the FE been using the chip to torture and manipulate
him. Certainly Basement!Spike seemed to be in, not just
mental, emotional pain, but real physical pain. When he held
his head and screamed he seemed to be in physical pain.
And Spike would think the pain was from the soul, not the
chip, wouldn't he?
[> [> There is an another possiblity -- CW,
05:00:12 11/15/02 Fri
Holden's not real. The BIG EVIL as we've seen can look like
anyone and can appear and disappear at will, selectively to
whomever it wants. It's possible that neither Holden nor
Spike's victim were anything, but more manifestations of the
same devil/demon. It explains why Spike's chip didn't work,
and it fits with what happened to both Willow and Dawn.
We can't tell what's real and neither can the characters on
Buffy. The characters are only partly aware they are getting
jerked around.
[> [> [> I find this possibility to be
intriguing -- Deb, 09:16:34 11/16/02 Sat
It would make the situation more heroric, but I don't know.
What if Spike were being controled not by IT but by some
other force using him to fight BB. Still, I also like my
theory.
[> [> Re: Part II: Crystallizing some CwDP
thoughts: spoilers through 7.7 -- Mystery, 06:23:37
11/15/02 Fri
I still like the Spike is possessed by the BBW. As far as,
"He would have tried to kill Buffy by now" as a way to
eliminate that option: Maybe Spike's love for Buffy, the
love that drove him to get a soul, is keeping the BBW from
attacking her and her loved ones. Either that or the BBW is
just biding it's times. I've also had a theory about Spike's
chip, that if he tried to drink from someone who was willing
to be his victim, it wouldn't be hurting them, and the chip
wouldn't trigger. It actually came from when he found
himself able to hurt Buffy: Buffy wanted the violence, if
for nothing else than to make her feel alive.
There's also speculation that Dawn might get vamped: Perhaps
Spike will be her sire. That would certainly help the BBW in
converting the Key to it's cause.
[> [> [> Some dark ideas re Spike -- KdS,
10:45:59 11/15/02 Fri
OK, Morphy wants total destruction. *Not* a victory for
evil. Absolute nihilism. So, the question is, if you'd just
realised that you'd been torturing and murdering human
beings for 150-odd years, wouldn't oblivion be a really
tempting offer? If Morphy's out to smash everything, would
that mean no afterlife as well? And wouldn't someone as
depressed as Spike be able to convince himself he'd be doing
everyone a favour?
Or maybe my Michael Swanwick obsession's escaped again.
[> [> [> [> Sounds like "Grave"-era
DarkWillow. -- HonorH, 18:47:39 11/15/02 Fri
So your theory would either be a retread, or something
foreshadowed earlier. ME has been known to do both. We'll
keep it in mind.
(Myself and Honorificus, that is.)
[> [> Variations on a theme: What will Buffy
do? -- Sarand, 10:09:19 11/15/02 Fri
Your line "Buffy's again in a position of having to decide
just how to best protect her friends" reminded me of
something I was thinking the other night (and maybe this was
what you meant). I saw the ending of this episode, with
Spike biting the girl, as setting up a theme we've now seen
twice: What will Buffy do when she suspects/knows that one
of her "friends" is killing or hurting people? In Same Time,
Same Place, Buffy suspected that Willow was skinning people,
while we in the audience knew it was not her. Buffy must
have considered that she would have to take Willow out (or
at least try to) if Willow was back to harming people. But,
luckily, before having to make that decision, her suspicions
were proved wrong and she didn't have to do anything to
Willow. Then, in Selfless, Buffy learns that Anna killed a
bunch of frat boys. This is different from Willow because we
all, characters and audience, know that Anna did it and the
suspense was whether Buffy was going to succeed in killing
Anna to stop her from doing it again. Luckily, an out was
provided, Anna could take it back, the frat boys were
brought back to life and Anna lost her vengeance powers so
Buffy did not have to kill her. All's well that ends well.
Now, Buffy has been told that Spike is killing people (or at
least one person) and the audience sees him killing another.
I'm leaning toward the girl being human and not evil and
Spike doing the killing, I guess No 4 in your original list.
Although, again, different from the previous two incidents,
it's set up in such a way that you have to question whether
he's doing it. I gotta wonder just what aspect of his
personality was doing this. We don't get any dialogue but
body language is an important aspect of Marsters's portrayal
of Spike. And his body language, particularly when walking
down the street, was so not Spike. He looked like a bashful
teenage boy out on his first date: shoulders shrugging,
hands shoved into his pockets, none of the cool sexuality he
gave off when approaching other female victims in the past.
In any event, the question, of course, is what is going to
be Buffy's reaction? Since this is a variation on a theme,
I'm guessing her reaction will be different from either how
she reacted to Willow or how she reacted to Anya. From here,
I've got nothin', except for my pessimism telling me it's
not going to work out for Spike as well as it did for Willow
and Anya. I don't think she'll tell Xander, because I don't
think she's ready to stake Spike or have him staked, but, as
you said, she has to protect her friends (as well as
innocent bystanders in bars) and she'll have to do something
to neutralize him. No more closet for him, and maybe back to
the basement.
Not sure if this is adding anything to your post or maybe
I'm just saying the same thing in a different way. Oh, well,
I liked your crystallizing so I thought I'd respond.
[> [> Re: Part II: Crystallizing some CwDP
thoughts: spoilers through 7.7 -- ponygirl, 10:39:59
11/15/02 Fri
Great summing up HonorH! At this point after reading a lot
of posts I find myself with more questions than ever. Next
week can't come soon enough and who wants to bet that not
many answers are going to be forthcoming?
Right now I firmly believe that Spike is being manipulated
by the BBW, for what purpose I haven't a clue. Well, besides
the whole isolation of Buffy angle.
Since everyone seems to believe that Joyce was another
manifestation of the BBW, I'm starting to wonder if maybe
she was the real thing. After all she said that Buffy
wouldn't choose Dawn, that Buffy would be against her. Vague
much? After all that Dawn's gotta be pissed she didn't get
specifics. Joyce doesn't say what Buffy chooses, or what
Dawn's actually against at this future point, which I'm
thinking is somewhere around season finale time.
In any case I think we're in for any number of reversals
ahead. The recent talk of board games and such makes me
think that isolationism is never a good idea, whether in
foreign policy or battling evil. Also Buffy has been shown
lately as missing the bigger picture - getting sidelined by
the personal (this ep. is a good example) while larger
battles are being fought -- so I have to wonder if we're
going to see her making some sort of costly miscalculation
in the future, or that this habit is going to make the
Scoobs unwilling to trust her judgement.
Well, my thoughts are scattered and more scattered. And yet
somehow this is all connected! Whew!
[> [> Some thoughts re: telling. (7.6 and 7.7
spoilage) -- Rob, 11:16:27 11/15/02 Fri
"My hope is that Willow will tell immediately about her
experience. That may help Dawn to open up, and I think
Willow would peg immediately that Dawn's being manipulated,
too."
I hope this as well, but, unfortunately, I don't think that
is going to happen. It seems like this distrust of Buffy
that Joyce (or "Joyce") rooted in Dawn is something that is
meant to be important, and continue to haunt Dawn throughout
the year. Coming immediately after Buffy betrayed Dawn for
RJ, I think this is very interesting timing. The fact that
Buffy and Dawn were both under a spell notwithstanding, the
events of "Him" did open up the possibility that Buffy could
be lead to turn on Dawn or not be trusted to save her. I
find this prophecy or whatever very interesting, especially
considering that Buffy had chosen Dawn before, and
sacrificed her own life in the process. Was the Joyce thing
have been implying that this wouldn't happen again?
Another thing I found interesting is that the BB feels
threatened by Willow. As powerful as it might be, it fears
that Willow and her powers could be a danger to its plans.
It attempted to manipulate Willow into not using magic, and
then into killing herself, in an attempt to keep her out of
the upcoming battles. Could the BB also be threatened by
Dawn, and maybe even her Key powers? It seems to feel that
it's very important that Dawn distrust Buffy, to sow seeds
of doubt in their relationship. All of this attempt at
manipulation and suggestion makes me even more sure that
it's the First Evil, who, in its last appearance, in
"Amends" took credit for something it did not do (bring
Angel back) in order to try to turn him dark and kill Buffy,
and then, when that didn't work, kill himself. The First
Evil seems to specialize in this sort of mental
manipulation.
Back to what each character will tell the others about her
experiences, I definitely think Willow will tell Buffy about
Cassie, especially since she identified herself as the
villain they've been hearing about all year. Whether Dawn
will open up, I'm not sure. Since she might think that the
thing holding "Joyce" was the BB and that Joyce was real.
That was the BB's whole plan in the Dawn scene...have her
think she was saving her mother, so that she would be more
apt to believe the false ghost.
Unless of course Joyce actually was real, but I tend to
think not. That's more just a gut feeling, though, since
there really isn't strong enough evidence either way.
Too many things to ponder, and of course no way to really
find an answer short of being spoiled!
Rob
[> [> [> Another way of looking at it (spoilers
and spec. for 7.7) -- Blood Luvin Girl, 12:01:28
11/15/02 Fri
**Another thing I found interesting is that the BB feels
threatened by Willow. As powerful as it might be, it fears
that Willow and her powers could be a danger to its plans.
It attempted to manipulate Willow into not using magic, and
then into killing herself, in an attempt to keep her out of
the upcoming battles.**
Everone keeps saying the BB is afraid of Willow and her
magic, so it either wanted her to stop using the magic or it
wanted Willow dead.
But I keep remembering something that Willow said while
talking to Cassie. She said "Right, right, stop...but
what about Giles, he made it seem like it was just as
dangerous for me to quit completely. Like I'll go off the
deep end again."
I think the BB wasn't afraid of Willow's power, but wanted
her to lose control again. By convincing her to go cold-
turkey it could acomplish two things. Either it would keep
Willow's magic out of the battle and maybe even cause her to
lose control and become an agent of chaos and destruction
again. That way it could subvert her power. She would be on
it's side, or at least not on her friends side.
I think it did just get carried away when it started in on
the suicide stuff. I don't think that was part of it's
original plan. But I doubt it would have cared if it ended
up having Willow stop using magic, Willow stop using magic
and ending up losing control, or if she killed herself.
It being found out was not part of the plan, though I doubt
it really cares.
[> [> [> [> Re: Another way of looking at it
(spoilers and spec. for 7.7) -- Rob, 12:20:01
11/15/02 Fri
I agree that the suicide stuff was not part of the original
plan, but added there at the moment, as the BB tried to
shift gears, when it seemed like Willow wasn't completely
buying the Tara-telling-her-not-to-do-magic-even-when-Giles-
said-she-should thing. Of course, that ended up making her
realize once and for all that this was not Tara, because
Tara would never want Willow to kill herself. Although this
BB is very good at manipulating people, it does not
understand love and human emotion itself first hand, so
while it might think that no one would be able to resist the
ability to be with his or her loved one again, it does not
understand that someone you truly loved would never ask you
to kill yourself to be with them.
You raise an interesting point about the BB wanting to use
Willow's power for him/her/it(?)self. Perhaps the BB
realized that if Willow continued to use "good" magic, as
she is now, she could be a threat to it in the future.
Therefore, the two results of telling her to stop using
magic would be (a) it could mold her power to do evil,
should she go crazy again or (b) her cold turkey-ness would
work, and she wouldn't be a threat to it at all, anyway.
Both options would work alright for the BB, I think. If it
NEEDED Willow to be dark, I don't think it ever would have
suggested the suicide thing. By trying to convince her to
kill herself, it's obvious that the BB doesn't care if it
lost the ability to use Willow's powers for its own ends. I
think it wants Willow either working for it, or out of its
way altogether. And I don't think it really has its "heart"
set on either way.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Some thoughts re: telling. (7.6 and
7.7 spoilage) -- leslie,
16:50:11 11/15/02 Fri
This just struck me about "Joyce's" warning to Dawn: it
comes just as Dawn *has* successfully defended herself
against a supernatural attack. Going back to the whole
"prophecies are never what they seem" theme, is "Joyce"
intending to buttress Dawn's ability to take care of herself
in an emergency, to stop waiting for someone else to save
her (as Buffy saved her from the train last week)?
Another random thought: The blonde girl did seem to be
turning back to ask Spike in to her apartment. Yet he killed
her outside. Given that we had that very pointed reminder of
the need for a vampire to be invited inside last week, this
must be important.
[> [> [> Regarding "Him"-- -- HonorH,
12:59:07 11/16/02 Sat
I actually thought it proved just the opposite: the Dawn
*could* trust Buffy to have her best interests at heart.
Yes, while Buffy was under the love spell, she made a move
on the boy Dawn wanted. But later, still under the love
spell, she saved Dawn's life and was even willing to give up
RJ for her: "I'd give him to you in a second if I could."
Sisterly love was strong enough to overcome the
enchantment.
[> [> My .02 on 7.7 (spoilers) -- Shiraz,
12:54:06 11/15/02 Fri
My odd little theories:
1. That was not the real Spike that we saw at the Bronze.
For one, he had his old coat back, the one he gave up in
Seeing Red. I don't think Buffy would have given it back,
and I'm pretty sure its not the sort of thing Xander would
keep as a souvon... souvoin... a keepsake.
Secondly, we didn't see Xander at all during the episode,
which, as it was night, means that he should have been at
home. Now if Spike did turn evil, then he would have killed
Xander before doing anything else. As this is kind of an
unlikely direction for the show to go in, I think it's more
likely that Spike's been in his closet-like room the whole
time, and will have to rely on Xander for an alibi.
2. Holden, whether he was or was not a real vamp, was put
there on purpose to keep Buffy occupied while whatever it is
had its way with her gang.
3. Holden's comment on his demon ancestry could not have
been accurate (unless the writers have completely lost their
minds; which is always a possibility). Either the big bad
planned that revelation, or it was a flash of evil insight
on the part of the psych vamp.
4. Unless Buffy has kept up with the premiums on her Crazy
Sister insurance, we're now going to see more of the
"finacially distressed slayer" arc.
Also, one nitpick:
-Vamps seem to get 3rd degree burns from even the crudest
crosses, but Holden was able to use a statue of the Virgin
Mary as a cudgel?
One thing is for certain, though, the possibilities for the
season are now wide open.
-Shiraz
[> [> [> Re: My .02 on 7.7 (spoilers) --
Sarand, 13:21:05 11/15/02 Fri
Um, as for point 1) that was not Spike's duster. Looked like
a short black windbreaker to me. As for point 2), why
couldn't Holden's comment about his demon ancestry be
accurate? I don't get what you mean.
As for the Virgin Mary as a cudgel, that crossed my mind
when he was reaching for it - ooh, he's gonna get burned -
and it surprised me when he didn't. Oh, well, I guess it's
just crosses that burn.
[> [> [> [> Re: My .02 on 7.7 (spoilers)
-- Rob, 13:47:03 11/15/02 Fri
I assume that the reason a Virgin Mary statue doesn't burn
is that crosses are all the same shape, give or take some
ornate decorations on some or some more plain ones; holy
water is always water; and yet statues, icons, or
artwork...each looks different, and it may have been hard
for whatever mystical flabotanum that made crosses and holy
water hurtful to vamps to do so also for an image that is
different in each incarnation. And then how would it
differentiate between Mary and the Baby Jesus, or just a
statue of a woman and a baby? It's been established on the
show that the only things that can harm vamps in bad,
possibly fatal ways are sunlight, fire, crosses, holy water,
decapitation, and wooden stake through the heart. Perhaps
this is meant to imply that the shape of the cross and holy
water was dangerous to vamps even before they became symbols
associated with Christianity.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: My .02 on 7.7
(spoilers) -- Malandanza, 06:33:48 11/16/02 Sat
"It's been established on the show that the only things
that can harm vamps in bad, possibly fatal ways are
sunlight, fire, crosses, holy water, decapitation, and
wooden stake through the heart. "
On AtS, Angel is burned when Wesley hands him a bible (for
the exorcism of Ryan). Also, I seem to recall the Host being
in Buffy's bag of vampire killing stuff back from Season
One.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The bible might have
burned Angel b/c it had a cross on it... -- Rob,
18:57:36 11/16/02 Sat
...and I guess the Host would hurt a vamp for the same
reason Holy Water would, since it's food blessed by
priests.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Shameful former Catholic
admission -- dream, 13:48:44 11/15/02 Fri
I was thrilled that the Virgin statue didn't burn the
vampire. As a Catholic schoolgirl, the Virgin was used as a
sort of cudgel against girls who had any sense of self
whatsoever. The Virgin, as we were often told, represented
every possible manifestation of the "ideal" female - a
virgin and a mother(BOTH!), completely passive, accepting of
her burdens without complaint, soft-spoken, genteel, modest,
you name it. I always liked St. Teresa and St. Joan better -
and seeing as they got props last year, seeing the Virgin
statue a) fail to burn the vamp and b) used as a bludgeon by
a bad gay - well, it was a little burst of guilty pleasure
for me. (I really hope no one finds that too offensive.)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Shameful former
Catholic admission -- Sarand, 13:56:10 11/15/02
Fri
Not being a Catholic, I have no such associations. So, not
offended and found your burst of guilty pleasure funny.
Also, to Rob, thanks for the explanation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent point Rob!
Water/Fire being sacred and many forms of the Cross pre-date
Christianity. -- Briar Rose, 14:00:06 11/15/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> Re: My .02 on 7.7 (spoilers)
-- Shiraz, 13:51:25 11/15/02 Fri
Err. I could have been wrong about coat. The black coat with
the red shirt reminded me a lot of Spike from two years ago,
so I could have just been imagining it.
As for Holden, think of the contortions in the storyline
required for Spike to be his Sire:
Spike would have had to bite Holden long enough ago to give
him time to be found, autopsied, and buried in a proper
funeral.
Spike would have to be stupid enough to allow a vampire he
was siring to be found and buried in a graveyard regularly
patrolled by Buffy.
Spike would have to have introduced himself to Holden prior
to siring him. (I can hear the conversation now:
"Allo mate, my name's Spike. I'm going to be sucking your
blood right about nowish, then afterwords you're going to be
sucking mine. But not in a queer way, mind you.")
That's a little too much for me to swallow, but then the
writers could just be on crack again.
-Shiraz
By the Way, thanks for posting!
[> [> [> [> [> I Disagree -- Finn Mac
Cool, 14:11:13 11/15/02 Fri
1) If the scene between Spike and the girl was any
indication, Spike is chatting up his victims first before
biting, most likely meeting them at bars and luring them
away till they're somewhere private, which is usual vampire
style.
2) Why couldn't Spike have turned Holden long enough ago for
him to be buried and rise from a grave? We don't know how
long he's been up to this, or how long Conversations With
Dead People is supposed to take after Him.
3) Really, what are the odds that Buffy would stop to have a
chat with a newly risen vampire? Or that Buffy would happen
to bring up Spike in front of him? Most of the time the
limits of conversation between Buffy and your typical,
freshly risen vampire are little more than a few quips on
her part. Spike probably figured that Buffy would just kill
Holden very quickly after he rose from the grave, and I
would have that so myself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> But... -- Shiraz,
14:53:42 11/15/02 Fri
1. From the (admittedly soundless) scenes, it looked like it
was the girl that was doing most of the chatting. Besides
which, to me at least, it seems really out of character for
Spike to be chatting up a GUY.
2. If Holden had been sired three or more days prior to this
episode, then Buffy, Xander, et. al. would have had to
remain clueless that much longer.
i.e.: (hypothetical scene at the Bronze)
Xander: Well, Spike didn't come home again last night.
Wonder what's up with that?
Buffy: Yeah, those tormented, souled vamps sure are
wacky.
Willow: Yeah. Hey! Looks like that blonde guy in the black
coat over there's gotten lucky again!
Xander: Bastard!
(apologies to all)
Not impossible, but something of a stretch.
3. True, but isn't the point of siring other vamps to create
an army of souless minions which obey your every whim? Why
go to the effort if you're just going to let them be Slayer
bait? If he was sired by Spike, wouldn't Spike have hauled
him somewhere he could rise privately?
In short, its all a bit fishy to me.
-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But...
-- Finn Mac Cool, 15:26:08 11/15/02 Fri
1) That doesn't mean he NEVER spoke to her. He probably at
least mentioned his name. And, the chatting up might be
neccessary if he couldn't find anyone conveniently loitering
in a dark alley.
2) Well, no one ever said that Spike didn't go out now and
then. Frankly, Xander probably doesn't care, or is even
relieved when he's gone. Plus, if the first scene with Spike
is any indication, it's not unusual for him to go to a bar,
nurse a drink, and mope untill an opportunity to kill comes
along, and everything up to "until" sounds a lot like what a
souled vampire would do.
3) I forget who, but I think one of the writers said once
that the act of siring a vampire was a pleasurable
experience. This seems likely, considering that most
vampires seem to be left for someone to find and bury, and
for Buffy to stake without even an appearance by the sire to
try to make sure his/her offspring comes out OK and isn't
slain. This last issue can really apply to most vampires,
not just Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Watch that
scene again... -- Slain, 12:05:10 11/16/02 Sat
And you'll see that, as Spike and the girl are walking,
Spike talks as much as she does.
I don't think Spike's clothes can determine whether or not
he's real - I thought that half-length sleeved blue top he
wore in 'Beneath You' was very un-Spike, but I thought that
was saying something about his character, rather than saying
he'd completely changed.
And let's not discount that fact that Spike just isn't that
good at the planning side of evil. He is best at the more
visceral, action side of being evil, contrasting with
Angelus. Perhaps he just thought Buffy wouldn't notice, in
the same way that he thought storing demon eggs in his crypt
wouldn't get noticed, or that Buffy couldn't just pull the
ring of Amargh (spelling...) off his finger. Spike has sired
men before, even men who Buffy was obviously going to stake
('Lie to Me').
Ultimately I think there's something more going on with
Spike than that he's simply returned to evil, but my point
is that none of his actions in CWDP are very unlike
him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watch
that scene again... -- alcibiades, 14:51:46 11/16/02
Sat
Ultimately I think there's something more going on with
Spike than that he's simply returned to evil, but my point
is that none of his actions in CWDP are very unlike
him.
Well that is hardly true.
The fact that he bites her with absolutely no emotion
playing over his face, is completely unlike the Spike of
Season 5 or Season 6 -- Crush and Smashed.
Even in LW, when he bit the annoying Wicca shop keeper,
emotions galore were exuding from him.
Spike has always been the one with emotions galore running
across his face, he is easy to read, unlike Buffy. But there
is nothing at all to be read on his face as he bites the
girl and that is completely out of character. Buffy would
bite the girl (if she turned vampire) with an emotionless
face, but not Spike.
The point is that those scenes are shot totally outside the
POV field of either of the two characters. The camera is at
a distance to emphasize that Spike is at a distance from us
-- in this case, the distance is metaphor. The audience is
at a distance, and perhaps also Spike is at a distance from
himself -- we won't know until later in the season.
So we can follow the literal events, the girl asking Spike
up, Spike refusing, the girl coming back down stairs and
reapproaching her, Spike biting her, but the viewer is at a
complete distance from knowing what is going on in this
story besides the literal presentation of the facts is not
adequate in this case to explain what is going on.
So that even though in one sense the camera doesn't lie, in
this case, it doesn't nearly explain either. Something is
going on beyond the truth it can convey to the viewer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What I saw. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:16:21
11/16/02 Sat
It may have just been me, but I think I definitely saw
satisfaction on Spike's face post-biting (though not before
he pulled away from her throat, granted). At any rate, this
issue is hard to debate, since Spike was vamped out at the
time, which makes sensing emotion without any dialouge more
difficult than usual. And even for characters without vamp
makeup, there have been large disagreements about what they
were emoting (see the controversy over whether Buffy looked
sad for Spike at the end of Beneath You or if she looked
like she "smelled something bad".)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Have to agree with this. -- HonorH, 23:53:38
11/16/02 Sat
Somebody call 911, please--I think I gave alcibiades a heart
attack with that subject line.
Spike wasn't acting like Spike. I do think it was him, at
least physically, but his whole demeanor was *not* that of
Spike of old. It was closer to his quiet, submissive
demeanor of "Him". His eyes were downcast at the bar, which
is totally unlike him unless he's very drunk and depressed.
The ambling with the girl, and the vague awkwardness when
they got to her place was also very unlike him.
Of course, the lack of dialogue also affected my perception.
Spike's voice is extremely expressive, so it was hard to
gauge his emotions without hearing it. His bearing, however,
was oddly "off". I'm very curious as to what exactly is up
with him.
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Shiraz --
Sarand, 14:15:28 11/15/02 Fri
Just wanted you to expand a bit further on that point. And I
agree with pretty much everything you said about why it
really doesn't work for Spike to have sired Holden,
particularly Spike introducing himself. And Spike never
seemed to be much into siring, except when asked (e.g., Lie
to Me) or when attracted to the girl (Willow in The
Initiative). I don't see him doing it as a way to get Buffy
to stake him - he would be much more direct if he wanted her
to kill him. Although, we don't really know who he is or
what he's really like now, do we. Is it Tuesday yet? My
head's beginning to hurt.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Don't forget though,
that this is not the Spike we know... -- Rob,
14:28:23 11/15/02 Fri
...This is Spike Version 2.0, and we cannot make assumptions
about his behavior based on the Spike we're used to.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't
forget though, that this is not the Spike we know... --
Sarand, 16:17:01 11/15/02 Fri
Kinda thought I said that at the end of my message. But I
won't split hairs with you. ;) Enjoy "Firefly" tonight, Rob!
But I know you will.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, you
did say that. I'm sorry! Must not have noticed your last
sentence for some reason! -- Rob, 17:34:30 11/15/02
Fri
[> [> [> Thoughts on Spike: -- HonorH,
18:37:13 11/15/02 Fri
My theory still holds. That was Spike. Now, I somehow doubt
he'd be doing this deliberately or consciously--like I said,
Spike's just not that stupid. It is, however, more than
likely Spike's being manipulated. In his vulnerable state,
it'd be relatively easy for the BBW or something else to get
its hooks into him, and even to override the chip.
Furthermore: why wouldn't that have been Spike? None of the
Scoobies was nearby for a doppleganger to "perform" for. If
the BBW is merely wanting to spread doubt about Spike, it's
an inefficient way of going about things. So I'm saying
something else is going on here, but it involves the Real
Spike (accept no substitutions).
[> [> [> [> I think he was the real thing
too -- Deb, 19:28:24 11/15/02 Fri
But, the whole scene was "staged" on a brightly lite porch
with lots and lots of backlighting. BBW in control. Perhaps
Spike didn't go upstairs because he/it/him/BBW wanted to
maximize the potential audience.
I've already talked about my thoughts about this being a
stimulus-response thing (Pavlov's Spike). So I won't go into
it again, but the whole chain of events had a eerie musical
quality, and the picture was fuzzy, and then there was that
thing with the lights passing across Spike's face at the bar
just before she threw down the smokes. People saw them
leaving the bar together and walking on a well-lite street
to her place. And the scream thing I've already talked about
and the camera angles. I wouldn't say it was a "The Seventh
Seal" but it was surreal.
[> [> [> [> [> Could be (very minor
spoiler for next week) -- HonorH, 21:31:18 11/15/02
Fri
Your theory about Pavlovian Spike has a lot of credence,
especially as TV Guide says Aimee Mann will be singing her
song "Pavlov's Bell" on the show next week. Hmm . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Hummmmm................. -- Deb, 08:45:27 11/16/02
Sat
Current
board
| More November
2002