October 2002 Archives

October 2002 posts

Previous October 2002
More October 2002

Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Earl Allison, 14:49:16 10/08/02 Tue

HonorH indirectly brought this up with her post on how Xander accepts Willow how she is, and does so without being romantically involved with her.

She ended with something along the lines of "buttons being pushed" prompting her reply.

My question?

What subjects, views, or characters involved in BtVS are YOUR buttons? What makes you feel the need to reply, or gets you hot under the collar?

And if anyone thinks this subject inappropriate, I apologize -- if it is wrong, let it die.

This is NOT an excuse to slam other posters, or to go after them directly.

Take it and run.

[> Top 10 buttons -- Tchaikovsky, 15:06:35 10/08/02 Tue

1 Spike is nice

2 Dawn should be killed off

3 ME are homophobic for killing Tara

4 Season 6 was a complete failure

5 Marti Noxon cannot write

6 Xander episodes tend to waste time

7 Anything at all is wrong with Once More, With Feeling

8 If SMG leaves Buffy, it's a bad idea to continue the show

9 Joseph Campbell is the saviour of the world

10 The Parking Ticket Lady would not thrash the Mayor in a rematch.

I've seen most of these opinions expressed here- disagree with all, same tired old arguments will be trotted out in future if the same old questions are raised

[> Some of them have been pushed, LOL! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 15:57:28 10/08/02 Tue

And rather memorably, at that!

Off the top of my head, rabid defenders of Faith as a poor, misunderstood, and yet incredibly sexy, girl. In my book she was a psychotic killer.

And...BOKE!

dub ;o)

[> [> er.... can we say she's a psychopatic killer incredibly hot ? ^_^ -- Ete, 16:41:16 10/09/02 Wed

[> Buttons and bows . . . -- d'Herblay, 16:26:16 10/08/02 Tue

Hmmmm . . . a perfect opportunity to piss off a whole lot of people.

1. If you weren't completely enthralled by Season 6, it is due to some failing on your part.

2. Spike would be the world's most perfect boyfriend; Buffy should have her teeth kicked in for not recognizing this.

3. Angel is somehow inferior to its progenitor.

4. Any attempt to find any biological root for any aspect of human experience is tantamount to genocide.

5. Its a pronoun; it's uses are varied.

6. I'm going to type , but leave out the , so that not only is the entirety of my post, but every single post following mine in the archives is italicized. (This replaces, due to a switch in the way archives are built, I'm going to copy my extra-long three part post in from a word-processor in such a way as to leave all these line breaks for d'Herblay to remove by hand.)

7. "Herb."

8. Atheism is a religion as much as Scientology is.

9. You must be a Scorpio.

10. This isn't the board to talk about that!

Special points for any links to quotes by William Tecumsah Sherman, Sean Connery in The Untouchables, or the episode of Star Trek where Kirk meets Abraham Lincoln.

[> [> Re: Buttons and bows . . . -- Rufus, 05:31:31 10/10/02 Thu

d'Herblay, It seems that I've pushed at least two of your buttons....it won't happen again...sorry

[> [> [> The nuclear button -- d'Herblay, 06:18:06 10/10/02 Thu

Awww, Rufus, you needn't worry. I'm not offended that you call me "Herb"; it just grates on the ears a little. (This may have to do with the Burger King commercial. "d'Herblay" was selected for what I saw as its coolness factor, a factor that to my mind "Herb" lacks, no offense to any real-life Herbs reading this board.) As for dropped tags, they're human mistakes. They are indicative of future work (though, admittedly, at this point mostly work for zargon), rather than offensive in their own right. (I was over at the Firefly board last night, and, in the very first post I read, Darby dropped an . I grumbled about the work that this would cause for me until I remembered that it wouldn't.) I'm in a "hate the sin, love the sinner" mode here -- which reminds me, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is yet another of my buttons.

When you come down to it, my biggest button is my recurring realization that by having such easily pushed buttons, I contribute to the button pushing of others. I really tried to respond to Earl Allison's post in a fun but honest manner, hoping to make others laugh at my sometimes very shallow wounds. I tried to minimize the specificity of my buttons. For example, I left out all reference to Campbell/Jung and changed the wording of my astrology rant because I was afraid that Caroline (whom I honestly like and who has never done anything to offend me) might see herself being targetted, when in fact the astrology thing relates most directly to chat, with the added admission that I think redcat would call me on it if I tried to deny that astrology is a button of mine. But now I am afraid that the combination of that with the bit about the weird line breaks might be seen as my going after redcat, when it's really OnM's line-breaks that always gave me a headache. At root of the line-breaks and the dropped tags is the strange state of affairs that has led me to look at many posts here in a technical manner, rather than reading them for pleasure. That is a lot more my problem than anyone else's.

Anyway, I joked to Rah last night that instead of listing our buttons, we should just come out and list the posters we found most annoying. If it is any consolation, you didn't make my top ten, Ruf. At the top of my list last night was this guy named "d'Herblay" (or even "Herb"). I see no reason this morning for a change in the rankings.

[> [> [> [> Here's a weird fact. -- Darby, 11:01:35 10/10/02 Thu

Being a bit too obsessive and slightly guilt-ridden, I galloped off to find my error on the Firefly Board. There it was, the dropped tag - sort of. Actually, somehow the whole end of the sentence had gotten chopped off! How'd that happen??

[> [> [> [> [> Hmmm, I'll go look... -- Wisewoman, 15:56:50 10/10/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> Which post was it? -- Wisewoman, 15:59:40 10/10/02 Thu

And...wouldn't you like to archive the ATDoFirefly board? Hey, it might be finished in a week or two!

dub ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which post was it? -- d'Herblay, 17:06:19 10/10/02 Thu

"Does genre matter?" posted 20:35:12 09/23/02 Mon. I viewed the source, and poor Darby (who never thought he'd be debugged so publicly) has "the X-Men." where he should have "the X-Men.". (Very common, very human mistake to make. I don't know if anyone noticed yesterday, but I was playing around with the layout with our header, and I decided to make "Talk 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel' at ATPoBtVS&AtS!" more eye-catching. So I surrounded it with a [ . . . ] ; however, I forgot to put that closing quote around +1, and for about thirty seconds yesterday the entire board was in gigantic letters. Oops. Of course, I could fix that before too many people noticed. Darby lacks that freedom.)

As for your, um, not particularly grovelly request, I might be more inclined to do it the sooner the show is cancelled. Wouldn't want to make a lifelong commitment, you know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, that's what I meant... -- dub, 19:18:57 10/10/02 Thu

That the show might be finished in a week or two, not the archives! Sorry, it wasn't clear even to me when I went back and read it.

If it does crash really quickly maybe we could just make ATDoF part of the atpo archives?

Anyway, thanks for the reference, I'll go and try to close Darby's code.

;o) dub

[> [> [> [> [> [> Found it, but... -- dub, 19:26:02 10/10/02 Thu

I now realize that as the moderator I can't seem to actually change anything in someone's message, just unapprove or delete it. Doh!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't that a pain? -- d'Herblay, 21:24:35 10/10/02 Thu

Editing people's posts -- now that would be power! "There is no good punctuation or evil punctuation; there is only . . . it's its, people!!" Oh, well. The dropped tag would be a problem only should you change the board setting from "Compact" to "Verbose" (as you will should you archive in the way Masq does). As it stands now, the infinite italics are constrained to that post. No biggee.

My answer regarding archiving was based on the supposition that should FOX cancel Firefly, ATDoFirefly would quietly wither away. Perhaps I am being pessimistic.

[> [> [> [> My line breaks? Huh?? Wha?? Please explain, d'Herb. -- OnM, 20:07:27 10/10/02 Thu

And here I am, he who painstakingly works to avoid HTML screwups and you're saying I am doing something bad with apparent regularity?

I wasn't aware of this, so please explain the problem so I can stop doing it.

Thanks!

BTW, a tip for any of those who do longer posts and use HTML tags for formatting:

Once I get past a page or two, I find it extremely difficult to keep track of all closing tags. Since I use a word processor to compose nearly all my stuff and then paste it into the message box, I use the WP's 'search and replace' function to insert the tags.

For example, I use a lot of italics, so instead of typing the i's and /i's within the angle brackets, I do an *1 for opening tag and an *2 for closing tag, simply typing them in as I go. When everything else is done, I do the S&R and all the tags neatly appear in an eyeblink, and very rarely with any missed ones.

I'm sure many of you have figured this trick out already, but if it helps anyone else, I just wanna pass it on.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My line breaks? Huh?? Wha?? Please explain, d'Herb. -- d'Herblay, 21:51:35 10/10/02 Thu

You're not doing something bad; you're doing something idiosyncratic (or you were before redcat and shadowkat showed up, so you're in good company -- uh oh, Boke did it too). I'm with John Stuart Mill; I don't hold to the notion that idiosyncracies are bad. However, a certain combination of Masq's technique for downloading the archives and my tendency to perfectionism meant that this particular idiosyncracy created a bit of a backache back in the day. Explaining why will create a bit of a headache, so please accept my statement that it's not a problem anymore, so don't worry about it!

[> [> [> [> [> [> See, actually, I thought it was *me* you were aiming at... -- OnM, 07:20:09 10/11/02 Fri

...with the its/it's comment in your original post, as I have been known to 'occasionally' (yeah, uh-huh...) grammatically misbehave in that regard.

Careful readers of my recent work will note that I am now rarely making this error, although I have had some difficulty getting my brain rewired to allow for this. It still seems somehow 'natural' to think of 'it's' as a possessive, since the apostrophe is used elsewhere with other words in this manner. Oh, well.

Perhaps this is why the Knights Who Say Ni!! fear this particular confluence of characters!

;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Technical, involved (self-involved; see Caroline's dictum) discussion of line breaks and archiving -- d'Herblay, 19:06:06 10/11/02 Fri

I really don't know that I have the vocabulary to explain this in a succinct manner, but I will try anyway. It might be easiest for me if I brought in some visual aids. First look (not read, just look) at this post by Rob. Notice how the lines start at one side of the page, work their way all the way across to the other, and then start again a line below. Now do something strange for me: change the text size in your browser. (In IE, click on View, go down to Text Size.) Notice how the word each line ends on changes. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary here, right? Ok, now look at this review of Red. Notice how the lines start at one side of the page, but only get part of the way across before starting a new line. Now try various text sizes. Notice how the word each line ends on stays the same. This is different -- not wrong, just different.

To understand this difference we need to understand something of how Voy works. Whenever we type out a message, we are in fact (whether we realize it or not) writing HTML. Plain, unadorned HTML. The Voy machinery just imports what you type into some framing brackets and voila! instant web page! There is, however, one minor change Voy must make in your input: it must insert line breaks. (Ok, now I have to define a term. When you hit return or enter on your keyboard while typing out a post, you produce a line break. I hope Sophist won't take it as a sign that I'm going gray if I say it's a synonym for carriage returns. In Microsoft Word, should you be inclined to reveal codes, line breaks will be represented with a ¶. They're what end paragraphs. I use the term line breaks because the HTML equivalent is , so "break" just sticks in my mind.) A normal line break is unrecognized in HTML; you can hit return all you want while coding or just let your lines all run together and it will have no effect on the look of your web page. Therefore, to preserve your paragraph structure, Voy adds a whenever you hit return.

Now due to some strange conjunction of word processors, operating systems, browsers and luck, some posts that are composed in word processors and then pasted into Voy get carriage returns stuck at not only the end of each paragraph, but also at the end of each line. (Much as if they were composed on typewriters.) This is why the CMotW I linked to above had lines that ended before they reached the right side of the page: there was a encoded at the end of each line. Not all browser/word processor/operating system combinations do this; most do not. In fact the only prominent posters who have consistently had these extra line breaks inserted in their posts have been OnM, redcat and (not that I am suggesting moral equivalency) Boke (the extra line breaks also showed up in a couple of excellent stories by matching mole). shadowkat's posts sometimes have these extra line breaks and sometimes have not, showing no consistency even within the same post. (Notice, in her reply to me below, how the first paragraph has a line break only at the end, but the second has three line breaks: the first in the middle of a sentence, the second after the end of a sentence, and the third at the end of the paragraph. On the other hand, if you scroll down below Rob's thread on the archive page I linked to above, you'll find an essay that I assume shadowkat pasted in from a word processor. That essay has none of these extra line breaks. Ok, maybe one.)

This is, to the casual reader, an amusing idiosyncrasy. To understand why it used to be such a button of mine you have to know how we used to construct the archives here in ATPoLand. Back in the day, Masq would change the setting here from "Compact" to "Verbose," copy the full text of each page, and then paste it into her word processor. This would remove all formatting from the posts: all italics would be converted to roman type, all bold would cease to stand out, embedded links would just disappear, certain characters would be changed to strange stand-ins. It also produced text that, if we did not want the archives to be a solid block of text, required us to go back and insert tags at the end of paragraphs. Now, the more technical savvy of you might be saying "Global find and replace" at this point, but an idiosyncrasy of Masq's word processor was that it too would insert a carriage return at the end of each line. So one could not simply replace all the carriage returns with tags and achieve the desired formatting. Masq's solution to this problem was based on the fact that most posters leave a blank line between paragraphs; she would do a global search replacing each occurrence of two straight line breaks with two tags. I, however, noticed that not every poster leaves a blank line between paragraphs, and that some posters have other reasons to hit return: replicating lines of dialogue, making lists, listing the cast of a Classic Movie of the Week, for example. I have a small streak of perfectionism, and I wanted to preserve as much as possible the poster's intent, so Masq's solution could not be mine.

What I did, instead, was to find each occurrence of a line break, and then make a snap judgment of whether or not to take it out or leave it. This required a flurry of finger-tapping, and occasionally I'd just royally screw something up and have to retrace my steps to fix it. This is not to mention that my computer had a tendency to crash, making me have to go redo all my work. I'd say that removing the extra line breaks from each of the files Masq sent took no less than an hour and a half and perhaps as much as three hours. There are about 16 files that go into each month's archive, so, as you can imagine, this got to be pretty back-ache causing labor. (Now I work with the raw HTML, don't do a damn thing about extraneous line breaks, and can finish an archive page in about fifteen minutes.)

But why would OnM in particular have such button pushing line breaks? (My switch to HTML-based, line-break-removing-free archiving concurred more or less with redcat's and shadowkat's arrivals on the board. Draw your own conclusions.) Well, the word processor that Masq used had a shorter line length than that of OnM's word processor. So each line of OnM's review would have the line break inserted by Masq's machine, followed by a few words, followed by the line break inserted by OnM's machine. It looked something like this:

But there is no God, you say. Humans, like all other animals, are products ¶
of a long and convoluted ¶
evolutionary process that determines the outcome of events by how suitable ¶
they are for the survival of our ¶
descendants, and nothing more. It has therefore suited the process of ¶
natural selection that we be capable ¶
of sexual relations not just once or twice a year, or even once every few ¶
months, but 24/7/365. This ¶
selection process has required this because... because...¶

(From, by the way, OnM's review of Sid and Nancy.) Twice the work. Throw in a lot of quote attributions, song lyrics, cast listings, and other varied patterns of line breaks, and you can tell that OnM's reviews were really making me think, just not in the way he intended, and not at a time when contemplation was beneficial to my goal. (One anecdote I have is that just as I embellished upon Masq's system to give myself more work, when I taught zargon how to do the archives, she embellished upon my system to give herself more work. zarg kept master lists of what threads she had or had not removed extraneous line breaks from; she had three categories: "undone," "done" and "OnM.")

Anyway, we no longer archive that way; the original carriage returns of the author are retained for the edification of future generations. As these line breaks are no longer a problem, I suggest that you not try to "correct" them. It would just be more work for you, and I can attest to the intensity of the labor required. In any case, now that I have some distance, I think they add some class to the board, though I may be saying that just because they are associated with such classy posters. I will admit that when redcat first showed up, I said, "Great posts, but I can't get beyond the line breaks." That my involvement in the technical aspects of the board has caused me to see some aspects of the board based on their technical aspects rather than their actual content is my burden, not that of anyone else. I am sorry that in trying to lay some of it down, I seemed to be coming down hard on others.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 19:54:15 10/11/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO!! Now I finally understand those irritating line breaks -- shadowkat, 21:11:47 10/11/02 Fri

I've been wrestling with the line breaks forever. I think I know why they occur on the ones that I write on the voy blocks and not always with the ones I cut and paste. Simple - in my essays - I reformat after sending, fixing the problems and I also have figured out how to cut and past without problems - word seems to tranfer it well. But when I write a post like this one, have no control over it and hence the funky line breaks unless I go back and correct.

Thanks for the compliment by the way. And the explanation. Did you know that ATP is one of the few discussion boards that keeps archives? B C & S doesn't - let's them go to the computer wasteland in the sky. I think Bronze Beta does. BigBadboard transfers stuff to an essay site, but dumps the rest. It's actually quite fascinating which one's make the effort to archive. At any rate I can appreciate that being a button of yours. It's been my button for some time - I find line breaks including my own to be distracting to read on the board. You would not believe the amount of time I've spent fixing spaces on some essays in word only to post the dang thing and have no spacing appear. LOL! ugh. Voy demons.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: d'Herblay's discussion of line breaks and archiving -- redcat, 17:21:17 10/12/02 Sat

Well, d'Herblay, since you've mentioned my name six times in this sub-thread in connection with either technical posting issues or subjects that push your buttons, I've considered whether I owe you an apology for being such an egregious thorn in your side. Upon reflection, however, what I really want to do is thank you for what must have been hundreds of hours of unpaid labor in service to this board's posting community. I certainly never realized how much time and effort you've put into creating and maintaining the archives. Since my introduction to the board was initially through that extraordinary resource, I am especially grateful for your careful and thoughtful efforts. Although I suspect that there are many others on this board who join me in offering you gratitude, I hereby send you my resounding "THANKS!!" and my assurance that you won't be having any more problems getting beyond the line breaks in my posts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey RC, it's good to hear from you. Hint. -- Sophist, 17:37:50 10/12/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awwwww . . . thank YOU! -- d'Herblay, 17:40:56 10/12/02 Sat

Since I never once removed a line break from any of your posts, it's probably unfair to have mentioned you so often!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, speaking of hundreds of hours . . . -- d'Herblay, 17:45:50 10/12/02 Sat

. . . zargon deserves big, big thanks as well -- I just sent her half a megabyte of archives today. zargon has spent as much time (if not more) archiving as I have, but because she maintains a much lower presence on the board (i.e., she doesn't relentlessly remind everyone of what she's done), she never gets the credit that I do.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Resounding note of thanks to zargon, D'Herblay and all board archivists and Masq of course -- shadowkat, 19:12:48 10/12/02 Sat

For putting up with our skirmishes, our typos, our line-breaks, our computer errors, our complaints about the board being down and of course spoilers and trolls.

Thank you for maintaining what I humbly consider one of the best online discussion boards. Thank you. SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Resoundingly seconding that! Four Cheers! -- OnM, 09:49:34 10/13/02 Sun

Or was it five? Whatever, lots of them, in tribute to our noble Archive ~~Geeks~~ Warriors!

:-)

(Now exiting the board to return to working on this week's review/essay, naughty unintentional carriage returns and all.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> make that five! -- anom (not really from pylea), 22:10:10 10/13/02 Sun

Brave archivists! Brave archivists! Brave archivists! Brave archivists! Brave archivists!

(whew...good ol' cut & paste!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Wait...uhm..I don't remember using html? -- shadowkat, 11:48:39 10/11/02 Fri

I don't use Italics or bold because unlike OM and the other computer savy people on the board, I can't frigging figure it out! I tried, really, but it just doesn't compute. (in my brain not in the machine.) It's hard enough just formatting this stuff and posting it.

Or wait are you upset about long posts?? if so my humble
apologies d'Herblay. I know I have posted some of the longest posts on the board. Thank you for indulging them.
There won't be that many this year...I sort of burned myself out on them. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Long posts? Never, ever a problem! -- Rahael, 14:31:02 10/11/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> See above for an explanation . . . -- d'Herblay, 19:20:01 10/11/02 Fri

I certainly have nothing against long posts -- used to write them myself. And, if you'll see above, you'll see that sometimes one pops out.

[> [> [> [> Re: The nuclear button (2) -- Caroline, 07:27:33 10/11/02 Fri

I prefer that you like me rather than agree with me - far more interesting that way! How boring if we all agreed with each other. I just accept that we're all going to piss each other off one way or another - what's so good about this board is that we can disagree with each other, avoid ad hominen attacks and still be friends in the end.

But, I'm not a Campbell devotee nor will ever be.

[> [> [> [> Re: The nuclear button -- shadowkat, 08:09:19 10/11/02 Fri

"When you come down to it, my biggest button is my recurring realization that by having such easily pushed buttons, I contribute to the button pushing of others. "

Me too. Sometimes I think it's easier to stay silent but I can't help myself. Do they have a board posters anynomous club??

"Anyway, I joked to Rah last night that instead of listing our buttons, we should just come out and list the posters we found most annoying"

Oooh and how many buttons would we push then? I can just see it now. LOL! The lurkers would be terried to post.
The longtime posters would go into rant mode. The board would crash....talk about your nuclear buttons.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- LadyStarlight, 17:50:36 10/08/02 Tue

Just off the top of my head:

BtVS? Isn't that a teen show?

Buffy was justified in treating Spike the way she did, because, evil vampire. (note: not that Spike is/was nice, or good, but that she was justified in using him)

Season 6 sucked. And the reason for the suckage was that Marti/Doug/whoever was polluting Joss's vision for the show.

This may be my own personal button, but here goes. A friend, on finding out I was dipping my toe in the fanfiction pool said, "that's great, but when will you do some real writing?" Insert strangled reply here.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? The Seven Comandments for the annoying. -- CW, 18:54:42 10/08/02 Tue

1. Thou shalt drool over Spike at all times.

2. Thou shalt ooh and ah over 'Dawny' at all times.

3. Thou shalt always take the side of the women in the show in every controversy, or conversely thou shalt always take the side of the men.

4. Thou shalt assume everything in the show was written specifically to symbolize thine personal religion, philosophical bent, brand of atheism, or indifference to the above.

5. Thou shalt try hard not to see the other person's point of view. (I'm too often guilty of following this commandment.)

6. Thou shalt forget it's just a TV show. (Fortunately, we don't have much of that here.)

7. Thou shalt write many inane posts and replies, and finish each of them off by typing boke.com.

[> [> <snerk> -- Rufus, 20:35:48 10/08/02 Tue

boke.com.....LOL

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- darrenK, 20:06:35 10/08/02 Tue

1. The scapegoating of Marti Noxon and the assumption that Joss has left her to plot the show alone. [Joss and the other writers must be spending a lot of time boozing]

2. The assumption of Joss's perfection that goes along with number 1. [He screws up sometimes. It keeps him interesting]

3. The dismissal of Marti Noxon's contributions to BtVS that goes along with number 1. [The Wish rocks. So does Wild at Heart]

4. But David Fury says...
[Helpless doesn't. Neither does Primeval]

5. Everyone knows that magic doesn't work like...
[Please ye many wizards, witches and warlocks, toad me now]

6. Tara and the Homophobia thing. [Can't we let the writers tell their story?]

7. Buffy/Angel forever. Buffy/Spike forever. Buffy/Riley forever...

8. Marti Noxon said in the interview that she--like many people, male and female-- had "bad relationships " when she was in her twenties and that the writers wanted to give that confusing type of experience to Buffy. Somehow this has been twisted on the internet into "Season 6 is Marti telling the story of her life." Weird.

[> [> One more... -- darrenK, 08:46:37 10/09/02 Wed

9. Spike has become so completely the people's hero that they've forgotten that the people are/were Spike's menu.

[> [> About number 8 -- Tamara, 18:18:55 10/11/02 Fri

It wasn't the viewers who said that. James Marsters said Marti was writing the season based on her life. He made a big thing about how brave she was being putting her life experiences on screen. People didnt just make that up.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Rahael, 03:33:35 10/09/02 Wed

Sentimentality, (not the bittersweet, but the gooey) applied to BtVS, and any other serious life issue. I never reply directly. But the irritation tends to creep into my other posts.

Joseph Campbell as Joss' guiding star. Last time Joss commented, he said he hadn't read anything by Campbell! Though I don't really get hot under the collar. I just enjoy teasing the Campbellites.

The view that liking or disliking any particular season/plot point/theme says something about your intellect. Taste is subjective.

I get puzzled by the vehemenance and strength of opinion that Spike arouses.

The trolls. Those clever manipulative swines! Will I ever become a mellow laid back person? Nope.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- dream of the consortium, 06:32:01 10/09/02 Wed

If you haven't read *insert personal obsession here*, you'll never understand the show. Also, all aspects of the show need to be read through the *insert personal obsession here* filter.

Unwillingness to question at all the things writers say in interviews. Why not consider that, just maybe, they might be messing with people's heads? I sure would, if I were them. Cause it's fun.

"I've had a personal experience with this sort of thing and therefore my opinion is completly inviolate, and yours has no merit."

Suchandsuch character can do not wrong and suchandsuch character can do no good. Boring.

As a former goody-goody nerd, I tend to bristle when people deny Willow what I see as her right to be evil. There is evil in her I say - EVIL! EVIL! Because it sucks to be old reliable!

The assumption that romantic relationship is the ultimate point of all human interaction. It isn't, you know.

If you don't watch Angel, you'll never really get Buffy. What if I just don't LIKE Angel? Doesn't Buffy provide enough on its own merits?

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Caroline, 14:16:48 10/15/02 Tue

"The assumption that romantic relationship is the ultimate point of all human interaction. It isn't, you know."

I agree but would like to hear your views on what the ultimate point of all human interaction is.

[> Re: Buttons. Vague 7.3 spoiler -- ponygirl, 06:38:09 10/09/02 Wed

Two episodes without almost made me forget, almost made me feel safe, but last night there it was again : "it's a thing" and even more horrifying, "I get that", the two overused phrases that were the only blot on s6 for me. Well, now I have someone to blame, Jane E get this! (insert annoying but not overly offensive hand gesture here)

[> [> I get that -- Cleanthes, 08:03:22 10/11/02 Fri

Damn, I'm all pompous stoic ass but now I realize that I am, indeed, tired of the expression "I get that".

Oh, and, of course, I'm tired of all this Campbell stuff when, of course, everything on the show is an explication of Plato as filtered thru (or should I type through - is that anyone's button?) Kierkegaard.

Oh, and boy am I tired of my own comments. I especially dislike my need to elide the last two or three paragraphs of any post I make because I always drift off into what I think is the numinous observational point of view but what is in fact some symptom of deep, almost chthonic misapperception.

So, off to chastise some passions. I should have cut these last three paragraphs.

[> [> [> Re: I get that -- aliera, 12:43:02 10/12/02 Sat

Ummm good...but, where is all this current Campbell people keep referring to?

[> [> [> [> Re: I get that -- Cleanthes, 14:59:22 10/12/02 Sat

Ummm good...but, where is all this current Campbell people keep referring to?

Hey, I get that!

I knew I needed to cut those last three paragraphs! You're right, we've had too little Campbell discussion lo, these last many months. Besides, an ironic read of Plato allows for reconciliation, sorta, with Campbell and Buffy/Dawn do heroically stride thru (or through) the story and the fabula and the epic.

We USED to discuss Campbell a lot on this board, tho. (though)

The only thing that really presses my buttons is other people complaining about this or that pet peeve anyways.

This paragraph is just filler because I've already said my last three paragraphs are normally elided and if you think I have neglected to do that, you'll mentally subtract the whole message unless I stick in a padding paragraph.

[> [> [> [> [> I get that -- aliera, 19:40:28 10/12/02 Sat

But only if read ironicamente...(thankfully I found the Webster's a trifle dog-eared; but none-the-less, we perserveri)...and just so you're aware, I try never to think here... too much of that on the more philosophically-oriented boards. This is divertimento, except for the dearth of Campbell-based posts, naturalmente.

--aliera, nessun si preoccupa, esso google giusto...sans...ne, senza elegies poetic dei filetti.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Molto Buon -- Cleanthes, 11:40:19 10/13/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> grazie...che e restituito quattro volte tanto. -- aliera, 17:59:41 10/14/02 Mon

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Ete, 12:00:52 10/09/02 Wed

Character bashing, of any kind

Author bashing, of any kind

whinning about characters who supposedly whines

Not getting my episode downloaded in time to talk about it here ^_^

Pretty much all.

[> Buttons? You want buttons? -- HonorH, 13:08:50 10/09/02 Wed

1. Dawn is whiny (she is not, and never was, particularly whiny).

2. Spike is perfect; all hail the Spike.

3. Buffy's a bitch.

4. Marti Noxon should burn in Hell.

5. S6 was pure evil.

6. If an episode wasn't perfect according to my standards, no one should like it.

7. If I liked an ep, no one should criticize it. (Do what I do--don't read posts that sport an opposing pov in their subject line. I mean, really!)

8. If a character doesn't behave exactly the way I want her to, he's a bastard.

9. Why should I try to see anything from that character's pov? I don't even like her!

10. Predicted plot twist will suck, even though I haven't seen it yet and it's not even certain it'll happen, TPTB should be bashed just for letting the possibility arise.

[> [> I did, but if you're mad -- I apologize -- Earl Allison, 14:45:12 10/09/02 Wed

[> [> [> Not mad here, don't worry. -- HonorH, 19:17:21 10/09/02 Wed

Just airing my hot buttons is all.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- shadowkat, 17:51:51 10/09/02 Wed

"What subjects, views, or characters involved in BtVS are YOUR buttons? What makes you feel the need to reply, or gets you hot under the collar?"

1. Anti-character posts. Especially anti-Spike posts.
ugh. But any anti-character post or post bashing the character gets me to want to throw things. If it's a good one, with solid arguments? I'll end up writing an essay to address it.

2. Bashing posters. Bashing the shows I love.

3. Trolls

4. Remarks that tell me I'm stupid, or a bad scholar, etc.(somewhat vulnerable right now, work is making me feel like an idiot - so can't handle it elsewhere.)

5. Ships

and finally?

When I can't get on the board to read or post - like today!!
ARRRGH! That's the worst. Today I spent time on a board that basically pushed all of the above buttons in day.

What I love? The discussion. Debate. And intellectual stimulation. This board is at times an oasis in a wasteland.

Now you probably wish you hadn't asked? Right?

My way of dealing with negative buttons? Take a deep breath, write a killer essay or just ignore it. If a poster makes numerous Anti-Spike posts for example to the extent I know the poster hates spike with a passion - I just avoid their posts. Same with Buffy. I love the characters. I don't want to dislike them or feel angry.

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- TeacherBoy, 21:49:51 10/09/02 Wed

SK, just a quick ditto for your last paragraph. I have been a long time lurker, and a very infrequent poster (it's a time thing). I deal with all anti-posts the same way, be they Buffy, Spike or anyone else. And don't worry, no one here thinks you're stupid or a bad scholar (especially after reading your analysis of last night's ep - outstanding).

TeacherBoy

[> [> No, glad I asked :) -- Earl Allison, 04:34:39 10/10/02 Thu

Here's a question -- when does the post go from opinion with potential backup to an out-and-out bashfest?

I ask more for my own peace of mind -- I try to be good, but I am only human :)

Take it and run.

[> [> [> Good question! -- Rahael, 05:17:30 10/10/02 Thu

The point of this thread surely is that one person's button is another person's bow!

I have to admit to secretly rather enjoying provocative, strongly opinionated posts, with a definite thesis, and strong back up. Even when it arouses strong disagreement within me.

Also, though I've declared Joseph Campbell as one of my buttons, I also enjoy the fact that most of the people here have a completely different perspective/prism with which to view the show. I don't read comics. I hadn't even heard of Campbell before I came online. However, I know, at least with comics, that the writers use them a lot for the show. So I do like reading posts which point out a whole different subculture that BtVS draws upon.

In fact, I'm feeling a whole new mood of Spike tolerance as opposed to last season's Spike scepticism. I also think that I've become more innured to character bashing than I was before. Because there are very few people who don't hold an opinion of a character that others disagree with. I'm sure people think I bash Spike and Willow just as much as I think others bash Buffy or Marti Noxon.

Anyway, last night, reading through everyone's buttons, I realised that nearly anyone who posted might end up annoying someone or other!

Rahael, who is feeling suspiciously calm, content, happy unneurotic. It's most unexpected. I don't think I've ever felt this happy in my life! Is this a portent for an apocalypse or something?

[> [> [> [> yes good question and good response -- shadowkat, 06:30:05 10/10/02 Thu

"Anyway, last night, reading through everyone's buttons, I realised that nearly anyone who posted might end up annoying someone or other!"

Had exactly the same response. I realized that I've probably pushed more than a few buttons as others have pushed mine.

So when does it turn into a bash fest? I think it does when we stop listening to each other and start just ranting.
It's hard to realize that everyone comes at the show from a different perspective and it may not be yours, mine or ours.
(HEck if we believe the ratings, the majority of people don't watch BTvs they prefer Gilmore Girls or the latest situation comedy or Seventh Heaven. Us cult tv watchers are a breed a part to start with.)

For instance, I watch this show because of the risks the writers continue to take, the layered metaphors, the complex characters that seem to change and evolve more each year, and endless ability to analyze it. My analytical brain is being underutilized right now so I'm using posting boards such as this one to keep it active.

I also tend to favor characters that are either close to my personality or I just can't figure out and intrique me.
Spike falls into the latter category. I have no clue where the writers are going with this guy. The possibilities are truly endless. And as time goes on, i find myself beginning to identify with him on a personal level, something I would never have imagined two years ago. They have surprised me with what they've done with the character. I'm usually good at predicting character arcs, his came totally from left field, yet when I track back makes perfect sense.

Now if someone saw what I just said above and posted a snarky comment in response: "Of course it came from left field, because it makes no sense. Spike is evil. Will always be evil. You just like his cheekbones." I'd want to bash the poster over the head with a bat. That is what I consider an out of line comment. And insulting.

Another one - this to my above post on POV which was made on another board (B C & S):"Well maybe you're wearing rose colored glasses. And don't post enough. And you should post more so you can see others pov's because yours is obviously off. And be spoiled. It would make your posts better."
Instead of posting an arguement challenging what I stated with points backing themselves up. They resorted to name calling and kindergarten crankiness.

That I think is when it becomes a bashfest. When we stop trying to back up our arguements with well thought out analysis. There are posters here who don't like Spike but write amazing analysis pointing out where they are coming from. Malandaza has written some of the best posts on this.
On the DoT - Mal did an amazing Jonathan Swift take on it.
That is well thought out debating. Or Sophist and Mal's debate on Xander - using text from the show and literature to back themselves up. Or the debate on depression between Rah, yuri, Ixchel, Tillow...or the debate on Weseley between yabyaham, Tillow, Rufus, etc. That's an example of honest discussion of a character. Some of those posts may push my buttons but they make me think at the same time, make me ask myself why I like a character or pov and challenge me to reconsider things.

When we get to name calling or posts where someone says: Spike is rapist! Spike is an evil beast! or Spike is not insightful, how can you say that such a tactless, opportunistic character is insightful? Or even is a truthsayer? He's evil vampire and should be staked. (I begin to wonder what the heck I'm doing on online writing essays and such and the overall sanity of these people, including myself. Am I discussing the show with 5 year olds?) It is after all just a tv show with fictional characters...there's no need to get vicious about it.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: yes good question and good response -- aliera, 18:40:37 10/10/02 Thu

subjective, of course, as are buttons bashing baubles and bows, etal, although I very much liked both your and Rah's response and I also very much enjoy that people (Earl that's you) are concerned about the Question, another reaffirmation... and of course *I* like his cheekbones but admit to the Evil!!! Where's the charcoal? Very aesthically nutritious... annoyed yet? Just teasing...he's unusual, and attractiveness is at least several parts charisma and presence and at least for me *mind* over matter...as are the posts, inviting presentation can sometimes disable turn OFF distract from inable buttons...

"Wasteland" was at the beginning... then came "Hollow Men", very popular this season LOL and then came "Ash Wednesday" which I gather was a reaffirmation? Haven't had the op to glom it out yet.

Spike

Let me be no nearer
in death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
there, the eyes are
Sunlight , on a broken column
There,a tree is swinging
And voices are
In the Winds singing
More distant and more solmen
Than a fading star

Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises

This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

Life is very long

Between the desire
and the spasm
Between the potency
and the existence
Between the essence
and the descent

Falls the Shadow

Objective correllation, indeed, if you please!

---aliera gliding button-free tonight LOL yet again

[> [> [> [> [> using abbreviations without explaining them! (uh, what's the DoT?) -- anom, 22:16:58 10/10/02 Thu

No, not the Dept. of Transportation, but that's the DoT I'm most familiar with. Actually, as I was looking for Shadowkat's post again, it came to me: the Death of Tara (right?). Still, it was pretty obscure, & I'd rather have stuff like this spelled out than have to figure it out.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: using abbreviations without explaining them! (uh, what's the DoT?) -- shadowkat, 08:14:48 10/11/02 Fri

Well have to admit not fond of abbrev myself, but they do save typing time and it is safe to assume it's Death of Tara and not Department of Transportation considering we're on Buffy fan board.

See you just pushed my button? (which I didn't list - the nitpicky grammar/spelling police button.)

I think D'Herblay is right - by mentioning buttons we inadvertently press buttons. We seem to be a highly violatile bunch...it's amazing we haven't all spontaneously combusted from watching Buffy or posting on the board by now. LOL!

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Caroline, 10:31:47 10/11/02 Fri

Shadowkat, I hope that you don't misinterpret correction of facts or disagreement with a premise you make being called stupid. I know that on several occaisons I have done this and I hope you don't think that I was disrespectful or calling your stupid. We all make mistakes. Given the TTMQ of the board inhabitants (I'm surprised that we don't all list to the left considering how much we over-analyse - homage to Bloom County and Oliver Wendell Jones), it challenges all of us to really be on our toes about the stuff we do contribute. I'm grateful to the people who correct me and disagree with me - was it Whitman who said that we learnt most from those 'who dispute the passage with us'? I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me!

[> [> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- shadowkat, 10:59:02 10/11/02 Fri

"Shadowkat, I hope that you don't misinterpret correction of facts or disagreement with a premise you make being called stupid. I know that on several occaisons I have done this and I hope you don't think that I was disrespectful or calling your stupid. We all make mistakes."

No. And thank you. I think again D'H said it best to Rufus above, that we end up pushing buttons with our buttons.
Or misintepreting what is said. I have a tendency to misintepret or overreact to stuff, due to quick scanning
when what I should do is print it off and think it through.

Due to personal/work related issues, I've been a bit over-sensistive to criticism of late. This should change at the end of Oct, when I hopefully finally leave my current somewhat pyschologically toxic work environment and deal with the less emotionally wrenching world of full time job hunting. (LOL! In a million years I never thought I'd call job hunting less emotionally wrenching...) At any rate, hopefully this will change a little bit of my tendency to be knee-jerky.

You're corrections actually were very informative and appreciated.

By the by...I'm sure I've pushed yours and others buttons on this board, and apologize for that as well. ;-)

[> [> [> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Caroline, 13:12:58 10/11/02 Fri

You have a tremendous amount of energy and imagination and obviously a great deal of interest in the buffyverse - perhaps you could find work in a buffy-related field? Maybe write reviews etc? Your thought are certainly better than many of the online reviews I read. May as well make some money from what you love...

Maybe I should loan you my mantra (one of them) - 'most people are too self-involved to really notice that what they say can be offensive'. It keeps my knee-jerking to a minimum.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Rufus, 03:09:05 10/10/02 Thu

Hmmmmm let me start off with....

Buffy is a bitch for not being nice or sleeping with Spike/Angel/Xander/?

Trolls

Xander is a bitch for not being nice to Spike.

Spike is perfect. (If he were he would never have let Dru put the bite on him.)

Season six sucked......I don't say people had to like it.

Fed up with the Tara conspiracy theories.

Bashing of Marti.

Buffy is a slut because she slept with Angel/Parker/Spike/Riley.

Riley haters.

[> Only a few, and pretty common ones... -- OnM, 20:59:19 10/10/02 Thu

...judging by what many of the others here have mentioned.

1. Character bashing. By this, I do not mean reasoned statements challenging an action, statement or behavior by a character in the show-- that's one of the things I come here for-- to read opinions that challenge me to think about things differently. It is not any sort of challenge to read 'Buffy is such a bitch!' followed by three or four paragraphs of pathethic whininess, except perhaps to my physical tolerance for large amounts of analgesics.

2. Writer/actor/other creative crew bashing. See number 1, and also number 3.

3. Humorless behavior and/or unreasonable expectations. I love the show, but I don't think it's perfect. Nor do I care if it isn't perfect, because I never expect it to be. Do the writers and other people screw up sometimes? Of course, so what? Overall they do a damn fine job, and I prefer to concentrate on the positive rather than overly dwell on the negative. This doesn't mean letting mistakes go unnoticed, particularly if they are 'serious'-- it means not being meanspirited about it.

4. Confusion of fantasy and reality. Assuming the actors are like the people they play. Invading their privacy. Insulting them because someone didn't like the way the story went.

5. Unwillingness to accept new characters when they are introduced, usually because it stands to upset some comfortable 'familiarity' with the current status quo, and often involving upsetting a 'ship of some kind.

6. Shippi-ness in general. I can usually tell when it's the I-know-this-is-a-fantasy-but-it's-fun thing (OK, often funny or insightful) from the pathologically disconnected from reality thing (downright scary sometimes).

That's mostly it. I suppose they're all sort of related in a way.

I took it and ran, just not too far, Earl. S'OK?

;-)

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- silver buttons, 21:20:02 10/10/02 Thu

I'm British, and I left home at 17, so my button is the way teenagers in the Verse are treated, and act like children. I am strangely irritated by 'Band Candy' - being a 'grown up' is boring, while being 17 is wild reckless activity for everyone.
Also (foam starting to build) the whole of S3 with its pampered and over-protected 18-year-olds semmed faintly ludicrous.
Perhaps it's the age of consent here for drinking and sex being younger, but it comes to a head wiht Dawn. Is she fifteen or five? Buffy is shocked she might drink coffee, and she herself sits alone and hungry all night in the kitchen. Is she not allowed to start the microwave on her own?
Etc etc, more of this only written better

[> [> Hmm...agree to a certain extent.... -- dream of the consortium, 13:44:37 10/11/02 Fri

concerning the coddling of Dawn last season, and have to agree that the number of British teenagers that I have met seemed more mature on average than American teenagers, but two points...

1) Teenagers mature at astonishingly different rates. I've known emancipated minors who supported themselves at the age of sixteen. I've also known fifteen-year-olds who still occasionally play with dolls. (I myself did not taste beer or coffee until I was well over eighteen, though I am probably an anomaly.)

More importantly,
2) Band Candy. I actually thought the point was about the Boomer generation and their love affair with youth and drugs, rather than an actual representation of teenagr behavior. Is it Willow who says, "We don't act like this." There is an interesting essay about generations gaps in Slayage you might check out that makes this argument more fully. I think there's a link on the links page.

[> [> [> Or -- vh, 06:45:15 10/14/02 Mon

1) OT -- that's interesting! When my parents had beer with spaghetti, they gave my sister and me one or two teaspoons of it each in little tiny glasses so that we needn't be curious about it. Neither of us went out and got drunk as teens, either -- that I know of, anyway.

2) Re "Band Candy": I thought the candy-induced behavior reflected the parents' view of teenage behavior rather than actual teenage behavior.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Malandanza, 00:31:30 10/11/02 Fri

1. Zander (short for Zanderificus)

2. Buffy is a war criminal for killing vampires and demons. (corollary: Spike is a hero for killing vampires and demons)

3. Buffy should be a better friend to Willow

4. Spike is Gandhi/Jesus/Buddha (see Dead Things)

5. Sexual relations are always good no matter how abusive, one-sided or degrading. If you don't agree, then you're an uptight, puritanical prude.

6. Wouldn't it be cool if Dawn had sex with {insert inappropriate sex partner here}?

7. Harmony deserved it.

8. Well, in Fray/ Tales of the Slayer, they say...

9. That was out of character! {insert favorite character here} would never do that! {insert writer's name here} hates {insert favorite character}!

10. Warren is the most evil creature in the history of the Buffyverse.

But I like having my buttons pushed :)

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Etrangere, 06:07:00 10/11/02 Fri

>>4. Spike is Gandhi/Jesus/Buddha (see Dead Things)

Well, Jesus and Buddha, okay... but Gandhi ? Isn't there a slight temporal impossibility there ? :)

>>5. Sexual relations are always good no matter how abusive, one-sided or degrading. If you don't agree, then you're an uptight, puritanical prude.

I'm sure you have not yet understood the difference between consensual SM relationship and abusive relationships :)

>>6. Wouldn't it be cool if Dawn had sex with {insert inappropriate sex partner here}?
Mr. Gordo ?
Me ?
Clem ?
(ouch !)

>>7. Harmony deserved it.
That one really annoys me too.

>>8. Well, in Fray/ Tales of the Slayer, they say...
Oh come on ! There's lots of interresting stuff in those comics, really. Have you tried to read them at least ?

Ete who likes to push Mal's buttons

[> [> [> Is anyone else intrigued by the Ete/Dawn 'ship? -- d'Horrible, 06:28:59 10/11/02 Fri

Uh oh, approaching one of the classic buttons: heterosexual males treating lesbian relationships as fantasy fodder.

[> [> [> [> I can't blame them, I do read slash -- Ete, 10:03:40 10/11/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Malandanza, 11:18:20 10/11/02 Fri

"I'm sure you have not yet understood the difference between consensual SM relationship and abusive relationships :)"

It's not always about Spike. Willow having sex with Tara the very night she gave Oz his walking papers seems like rather suspicious timing to me. I don't think that sexual relationship began as a good thing -- yet, suggesting that W/T was less that perfect invites an attack. Similarly with Willow and Oz -- should she really have been playing around with Oz when she was thinking about Xander? (Even after Lovers Walk, after dedicating herself to Oz, Willow ends up crying in the bathroom when she discovers Xander had sex with Faith). And speaking of Xander, have his sexual relationships been perfect? What about Riley and Buffy? Should Riley have stayed involved with a woman he thought felt nothing for him? Should Riley have married Sam immediately afterwards? ME has not portrayed sex as perfect no matter what the circumstances and to suggest otherwise is as bad as saying that all sex is wrong.

As for Spuffy, it was the emotional abuse to which I objected. Neither of them could really hurt the other physically. The S&M relationships you have described have always seemed more like role-playing to me.

">>8. Well, in Fray/ Tales of the Slayer, they say...
Oh come on! There's lots of interesting stuff in those comics, really. Have you tried to read them at least?"

The problem is that I haven't read them -- so citing them to support an argument cuts off further debate. I have to rely upon my adversary's interpretation of these sources. It would be as if I referenced the current season of Angel to support my not-all-sex-is-good argument -- you haven't seen the latest episodes so would have to accept my interpretation of the scenes -- plus, you'd end up spoiled.

[> [> [> [> Where's my post ? I though I answered you ! Oh well, I just did. -- Ete, 11:54:57 10/12/02 Sat

Sorry, anyway I more or less agreed with you that no relationship are perfect in Buffy ('cause you know, perfect relationship doesn't happen much in life either) and that I think they want to portray sex has being something important and with consequences, plus they have to play with it because it's horror (see Innocence's commentary) but with a twist. :)

[> [> [> [> Citations of "Fray" or "Tales of the Slayer" (no spoilers) -- Robert, 13:27:26 10/12/02 Sat

>>> "The problem is that I haven't read them -- so citing them to support an argument cuts off further debate."

No, your unacquaintance of the supporting literature of shows is responsible for cutting off further debate.

>>> "I have to rely upon my adversary's interpretation of these sources. It would be as if I referenced the current season of Angel to support my not-all-sex-is-good argument -- you haven't seen the latest episodes so would have to accept my interpretation of the scenes -- plus, you'd end up spoiled."

There is a difference. Etrangere may not have a realistic opportunity to watch the latest episodes of AtS, while the first six issues of the "Fray" comic books and the "Tales of the Slayer" trade paperback book are easily available. Both of these resources were written by (or closely with) Joss Whedon, and he adds significantly to the background of the universe he created for BtVS and Ats.

When I cite these two sources, I attempt to include suitable extractions from them to make clear my points. Regardless, I could take your argument to ludicrous extremes, and claim that no news article or scientific paper should cite outside sources, lest I not know truth of them. It is my responsibility to check out the citations and determine their efficacy, especially if they are readily available.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Citations of "Fray" or "Tales of the Slayer" (spoilers and for Hitcher's Guide to the Galaxy) -- Malandanza, 13:42:08 10/13/02 Sun

Well reasoned Robert, but you're forgetting one thing: buttons don't have to be logical. For example, their is no reason why someone spelling out Zander rather than Xander should bother me -- I know exactly which character he refers to; yet, I find it annoying.

"No, your unacquaintance of the supporting literature of shows is responsible for cutting off further debate."

I once read a Star Trek: TNG novel. My feeling about it was that it was not so much supporting literature, but rather second rate, non-canonical fanfic mass produced to capitalize on the show's success. I tend to think of Tales of the Slayer in the same manner (although I could be mistaken since I haven't read any of the novels). As I have read more and more good literature, I have found that my appreciation for mediocre literature has declined proportionately -- which I sometimes wonder is a good thing, as this Mark Twain quote suggests:

"It is a gratification to me to know that I am ignorant of art, and ignorant also of surgery. Because people who understand art find nothing in pictures but blemishes, and surgeons and anatomists see no beautiful women in all their lives, but only a ghastly stack of bones with Latin names to them, and a network of nerves and muscles and tissues."

As for Fray, I find it annoying to have so many questions answered for me. Especially the origin of the slayer -- which had been one of my favorite things to argue about. Apparently, the Watcher/Shamans summoned up a demon and encased it in the flesh of a girl that they use for their own purposes. It sort of runs against the Buffy mission statement. Of course, the Watchers could be lying, deliberately or accidentally, but the origin of the slayer debate has changed from "where did the slayer come from?" to "are the watchers lying?" because of Fray. That the origin is told in flashback, helps verify its authenticity. Then the whole demons being banished suggests a likely conclusion to the current BtVS/Dawn-as-Key story arc, which I would also have preferred to be left open. It's like Vroomfondel and Majikthise from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job, aren't we? I mean, what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Citations of "Fray" or "Tales of the Slayer" (spoilers and for Hitcher's Guide to the Galaxy) -- Robert, 15:19:09 10/13/02 Sun

>>> "As for Fray, I find it annoying to have so many questions answered for me."

Okay, I can see that you would rather Fray not have been written. However, it was written and it was written by Joss Whedon. The stories in "Tales of the Slayer" TPB were written also by Joss and the other BtVS writers. It is for this reason and this reason ALONE that I consider them part of the BtVS story. It is therefore reasonable for some of the BtVS fans to read these stories and discuss them in the course of discussing the overall BtVS story arc.

>>> " I once read a Star Trek:TNG novel. My feeling about it was that it was not so much supporting literature, but rather second rate, non-canonical fanfic mass produced to capitalize on the show's success."

You've got that right. I don't read Star Trek novels, just as I don't read Buffy novels. I do not consider them supporting literature. They are not written with the explicit control of the shows' creators. They were licensed by the holders of the Star Trek trademark (ie. Paramount). The same is true for the Buffy novels. They may be wretched or good, but they do not fit in the continuing story that Joss is tell in BtVS. However, "Fray" and "Tales of the Slayers" do fit in with the continuing story.

>>> "... buttons don't have to be logical."

Fine, I can agree with that. BUT, it is still your responsibility if debate is stopped, because you are unacquainted with "Fray" and "Tales of the Slayer". I am not suggesting that you read all the Buffy novels. I haven't done so, and I likely never will. But I am suggesting that missing these two sources is similar to missing a revealing episode of BtVS.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:22:11 10/11/02 Fri

1) Extremism (this isn't just limited to BtVS). Almost any view or issue taken far enough to the extreme is annoying and VERY aggravating.

2) When the body of a post is a poem or song transcript. You know that every post following that one will be almost solely about the poem/song, which means the discussion is halted in its tracks.

3) "Buffy would dust Spike in a few seconds if she wanted to kill them". The whole theory that Buffy is supremely superior to Spike strength and skill wise irks me to no end.

4) Spike Lover. Not the type of fan; that particular poster. I have yet to read one of his/her posts that doesn't provoke me to no end. From that statement, I guess you can infer some of my other buttons.

Say, has anyone noticed Earl Allison (who has always seemed like one of the most opinionated posters to me) has yet to post his list of buttons?

[> [> Hey, watch it, buddy! -- d'Herblay, 21:39:27 10/11/02 Fri

My girlfriend resembles button #2! Be careful, or you'll reap my whirlwind!!! (Though I don't think Rah's ever been able, with poetry or without, to stop discussion in its tracks. Nor would she want to.)

Different strokes for different folks,
And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo on.

[> [> Poetry in posts -- Rahael, 06:27:19 10/12/02 Sat

Me, main culprit of this. Well, most people don't like poetry, so I kind of had to know that I'd be annoying some people.

However, as to the point about discussion being halted in its tracks, why don't you just go back to the original discussion? One of the things I like about the board is that we do go on tangents, and wind back and wind away. If people aren't interested, they wouldn't talk about it, and if people are interested, they should be allowed to imho. If you want to stop a huge debate in its tracks it's perfectly possible; I've seen it done.

Whether they choose to or not totally determines the length of the discussion, whether it's about S/B, Poetry, or provocative psuedo trolls. Threads that get no replies simply die in the laissez faire market place of thread life.

Rahael, fervently grateful that no one has yet mentioned completely irrelevant, OT history postings as a button.

[> [> [> Poetry in posts not one of MY buttons, so if lyrics be the inspiration, post on! -- vh, 06:51:30 10/14/02 Mon

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- KdS, 02:31:43 10/12/02 Sat

Several of mine have already been mentioned, so here's an edited list:
Bad spelling/grammar
People who comment on others' bad spelling/grammar
Gratuitous, personalised attacks on members of the production team, especially if they drag in scuttlebutt about that person's "real" life.
People who believe that X was Y's true and eternal love, and that if X or Y looks at another person romantically the writers are trashing canon.
Recently, Cordy-bashing. Thanks to her "talents", the woman knows *exactly* how it feels to spontaneously combust (She) and to cut out one's own eyeball with a carving knife (Dead End). She voluntarily decided to continue this not ionce but twice (Plrtz Glrb, Birthday). Personally, I think if she doesn't deserve apotheosis, no-one does.
And finally my biggest personal one, which no-one else seems to feel that strongly about:
Claims that exploring one's "dark side" is a vital part of personal growth and that characters who don't indulge their worst instincts are hypocrites or cowards. This might be OK if your idea of a dark side is drinking a second glass of whisky. It's when it's applied to characters whose "dark side" potentially involves recreational torture and mayhem that I get annoyed.

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Malandanza, 05:52:18 10/12/02 Sat

"And finally my biggest personal one, which no-one else seems to feel that strongly about:
Claims that exploring one's 'dark side' is a vital part of personal growth and that characters who don't indulge their worst instincts are hypocrites or cowards. This might be OK if your idea of a dark side is drinking a second glass of whisky. It's when it's applied to characters whose 'dark side' potentially involves recreational torture and mayhem that I get annoyed."

I couldn't agree more -- I wish I'd included it in my list.

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- Rahael, 06:20:54 10/12/02 Sat

This is an interesting discussion hid all the way down here!!

"Claims that exploring one's "dark side" is a vital part of personal growth and that characters who don't indulge their worst instincts are hypocrites or cowards. This might be OK if your idea of a dark side is drinking a second glass of whisky. It's when it's applied to characters whose "dark side" potentially involves recreational torture and mayhem that I get annoyed."

Now I'm trying to think whether I've argued this, or come close to it. What I would say is (and I would certainly see that I've seen something near this arguement here) there is also a middle ground. The fact that the character Willow got involved in recreational torture, and the fact that her previous persona was all lispy little girl, read me a bedtime story is instructive.

I think I would say that people should recognise that this dark side exists. Recognise and acknowledge that they have within them the same dark impulses they'd prefer to categorise under 'demon'. Pretending it isn't there is dangerous, especially if this means that you think you are incapable of disastrous and cruel choices. Because this doesn't allow for informed and wise decisions.

So you can infer from my position that I do think that facing the dark is essential; and that you are totally and utterly responsible for your choices. Going on murderous rampages or beating up/attempting to rape your lover is what happens when there is something terribly terribly wrong with you.

But as for the emotions of anger, pain, loss, grief, vengeance - all the hurt and anguish we conceal, which can be the basis for either a wise, good life or a bad life - well, I do think its very important that people deal with those things. I'd classify Jonathon's wishfulfilment tendencies, and fantasisng is pretty dangerous, and it's been explored twice.

Thinking further, after having tried to provide some annotations for Nightmare, isn't BtVS an attempt to explore the dark side, anyway? Is the idea of a young woman going out and killing every night, isn't that rather unhealhthy? Aren't vampires and monsters part of the dark imagination of western literature and culture? I think that BtVS and AtS attempt to explore and think about darkness while containing it. Which is what we all do when we think about our own problems and how we go about not inflicting them on other people or treating them badly.

[> [> [> Re: Buttons. It's worse without verse! -- said the poet who didn't know it, 07:26:53 10/12/02 Sat

[> [> [> Rah you answered that beautifully, thank you. -- shadowkat, 11:18:32 10/12/02 Sat

[> [> [> Re: Buttons. This post should be required reading before viewing each episode -- luna, 20:41:57 10/12/02 Sat

[> [> [> Re: Dark sides -- KdS, 03:09:06 10/13/02 Sun

Don't worry Rah, you're incapable of expressing yourself crudely enough to push my buttons.
And I agree with you re:Willow and the dangers of denial. I was thinking more of characters who aren't in denial but sometimes get accused of being in it - in particular the crude "Angel needs to let some Angelus out and kick ass" or "Buffy could have had some interesting personal growth if she'd used Spike as an S/M sex-toy" positions one occasionally sees (not often here). I think that these characters (arguably also Giles) are thoroughly aware of how darthey could get and are determined not to do so (with occasional lapses in wine cellars). This is very different from denial and one shouldn't apply a crude "All repression is bad" model to them.

[> [> [> [> Clarification, Rah -- KdS, 08:10:11 10/13/02 Sun

Post above was my initial response, but thinking about it since I've come up with a better way of expressing myself.

Essentially I'm talking about a difference between "thought experiments" and action. As far as exploring your dark side goes, I assume that your example with Willow involves the fact that she never really considered the consequences of her actual actions or what they said about her future potential. I think that personal growth may well come from considering one's potential in one's own mind, imagining what one might be capable of in a given situation. What I objected to was arguments suggesting that one should cast oneself into situations without properly considering the possible consequences to oneself and others.

An example:

Thought) Worried about the example of Faith, her own capacity for violence, her attraction to the undead, etc. Buffy locks herself in her bedroom and sets out to deeply examine her own responses to the situations she has encountered and potential ones, and tries to draw conclusions about the potential lengths she might be driven to, and the situations and actions she could reasonably expect to deal with and come back from without "going Faith".

Controlled action) (Early-S5) Buffy worries about the close connection between eroticism and violence in some of her encounters with Angel(us) and Riley and decides to suggest to Riley that they might explore such corrections in a controlled manner, if it doesn't frighten him too much, with the usual safeguards such as pre-negotiation, safewords, etc.

Uncontrolled action) Buffy, struggling with her inner urges and resurrection jitters, throws herself into random experiments with non-consensuality, with a partner who has powerful intrinsic predatory instincts and a stunted moral sense.

Essentially, I have no problem with either of the first two situations. My criticisms were directed against people who would react to criticisms of the third situation by claiming that Buffy was courageously exploring her dark side and throwing off repression.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification, Rah -- Rahael, 08:53:27 10/13/02 Sun

Okay, I just lost a long reply!!! Grrrh argh. So will have to type all this out again.

I agree with you entirely, KdS. Last year's story was not about Buffy escaping her repression, not to my mind at least.

I was struck by Manwitch's post above, suggesting that the Will/Tara storyline in Season 5 was a commentary on Buffy's spiritual journey, culminating in the notion that death was her gift (i.e, the darkest part of her vocation being the most fruitful, most blessed part).

Similarly, I think your post touches on the commentary that Will/Tara provides last season, and in fact I think it's this phrase you use: "random experiments in non-consensuality". Hasn't this been the biggest theme of Season 6? Isn't there a synchronicity between what happens to Buffy in Bargaining and Seeing Red? Bargaining is replete with images of force, non consensuality and fragmentation. The Champion of the people, had her choice taken away from her, ripped back from mother earth, her agency and her power, the very hallmarks of her apotheosis in The Gift, all sullied. The world she emerges into is one which has been raped and pillaged. Buffy looks at the torn Buffybot, and it's a symbol of her inner mind. This has its resonance later in the season, and in both cases, it is inflicted upon her by those she trusted.

Then there's Willow's mindwiping of Tara, and the spell in Tabula Rasa. Buffy's random experiments with non consensuality is a commentary on the situation she finds herself in, and her attempt to get to grips with her new sense of powerlessness and lack of choice, not only emotionally, but socially and financially. She has to look after Dawn, has to work at DMP, has to cope without Giles. She's also made to jump through hoops by the nerd troika, themselves struggling with control/power issues. There's a theme of non-consensuality as well, with Warren and his games, as well as Willow losing herself in bad magic, and trying to escape her thoughts and responsibilities.

For me, the sexual imagery of Season 6 functions as metaphor, rather than Buffy losing her repressiveness. Which to be honest, I didn't realise she had!!!

What I'd argue is this: BtVS *as a whole* explores the dark side in a positive way. When individual characters indulge their worst aspects, it's ultimately shown to be degrading and harmful.

Angel's transformation into Angelus - Jenny with a very broken neck. Dark Willow - they can't even find Warren's body. Warren - Tara's dead body. All the Vampires have left behind very dead bodies of human beings.

And thank you to SK, Luna and yourself for being so kind! I wish I were more careful with my grammer though!

[> [> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- yabyumpan, 16:10:29 10/13/02 Sun

I wasn't going to join in with this thread as I didn't think think I had any buttons to be pushed HA (me? in denial?)

Anyway, KdS, totally agree with you re: Cordy. I hate 'St Cordy' and 'Corduffy'. I've said it before, but I think part of the problem was her 'demonisation' just wasn't dealt with well last season. there wasn't any comments on the show about what an extraordinary thing it was for her to do, giving up part of her humanity and not knowing the consequences.

Also agreeing to some extent re: the 'dark side'. There does seem to be a feeling with the writers of the shows and with the viewers, that a character is more 'interesting' when they explore their 'inner darkness'. I'm really not liking the 'dark Wesley' arc (as some of you may have guessed ;-), I realise I'm in a very small minority) and I think part of that is due to a comment I read by either TM or SDK that they thought Wesley was 'boring' so they were going to make him more interesting by having him go 'dark'.
I think it's a shame that 'interesting' means 'dark'. It seems to send out the message that bad people are more fun, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm being my usual inarticulate self, but hopefully you can decifer my babble.

Sorry also for not having a link for the interveiw mentioned, if anyone's interested, I'll try to find it.

[> [> Darkness and Balance in Greeneland -- matching mole, 16:06:05 10/14/02 Mon

I have to admit that the last paragraph of KdS' post really struck a chord with me. Also I will say that I fully agree with Rah's statements. This has caused me to put on my thinking cap and cogitate upon the matter. Here are my conclusions which relate both to my own peculiar psyche and to my opinions about art and the world (pretentious eh? - probably pushing a bunch of people's buttons right now).

The main reason that darkness may be a button for me is that it is often difficult for me to discern the motivations behind posters' appreciation of darkness. When someone says 'I love Wesleyus' (or Faith, or Angelus, etc.) are they saying that they find Wesley's descent in moral bleakness informative and moving or that they find his new persona attractive (sexy - to use an overused adjective). I can appreciate the former but I'm afraid the latter seems just kind of boring. Once upon a time I listened to lots of gloomy music and read lots of Graham Greene novels. And I got a lot out of these things.

But then one day I was reading Greene's second volume of autobiography in which he takes critics to task for their depiction of his fictional world as Greeneland in which the bodies of dead children litter the side of the road. Greene vituperatively (a word I've never used before - wonder if I'm spelling/using it properly) attacks the concept of Greeneland, saying that everything he describes in his novels is drawn from life. Greeneland is the real world.

As gripping and powerful as Greeneland may be it is only a slice of the real world. There are lots of times that people are happy. The world is a wonderful place and a terrible place. If you read many 19th C novels there is much in them that strikes the modern reader as artificial. Many things, particularly sexual things, can't be discussed. There is often a strong emphasis on sentimentality and emotional fraility is presented as a virtue in many cases. A lot of literature in the 20th C seems to me to be a reaction against this artificiality. But in many cases it seems to breed and artificiality of its own in which the lighter side of life is somehow uninteresting. Perhaps I'm misreading things a bit as I think that this was my (unconscious) view for a while.

What really drew me into Buffy is the way it really contrasts the dark and the light. It is a show with a silly premise that tackles serious subjects. It makes humour with tragedy, violence with the pleasure and monotony of everyday life (and the terror reminds us how pleasurable that monotony can be). Although far less realistic in the details than Greeneland it seems to me to be a far more complete vision of our world.

So one of my buttons is the assumption that the lighter, more humourous episodes that don't delve into the long dark tea time of the souls of our heros are in some way less worthy than a corker of an angst-fest. Not that I'm anti-angst, I just like things in proportion.

So explorations of darkness are all well and good but my button still gets pushed when I hear someone say they want to see more noir Angel and less dorky Angel.

Two of my other buttons that have nothing to do with this topics are

Implications that stand alone episodes are necessarily inferior or at least less desirable than episodes with huge long term plot developments.

Assumptions about the reasons that people hold certain opinions without any evidence to support them (i.e. you like Spike because ABC or you hate Spike because XYZ).

[> [> [> It's All About Transition -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:50:05 10/14/02 Mon

I don't think it's necessarily a character being dark that interests people. All the time on Buffy and Angel we have dark and evil people/demons galore. Darkness isn't really the appeal for most people: it's the transition.

People love to watch Wesley, Faith, and Angel deal with their dark sides and even slip towards the side of darkness because, while we are in that limbo between the two opposing ends, we don't know where that character may go. The fun, in my honest opinion, is wondering just how far into darkness a character will go. Will they pull back to the good guys before they do anything major? Will they do something morally ambigous, but redeem themselves? Or will they go all the way and become viscious, remorseless killers? It is this state of flux, of transition, that is so appealing, because our beloved characters are in a continuing state of jeopardy, and every week we tune in to see what will become of them. And it doesn't always have to be a transition into darkness. Take Lindsay MacDonald or Faith post-Season 3. They were on the opposite path, one away from darkness, and it was almost as enthralling. Why do you think so many people wanted Spike to be redeemable?

As a side note, I did like the characters of Spike and Faith much better when they were totally evil. But that doesn't have to do with sexiness so much as the fact that when they were killing without remorse, they seemed pretty happy. In fact, a trend I've noticed on both shows is that villains are spared a lot of angst.

[> [> [> [> Re: It's All About Transition -- aliera, 21:53:35 10/14/02 Mon

OK. Age being what it is, and patience not, think again about this...more. You liked them because they were ...happy?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: It's All About Transition -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:39:33 10/15/02 Tue

I liked the characters very much and didn't want to see them miserable, which is why I preferred Spike and Faith when they were totally evil. I know I should know better when watching a show like BtVS, but I don't want to see characters I like suffer and be unhappy.

[> [> [> [> Re: It's All About Transition -- matching mole, 10:33:11 10/15/02 Tue

Good points - as I said part of the problem comes from the myriad of different meanings that people have when they say they 'like' a character. I would agree that the character of Faith did some interesting things and went through some interesting transitions which I enjoyed watching but I would never think of myself as liking her.

[> [> [> requested spelling -- anom, 21:33:25 10/14/02 Mon

"vituperatively"

Yep, that's the right spelling. As for whether you used it right, I haven't read the passage you're referring to, so I can't say.

And overall--good points, & also in Finn's reply!

[> [> [> [> Correct usage, too! -- Rahael, 02:10:49 10/15/02 Tue

[> [> [> Very much in agreement! -- Rahael, 04:30:54 10/15/02 Tue

1) I watch stand alones again and again. I fast forward through the expositiony, 'moving the season arc' along bits.

Actually I get puzzled when eps get criticised for not moving the season arc along! For me, the narrative is so much larger than the main plot point. And those bits that aren't strictly utilitarian are often the parts that add the depth and colour.

2) 'Reality' in art is as articifical as 'fantasy'.

3) Graham Greene. I read lots of 'depressing' novels, which at the end leave me refreshed, contented, satisfied. It's because they are so cleverly written as to act as a kind of catharsis. I read Monsignor Quixote (which I liked a lot) and about 5 of his other books - I just used to read through the literature section of the library in alphabetical order - and I'm not a fan. It's just dreary, and it's not a world that speaks to me at all.

Ha. Joining you in the pretentious corner, quite obviously!

[> [> [> [> Re: OT - Graham Greene -- Brian, 05:32:49 10/15/02 Tue

Hey, Rah, have you read his novel, A Burnt-Out Case?
I always thought it was his best book.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT - Graham Greene -- Rahael, 10:51:03 10/15/02 Tue

No I haven't - I will add it to my very long list of "books I mean to read!"

[> [> [> [> Graham Greene, etc. -- matching mole, 08:06:25 10/15/02 Tue

Your point number one is exactly how I feel. It is the little details and the episode level plots that don't really lead to anything major that add a huge amount to the richness of the experience of watching the shows.

Reading over my post I think may have been a little hard on Greene. It was mostly his statement about Greeneland that irked me, not his fiction per se. While I think that his fiction has a rather limited view of the world it is a very, very skillfully composed one. Interestingly his fiction became generally less dark over time. His novels of the thirties are almost unbearable in their grim dreariness but some of his later works (Our Man in Havana, The Honorary Consul, and (in particular) Travels With My Aunt) are really quite funny (and insightful).

[> [> kds and Malandanza - J'accuse -- Caroline, 16:43:35 10/14/02 Mon

both of you of really misunderstanding (should I use the phrase chthonic misperception?!) basically every post I've ever written! I have a tendency to view the show through psychological glasses, thus I do use the concepts of the unconscious, the shadow etc. However, I have never actually advocated unbridled or even bridled 'indulgence' of one's darker complexes. I believe the terms I most often use about the dark aspects of the unconscious are 'holding' and 'containing'. Holding implies acknowledgement of those dark drives. Without it, these complexes hold sway and unconscious complexes will beat down conscious ones any time. Containing comes after holding. Once the drive is acknowledged, it can be contained by the ego and the conscious mind, the individual has gained some understanding of his/herself and thus the complex loses its compulsive power over behaviour.

Point out to me where exactly this means amoral or immoral indulgence of the dark side.

PS - If you weren't talking about my posts, ignore the above.
PPS - Great response Rahael!

[> [> [> Re: Vous pas, Caroline. -- aliera, 17:39:41 10/14/02 Mon

[> [> [> Caroline and mm -- KdS, 05:51:45 10/15/02 Tue

Caroline, I didn't mean you, and your holding/containing arguments are exactly what I was bumblingly trying to get at in my responses to Rahael above. As I said earlier, my post was aimed at the cruder elements of the fanbase. I'm sorry that you felt targeted.
Matching Mole, I really, really loved your post. Like you, I went through a very culturally dark stage in my (not distant) youth, and I really think that Mutant Enemy's productions have directly helped me out of that. I think that, along with a few other people in different genres, JW, DG, (*and* MN) are showing the way to a type of storytelling that admits the existence of darkness without surrendering to it. Hopefully more people in populist storytelling will follow this middle road, avoiding both the dishonest evasion of "Hays Code" type writing and the braindead nihilism of much of today's "kewl" writing.

[> Buttons or free fall -- fresne, 11:21:15 10/12/02 Sat

Why do I always feel compelled to put apostrophes before any s at the end of any word. It's very annoying to have to edit them back out. Why do I find Jack Skellington so attractive? I mean come on, he's not only fictional, but like, you know, made of clay. Oh, wait, this is about things other people do.

Nope, it's all about me. Since, and I'm not sure this comes across in my posts, everyone, including me, eventually annoys me. I have lots of free range buttons. Half the time they aren't there and then, oh, look a button.

However, since cranky fresne, always catches a cold, I try not to focus on my buttons too much. Anyway, I enjoy striking fear into the hearts of co-workers with cheeriness.

It's very interesting reading the things that annoy people. Some I can try not to do. Others, well I shrug, wave my hands about, and say, oh well. One of the most valuable things that my mother ever told me was that in this life not everyone would agree with me or even like me, it's all about how I deal with it.

Anyway, I agree with everyone, except the ones that I totally disagree with. Hah, a preposition.

Cleanthes
almost chthonic misperception.

Okay, that is just a great statement. I would try and envisage it, but it might drive me mad.

dream of the consortium
"The assumption that romantic relationship is the ultimate point of all human interaction. It isn't, you know."

This is something that I was discussing with some friends last weekend. Okay, I discuss this with my housemate all the time, because people keep thinking that we're a couple and we are, just not that kind. More partners in crime/costuming/culture.

Oh, and it came up at one of the panels at Worldcon - Romance and Science Fiction. Something Steve Miller mentioned is that as a culture, we tend to see intimate relationships as sexual ones. Knights don't wander the landscape of the imagination without slashing. Women smile and bond and its all about sexy magic. Characters fight the Big Bad on a multitude of battling ships. Humorously, I am myself guilty of this. I love ships, whether someone is at the wheel or not. Sometimes, it is slash and sexy magic and all shippy. Other times I wonder if I'm not just a prisoner of my culture.

And apropos of nothing, but when my housemate and I say that we are in the philosophy zone, it tends to mean that we have had just enough wine, but not too much, to discuss the philosophy of . Thus in a Pavlovian sorta way, philosophy equals Stendahlian giddiness. Occasionally, it has buttons, but mostly it's a free fall.

[> Re: Buttons. What are some of yours? -- luna, 20:38:15 10/12/02 Sat

Spike is evil so don't discuss him.
Dawn is wonderful so don't talk about her.
Willow can never be forgiven.
There is a clear moral line in the Buffyverse which whoever is writing is the only one to know
XXXX is so hot it doesn't matter if he/she is a neat character, can act, etc., etc.
Everything in BtVS can be explained in terms of WB or Fox or WE marketing needs.
Nothing in BtVS can be explained in terms of WB or Fox or WE marketing needs.

[> My favorite buttons: -- SingedCat, 09:25:43 10/14/02 Mon

Sarcasm is just one more free service we offer.

You're standing where I want to pee.

Therapy has taught me that it's all your fault.

You can't please everyone. So concentrate on me

Quality. Discipline. Teamwork. We won't have any of that bullsh*t around here.

(Yes, I know what the question was. But like Spike's trickster demon, sometimes misinterpreting the request is more fun!)

[> [> Ooooo I like number 3, can I borrow it......;) -- Rufus, 05:00:42 10/15/02 Tue

[> Because so many have asked ... -- Earl Allison, 02:23:30 10/15/02 Tue

Well, at least two by name so far ...

I desperately wanted NOT to post my buttons, because I didn't want to tick anyone off, and because I am quite certain I have stomped on the buttons of others in much the same way Godzilla does the Charleston on Japanese soil every few years :)

That, and I'm not sure if opinionated is a good thing, or a bad thing. Of course, by posting, I DO express views, and I shouldn't be surprised if those views paint a picture of me, for good or for ill.

First, a bit of history to explain my biggest button.

I hate Babylon 5.

Why? Because of the fans. Well, not ALL the fans, obviously, but the vocal few who, when the show first aired, and all through its run, proclaimed it "better than Star Trek in all respects."

Personally, I could have taken or left B5, but those nasty fans, fans who basically told me the only reason I DIDN'T like the show was BECAUSE I liked Star Trek, and therefore didn't know what I was talking about, poisoned it for me.

I've since checked out B5 on Sci-Fi this past year. All I can say is, meh. It's not great, and every time the show falters, or there is a plot development I question, I can't help but compare it to something in Trek I liked, and B5 gets scored a little lower. I'll probably never be able to even be ambivalent about B5 because of that.

My point?

I bet everyone thinks I hate Spike, right? Or, at least, Spike post-chip?

I thought a LOT about it, and I don't think that's it.

I guess my biggest button isn't necessarily Spike per se, but the overly zealous Spike FANS who engage in the following;

1. Spike ISN'T an attempted rapist. This despite the writers all calling it that, the CHARACTERS all calling it that, etc. Oddly, these same fans will cling tenaciously to (and this is before S7 began) Joss and June's interviews saying that Spike sought a soul willingly. So one bit of canon is okay, the other is not? And yes, I probably do the same when I make a point, bringing one instance of canon to the fore to "refute" another.

2. Spike is all-around swell and peachy. In fact, anyone on or off the show that badmouths him is deserving of wrath. Xander and Buffy bear the brunt of this, although Willow is catching up fast.

3. You don't like Spike? You must be biased, or blind, or stupid, or any combination of the three.

4. Tear X down to make Spike look good. Sure, Spike is (or was, as of S6) an unrepentant mass-murderer, but what about Anya, or Dark Willow, or Xander, or ...

I guess it's the loud, vocal, and (IMHO) obnoxious who have poisoned any positive feelings I might have for Spike. Yes, I really wish ME would get him off the screen so I could see more of the characters I enjoy, and yes, the AR is something I won't forgive the writers should they bring Spike and Buffy back together (I get the soul/no-soul thing, it just squicks me anyway, like Luke/Laura), but I don't HATE him, nor do I pray for the character to die horribly.

That's probably the biggest thing out there that sets me off, the small minority of Spike fans who have pretty much poisoned the character to me. Now I LOOK for things with the character to get upset about, much as I do with B5 -- and believe me, I don't enjoy it. Now, I simply can't help it. I don't claim they MADE me do it, but those kind of posts are the things I'm most likely to reply to, and sometimes not with the same restraint I would elsewhere.

Sure, there is also the issue that I personally think ME played fast and loose with canon to keep JM around, but it pales before the other items listed.

I hope people found this of use, and I hope I was able to express myself in a semi-intelligent manner without offending anyone.

I am at least gratified to know that one of my threads has lasted so long, and served a useful purpose. A first for me :)

Take it and run.

[> [> Re: Because so many have asked ... -- yabyumpan, 04:44:18 10/15/02 Tue

I can totally relate to your post (except the B5 part, never watched it!). That was part of the point of my post last week 'Wesley=Spike'. There is such an emphasis on Spike from fans that he interests me far less now than he did. I've reached Spike overload, enough already!
For me, the same applies to Wesley. There is a section of fandom which loves his character unquestioningly. He can do no wrong and his actions are always justified. This, as you said with Spike, probably makes me question his actions more. It's also more of a personal thing. I watch AtS for Angel, he is, after all, what the show is about. I find I resent what I see as over emphasis on Wesley as it seems to take away from looking more closely at Angel. (yes, I am aware of the irony of that statement being as how my most recent posts have been about Wesley!)
I'm actually not looking forward to seeing S4 as much as I was because, from fans reactions/posts, it appears so Wesleycentric.
I should probably just stay away from forums untill I can actually get to see the new series in Jan but then I'd have to be someone with strong will power. Sadly, as I light up another ciggie, I'm obviously not ;-( . I'm also to obsessed with the show not to log on and live it second hand untill I can view it myself.

[> Longest post -- Tchaikovsky, 03:59:24 10/16/02 Wed

I haven't been here long, but this post is really huge. Has there been a bigger one?

[> [> Longest THREAD- obviously -- Tchaikovsky, 05:48:28 10/16/02 Wed

[> [> You ain't seen nothing yet -- d'Herblay, 06:27:52 10/16/02 Wed

Oh, I don't consider a thread long until the new responses are listed off the right side of my (admittedly, laptop size) screen, and I have to scroll over to see and click on them, and then when I go back to the index, the scrollbar defaults to the left and I'm looking at an all-white screen. Some don't consider a thread long until it's the only one that can stay on the first page for any time at all, and Masq has to force it into the archives just so we can talk about something else. This thread is nothing. Hell, I just put a thread into the July archives that was, in 10-point Century Schoolbook, seventy pages. And that one was hardly the longest! No one's been keeping records, so I can't tell you what the longest thread ever was, but try this one on for size.

The longest-living thread, in modern memory, was, I believe, this one. It managed to stay on the main board for twenty-one days; but, as it's mostly No-Texters or short responses, it's nowhere near the longest.

[> [> [> Fair enough- more buttons people!!! -- Tchaikovsky, 06:41:17 10/16/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Ok, I've got one more -- d'Herblay, 09:12:14 10/16/02 Wed

As can be evidenced by the amount of people mentioning Boke, our recurring trolls, etc. (no offense Finn, but I really wish I could link to the Bachman threads here), one thing I can say with certainty is that people here do not like being used as the unwitting subject of pseudo-postmodernist happenings or semi-psychological experiments or just plain mind games.

Recurring Theme? **SPOILERS** for tonight's episode, plus 7.1 and 7.2 -- Wisewoman, 18:40:04 10/08/02 Tue

Haven't there been an awful lot of significant doors/gateways in these first three eps?

I'm thinking about the shots last week that were done in England, with Willow and Giles sitting in the open doorway; the recurring shot of the door to the high school basement; Willow coming through the passenger door/arch from the airplane; the row of framed images lining the Summers' staircase which all appear to be of doorways; the Scoobs blocking up the entrance to the cave...I'm sure there are others I've forgotten...oh, oh, doors that the young women at the beginning of the first two eps either passed through or were unable to open, before they met their doom...and Nancy tried a door that was locked before she climbed the fire escape, didn't she?

And, of course, the Hellmouth is a gateway, too.

Doors of perception? I've gotta spend some time thinking on this. Or am I seeing something that isn't intended to be significant?

Also, Spike was behind the door that Buffy opened in the basement...surprise!

Have there always been this many doors? Hmmmm...

[> Re: Recurring Theme? **SPOILERS** for tonight's episode, plus 7.1 and 7.2 -- Jacki, 19:05:58 10/08/02 Tue

Great point! When I saw the paintings of doors on the wall, I couldn't remember if they had *always* been there, but I know I saw them on the walls in "Restless" and someone asking me if those paintings had always been there. And while I didn't think of all the the other door connections, they are very good points. So yeah, this is pretty much a useless post. I'm completely agreeing with you, and this could be a VERY good point.

[> Another recurring theme (more SPOILERS for 7.3) -- RichardX1, 19:09:03 10/08/02 Tue

Underground. The first episode, the major action took place in a school basement. The second episode was entitled "Beneath You" and had a subterranean monster (of sorts). The third episode, not only is the monster in a cave, but that's where Buffy, Xander and Willow realize that they're out of synch, and also the place where they get back into synch.

Granted, a lot of the action over the course of the series has taken place below ground, but didn't the Big Bad in Spike's already overcrowded mind say we were "going back to the beginning" in this season? Furthermore, Willow's power, "The Essence of Magic" if I recall correctly, is connected with the Earth. She even said it this episode, "Everything is connected to the Earth."

I wish I could get my thoughts arranged better (mainly because I wouldn't mind seeing myself quoted one of these days ^_^), but I hope some of you get where I'm going here.

[> Very perceptive. And let's not forget that... (Spec, no real spoilers b/c I know nothing) -- darrenK, 19:32:28 10/08/02 Tue

...Dawn is The Key.

There are way too many doors for them to be meaningless and the key thing is too obvious a connection to doors for it not to matter. What's being locked or unlocked?

Or unlocked then locked again...

dK

[> [> Oooh! Good one, dK! Now my brain's goin' all twisty again with thoughts! -- Rob, 20:19:20 10/08/02 Tue

[> [> Re: Very perceptive. And let's not forget that... (Spec, no real spoilers b/c I know nothing) -- dub, 21:46:22 10/08/02 Tue

Well, how about the ol' Hellmouth? Hasn't there been talk in the past of shutting it? Could Dawn be used as a key to lock a door, rather than unlock one?

We've seen lots of open doors: the one in England with Willow and Giles, and the pictures in the stairway are all open doors...the bedroom doors in the Summers' house usually seem to be open as well, and unless I'm mistaken Willow arrived home to find the back door unlocked.

I'm convincing myself that there's something going on here...

[> [> [> Re: Very perceptive. And let's not forget that... (Spec, no real spoilers b/c I know nothing) -- Rufus, 22:31:15 10/08/02 Tue

If Dawn is the Key then why does the insane Spike only see Buffy as Glowing?

[> [> [> [> Well, they *are* of the same blood, you know. -- HonorH, 23:34:47 10/08/02 Tue

Perhaps that's a big fat clue right there. Maybe Buffy's now the Key, and Dawn's a normal kid (with a side of proto-Slayer).

[> [> [> [> [> It sure beats...........spoilers for 7.3 and beyond -- Rufus, 02:09:00 10/09/02 Wed

The one I've constantly seen about Buffy being pregnant....but then again.....Anya on a vomit watch with a retching Slayer could be more fun than blinky lights on a map....;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> That old chestnut! -- HonorH, 02:25:38 10/09/02 Wed

How long has it been making the rounds, anyway? Since S2? And it did get a real kick in the pants thanks to David Greenwalt insisting on giving Angel and Darla a Miracle Child. Not to mention all the variations on "Buffy gets pregnant during IWRY and somehow stays pregnant in spite of the niggling little fact that THE DAY NEVER HAPPENED!!!"

Besides, Xena already did the hormonal, fighting-while-preggers warrior woman thing. It wasn't that much fun to watch the first time.

[> [> [> [> Effulgent (7.3. spoilers) -- darrenK, 04:38:06 10/09/02 Wed

I thought that the glowing comment was a reference to William's use of the word effulgent in Fool For Love. I thought it's purpose was to help us to see that William was talking to Buffy and Xander, but Spike was talking to Willow.

This is getting confusing.

dK

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Effulgent (7.3. spoilers) -- vh, 09:25:40 10/09/02 Wed

Especially with the reference to rhyming--there's enough of them ...

Well wasn't that special -- alcibiades, 19:50:17 10/08/02 Tue

Am loving the new mature, compassionate, non-depressed Buffy, I have to say.

I knew that look that fleeted over her face at Spike last week was disgust.

We just got a much bigger whiff of it this week.

And on another point, was that the least subtle MOTW story within a story ever on Buffy?

Willow immobilized a guy, made it so he couldn't speak and flayed him.

Then Willow gets immobilized, unable to speak and flayed.

Eyeroll.

Couldn't they have been a little more subtle. I mean, I enjoyed the acting of the monster guy, but that was just so obvious. It's not like it was fun to figure out or anything.

So now everything is fine -- no need to mention the fact that she tried to murder Buffy, Giles, Dawn, Anya and the entire world.

At least Anya brought it all up -- as did Spike. But the good old Scoobs, just can't address these things at all. Buffy refers to it obliquely and apologetically and then sweept it under the rug.

I hope this is supposed to be the beginning of a very long arc of redemption because I feel incredibly dissastisfied with this one.

And can I just say I hate it when the show gets all sentimental. That ending in the cave, when Willow suddenly appeared because she knew she was loved, was just way too sentimentalized for my taste. Where is the edginess now? Where are the uncomfortable feelings? I mean, she should have just brought cookies from England if it were going to be that simple.

[> Oops, spoilers for 7.3 above -- alcibiades, 19:52:51 10/08/02 Tue

[> Rochefort -- yes but...., 19:56:09 10/08/02 Tue

I loved the "s'gotta rhyme" something efulgent line. I loved "pose-able Dawn," I loved the thumbs in the eyes. I loved Xander "I saved the world with my mouth" and the crayon poster and I loved the high heals line that seemed to refer to fan opinion of Dawn and a bunch of stuff like that. Jane Espenson did the Buffy-bot and stuff. She does bizarre comedy that's just to my taste. She does sentimental too (like the first time Buffy kissed Spike), but it's o.k. by me. I still think season seven is quality again.

[> [> o.k. that post wasn't ABOUT me...it was BY me... -- Rochefort, 20:16:05 10/08/02 Tue

And I also liked that Anya thought magic was sexy and wanted more. heh.

[> [> Re: I'm with yes but... -- JBone, 07:39:01 10/09/02 Wed

[> [> Er, she didn't -- Ete, 12:10:10 10/09/02 Wed

Intervention is not by Jane Espenson, it's by Rebecca Krishner

And it wasn't the first time Buffy kissed Spike either, that was Something Blue :)

As for this episode, well the funny lines were pretty much the only thing that redempted it, 'cause there were not much bu those laugh. Besides, they made a joke of Willow have skinned a man( with all the : did you do that ?) and I'm not sure it was a good idea.

I found that "pose-able" Dawn was sickening, not funny.

Well the whole skinning thing was sickening too, but that might be because I'm sick already and want enough to throw up all by myself... :)

[> [> [> Feel better -- Sophist, 13:16:13 10/09/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Thanks, have medications now -- Ete, 17:35:28 10/09/02 Wed

[> [> [> Must be your fever... Jane wrote Intervention. Feel better. -- Rochefort, 19:16:06 10/09/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Grumble... confused with Tough Love... still not their first kiss :) -- Ete, 03:48:01 10/10/02 Thu

[> Couldn't disagree more. See my above post. ;o) -- Rob, 20:20:33 10/08/02 Tue

[> Unfortunately, gotta agree. -- Caroline, 20:51:49 10/08/02 Tue

[> Metaphor Spoilers S7-7.3 -- Age, 20:55:00 10/08/02 Tue

I had the same feeling about the obvious metaphor, but wasn't Gnarl also an allusion to 'The Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings,' reinforcing the idea of invisibility gained through power as it turns out to be Willow's own spell? It also continues the arc theme of it being about power.

Age.

[> [> Re: Metaphor Spoilers S7-7.3 -- Rufus, 21:04:07 10/08/02 Tue

The comment from Willow to Anya is one to remember.

You're scared of losing that feeling again, and having it be ok to hurt people, and then you're not in charge of the power anymore, because it's in charge of you.

I always did say that Willow ended up Power's bitch.

[> [> [> Re: Metaphor Spoilers S7-7.3 -- alcibiades, 21:12:16 10/08/02 Tue

I also *liked* the point when Willow was moaning about being all alone when Anya was sitting there right in front of her face.

Of course, Anya's a demon, so I suppose she doesn't count.

And did anyone wonder why Anya can see Spike's soul and Tara could just read things like that off the bat -- but Willow, a kick ass witch now entirely earth centered - or anyway getting there - could not see Spike's soul.

That smacked of plot convenience to me and inconsistency.

[> [> [> [> I'd think that's been marginally explained -- Solitude1056, 21:45:47 10/08/02 Tue

Seemed to me that Willow was a little too focused on "why can't I find Buffy/Xander/Dawn" to really be paying too much attention to looking deeply at Spike. On top of that, his behavior (from her POV) was probably freaky enough as it was. The plot convenience IMO was that Spike didn't also say something to Willow about Buffy and Xander being there, to let her know that they did exist.

As for Tara & Anya, seems that both are way more perceptive than Willow. Well, Tara was, at least - remember that Willow just took Buffy's bizarre behavior at face value while Tara, upon first meeting Buffy, knew that it wasn't Buffy but someone else wrongly in Buffy's body.

[> [> [> [> [> Also explained -- Arya_Stark, 00:44:52 10/09/02 Wed

"The plot convenience IMO was that Spike didn't also say something to Willow about Buffy and Xander being there, to let her know that they did exist."

Spike's been seeing all sorts of people over (at least) the past couple of weeks. Why should he be able to tell which are real and which are hallucinations? He decides that Willow isn't really there-- why tell someone who isn't there about people who may or may not (in his mind) be there?

[> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor Spoilers S7-7.3 -- parakeet, 22:06:26 10/08/02 Tue

Power can take different forms, even outside of the Buffyverse. Anya, for all her shortsightedness, can be (and must be as a vengeance demon) quite perceptive if her attention is focused there and she understands the context. Tara, on the other hand, is (was) wise. That was always her strength -- empathy. She "gets" people.
Now, Willow. Her power has always been about a goal: use the internet and find the info, cast the right spell, become something other than herself. Right now, she's trying to become centered and zen-like, but she isn't there yet. Because of her actions, she is trying to force herself (and will hopefully be successful) onto a different path. Her strength has always been intelligence, but now she needs to learn to be wise.
Anya could see Spike's soul because she is a demon who needs to deal with a broad range of human vicissitudes, though she is blind to anything out of her sight. Tara would see it because she understood the soul. Willow didn't because her power is about power, and her attention is focused on retaining her own sense of self (after trying to eradicate it).
Powers are heterogeneous; they need to be, to survive.

[> [> [> [> [> Took too long to post, I guess :) -- parakeet, 22:13:04 10/08/02 Tue

Solitude's post wasn't up when I started, so please forgive any overlap.
Good, specific point about Willow's attention being on her friends' apparent abandonment of her.

[> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor Spoilers S7-7.3 -- JBone, 07:48:34 10/09/02 Wed

And did anyone wonder why Anya can see Spike's soul and Tara could just read things like that off the bat -- but Willow, a kick ass witch now entirely earth centered - or anyway getting there - could not see Spike's soul.

Last week Anya didn't know about Spike living in the school basement. So between then and now, she learned that. I think that she probably told Willow about his soul, since it was the big news that Anya herself saw. But we don't know for sure.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Metaphor Spoilers S7-7.3 -- alcibiades, 10:11:02 10/09/02 Wed

I think that she probably told
Willow about his soul, since it was the big news that Anya herself saw.

I think the opposite. I think Anya was restraining herself for once. she figured out that Spike REALLY did not want her blabbing. The thing is, though, Spike really did not want her blabbing to Buffy. But since Buffy knows, I am not sure secrecy is any longer paramount to him.

And why isn't she telling Giles. Surely she must realize somewhere in her brain that this is a matter that goes way beyond the two of them.

[> [> That sounds interesting. Can you expound please? -- alcibiades, 21:15:22 10/08/02 Tue

[> [> [> A Weak Explanation for Obvious Metaphor. Spoilers S6-7.3 Hobbit/LOR -- Age, 20:52:04 10/09/02 Wed

Gnarl may have represented in his simple correspondence to Willow's acts, her desire to be punished, her wish for simple retribution to be meted out on her: an eye for an eye as the method of Gnarl's demise seemed to suggest. This is not what either Giles or the Scoobs were about to give her. That kind of atonement IS too simple and obvious; and that may be the point for the obvious metaphor: it's too easy, too obvious. Instead, the slow ingestion of Willow by flaying while corresponding to what Willow did implies also a more subtle atonement that will