September 2002 posts
Vamp
individuals as metaphors for human traits. -- Darby, 07:46:23
09/09/02 Mon
It is accepted here that vampires act as metaphors for many concepts
ñ arrested adolescence, sexual predation, even rape ñ
but, do the vampires that weíve gotten to know really well
also have a specific individual metaphorical element? I believe
that the ìvampire possesses echoes of the human hostî
to have been used to represent certain basic personality traits
from the characters of the humans. And I'm not absolutely sure
that I'm using the concept of metaphor properly, but here goes...
Angel. We havenít been shown much of Liam, but he
seems to have been a womanizing neíer-do-well, a disappointment
to his family (or father, at least). Could he have been fearful
of being able to accomplish anything, leading to a deep resentment
for the world? If Angelus gives expression to such base personality
traits, we might expect to see a vampire who revels in exerting
control when he has the obvious advantage, but is basically a
coward, a type who strikes from the shadows on near-powerless
victims and manipulates his more threatening targets until they
are weak enough to be no longer a threat to him; a vampire who
exerts control over women without a real emotional connection;
a vampire who, delivered of a conscience and denied his animal
power, withdraws and hides from the world until given an opportunity
(after almost a century of cowering in alleys eating rats) to
atone and progress, although the echoes of Liam filtered through
Angelus are still present while Angel tries to find and live out
a larger Purpose.
Spike. Sorry, but he had to be discussed. William is a
romantic with enough presence to profess his love for Cecily;
he is the picture, to his mind, of the Romantic poet (minus the
tuberculosis), loving from afar. As Spike, that Romanticism finds
a stage in the Big Bad, the rough boy with a taste for ìfists
and fangs,î with presence enough to stand up to Angelus
and take on Slayers. The poet continues in Spikeís absolute
belief that he can see into the hearts and minds of his allies
and enemies, and he has some skill in that area (I donít
think we give him enough discredit for the times that heís
wrong). When faced with a chip that takes away any chance to play
out his great Romantic notion of vampirism (no wonder he knows
Dracula!), he shifts to a conflicted image of a Knight for his
new Lady, playing at being good while his own nature draws him
away. Itís a testimony to Spikeís single-mindedness
in this area that he has, although soulless, become as effective
a Champion as we have seen. However, his chip has been a boon
and a bane: when made ineffective against Buffy, so that his Knighthood
could advance from patronage to ìmarriage,î he lacked
the control to be trustworthy and needed a soul for the complete
package.
Darla. This is the woman mistreated by patriarchal society
but men in particular, forced into prostitution and abandoned
to illness. As a vampire, she is all about power over men while
still deferring to a protective ìsocietyî (a necessity
in Colonial America) in the form of her group with Angelus (where
she exerts some power but cannot completely control her ìmateî)
and with the Master. Resouled, she cannot deal with her powerlessness
(although remorse seems less an issue) and seeks a return to vamp
form. Is Darla a metaphor for empowered women or classic sexual
manipulators?
Drusilla. Most of what we know of Drusilla the human is
Angelís perception of her, a first impression from a confessional.
We know that she had some psychic ability, which she feared, and
seemed an uncertain young woman whose family had sheltered her
but who could not protect her from true Evil. Discounting the
early BtVS Drusilla as ill and possibly out-of-character, we see
after Whatís My Line? that Dru the vampire is childlike
but not fearful, whose main character trait is that she seems
absolutely certain of the world and people around her (again,
we accept her insights but maybe shouldn't always) and bent on
delivering pain to not just individual humans but humanity in
general, the Family of Man. What do those traits suggest about
the person she was?
Iím sure that there are things that Iím missing
in the core group of vamps that we really know. Iím not
sure how much of this can be applied to vamps whose human background
we do not know (but if the basic premise is true, one might guess
at the type of human Trick or others were) ñ were the fun-loving
Gorch brothers as humans just looking for diversion in mass murder?
What sort of family issues did Kralik have?
- Darby, wondering what aspects of my personality would erupt
as a Buffyverse vampireÖ
[> I enjoyed that immensely
- much to think about. Thanks. -- Dead Soul, 08:44:43 09/09/02
Mon
[> Ooops - forgot one!
-- Darby, 09:23:21 09/09/02 Mon
Probably because the situation is reversed - we have a smattering
of knowledge of the vamp but lots of knowledge of the host...
VampWillow. Still the power issues, but a big clue that
the inferiority covers a superiority complex. Who among us does
not believe that under the flustery, "Oh, I'm a geek and
no one likes me!" is a relaxed dominatrix in sensible shoes,
confident that everybody would be better off if she was running
things (did she really even defer to the Master)? It may be the
most disturbing aspect of Vamp- and Dark Willow, that offhand
way of taking over and the flippant cruelty. VampWillow is the
image of Cool, speaking often in Oz-sized bites or from a weary
distance. She even moves with more confidence, more purpose than
Willow (an underappreciated aspect of AH's characterization).
And she is not gay, because that would be too limiting
- all people are her playthings, because they ought to be, dammit!
No wonder Warren pushed her buttons, he was the repressed aspects
of her personality.
But doesn't it make you want to know what VampOz would be like?
- Darby, who's now second-guessing my problems with Cruel Willow...
[> [> What about Harmony?
-- Freki, 11:37:22 09/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> Harmony and
VampHarmony -- shadowkat, 13:11:03 09/09/02 Mon
Harmony gets a bum rap. She seems to be nothing but a vapid ditz
on the surface. But i think there's more going on here.
Harmony is the follower. She's Cordy's best friend. But notice
Cordy leads the pack in Season 1, Btvs, Harmony follows. She does
what it takes to be part of the group. If that means tormenting
Willow, ignoring Marcy Clark, or
sneering at Buffy - she will do it. She reminds me of numerous
people I knew in Junior High and High School.
But is Harmony really a part of the group? As Cordy puts it in
Out of Mind Out of Sight - she feels alone even with the group,
sometimes it's like no one is even listening to her.
But it is better to be alone with people then to be alone alone
in Cordy's view. This is an apt description of Harmony.
To Harmony's credit - she attempts to help the gang in Graduation
Day Part II, only to get bitten and turned as a result. In The
Wish - we see her obeying the rules, in a group. Harmony always
does.
She isn't like Buffy or Cordy - who lead the pack. Buffy lead
her pack in LA prior to becoming the slayer and Cordy leads her
pack in Sunnydale. In fact the reason Cordy and Buffy clash is
they both want to be queen bee - the leader.
Harmony has no desire to be the leader. She likes to be part of
the mob.
This is Harmony's main attribute. Follower. Being told what to
do. How to look. What to think. Who to love. You met them in high
school? They were the girls who dressed as the group decided.
They got their fashion sense from the leader of the pack and followed
suite, copying what they did. You never really got to know the
true Harmonys because they were to busy copying other people,
following the leader, playing the role.
So is it so surprising that when Harmony becomes a vampire - she
desires the same things. She latches onto Spike because he tells
her what to do, what to wear, how to behave, except he gets bored
of it quickly - so it doesn't really work. In The Real ME, she
tries to find her own path, her own course - but unfortunately,
the minions won't follow her. Because when she tries to be leader
she falls apart and loses focus.
Disharmony shows this trait the best - Harmony latches onto to
Cordy and the Gang as a follower. OOOh she thinks, I can copy
Angel and Cordy and be a good guy. She has no understanding of
what that means. She just sees it as a group to belong to. Until
she locates a much larger group, one that lets her get what she
craves and also makes her feel good about herself. The girls I
knew who were like this in high school and college had 0 self-esteem
outside the group, self-help cults (I won't name any by name in
case I offend) often grabbed these poor girls up like
a bunch of bees to honey. They also destroyed them - alienating
them from friends, family, everything important.
This is what happens in Disharmony. A self-help vampire guru ends
up alienating Harmony further from the people who might have helped
her. By betraying the Gange to the guru's group, Harmony is exiled
from her one remaining attachement to humanity.
Of the vamp's we've analyzed, Harmony is the saddest.
And the most amusing. Ironic that. The writers thought she'd be
hilarous as a vampire and she is. But she is also quite sad. Sadder
even than poor crazy Dru. She has no one
and doesn't really have a point outside of belonging to a group.
By becoming a vampire - that has in of itself been taken from
her. She can't move forward like Cordelia
and she can't find a place to really belong, besides being someone's
minion. PErhaps the SG and Cordy were cruel rather than kind in
not staking her.
Just my rambling ten cents for what it's worth.
[> [> [> [> Harmony/VampHarmony
and Riley -- cjl, 13:43:55 09/09/02 Mon
Harmony may indeed by the "saddest" case of arrested
development in vamps, but trapped in a perpetual midset as follower,
she still represents a danger, albeit a danger distinct from the
usual power-mad supervillains we see in BUFFY. We all know the
potential world-beaters like the Master are bad news, but they
usually needs flunkies and weak-willed disciples to execute their
plans. Harmony is the perfect example of the latter. As you said,
never happy unless she's being told what to do, what to say, what
to think, she's more than willing to sell Cordy and AI down the
river after two minutes of Vampire Amway sales pitch in "Disharmony."
As a human or a vampire, she is self-centered and vain in ways
that Cordelia could never match, and her complete lack of emotional
maturity and intelligence makes any attempt to appeal to her "better
nature" truly hopeless. (If she weren't so hilariously stupid,
she would be a lot more trouble--but then again, Cordy probably
wouldn't have let her off so easy...)
This (kind of) relates back to the thread on Riley below. As fans
of a TV show stocked with bold, witty, free thinking anti-authoritarians,
the follower doesn't hold a lot of appeal for us. Riley, despite
going through pure hell in S4, backslides off-screen, and slips
back into the role of follower in AYW--and yes, I hold that against
him. (Hence, his trouncing by Clem in JBone's Road to Sunnydale
tournament.)
I guess if you're going to be a drone, you'd better be a funny
one. Harmony makes me laugh, and I love her for it, but I find
her complete dependence on others for a personality scary at times.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Harmony and VampHarmony -- leslie,
15:13:01 09/09/02 Mon
I think the reason VampHarmony is so sad is because, while the
other vamps you've outlined found a way to retaliate against their
human-life victimizers once they'd become vamps, Harmony is still
exactly like she was as a human. I mean, face it, she seems to
have been the kind of girl who never ate food anyway for fear
of getting fat, so even living on a liquid (blood) diet probably
isn't all that different. Probably more nutritious, when you come
down to it.
This raises an interesting question, though. Harmony is the only
"modern" human we've seen as an on-going vampire (since
VampWillow only shows up twice, and she's from another dimension
at that). Does it say something about modern society, with the
whole "let it all hang out" philosophy and the extremes
of sex and violence in public culture, that there is no "repressed"
to "return" in the undead?
[> [> [> [> [>
Hmmm interesting points leslie and cjl -- shadowkat, 18:04:34
09/09/02 Mon
Hmmm...two interesting points I hadn't thought of:
leslie:
1. VampHarmony and dieting. In Disharmony she scoffs at pigs blood
not so much because it tastes horrid as it goes right to your
hips. (She seems surprised he's drinking it, what did she think
Spike was drinking? Or better yet, what did we think Spike was
drinking?) And way back in March, I think it was, don't feel like
looking it up, you mentioned how blood could be like chocolat.
VampHarmony seems to be the first to mention the richness and
flavor of it. So she clearly appreciates the flavor of things.
But she questions these cravings in DisHarmony. She doesn't want
to hurt Cordy. Even though her craving and evil nature overcomes
this desire not to hurt eventually.
2. Now that you mention it very few modern vamps have normal faces.
I've wondered about this. Is it just the writers attempt to save
on changing makeup back and forth or can we come up with a better
reason. The only ones I've seen in normal face that seem to be
modern vamps?
Two from All The Way, VampHarmony, (don't know how old Sunday
is - oh Dead Soul has written a fantastic fan fic on Sunday available
on fanfiction.net),VampWillow, VampXander in the Wish, and that's
all that come to mind.
3. agree with CJL...I too never forgave Riley for taking the easy
route and going back to the group mentality. And i see the same
danger with Harmony. I foresee her showing up next year in league
with the next BB. A groupie all the way. (Although it seemed less
like Amway and more like the 1980s Est to me..) But then I've
always followed my own drummer so that's sort of subjective view
on my part. After watching The I in Team again? Methinks it was
ME's view as well. Whedon isn't much for group dynamics either.
To get some insight on Whedon - there's a great spoilerfree interview
on www.slayage.com about Firefly and how overworked he is.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks for the plug, shadowkat! -- Dead Soul, 18:57:54
09/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I'm seconding the fic recommendation -- go read it!
-- LadyStarlight, 12:02:03 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I'm seconding the fic recommendation -- go
read it! -- shadowkat, 12:18:37 09/10/02 Tue
Don't know how to do links. I'm computer dumb, so sue me.
(A wonderfully talented fan set up my website for me, what you
thought I set that up??? yeah right. LOL!)
But the name of the story is SUNDAY GIRL. It's by Dead
Soul. You can access it by going to www.fanfiction.net
and she also has a short fic up about Spike trying to kill a slayer
in Spain, which is very good and from our fanged four fic. Just
go to fanfic site and hunt under Dead Soul.
Oh - Adults only. NC17
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Oh man, you guys! Now everyone's gonna find
out what a perve I am... -- Dead Soul, 12:53:53 09/10/02
Tue
Seriously, Sunday Girl is a HARD NC-17 - not for the squeamish
or faint of heart.
Fiesta Brava is a gentle rollicking PG-13 - just lots of peripheral
gore.
Dead (and computer dumb, too - went to the FAQ to try to figure
out how to do html links and ended up with letter salad and a
side of puncuation mark dressing) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I'd love to find out. But -- Sophist,
13:10:12 09/10/02 Tue
When I started to read the story, I got constant popup ads. At
one point, some program started downloading without my permission
and I had to crash deliberately to prevent that from happening
(and then clean up my hard drive afterwards). How can I gain insight
into your perversions without all this happening?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Click on Ad Blocker -- shadowkat,
13:13:46 09/10/02 Tue
Finn Macool suggested this a while back. Just click
Ad Blocker and click enable then go back and search.
It will make it possible for you to read and search fanfic
for two days without pop-ups. Amazing device.
Had the same problem. That nasty ad made me have to shut down
my entire system and reboot twice until I discovered
Ad blocker.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd love to find out. But
-- Dead Soul,
13:15:01 09/10/02 Tue
Send me your email address and I'll be happy to send it to you.
Word attachment OK?
Also, click on "ad blocker" at fanfiction.net to get
2 ad-free days. I may be a pervert, but I'm not nearly as perverted
as whoever invented pop-ups.
Dead (and in too much of a hurry to come up with a new parenthetical
witticism (and there was much rejoicing)) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Possible solution. -- Darby,
13:16:34 09/10/02 Tue
I've used this under different circumstances: pop-ups that delay-load
but are unable to, replacing your page with an error message.
I make sure the text version is up and hit the "stop"
button, and the erroneous whatever doesn't try to load. Might
work with these other delayed pops.
- Darby, of the "try something" school of internet experience.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks all 3 of you. I'll
try all suggestions. And may DarkWillow curse the inventor of
popups. -- Sophist, 13:57:04 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Flaying and incineration
would be far too kind, IMHO. -- Honorificus (She Who Doesn't
Need Advertisements), 23:21:05 09/10/02 Tue
There's a special place in the deepest Hell for them. Right alongside
the inventors of CD packaging (how do you open those without breaking
a nail or the CD case?) and Muzak.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Repeating what I said last night --
'find out'? <beg> -- LadyStarlight, 15:03:37 09/10/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I meant all the lucky people
who haven't had the misfortune of running into me in chat
-- Dead (and the world's most obnoxious chatter) Soul, 15:06:30
09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re:
Harmony and VampHarmony -- Dochawk, 19:08:11 09/09/02 Mon
Harmony gets a bum rap. She seems to be nothing but a vapid ditz
on the surface. But i think there's more going on here.
Harmony is the follower"
Kat,
I agree with you that there is more going on with Harmony, but
I don't think she is a follower as much as a failed leader. In
"Real Me" She goes out and finds minions. She wants
to be the group leader, but just isn't smart enough to come up
with realistic plans and eventually her minions realie she is
likely to get themselves killed so they desert her.
But I think this is even better demonstrated in "The Wish".
Harmony has become the leader of the Cordettes after Cordy becomes
a Scooby through her relationship with Xander. After the end of
Cordander Cordy wants to go back to her former status, but harmony
does not want to give up the position:
"Harmony: God, Cordy, when I heard about... Well, I mean,
I couldn't believe it. But it was smart. You know, the injury
thing? You take a week off, let everybody forget about the temporary
insanity that was Xander Harris.
Cordelia: (raises her eyebrows) Xander who?
Harmony: Oh!
They all exchange a little fake nervous laughter.
Cordette: You know what you have to do. Start dating. Get back
on the horse.
Cordelia: Oh, absolutely! I am ready to ride!
Harmony: Then I have just the stallion. He's *so* you.
She leads her over to the outside stairs where Jonathon is sitting,
nursing a soft drink. He is taken aback by the sudden attention,
and looks around to see if they didn't really mean someone else,
but there is no one else. Cordelia realizes she's been had.
Harmony: (giggles) I'm pretty sure he won't cheat on you. At least
not for a while. Plus, he's got a kill moped.
Can you imagine Cordette Harmony talking to Cordelia this way?
cordy has lost her position and Harmony wants to keep her there.
I think she has much deeper motivations than we give her credit
for, but just doesn't have the capabilities to pull them off.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Harmony and VampHarmony -- leslie,
09:05:47 09/10/02 Tue
"I think she has much deeper motivations than we give her
credit for, but just doesn't have the capabilities to pull them
off."
Actually, this is the point I was trying to make above. All of
the other vamps we've come to know *did* acquire the capabilities
to achieve in undeath what they couldn't in life; Harmony's the
only exception. Why is that? Is it just that she's young? (Was
Spike a Harmony in the Fang Gang until he killed the Chinese Slayer?
Was Angelus an incompetent jerk for the first hundred years or
so?) Or is it that, as I said, living in a society that advocates
instantaneous gratification and the repression of *nothing*, there
isn't the kind of release of repression in vampirism that there
was in previous centuries? The thing is also, the other vamps
we know changed their desires after being vamped--suddenly realized
that what they'd wanted in life was not so much after all--yet
again, Harmony has remained exactly the same. It's almost as though
you have to assume, since having a "demon" take over
her soul makes no change in her, was there a demon in there already?
(A minor, rather petty demon who is looked down upon by all the
other demons.)
[> [> [> Harmony and
"Earshot" -- Darby, 13:18:13 09/09/02 Mon
My take on Harmony is similar to what we were shown about Cordelia
in Earshot (it was one of the best details of the episode
that all reading Cordy's mind got you was a split-second preview
of what was about to come out of her mouth), that what you see
is all that is or was there. There was no real baser side to render
archtypical, Harmony as a vamp has just changed her appetites.
That's why Cordelia couldn't tell the difference in Disharmony.
Strangely enough, though, VampHarmony seems to have developed
somewhat, matured a bit, since her introduction - is the arrested
adolescence of a vampire somehow undermined when the host was
already arrested?
I have no idea what that really means in the larger context here,
though.
- Darby, who remembered all of these vamps when he was planning
this post last night and yet managed to forget them by this morning.
[> [> Great Points!
-- Vickie, 11:47:05 09/09/02 Mon
I love your VampWillow commentary. IMHO, Willow has always thought
rules were for the "little people," though she certainly
didn't want to be caught. She said "I'm very seldom naughty,"
but broke into secure computers almost from day one. She tricked
Cordelia and Harmony into deleting their programming homework
(The Harvest). She broke into the morgue to examine a corpse and
see whether Oz had been the (unintentional) killer (Beauty and
the Beasts). She (and Buffy) snooped in Giles' journal (Halloween).
She sneaked in and read Gile's adults-only magic books (Becoming).
Willow has always thought she knew better than everyone else,
and it is this arrogance, coupled with her lack of self esteem
(yeah, I know, paradox, we humans do them) that built the disaster
that was the end of Season Six.
You did, however, leave a vampire out of this discussion:
Harmony. I admit it, she's a stumper. Practically the poster
child for the arrested-development metaphor. Harmony is so shallow
that it's hard to even wade in the pool of her being.
When we see the human Harmony, she is essentially Cordelia Jr.
Pretty, vapid, vain, and cruel. A little less socially ept (and
therefore the also-ran), and (as we see a little more of her),
not so bright. And what have we said about Cordelia?
She's what Buffy was, before Buffy was called.
So, can we see vampHarmony as a small image of vampBuffy, if her
turning occurred before she was called as the Slayer? I don't
think so.
vampHarmony is little changed from human Harmony. She loves clothes,
indulgence, attention. She's maybe more erotically focused--but
maybe we just didn't see enough of Harmony to know. She's still
socially ambitious, and still enept.
I cannot make this meandering make any sense. IMHO, vampHarmony
is the same as human Harmony, just no suntan. Maybe someone else
can make something of her.
[> [> [> Some important
considerations you left out -- Sophist, 13:15:25 09/09/02
Mon
IMHO, Willow has always thought rules were for the "little
people," though she certainly didn't want to be caught. She
said "I'm very seldom naughty," but broke into secure
computers almost from day one. She tricked Cordelia and Harmony
into deleting their programming homework (The Harvest). She broke
into the morgue to examine a corpse and see whether Oz had been
the (unintentional) killer (Beauty and the Beasts). She (and Buffy)
snooped in Giles' journal (Halloween). She sneaked in and read
Gile's adults-only magic books (Becoming). Willow has always thought
she knew better than everyone else, and it is this arrogance,
coupled with her lack of self esteem (yeah, I know, paradox, we
humans do them) that built the disaster that was the end of Season
Six.
I think you're leaving out some important considerations here.
I admit I've never understood these complaints about Willow. The
accusation that she's a hacker strikes me as just as plausible
as Snyder's belief that Buffy was always getting into fights or
"causing" trouble. Sure, there's an element of truth
there, but it conveniently omits why the activity might
be justified.
Every single instance of hacking we ever see Willow do is done
to help the SG, and it's usually done at the request of Buffy
or Giles. To blame Willow for this -- or, worse yet, to advance
it as evidence for arrogance on her part -- is fundamentally to
misconstrue the circumstances.
In addition, it's important to remember that the computer is specifically
used as a plot device. JW, in the S2 commentaries, expressly says
that they use the computer as a device to obtain information that
the SG needs but otherwise could never obtain. Obviously, such
use of a plot device tells us nothing about a character.
As for rule-breaking, well the whole SG stands convicted. Two
of the incidents you mention, B&B and Halloween, actually contradict
the point you want to make. In B&B, Giles gave the orders
(quote from Psyche):
Giles: Yes. Um... (thinks) Buffy. Uh, you, uh, you patrol the
woods. Uh, the others, um, check out the morgue.
Not only was Willow following Giles's orders, so was everyone
else. Xander and Cordy were standing next to Willow in the
morgue. If this incident is evidence of Willow's character, it
is no less evidence of Xander's.
Same with Halloween. This was a joint escapade by Buffy and Willow,
and Buffy forced the issue in the library when Willow would have
chickened out. Again, we'd have to be judgmental about Buffy in
order to cite this incident. I don't see it.
The claim that Willow "really" believes that she knows
better than anyone else is not a statement of fact -- Willow has
never said so, and neither has anyone else. That this assertion
has to be supported by admitting that it creates a paradox, strongly
suggests to me that there is an easier resolution -- there is
no paradox because the assumption is wrong. Occam and all that.
I don't get the inferences from VampWillow to Willow either, but
that's another subject.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Some important considerations you left out -- Darby, 13:32:34
09/09/02 Mon
My point here is that the qualities of the vampires are themselves
illustrative of repressed features of the host - that may or may
not be true, but it makes the superiority of inner Willow valid
by a bit of "reverse engineering."
Also, my take on Hacker Willow was that she made use of skills
she had already developed - it's not something you can decide
to do on a whim, which Joss would know. And the conscience in
those instances wasn't Willow, but Giles, who realized it was
wrong but pointedly chose to ignore it (but commented on it).
Willow had to have known it was wrong but showed no qualms - suggested
it, even.
Some of the rest I have to say treads on personal experience -
I don't know that any of my highly intelligent friends, no matter
what their surface esteem issues, have a potential megalomaniac
buried in them, but I catch glimpses occasionally. They may feel
inferior socially or physically, but intellectual superiority,
even when imaginary, is a powerful force that I've seen lead both
to success and ruin (in almost equal amounts). Adding that to
any sort of real power (computer industry, anyone-?) can produce
some monstrous and irrational consequences.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Some important considerations you left out -- Sophist,
13:56:04 09/09/02 Mon
the qualities of the vampires are themselves illustrative of
repressed features of the host - that may or may not be true,
but it makes the superiority of inner Willow valid by a bit of
"reverse engineering."
Perhaps. That's certainly one way to see it (though not the only
way). I had in mind the additional problem that I don't see VampWillow,
in particular, as telling us anything about Willow.
And the conscience in those instances wasn't Willow, but Giles,
who realized it was wrong but pointedly chose to ignore it (but
commented on it).
I think that the conscience of all SG members makes liberal use
of the "in a good cause" rationale. I don't see any
reason to single out Willow on this; they're all guilty as charged.
And if they all are, we can't reason from this to Willow's character
in particular.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Okay, can't agree here -- Scroll, 14:34:17 09/09/02
Mon
I don't think we can safely discount VampWillow from Willow's
personality. Villains took pains to draw the parallels
with "I'm busy", "Bored now", etc. Two
to Go and Grave also showed us hints of VampWillow's
flippant cruelty. Now, do I think Willow in her right mind would
ever say the things she said to Buffy, Dawn, and Giles? No. But
I do believe Willow, in moments of extreme frustration, could
feel them in her secret heart. Her "Daddy's home, I'm in
wicked trouble now" seems to be something that stems from
all the times Giles scolded her about magic. Her resentment of
Buffy being number one is probably real, though usually overruled
by her love for Buffy. But that's probably why ME gave us that
clunky magic-addict story line. Because the sweet, loving Willow
we know would never try to kill Giles no matter how much resentment
she felt.
VampWillow is playful, sadistic, cruel. She is scientific, experimental,
and almost poetic in her torture of PuppyAngel. She is favoured
by the Master over VampXander. When frustrated or thwarted, she
pouts. She makes her own fun. Willow is playful, but not sadistic
or cruel. But she can be petty, (no more than the average person),
and knows how to hold a grudge. She is scientific, precise, and
at times poetic. She is also favoured by Giles over Xander. When
frustrated or thwarted, she pouts/mopes. In Something Blue,
she decides to makes her will happen. DarthWillow is playful,
sadistic, and cruel. Her torture of Warren is exacting, not random.
When frustrated or thwarted, she didn't pout but lashed out at
everyone around her.
I'm not saying that Willow is necessarily cruel, sadistic, or
evil. Buffy, Giles, and Xander all tend to lash out in anger (though
perhaps in different ways). Buffy broods (which is moping but
less vocal). Xander tries to kill Spike for sleeping with Anya.
But I'd say they are all good, moral people. But I still think
Willow has within her the potential to be VampWillow, just as
she always had the potential to be DarthWillow. (Though, again,
I'm not saying that Willow was destined to be DarthWillow
or anything!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Okay, can't agree here -- Shambleau, 16:45:17
09/09/02 Mon
I agree with Scroll, but would add Willow's sexuality to the list.
Prior to VampWillow's flamboyant bisexuality, there was no indication
Willow was anything but straight. I would say that VampWillow
probably portrays Willow's libido more accurately than "Hello,
gay now!" Willow is willing to admit. After all, VampWillow
would feel free to act on any desire her human personality has,
while Willow is more likely to suppress some parts of her psyche,
if only to make things simpler. A fixed sexual identity, with
its ready-made group member status, is easier to handle and less
threatening both for Willow and others than dealing with the fluidity
of her desires.
In fact, having watched Buffy vs. Dracula and Tough Love back
to back last night, I was struck by Willow's obvious attraction
to Dracula and Tara's nervous remarking on it. The issue was then
raised in their argument. Tara said that she was frightened by
how fast Willow was changing and growing in power. Willow immediately
leapt to accusing Tara of thinking she was just a LUG (lesbian
until graduation), which seemed odd to me at the time. Tara hadn't
even brought it up. Once it was in the air though, it was clear
that Tara wasn't totally certain about it. Also, Willow's vehemence
in denying it reminds me now of Buffys protestations that she
wasn't attracted to Spike. Protesting just a little too much.
ME may have been setting up the possibility, through these scenes,
that Willow was bi, for exploration after Tara was killed, not
realizing the firestorm that was going to occur. No way in hell
it can happen now, even Joss ain't that gutsy, but it would have
been truer to the character, IMO.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> But remember only Joss decides what's true
to the character, not us -- Slain, 17:18:57 09/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> clarification -- Slain, 17:22:07
09/09/02 Mon
Or rather I should say that we can have our own readings and interpretations
of the character, but Joss holds the only truth about them,
simply because they have no objective existences outside of a
fictional world.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: clarification -- shambleau,
18:11:27 09/09/02 Mon
Well, if Joss decides not to do something that he'd previously
decided to do, out of fear of adverse audience reaction, then
the audience is affecting what his truth is. I haven't seen the
interviews personally, but I've read other posters' reports that
Joss believes Willow is bi, and was thinking of exploring that
aspect, but isn't now, for fear of stirring up the hornet's nest
again. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd also changed his long-range
plans for Riley based on how people were reacting. So, yeah, he's
the ultimate arbiter of what goes into the story, but he doesn't
decide in a vacuum.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, shambleau may
be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- shadowkat, 18:31:45
09/09/02 Mon
Although I agree with Slain, the writer controls the character.
Our interpretations of the character should remain within the
context of the writer's universe to be truly valid. If Whedon
wants Willow to be bi, sadistic, whatever - it will happen. That
said, you lose your audience if you have the character do something
to much out of character. The writer can write whatever he/she
damn well pleases - but if the audience doesn't watch or care...the
story dies in a vaccume. So writer's care what audiences think
to a degree - if only to survive.
Whedon does a balancing act. He likes to push the envelope, give
the audience its shocks, show darkness. But it's a fine line as
he discovered this year, between thrilling the audience, which
he did with Angel and annoying it which he did with Btvs. Audience
doesn't like it? They won't watch it. That said, I hope and pray
he doesn't start catering to us because that would be really bad
and be the one thing that would get me to stop watching. I hate
it when writers cater to audiences and fans. ick.
On Willow's sexuality:
I read the interview where Joss states on www.slayage.com
- I think it's back in June, that he and Marti discussed Willow's
sexuality and decided that because they killed Tara as opposed
to just writing her out as they did OZ, they had to keep Willow
gay. If they made Willow bi or gave her a male love interest after
Tara's death? It would send a negative message they did NOT intend
to send to people that they like and admire. So they made the
decision to keep her gay. It didn't sound like he was lying here
and I think it was in response to a question by Wanda in her chat.
Writers do care what fans and readers and watchers think.
Being a writer myself and having posted essays that have gotten
a variety responses - I can testify to that. But when we start
altering our text too drastically to fit what we believe are our
readers demands is when we've truly sold out and our text/art
becomes paradoxically that of a hack and worthless. So I hope
Whedon and Company continue to do their tight-rope act. From the
most recent Whedon interview I read, I believe they are.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, shambleau
may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- shambleau, 19:04:15
09/09/02 Mon
I don't know if Willow being bi "sends a negative message".
I certainly wouldn't want to tell someone who's bi that there's
a negative connotation to that. I'd say that the decision was
catering and I wish Joss hadn't done it, but it's done now. Oh,
well.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually,
shambleau may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- Dochawk,
19:23:07 09/09/02 Mon
The message wasn't about being bi, the message was that if Willow
went back to a man it would further the evil lesbian cliche. Lesbian
goes evil, she goes straight and she goes good again. In addition,
ME had already told us she was gay, not bi "Gay now".
And I disagree with you regarding Joss being influenced by the
fans. Like Spike? He wouldn't be there except for the influence
of fans. And in this case, Joss really didn't realize that he
had fallen victim to the lesbian cliche and it wasn't the message
he wanted to send. So it wasn't so much what the fans wanted but
the message he wanted to send which in the end is a pro-openess
message. The fan interest just told him what was going on.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually,
shambleau may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- shambleau,
20:38:44 09/09/02 Mon
ME did not tell us she was gay, Willow did. If Willow had been
asked if she was gay when she was with Oz, she would have said
no, she was straight. Her telling us means as little as Buffy
telling us she's not attracted to Spike. We don't know what her
level of self-awareness is. She certainly wasn't aware of why
what she was doing with magic was bound to lead to trouble. Again,
I go back to VampWillow, who liked both men and women. I think
they could have finessed the so-called lesbian cliche problem
in various ways, such as by having Willow have a few brief affairs,
out of misery, starting with a woman, then a man, then a woman,
for those who would howl if she was with just a man.
I'm not going to get into the evil lesbian cliche debate, because
that can go on forever. I'll just say that I'm with those who
think it was a valid choice and don't think Joss fell victim to
it at all. And I hadn't heard that he believed that he had. Is
that true?
As to whether I like Spike? Not much, actually. They've managed
to keep me on board and make an interesting story out of his journey,
for which I'm grateful. But it could easily have gone the other
way.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Actually, shambleau may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6)
-- Dochawk, 21:50:43 09/09/02 Mon
Willow repeats the statement in Tabula Rasa "you know I think
I 'm kinda gay". There is absolutely no evidence that Willow
has been attracted to anyone with a Y chromosome since she understood
her sexuality with Tara (really in Hush). Unless Willow discovers
a new attraction for men, she is gay.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Willow's sexuality - the practicalities -- KdS, 01:02:23
09/10/02 Tue
Sorry if this is lowering the tone of the discussion, but I would
say that Willow has very practical reasons for publicly identifying
as lesbian if she is in fact bi. I've been at university within
the last few years, and I would say that any bisexual female student
as attractive as Willow is would be very well-advised to publicly
identify as gay. Given the attitudes to bisexual women over here
in Britain (and from what I've seen, the States) if WIllow had
come out as bi, she'd spend every Friday night for the rest of
her time at college fighting off sleazy straight boys trying to
persuade her to have threesomes with them and their horrified
girlfriends, and who wants to do that?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Willow's sexuality - the practicalities -- Slain,
03:46:12 09/10/02 Tue
" if WIllow had come out as bi, she'd spend every Friday
night for the rest of her time at college fighting off sleazy
straight boys trying to persuade her to have threesomes with them
and their horrified girlfriends, and who wants to do that?"
I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question right? ;)
I don't agree that Joss had decided that Willow was bi, but then
decided not to explore that any further. Rather I don't think
he was decided as to her sexuality, had generally considered her
bisexual, but wanted to let the story dicate it. I think making
Willow bi now, aside from pissing off people, would make less
sense for her plot arc in general, and I mean including
Season 1-4. That's my reading, and it differs from other people's
sufficently to show that there's no clear or true path for any
character.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Well I agree with Slain. -- shadowkat, 07:26:46
09/10/02 Tue
That was what Joss said. He said, they hadn't really decided it
could go either way. But the story arc and the fact that Tara
died pushed it towards gay. He continued to emphasize that he
did what worked for the story. (Didn't mean to get us talking
about the lesbian cliche thing again which I really don't agree
with and have been avoiding discussing.)
All the characters in these shows fit the story first and formost.
Regardless of our personal feelings for the characters, i think
the story dictates their actions before our tasts do. (thank god.
Tara's death proved that. As did Angel's in Season 2 and the AR
scene. None of those things would have happened if ME listened
to fans as much as you think.) Spike is there b/c Whedon loved
the character and the actor. The writers loved to write for him,
which they've said in interviews. Actors loved to work with him.
And It helped that the fans also took to him. Same thing happened
with Angel, who had originally had a smaller role. And Jonathan,
and Harmony, and Cordelia, and Wesely... These things happen in
stories. I know when I write, a character I previously hadn't
thought much of, will often take over and I'll have to rewrite
to give him or her more story because it works.
At any rate, Btvs has more or less always worked for me story
wise, particularly now, or I wouldn't post on it or wast time
writing essays. And I loved the Willow arc as much as I love the
Spike arc.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Willow and VampWillow -- Sophist, 09:15:56
09/10/02 Tue
It is very common, in interpreting Willowís character,
to attribute to her hidden ìdarkî aspects. Those
aspects, we are told, can be seen in VampWillow from The Wish
and Doppelgangerland.
I have never shared this view. I think it should be clear, fundamentally,
that such a view is not a statement of fact at all. It is, instead,
a conclusion or interpretation drawn from selected elements of
the show and the view of Willow held by some viewers. There is
nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as everyone is careful
to label it an interpretation rather than a fact (and I expect
manwitch to challenge me here to distinguish between the two).
However, I consider that interpretation to be founded on a very
shaky chain of reasoning, so shaky that itís implausible.
In order to simplify the discussion a bit, Iím going to
focus on perhaps the most conspicuous attribute of VampWillow,
her sadism. Shadowkat treated us all to an excellent series of
essays on this topic recently. VampWillowís sadism is so
prominent that no one could seriously dispute it. If we canít
track sadism from VampWillow to Willow, itís hard to see
how we could legitimately claim to use VampWillow as an expression
of Willowís depths on any other aspect.
Letís start with alternate universe created in The Wish.
How are we to understand this alternate universe? I see 2 basic
possibilities:
1. The alternate world was created anew using Cordeliaís
interpretation of the world at that moment in time as a template.
This would be similar to what the monks did with Dawn. As Iíve
said before, Iíve always seen the episode in this light.
This interpretation has the advantage of explaining Anyankaís
statement that ìI had no idea this world would be so exciting.î
It also allows us to account for many of the continuity problems
that have bothered people about this episode. Still, itís
an interpretation and Iím not insisting on it. Iím
merely pointing out that this is one legitimate way to see the
episode. If we adopt this interpretation, then the characteristics
of VampWillow tell us nothing about Willow, but only about how
Cordelia, in her anger and pain, saw Willow at that moment in
time.
2. The alternate world was pre-existing, and Cordyís wish
merely transported her there. This interpretation has serious
logical problems (how did Cordy survive the Harvest? whereís
Darla? Luke? what happened to the Annoying One and the prophecies
in the Codex that are, in Gilesís words, ìnever
wrongî? was Xander vamped before the SheMantis got him?
since Xander had no interest in Willow at that time, when and
how did he and VampWillow become a couple? how did two newly risen
vamps become the Master's chief associates?). Itís not
my intent to debate this here; these difficulties make this interpretation
implausible but not impossible. My point is simply that the ìsadismî
charge rests upon a foundation not of fact or evidence, but merely
of one possible (and to me implausible) interpretation of an episode.
The next step in the argument involves the undeniably sadistic
behavior of VampWillow. How do we account for the behavior we
see in vampires generally and in this case in particular? Here
are the possibilities I see:
1. The demon soul adds something to the human base. If this happens,
we can never be sure if the characteristic expressed in the vamp
was there all along in the human, or if it was added later by
the demon. This interpretation means that we canít argue
that VampWillowís behavior necessarily tells us something
about Willowís personality (or, indeed, that any vamp behavior
necessarily tells us about his/her human predecessor). Instead,
the logic must move in the opposite direction ñ from human
characteristic to vamp behavior. VampWillow is no longer evidence
of Willow, though Willow could be evidence of VampWillow.
2. The potential for sadism is latent in all humans. Shadowkat
said so in her essay, and it may well be true. This, again, would
tell us nothing about Willow per se. If everyone is latently
sadistic, then thereís no point in saying Willow is. Under
this option, VampTara could be sadistic even though we never saw
any evidence whatsoever of sadism expressed in Taraís character.
3. The vampire expresses only those characteristics available
in the human, and either (a) only some humans are sadistic,
or (b) the vampire expresses dominant, not latent, characteristics
of the human personality. This appears to be the assumption underlying
the claim for Willowís ìsadismî. Again, I
wonít rule out this interpretation, but there are serious
problems with this view of vampires (why is Dru sadistic? how
do we get from William to Spike under this theory?). The point
is this: the claim about Willow now rests on linked interpretations,
each no more (and probably less) plausible than other available
interpretations, and is not a factual statement at all.
In sum, my view of Willow in S1-5 is that there is no hidden dark
side to Willow. What you see is what you get. Willow was sweet,
insecure, loyal, helpful, reliable. She was Buffyís best
friend and Buffy was her best friend.
I expect many responses to the effect: What about Willow in S6?
As I have said before, my view is that ME radically altered her
character in S6. To avoid misunderstanding, I hasten to add that
this is perfectly legitimate. People do change, especially under
traumatic circumstances. I also have no problem with changing
a character for dramatic impact (though it has to be transitioned
plausibly). I donít happen to care for the way ME handled
Willow in S6, but that doesnít mean they were wrong to
try. What it does mean is that we should not be ìbackshadowingî
Willowís behavior during S6 into her character in S1-5;
we should just acknowledge the change and take it from there.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Sorry, I don't understand -- Sarand,
11:49:15 09/10/02 Tue
I'm sorry but I don't understand your first point about how the
alternate universe was created using Cordelia's interpretation
of the world at that point in time. My feeling about it is based
on what Cordelia said in her wish: "I wish Buffy Summers
had never come to Sunnydale." I thought that Anyanka was
then able to go back in time, so to speak, and prevent Buffy from
coming to Sunnydale at that point in time just before "The
Harvest" and sent her to Cleveland (or wherever) instead.
Then, the events that we had seen in the following two and a half
years happened differently because Buffy was not there. Angel
came to help her but she wasn't there. He tried to prevent the
Master from rising (maybe killing Darla and Luke in the process)
but failed. At some point, Willow, the Willow who was the same
Willow we knew at the beginning of "The Harvest," was
turned and became VampWillow. Is this the same as what you were
thinking?
I guess I don't understand the comment that VampWillow is based
on Cordelia's interpretation of Willow at that point in time.
Do you mean, the point in time when Cordelia made the wish? Why?
Why wouldn't VampWillow develop out of the Willow who we saw at
the beginning of "The Harvest?" Honestly, I'm not trying
to debate the point with you, I'm just confused.
I'm sorry, I don't have time right now to develop my question
better. And I will try to go to the archives later and see what
continuity problems people saw with the episode. But since your
post seems to follow from this interpretation of "The Wish"
I thought I should ask for some clarity. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I don't understand --
Sophist, 12:42:28 09/10/02 Tue
I'll try to clarify.
What I mean for option no. 1 is this: Anyanka created the world
from scratch. It never existed before Cordy made the wish. In
order to create that world, Anyanka needed information to create
the inhabitants. She took that information from Cordy's view of
them at the moment in time when Cordy made the wish. Thus, Cordy
saw Xander and Willow as a predatory and evil couple, so they
became such in the wishworld. Etc.
As a result, the characters in the wishworld do not represent
"real" characters in Sunnydale, but rather those characters
as filtered through Cordelia's thoughts and impressions.
In fact, it makes a good deal of sense to think of the wishworld
as transpiring entirely within Cordy's head and never actually
existing in "reality". We could debate this as endlessly
as Normal Again; my point is that there are alternative ways to
view The Wish, that which one you choose is purely a matter of
interpretation (not fact), and that the rest of the argument about
Willow rests on this shaky foundation.
The interpretation you suggest is (I'm sure) the one most people
have. If you think through the continuity problems I suggested,
you'll see some of the difficulties with it. Just for example,
Luke was the Vessel for the Harvest. If Luke completed the Harvest,
how can Cordy be alive in the wishworld (she was in the Bronze
and was Luke's next victim when Buffy intervened)? If Luke did
not complete it, how did the Master rise? Etc.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Once you take Buffy out of the
picture... -- dream of the consortium, 13:35:08 09/10/02
Tue
doesn't that imply that all sorts of things could be different?
To use a completely absurd example, let's say Cordy's parents
had promised her a trip to St. Croix if her grades were high enough.
Buffy never showed up, so Willow wasn't feeling quite so cocky
when she told Cordelia and Harmony to delete their assignments.
Willow helped them instead (like the sweet thing she is). Cordelia's
grades are that little bit better - Cordy is off to tan, conveniently
enough missing the Harvest. Comes back to find several former
classmates all fang-y. I really don't see any continuity problems
for an alternate universe, as long as the time frame is after
the change. (If Willow and Xander had never met before, that would
be different, because presumably, Anyanka responds to the literal
wish only and doesn't screw around with what came before.) More
to the point, I don't see anything that specifically indicates
that we should interpret the WishWorld as being a creation of
Cordelia's mind, and it seems a rather complicated explanation
compared with the simple interpretation that the world was what
it seemed to be, an alternative universe based on a simple change
of events.
I don't want to get into the Willow thing at length right now
(actually have work to do before five), but I think we are definitely
supposed to make connections between the vamps we see and their
human counterparts. Are these links one-to-one? No, of course
no. But Drusilla's madness and visions, Angelus' swaggering arrogance,
Spike's romanticism all seemed to lend credence to the assumption
that we are supposed to look for qualities exhibited by the vamp
in the human. To ignore all aspects of VampWillow's character
as irrelevant to Willow's character seems to be willfuly disregarding
a basic way in which the show examines character - the imagination
of the perverted character, in which normal traits are drawn as
exaggerate evil. The question of which of VampWillow's traits
are meant to belinked to Willow I'll have to leave for another
time.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I don't understand
-- Slain, 14:07:01 09/10/02 Tue
That's a really interesting point, Sophist. I'd always considered
the Wishverse simply as a "what if", a kind of twist
in time. But of course 'Dopplegangland' wouldn't exist, then,
as that Doppleverse exists in parallel to the normal Buffyverse,
and has its own objective existence.
I think the Wishverse is, as the name suggests, a universe created
around a Wish, an alternate universe created by Anyanka, in which
Cordy was deposited. The Wishverse was created through a combination
of Cordy's perceptions of characters and the classic cautionary
tale of a wish gone horribly right. Anyanka clearly believed
in a certain amount of punishment for Cordy, perhaps because she'd
wished ill of a woman rather than a man.
So the Wishverse is, to an extent, Cordy's nightmare. But, however,
she does die in it, and it continues. So clearly it's more
than an illusion, it's a fully functional world. But the characters
aren't all based on Cordy's nightmares; otherwise Giles would
be ten times more boring and Buffy would be kicking vampire ass
with perfect hair and fashionable clothes. So clearly the Wishverse
does have basis in reality, and is drawn from it; even if the
eventual aim is the "be careful what you wish for" fairytale.
The precise nature of the Wishverse is very hard to grasp. We
can safely assume that it carried on existing after the end of
The Wish or Dopplegangland, with Vamp Willow slain, even though
that was all we saw. So we can also assume that it would still
exist now, as clearly the destruction of Anyanka's amulet didn't
destroy it, otherwise that would have meant reconstructing the
whole Wishverse for Anya to go back through magic to retreive
the amulet. If the Wishverse's existence was purely temporary,
then it wouldn't have been around in 'Dopplegangland'.
This is beginning to get confusing. "Beginning?"
I hear you cry. Anyway, to return to the original point; can we
understand anything about Willow from Vamp Willow? I'd say yes
and no. I think to a large extent she represented Cordy's image
of Willow, a cute big-eyed torturing sadistic temptress. But because
everything in the world didn't come from Cordy, she was also a
large part real Willow. I don't think, therefore, that we can
be sure of what Vamp Willow says about Willow; she might well
shows us that Willow is capable of cruelty and non-S&M-type
sadism, but no more so than any other person. Perhaps the difference
is that Vamp Willow, like Willow in so many things, happens to
be good at it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> "...happens to be
good at it." LMAO! -- Dead Soul, 14:12:17 09/10/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good points. -- Sophist,
14:22:15 09/10/02 Tue
I have no problem seeing it this way.
The continued existence of the wishworld as an alternate universe
after The Wish doesn't pose a problem for my theory (I
don't think). However we see that world, though, there is that
nagging plothole about the destroyed necklace and time travel
paradoxes involved in retrieving the necklace. It's the creation
of that world that's important.
Very funny last line.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> wishverse's (non?)existence
-- anom, 00:34:54 09/12/02 Thu
"The precise nature of the Wishverse is very hard to grasp.
We can safely assume that it carried on existing after the end
of The Wish or Dopplegangland, with Vamp Willow slain, even though
that was all we saw. So we can also assume that it would still
exist now, as clearly the destruction of Anyanka's amulet didn't
destroy it, otherwise that would have meant reconstructing the
whole Wishverse for Anya to go back through magic to retreive
the amulet. If the Wishverse's existence was purely temporary,
then it wouldn't have been around in 'Dopplegangland'."
There are at least 2 ways it could be possible to bring the objects
& characters in the Wishverse into the normal Buffyverse without
the Wishverse's having to exist beyond when Anya's amulet was
smashed.
1. Anya & Willow's spell brought vamp!Willow forward in time from
the moment before she was staked, i.e., its effect in the Wishverse
took place earlier than when the spell was done in the Buffyverse.
She was returned to the same instant, got staked, & the amulet
was smashed, ending the Wishverse --> it no longer exists.
2. The Wishverse was frozen at the moment the amulet was smashed.
It still "exists," but time has stopped there.
Either way, Willow is pulled from a time before the end of the
Wishverse, & it was still destroyed. No need for reconstruction
('cause the original construction wasn't shoddy!).
Hmm...2 things occur to me based on this:
1. Does it matter that v!W was slain when she got back? If the
Wishverse no longer exists, then neither does she, whether undead
or dust. If it's frozen...more of an open question.
2. What happened to the real Buffyverse while the Wishverse was
in effect? Did it still exist? Did time advance in it parallel
to time in the Wishverse? Did it "replace" the normal
Buffyverse for the short time it existed? When Giles destroys
the amulet, everything returns to when Cordelia made her wish.
Apparently nothing happened in the Buffyverse "meanwhile";
time doesn't have to reverse there to pick up where it left off,
just as time hasn't advanced in the Wishverse when v!W is sent
back. Then she's staked, presumably Giles smashes the amulet in
the library as we saw in Doppelgngland, & the Wishverse either
vanishes or is frozen--all at an earlier time than the events
v!W participated in in Doppelgngland.
Possibly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe it goes to
the crazy melty land? Or the land without shrimp? -- Slain,
14:59:34 09/12/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wishes -- Cleanthes, 12:45:16
09/14/02 Sat
Were I ever offered the chance to make a wish by a powerful genie
or vengeance demon, I would wish as follows (with a nod to Hofstadter):
"I wish that my wish not be granted"
Because any universe in which wishes get granted will eventually
have a smartass like me in it, there MUST be a reset button to
keep things going. When Cordy makes her wish she fouled everything
up. When Giles broke the amulet, he restarted the whole universe.
VampWillow, though, was so damn cool that her glimmering glamour
could still be called from the potentiality plenum.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wishes
-- Ete, 14:26:54 09/14/02 Sat
"I wish that my wish not be granted"
isn't that a paradox ? You know, like the "I'm saying a lie"
thingie.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A paradox,
a paradox, a most delightful paradox - yes it is -- Cleanthes, 17:49:43
09/14/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: wishverse's (non?)existence
-- meritaten, 17:24:36 09/14/02 Sat
A real scientific theory, often expanded upon in the Star Trek
world, is that there are a multitude of realities, existing on
different planes, that result from bifurcations in reality. These
bifurcations are results of minor decisions or random variations
in both common and uncommon events. The series "Sliders"
is another example of this. This goes beyond the linear notion
of time that we perceive in our daily lives. While this has never
been proven (and might never be), it is an actual theory which
has received much attention in the sci-fi world.
Of course, magic doesn't usually enter into the sci-fi storied,
so I'm not sure how that would affect the point of bifurcation.
...Or the possbilty of a finte reality for that matter.
One point I did notice was the the action in Dopplegangland did
not show anything in the alternative reality either before the
curse was enabled or after it was broken. VampWillow was brought
to "our" reality just before Oz staked her and was later
returned to the same point in the alternative reality. The spell
involved the folding of time, right? Something like that. Anya
was trying to alter time so that she could retrieve her talisman
before it was destroyed. VampWillow was accidentally retrieved
instead.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Sarand, 16:21:55
09/10/02 Tue
Okay, now I get it. Thanks. Not sure I agree but it gives me something
more to think about. Hmmm. I'm going to be up all night thinking
about continuity problems. Arghh.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I don't understand
-- meritaten, 15:26:12 09/12/02 Thu
WHere do you get the idea that Anyanka created this alternate
world out of Cordelia's head? I just don't understand what lead
you to that. Especially when in Dooplegangland, Anya and Willow
did a spell to fold time in order for Anya/Anyanka to retrieve
her talisman. This seems to me to confirm the fact that this alternate
reality was a result of temporal tampering, not Cordelia's thoughts.
If it was based on Cordelia, why didn't they need her for the
retrieval spell?
As for continuity, once you change an event in the past, everything
that occurs thereafter is laible to alteration. Perhaps Willow
didn't say to press "DEL" and Cordelia was so thrilled
to have her computer assignment doen that she wnet to LA for the
evening rather than going to the Bronze on the night of the Harvest.
OK, stupid alternative, but changing once small event can have
multiple reprecussions.
As for VampXander and VampWillow and representations of darker
aspects, how then would you explain Xander in The Pack? I think
episodes like the Pack, THe Wish, Dopplegangland, etc. work together
to strengthen the idea that the writers are trying to make us
see that we have darker sides and darker urges. Add to this Liam/Angelus/Angel,
William/ Spike, Unvamped Darla/DArla, unvamped Dru/Dru......
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Look at it this way
-- Sophist, 16:44:09 09/12/02 Thu
Is there any reason you can think of why it's impossible
to interpret the wishworld as either
1. Taking place entirely within Cordy's head,
or
2. Taking place in a separate reality created with information
obtained from Cordy's brain?
I have never argued that anyone must interpret it either
of these ways. I have merely pointed out that it is possible to
do so. The consequence of the fact that there are multiple possible
interpretations, and my only real point, is this: Because it's
possible to interpret the wishworld in non-traditional ways, the
assertion that VampWillow tells us something about Willow is not
as secure as people think.
Personally, I prefer the alternative interpretations. I think
they cause fewer problems than the standard one. But it's just
an interpretation and you're free to disgree.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Look at it this
way -- meritaten, 18:07:30 09/12/02 Thu
NOT disagreeing that there can be multiple interpretations...
Also NOT trying to be argumentative....
...But what makes you think Anyanka can see into Cordy's mind?
That ability has never been even hinted at.
...I can't see Cordy, at this point, focusing enough on others
to see how different they would be in this reality. For example,
she already thinks of Buffy as as friendless loser, so why would
Buffy from Cleveland, who is friendless like Kendra, have such
a different personality?
...If it were in Cordy's head, how do you exlain the spell AND
the consequent appearance of VampWillow in Dopplegangland?
I still think that there are more problems with your explanation
than with the standard one. I don't think the continuity is a
problem for the reasons I stated above (and I didn't realize that
I was using almost the same example as someone else had - I just
hadn't read their post yet).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Sue me, I'm gonna interpret! -- Darby,
13:37:58 09/10/02 Tue
Um, maybe I shouldn't invite someone in your line of work to sue,
huh? Kinda like saying, "Bite me!" to Spike...
Anyway, I can find some consistency here. If the vamp personality
is a twisted version of the inner recesses of the human host,
the sadism of Willow's Dark side could be based on a common aspect
of "sensitives:" they may feel, in their heart of hearts,
that the world would be an easier place to deal with if they
just didn't care about hurting people. That makes VampWillow's
sadism (and possibly Dark Willow's cruelty) not so much an exaggeration
as much as a reflection of dark urges that she would never act
on - kind of like the idle thought that put The Weight of the
World on Buffy. For just a fraction of a second, Buffy wondered
if she didn't really want Dawn dead and might have hesitated to
take on Glory when she stole Dawn, and her whole self-image crumbled
around that doubt.
I find that I like the idea (supportable by various dialogue lines
from pretty early on) that Joss and the writers consciously write
the vamp versions in ways that reveal hidden or repressed aspects
of the human characters. I imagine it produces interesting discussions
in the writers' room (they gotta be talking occasionally about
more interesting things than which Bond was better!).
And sorry, but I see no indication of the Wishverse being either
predicated on Cordy's expectations (she was pretty surprised by
everything) or played out in her head (why not wake up once you're
"dead"?). To me, it played much more as a legitimate
"what if?" with a certain critical aspect of history
changed.
And keep in mind, a universe where Buffy never made it to Sunnydale
may have altered the calling order of Slayers - we can't know
that the Master didn't rise by killing a fairly inept Sunnydale
Slayer. And why would Giles have been there? He Watched that Slayer
(it was his turn). Maybe that's why Buffy's Watcher was so resistent
to sending Buffy there (and it did get her killed!).
- Darby, toying with a combination of Continuity Heaven and Hell.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Roger Moore should get an Oscar and
beat Sean Connery over the head with it! -- Slain, 14:12:56
09/10/02 Tue
Or was it the other way around?
See my other post for a confusing explanation, but basically I'd
argue that, to an extent, the Wishverse was based around Cordy;
it was her own fairytale "be careful what you wish for"
scenario.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- Sophist, champing at the bit (or frothing at the mouth), 14:13:40
09/10/02 Tue
You and dream both made one point that I want to clarify. I absolutely
agree that, in every case except wishworld, humans tell us something
about the vamp personalities. Even in the wishworld, this could
remain true depending on how you interpret the newly created world.
However, that interpretation of vamp/human personality still has
the issues that I identified in the second half of my post: is
it the vamp or the human that supplies the characteristic; is
the characteristic one common to us all instead of just Willow;
which human characteristics are expressed and why.
Neither am I saying that the continuity issues can't be solved
if we choose to see the wishworld as a pre-existing reality. However,
neither your suggestions nor dream's will work. Just for example,
it is clear from the Wish itself that Giles was not the watcher
of any slayer in Sunnydale and never had been. It'll require a
lot of work and explanation to solve these problems. And all the
while I'll be on the sideline chanting "Occam, Occam, Occam"
because it really is a lot easier to see the whole episode as
Cordy's nightmare. Wasn't that the point of the episode in the
first place?
Again, I'm not insisting that anyone must see this my way. I'm
just pointing out we're piling Ossa on Pelius in our interpretive
schemes here (don't you love obscure classical references?).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Giles sent to SunnyD for Buffy,
but Buffy never showed -- Scroll, 14:45:04 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> No, that was Angel's line.
-- Darby, 19:11:01 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- aliera, 18:41:20 09/10/02 Tue
"Ter sunt conati imponere Pelio Ossam."
No frothe, I beseech thee!!!
"I would have you call to mind the strength of ancient giants,
that undertook to lay the high mountain Pelion on the top of Ossa,
and to set among those the shady Olympus."--Francais Rabelais:
Works, book iv. chap. xxxviii.
Indeed.
"They were setting on
Ossa upon Olympus, and upon
steep Ossa leavy Pelius."
Geo Chapman: Homer's Odyssey, book xi. 426.
leafy not heavy...
And yet..."the omnipotent Father with his thunder made Olympus
tremble, and from Ossa hurled Pelion." Ovid: Metamophoses.
i.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- Darby, 19:29:54 09/10/02 Tue
We don't know from the script that Giles had not been an active
Watcher - he certainly was a Watcher, and seemed to think that
he was supposed to be Buffy's (depends on the line reading, really),
but nothing precludes his having briefly and tragically been active
- it lends some poignancy to the statement about how "some
had tried" to kill the Master.
Keep in mind, too, that Occam's Razor does not stand up to testing
- and it's one of those concepts that almost anybody can test.
Have disinterested people pick a number of natural phenomena at
random and see if the operative explanations are either the most
likely or the most reasonable (a tremendously tricky term to define
in such a context anyway). It does appear on Buffy whenever Joss
has something happen that doesn't appear logical or doesn't adhere
to continuity: "It's magic!" Certainly the simplest
explanation, and most reasonable to some. And it doesn't have
to apply as an answer to, "How can one arrange the universe
to keep Buffy out of Sunnydale?" I would think an OR application
would be to pick an alternate universe where things happened that
way and shift there, rather than create one from scratch, except
that infinite alternate universes probably fail the OR test.
As Ashleigh Brilliant has said, "Your reasoning is excellent;
it's just your basic premises that are wrong!" I don't feel
quite that strongly, but I like the quote.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- Sophist, 09:31:33 09/11/02 Wed
I think the focus on the continuity problems is causing some of
my points to be overlooked. My basic point was that the evaluation
of VampWillow depends, in the first instance, on an interpretation
of the episode that is merely one possible interpretation. My
second point was that such an evaluation then goes on to make
unstated assumptions about the effect of vamping and the interplay
between human substrate and demon possession. The whole edifice
is shaky.
Having said that, I will lay out the contours of the continuity
problem:
1. Buffy failed to come to Sunnydale when she was supposed to.
2. The Master rose (obviously, without killing Buffy in order
to do so).
3. Angel saw Buffy called as the slayer (he recognized her) and
came to Sunnydale to fulfill his destiny (presumably as we saw
in Becoming).
4. Giles came to Sunnydale to be Buffy's watcher (this is the
most obvious reading, though perhaps not the only one).
The trick is this: how did the Master rise? The most obvious solution
is to have him rise at the Harvest. This accounts for his rising,
Angel, and Giles. The problem is that Cordy would have died at
the Harvest because Luke was about to drink her when Buffy intervened.
Then, of course, we'd have to explain why Luke and Darla aren't
there, how Xander escaped the SheMantis and didn't become a hyena,
how Willow avoided Moloch, why Giles didn't have his brain taken
out, the lack of slashes on Cordy's face, why the Annoying One
prophecy didn't happen, etc.
I'm not saying the problems can't be solved. At some point, though,
the explanations become so complex as to be implausible. And even
if there is a simple solution, it would only establish that there
is indeed a plausible alternative interpretation (see my point
no. 1 above). You still need to deal with the second part of my
original post.
I like the quote too. To bad it's such a double-edged sword....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm going to break
the code. -- Darby, 11:15:32 09/11/02 Wed
I'm a guy, I'm lost, I've floundered around for a while, and I
guess I'm going to ask for directions. Don't report me to the
union, okay?
You say we haven't addressed the second point of your original
post, but I can't figure out which one that is, or if I should
be looking at the original in this subthread or the original by
posting time. Or whether I can even figure out which point that
is if I was to find the proper post.
Could you consider giving the point again?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Confusion is
my specialty -- Sophist, 12:53:11 09/11/02 Wed
Of course, in my hands it's a boomerang.
I was referring to the post that started this sub-thread. I posted
it on 10 Sept. at 9:15.
Sophist, facing North and pointing East with his left hand and
West with his right.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay,
I think I've got it... -- Darby, 19:53:07 09/11/02 Wed
...the "how much of the vamp is the demon?" question,
right?
I do think we've been given most of this answer. The strongest
evidence was Angel's transformation in Pylea. The were-beasty-thingy
was assumed to be (by the characters, whose opinions I never completely
trust, but let's give them the benefit here) his vamp-demon in
its near-pure state.
I think several of Maggie Walsh's "id" scenes were thematically
linked to vampdemons themselves, implying (to me if no one else)
that they had a purity of intent, "evil," that gave
them little humanistic personality. I see them as influencing
baser motivations but not more complex personality traits.
Man, this would be a much more powerful argument if Angel's VampDemon
looked like the beasty from Forbidden Planet...
- Darby, whose references might be obscure but can't be considered
classical.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oo!
Oo! Oo! I've got it again! -- Darby, 21:49:06 09/11/02
Wed
The clearest evidence that the Wishverse is place with a unique
physical existence is that Anya lost her amulet there.
It doesn't seem to be rattling around in Our Girl's skull.
To get it back, she needed a witch but she didn't need Cordelia.
In fact, did Cordelia even appear in Willow's vision of the place?
I think that if Joss or whoever had meant the Wishverse to be
somehow connected to Cordy, she would have had to play
a larger part in Dopplegangerland. Their game, their rules,
their obsessive need to acknowledge such things.
- Darby, who seems to think that there's some sort of prize involved
in this. But isn't that a piece of objective evidence?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
We'll never be normal again -- Sophist, 09:04:09 09/12/02
Thu
The trouble with alternate realities is that there are too many
possibilities. For example, all of Cordy's interactions with Anyanka
in The Wish occur from Cordy's POV. Cordy sees a necklace, then
it's gone. There is nothing about this which is inconsistent with
the entire sequence taking place inside Cordy's head.
DAWN: Buffy ... look at me. (Buffy blinking slowly) I'm right
here. You're my sister. (getting tearful) I need you and love
you. Somewhere inside you must know that's real.
BUFFY: (sarcastic) Sure it is. 'Cause what's more real? (starts
walking toward Dawn) A sick girl in an institution...
DAWN: Don't. Please. Listen to me.
BUFFY: Or some kind of supergirl ... chosen to ... fight demons
and... (Dawn looking around anxiously) save the world. (pauses,
looks to one side, smiles a little) That's ridiculous.
As for Doppelgangerland, the use of magic pretty well eliminates
any assurance of objective evidence of "reality".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: We'll never be normal again -- meritaten, 18:49:22
09/12/02 Thu
...But as Darby pointed out, the talisman had existed and was
now gone. Anya and Willow attempted to retrieve it, but did not
neeed Cardy for this. GRanted magic was used in Doplegangland,
but I think that that confirms the reality of the curse within
the Buffyverse. If it was only in Cordy's mind, why would it have
consequences for Anyanka and her talisman? Also, as we saw in
Hell's Bells, the results of Anyanka's curses were not confined
to a mental state. SAme with the birthday epsidoe curse (Older
and Far Away?).
Normal Again. I agree with you on this one. This was a wonderful
episode because it left open the possibility that the last six
years were all a product of a disturbed mind!We are left, like
Buffy, having to chose which reality to accept. Wonderful!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
didn't see -- Sophist, 09:16:45 09/12/02 Thu
the part of the Pylea episodes that you refer to. I only watch
AtS episodically, so to speak. My utter ignorance on this topic
will by no means deter me from expressing some thoughts about
the subject, however.
The basic issue is this: if the demon provides any aspect
of the vamp personality, then we can never be sure if a particular
characteristic came from the demon or was in the human all along.
The only way we can say "Angelus was sadistic, therefore
Liam must have been sadistic" is if we know that Angelus
is Liam with a conscience subtracted but nothing whatsoever
added. I don't think we do know this.
I'm not sure whether sadism is a complex trait or a baser motivation,
but I'd be inclined to see it as the latter. Especially in Angelus.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Pylea -- KdS, 09:35:48 09/12/02 Thu
Quick recap for Sophist:
In Pylea, Angel is attacked by a bunch of demon knights and vamps
out. However, instead of the vampface we know and love he turns
into a far less humanoid green spiky thing (think a cross between
the Incredible Hulk and the demon assassin in Homecoming). This
creature then proceeds to go completely berzerk, growling, ripping
peoples' arms off and showing no sign of sentience whatsoever.
Fred finally manages to make some kind of connection with it,
and calm it down until it turns back into Angel, but only on the
level on which a human could connect with a not-very-bright dog.
Hence the suggestion that all of a vampire's characteristics come
from the original human, as the "inner demon" shows
no sign of any kind of higher mental functioning.
And hence the suggestion about vamp personalities. The vamp is
the human minus conscience and plus demonic predatoryness, but
the manner in which the predatory urge is expressed is wholly
the result of the conscienceless human personality. And while
I've no doubt you could make points about feline behaviour I can't
see the type of premeditated cruelty that Angelus showed coming
from anything that wasn't sentient.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Forbidden Knowledge Girl -- Malandanza, 10:58:43 09/12/02
Thu
"The basic issue is this: if the demon provides any aspect
of the vamp personality, then we can never be sure if a particular
characteristic came from the demon or was in the human all along.
The only way we can say "Angelus was sadistic, therefore
Liam must have been sadistic" is if we know that Angelus
is Liam with a conscience subtracted but nothing whatsoever added.
I don't think we do know this"
I think that the (non-sentient or barely sentient) demon provides
some basic drives but doesn't really contribute to the personality
in any significant manner. VampHarmony seems to be the best example
of how little a personality can change -- essentially, there is
no difference. Looking at William vs. Spike, the change is huge,
but remember that VampWilliam set out almost immediately to completely
transform his own personality.
The new vampire seems to be defined more by what's missing than
what's added. Not just the conscience -- the loss of a conscience
suggests an inability to distinguish between right and wrong or
a willingness to do wrong regardless. Vampires seem to lose more
than their moral sense -- they lose, to a great extent, their
fear of punishment or censure so are free to act on their baser
impulses (much as Bufy found being invisible liberating, Spike
found becoming a vampire liberating). Inhibitions also seem to
be gone -- things people refrain from doing not because they view
it as immorality, but out of fear for what the community might
think. All those layers of learned behavior that prevent a person
from acting on every whim are gone. With Harmony, the loss of
what few inhibitions/conscience/fear she had was inconsequential
-- there weren't many inhibitions present to begin with so VampHarmony
really isn't that different from Harmony.
Willow is different. She one mass of inhibitions and subconscious
fears and desires, half hidden even from herself. Consider Willow
from Season One and Two -- before Buffy arrived, she was a competent
hacker. Afterwards, she became obsessed with magic -- always searching
for forbidden knowledge, whether in books or protected behind
the firewalls of the Internet. Now consider how interested she
was in sex -- from the beginning she desperately wanted a boyfriend
-- almost dying in her quest on at least two occasions. When she
began dating Oz, her most frequent complaint was that Oz wasn't
moving quickly enough for her ("I'm ready already!")
Put her thirst for knowledge (sexual and otherwise) together with
the Internet and what sort of sites might Willow have been visiting?
It's easy to find examples of S&M relationships on the Internet
(just read some Spike fic or Faith fic) even without being able
to bypass adult verification services or nanny software. I have
no trouble imagining that Willow had read extensively of de Sade
and his imitators before being vamped in the Wishworld -- not
that she'd ever act on that knowledge -- it would be wrong. Remove
the inhibitions, though, and you get VampWillow playing with the
puppy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Great Insight! -- Darby, 12:56:58 09/12/02 Thu
It's fun when someone takes something that you've put a lot of
thought into, believed that you had a full grasp of, and then
throws out a couple of aspects that have you saying, "Of
course! Why didn't I see that?"
Your take on the removal of inhibitions was in that neighborhood,
but the concept of no fear of punishment is huge! We are so used
to seeing the Buffy and Angel-types that we can forget that to
people not "in the know," which is the vast majority
of humans, a vamp is essentially unkillable and not that easy
to hurt. Add that to not really caring about what humans think
or feel and it explains a lot about vampires - it almost completely
explains the whole "moral compass set to evil" thing
without getting all metaphysical.
Nicely done!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> The demon within -- Sophist, 13:43:12 09/12/02
Thu
Thanks to Kds for the summary of the Pylea scene. I went back
to TtLG and read the transcript. Is there another scene in addition
to this?
Assuming this is canon for BtVS, and putting aside some really
abstruse quibbles I could make, this does seem to eliminate the
first of my 3 options in the second step of my original post.
That leaves options 2 and 3 to choose from in the interpretation
of vamp behavior.
Mal's point about loss of inhibitions seems well taken. However,
unless I'm missing something, the specific argument about Willow
is circular. The original question was: Are there hidden depths
in Willow revealed by VampWillow? Mal has assumed that there are
such depths ("She one mass of inhibitions and subconscious
fears and desires, half hidden even from herself."), and
then argued that the removal of inhibitions led to the expression
of these.
Much as I love the image of Willow secretly accessing DeadSoul's
wonderful fanfic and playing Mistress of Pain with Oz (no scary
visuals for me), I'm still not convinced about the logic here.
Oh, and one other point for Darby about the "real" existence
of the amulet. If the destruction of the amulet undid the wish
and all its consequences, why was the amulet itself not still
on Anyanka's neck when the scene shifted back to Sunnydale? Isn't
there a time travel paradox here, in which, if the wish was never
made, the world in which the amulet was destroyed never existed,
etc.?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Which may no longer have a home... -- Dead
Soul, 14:15:48 09/12/02 Thu
***Thread highjack and OT rant warninng***
Sophist wrote:
"Much as I love the image of Willow secretly accessing DeadSoul's
wonderful fanfic and playing Mistress of Pain with Oz...."
The story to which he is referring, "Sunday Girl", as
well as all other stories rated NC-17 will be removed from fanficiton.net
at some time in the near future (they say April 12, 2002 - which
of, of course, is impossible, but do they mean April 12, 2003
or the 12th of a month in 2002?), nor are they accepting any more
NC-17 stories.
Those are the facts; now comes the rant portion of this post:
I feel literally sick to my stomach about this. This pushes so
many of my buttons:
1. the free speech button - yes, it's their site and they can
make whatever rules they like, but their slogan is "unleash
your imagination and free your soul." Hypocrisy, thy name
is fanfiction.net.
2. the "we've got to make everything safe for the children"
button - Raising YOUR childen is not MY responsibility and if
there are things you don't want them to see, then try supervising
them a little better rather than penalizing the people, the adults,
who believe in free speech and enjoy some it's more controversial
fruits.
I don't, in principle, have any problems with people who have
children, so long as they realize that it's not my job to raise
them and I don't want to be forced to live in their baby-proofed
world.
3. the button that wants to say to anyone complaining about anything
- "if you don't like it, don't watch (or read, or do, or
whatever) it." Fanfiction.net says they've gotten the highest
number of complaints about the NC-17 stories even though they're
only a small percentage of the stories posted. Well, how about
they tell the complainers to:
a.) don't read things that offend them,
b.) if they're complaining about children perhaps reading something
they shouldn't, suggest perhaps spending some quality time with
their children while they're at the computer rather than using
it as a glorified baby sitter in much the same way television
is used, and
c.) if they have complaints, they should have the stones to write
a review and post it or, if an email address is given on the poster's
profile, email the poster directly.
I could probably find even more ways this is pissing me off, but
the above should certainly suffice for now. And I don't know if
I'll even be able to finish Sunday Girl there. I feel horribly
betrayed.
I'm going to have to go out hunting for sites that might accept
Sunday Girl and any future things I write - might not be all that
easy. It's not B/S and probably won't ever be, it's not redemptionistic,
but it's not entirely evilistic either. It's not S/D 'shippy,
although she'll probably be at least a peripheral character, if
only to explain why she's *not* around. Ficbitch maybe? Bugger
This would be great, but they seem awfully exclusive. At those
and so many other places, whether or not something is posted or
archived is up to the whim of a particular person or persons and
that's what I respected about fanfiction - anybody could post
anything there without having to be vetted by someone's taste
police. They weren't being judgy and now they are - in the worst,
most hypocritical kind of way.
Rant over, although the feeling of being kicked in the stomach
lingers on. I now return you to your regularly scheduled brilliant
and on topic discussion of everything wild, wacky and wonderful
about the world of BtVS and AtS.
Thanks for allowing me to vent.
Dead (-er than usual) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> An idea -- Etrangere, 16:29:18 09/12/02
Thu
Why don't you post your fic on the mailing list the Gutter and
ask them if anyone know where you could host it ? It's a Spike-with-anyone
NC-17 fic list, so yours shouldn't be unwelcomed and since it's
a very good fic (just read it, it's great :) though for some reason
i couldn't access to chapter 16) you shouldn't have too much trouble
finding a host.
At worse, you could propose it to the Fictionnary Corner, no ?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: An idea -- Dead
Soul, 16:49:35 09/12/02 Thu
Thanks, Ete. I didn't know about The Gutter. How does one get
in contact with them?
And for anyone who has read it and wants to get the additional
chapters as I write them (or chapters they couldn't access) or
who wants to read it from the top through the latest chapter without
messing with fanfiction.net (insert preferred expletive here),
just email me at the above address and I'll send it to you. Easiest
for me is as a Word attachment, but I'm somewhat flexible (to
the limits of my abysmal computer illiteracy).
Thanks so much!
Dead (and somewhat calmer - hope I didn't offend anybody) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> My mails sent to you are being
returned -- Ete,
18:04:56 09/12/02 Thu
Anyway I was saying :
It's a Yahoo mailing list, you should be able to subscribe here
:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BA_Gutter
and I'd be interresting in being mailed the rest of the chapters
:)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ack! Correct email address
-- Dead Soul,
18:19:32 09/12/02 Thu
The hazards of posting while angry! Thank, Ete.
DS
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I think that I can handle this... -- Darby,
15:37:35 09/12/02 Thu
It's magic!
No, huh?
But it does make sense that, whatever Anya's powers brought about,
she was largely immune to the effects - once the wish was made
Real (whatever way that was - and here's another point for a "real"
wishverse: Anya's history is of VERY reality-based vengeance.
No imagined twisted intestines for her!), she was Out Of There.
But reality-twisting demons could very easily possess an essence
that is in several dimensions simultaneously, all bound in this
case through the amulet. Remember, she wasn't hanging around the
Wishverse, Giles had to call her (which seems another point against
the in-Cordy's-head thing, but perhaps not against the based-on-her-expectations
thing). Once her power center (a specific item represented by
the amulet but not necessarily synonymous with it) was destroyed,
she "snapped back' to the point of space and time at which
the revoked wish occured, but she was not unchanged. You could
make the case that such a paradoxical but not impossible trip
disoriented her - she only later seems to understand what had
happened. Makes perfect sense to me, but I'm kinda loopy.
From a thematic standpoint, I remember being a bit annoyed on
first viewing because no one but Anya (whom we had no hope of
seeing again) was actually aware of what had happened, so no character
development had occured. It would be doubly troubling to think
that we weren't being given some insight into the inner world
of the actual characters either. You mean "it was all a dream"?
The best we get is "be careful what you wish for"? I'd
have to start a Bad Plotting thread, and that way lies madness!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: I think that I can handle this...
-- meritaten, 18:33:27 09/12/02 Thu
I agree. Anyanka was outside of the sphere of things affected
by her spell.
...although Halfrek being unable to leave the Summer shouse does
shed doubt on this. ...but I think that was written to provide
a way out of that problem.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Wow! -- meritaten, 18:22:45 09/12/02 Thu
Brilliant!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I'm missing
something... -- dream of the consortium, 11:17:11 09/11/02
Wed
I'm clearly deeply confused. What I don't get is why everything
else in the Wishworld should have to follow the Buffyverse model
exactly, minus Buffy. If Buffy had shown up in Sunnydale and the
VERY FIRST THING that she did was save Cordy from Luke, then okay.
But wouldn't removing Buffy from Sunnydale produce more effects
that the successful removal of a jackstraw? Considering her importance
in that world, wouldn't it be closer to removing the table the
jackstraws were sitting on? Everything would be jumbled, the effects
would be far-reaching, and though certain elements would be recognizable,
we wouldn't expect events to correspond exactly to those in the
Buffyverse.
Or is there some part of this discussion I'm just missing entirely?
(I never want to rule that out. I can be quite slow on the uptake.)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, you're
not missing anything -- Sophist, 13:03:29 09/11/02 Wed
Clearly, lots could change. OTOH, a lot of stuff clearly remained
the same: Giles, Angel, The Master, Harmony, John Whatshisname
(the guy who asked Cordy out after dissing her in the "real"
Sunnydale).
The trick is to come up with a logical explanation for why so
much is the same while still accounting for the differences. Since
alternate universes are infinite, I have no doubt it could be
done.
My point was simply to show that treating the wishworld as an
existing reality is simply an interpretation, not a given fact.
The consequence is that the conclusions drawn about Willow based
on the behavior of VampWillow are not as securely grounded as
people seem to assume.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't sue me, but
I am going to interpret, too! -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:51
09/11/02 Wed
Here's how I see it:
1) Cordelia was chosen to be a victim because Jesse had his eye
on her. And Jesse wouldn't have had his eye on her if he hadn't
been turned into a vampire. And he wouldn't be turned into a vampire
if Darla hadn't picked him up in "Welcome to the Hellmouth".
Meeting Buffy that day may have made him not stray into Darla's
line of sight (while there may seem to be no direct link, remember
that a butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan can cause a tornado
in the United States).
2) Darla and Luke. My guess is that either they were killed by
Angel (who reluctantly took up the job of fighting the Order of
Aurelis after Buffy didn't show up). Either that, or Giles and
his White Hats managed to kill them some time after the Master
rose.
3) If a butterfly can cause a tornado, then an ancient vampire
rising to take control of a town can alter all the things you
listed happening to the characters.
My view of Vamp Willow is that it is and was intended as an exploration
of Willow's dark side. Now, to make myself clear, while I believe
that Willow has a dark side, everyone has a dark side, especially
the characters on Buffy. If everyone has a dark side, you may
ask, then why do Vamp Willow and Darth Willow matter? Because
they show us what Willow's dark side is like. While everyone has
darkness in them, what form it takes is different for everyone.
Willow's inner darkness is playful and sadistic. Buffy's dark
side (from what we've seen and heard about it) would probably
be a kind of pure, undiscriminating warrior, reveling in the kill.
That's part of the point of Darth Willow: everyone, even the sweet
and kind like Willow, has enough darkness in them to be capable
of horrendous acts.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Reductionism contra Buffyism
-- Cleanthes,
13:59:29 09/11/02 Wed
Ockham's Razor does not stand up as a principal under the application
of Ockham's Razor, as many have noted over the centuries. In fact,
the razor pretty much demands a truly elaborate form of mysticism,
al· Pythagoras, to function, so the complexity is merely
shifted from one level of understanding to another, rather than
reduced.
The Buffyverse, especially as shown in `The Wish` and `Doppelgngland`,
positively favors the rococco. When faced with two explanations,
sometimes Giles gives in to the anti-complex, anti-magical (he
scoffs at magic in `Tabula Rasa`, and he thinks Buffy is wrong
that her roommate is a demon or that there's an invisible demon
that only fevered children can see, frex). The anti-complex explanation
is *always* wrong.
So, even disregarding the problems with the razor, I'd say that
whenever a person is tempted to apply the razor to Buffy interpretation,
that temptation should be regarded as proof of error.
But then, I'm religiously married to the many versus the one.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- meritaten, 18:40:02 09/12/02 Thu
Ok, if Angel was told that Buffy was coming, it was apparently
PLANNED for her to come. Giles could already have been placed
in Sunnydale High when plans changed.
Cordy's wish was not for Buffy to have never existed, not
for Buffy to have never been called, but for Buffy to have never
come to Sunnydale. An averted arrival fits with that.
Plus, consider practicalities. They couldn't effectively introduce
an new cast for this episode.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Ret-con vs. Character Exploration --
Scroll, 14:37:09 09/10/02 Tue
Ignoring Willow/VampWillow for now, I think we need to take into
consideration the driving purpose behind "The Wish",
which is to explore the characters' personalities, specifically
the darker aspects. Your interpretation of "The Wish"
puts the focus on Cordy's mindset: 'then the characteristics
of VampWillow tell us nothing about Willow, but only about how
Cordelia, in her anger and pain, saw Willow at that moment in
time.' Although Cordy probably did see Willow and Xander as
an evil, predatory couple, I don't think we can assume Anya used
Cordy's vision of X/W as the basis of the Wishverse. I believe
(this is JMO) that Anya used "I wish Buffy Summers had never
come to Sunnydale" the same way Halfrek used Dawn's "I
just wish people would stop leaving" for the House Arrest
spell in OaFA. Vengeance wish curses are pretty straight-forward
to start with even if the results spiral out of control.
You wrote: '1. The alternate world was created anew using Cordeliaís
interpretation of the world at that moment in time as a template.
This would be similar to what the monks did with Dawn.
IMO, the "Dawn" spell isn't based on anyone's interpretation
of the world, other than the monks' attempt to giveBuffy a sister.
Whose interpretation of the world is the Dawn-world based
on? Dawn's? The monks? Glory's? Buffy's? I see everything post
B vs. D as Buffy's Regular World + "Dawn". It's a what-if
world -- what if Buffy had a little sister? Kind of like, what
if Buffy had never come to Sunnydale?
I agree with you that "The Wish" has numerous continuity
problems -- but I think we have to accept that in order to write
this episode, Joss had to ret-con things a little, as with "Fool
For Love". But like FFL, we're so busy enjoying the character
revelations that we don't quibble the logic. I don't think anyone
can argue that William and Spike are all that different, despite
the differences (yes, I'm sure that sentence makes sense!). FFL
shows us how William became Spike. "Darla" shows us
how a prostitute became a powerful vampire, how Angelus first
became Angel. "The Wish", IMO, shows us what Willow,
Xander, Buffy, Giles, Oz, and Angel would've been like if Buffy
had never come to Sunnydale. Willow and Xander are vampires, acting
out those darker urges we humans suppress because of morals/souls.
Giles and Oz are tough guerilla fighters, Angel is a beaten slave.
Buffy is a mix of Kendra and Faith, hardened without the love
of friends. I don't think Cordelia's vision of her X/W world could've
produced these complexities.
I think I agree with Shadowkat's take on sadism being latent in
everyone, to greater or lesser degrees. Which is why I have no
problem seeing sadistic VampWillow as a What-if of regular Willow.
The Willow of S1-5 is "sweet, insecure, loyal, helpful,
reliable". But 'Buffy' has always shown that everyone has
a dark side (Giles-Ripper, Buffy-slayer, Oz-wolf), and I think
Willow has a much darker side than we ever gave her credit for
when she was still dressed in the Softer Side of Sears.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- Sophist, 19:27:34 09/10/02 Tue
I'm not arguing that there was a ret con here. I don't think there
was. I just start by asking "What was this episode intended
to show us?". I get a very different answer than you do.
You suggest that the wishworld existed to explore the darker sides
of certain characters. I believe it existed as a moral lesson
to Cordelia. I see it as essential to her development towards
her decision to help AI after Graduation. And since I start from
this point, I see the episode as telling us a lot about Cordy,
but not so much about any other character. (Much like The Zeppo
tells us about Xander and how he sees the world -- e.g., Buffy/Angel
melodrama).
the "Dawn" spell isn't based on anyone's interpretation
of the world
I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that it was, but I didn't say
it clearly enough. I meant that the monks created Dawn out of
Buffy, using Buffy as a template. In a similar way, Anyanka created
the wishworld using Cordy's thoughts and impressions as a template.
If you don't like the analogy, just ignore it. My point does not
depend on it.
I think I agree with Shadowkat's take on sadism being latent
in everyone, to greater or lesser degrees.
In that case, the mere fact that VampWillow was sadistic tells
us nothing we didn't already know about Willow, so there's no
reason to refer to VampWillow in making "hidden sadist"
argument.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- Darby, 19:40:57 09/10/02 Tue
But the problem (and a dramatic weakness of the episode) is that
Cordelia is totally unaware of any lesson - only Anya knows what
happened, and her lesson was of the "don't get caught"
variety. This was a writers' funhouse tour, a way of taking familiar
characters and having them develop along different arcs to new
and interesting places. I suspect that even they found the ending
unsatisfactory, and so begat Dopplegangerland.
But it was probably the leather - I don't think "Mistress
of Pain" took them to a scary place at all!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry. I've got to start
reading other replies before jumping in..... -- meritaten,
18:25:09 09/12/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Anya - "She's newly human
and strangely literal" -- Scroll, 20:08:20 09/10/02
Tue
I agree with Darby that "The Wish" couldn't really have
been serving as a lesson to Cordelia of 'be careful of what you
wish'. I think, however, that it serves as such to the viewers,
perhaps better than Dawn's wish in OaFA.
Okay, I get what you're saying about Dawn being made out of Buffy.
I totally forgot about that. : )
One aspect of "The Wish" that I find relevant to interpreting
it is the demon who makes it all happen: Anya. Granted, Anya in
Season 3 wasn't very complex and the Anyanka of "The Wish"
is very different from the Anya of "Dopplegangland",
"The Prom", etc. But Anya is above all direct, blunt,
and literal. She doesn't go for Angelus' psychological manipulation;
you want a guy's entrails liquified, she's gonna give you liquified
entrails.
But again, just my take.
Scroll : )
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Cordy's lesson -- Sophist,
08:51:33 09/11/02 Wed
I agree with Darby that "The Wish" couldn't really
have been serving as a lesson to Cordelia of 'be careful of what
you wish'.
From Psyche:
Cordelia: Listen to me. We have to find Buffy. She'll figure
out a way to save us. She was supposed to be here, and as much
as it kills me to admit it... things were better when she was
around.
***
Cordelia: No. No! No way! I wish us into Bizarro Land, and you
guys are still together?! I cannot win!
***
Cordelia: (frantic) Giles! It's all my fault! I wasn't... I made
this
*stupid* wish...
Giles: Come on. Please lie...
Cordelia: No! You have to get Buffy. Buffy changes it. (Giles
lets go of her) It wasn't like this. It was better. I mean, the
clothes alone... (Giles takes off his glasses) But people were
happy. Mostly.
If that ain't a moral, Aesop should burn his stories.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy's lesson
-- acesgirl, 10:03:06 09/11/02 Wed
The problem I have with "Cordy's lesson" is that once
the amulet is shattered, neither Cordelia nor the Scoobies remember
the wishverse so the lesson is lost to all but the audience.
Also from Psyche, the last line of the shooting script:
"BUFFY, XANDER and WILLOW
Who stand where we last saw them in act one - talking, laughing.
As Giles joins them..."
I do not see how the wishverse could have had any impact on Cordy's
decision to join AI.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy's
lesson -- Sophist, 10:57:53 09/11/02 Wed
I suggested somewhere in my plethora of posts above that the episode
could be seen as taking place entirely inside Cordy's head. In
that interpretation, she did learn the lesson, albeit perhaps
subconsciously.
Again, I'm not insisting on this interpretation, just pointing
out that it's possible.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- shadowkat, 06:56:10 09/11/02 Wed
Since my name keeps coming up in this discussion, I'm going to
give you my take. Was staying out of it. Mostly because i think
everyone is complicating the Wish beyond belief.
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Scroll. Sorry. But if it
was all about Cordy - why did Cordy have the smallest role? She
dies pretty quickly in the episode. We aren't in her pov, really.
We're in Giles and VampWillow's a good portion of the time.
This is a standard technique in sci-fi, fantasy, comic books (especially
marvel comic books which these writers read) where you do a what-if
issue. The What-if is a means of seeing the darkest side of every
character.
What would Willow be like with 0 conscience? As a vampire?
Created by the Master? Would she be like Dru? Darla? Something
else? This is the question Marti Noxon asked herself when she
wrote the episode. VampWillow was her answer. You may not agree
with her answer, but hey that's it. Why is it so hard to believe
a sweet kind person could be a cruel sadistic vampire? Drusilla
was a sweet kind innocent girl. Mosters live in all of us. But
actually whether you have troubles accepting that isn't really
relevant because the writers don't. Whedon has said in numerous
interviews - latest I think can be found on slayage, that what
he finds the most intriguing is when the outwardly sweet person
does something sadistic and the outwardly ugly cruel person does
something sweet. He loves the irony. The whole show is first and
foremost about the mislead, the irony. Look at Larry? Big obnoxious
wolfish oaf = whoa turns out to be actually a sweetheart and is
gay in Phases, while sweet calm OZ is the untamed werewolf at
heart. The title itself is an ironic play on words. Just because
they didn't obviously or clearly show aspects of Willows darkness,
doesn't mean they aren't there.
We don't see all her acts, only a portion and she may choose not
to go there, which makes her a far more stronger and interesting
character than if she was a saint and did not have those aspects
present at all.
Willow is not the only one examined in the Wish in this way.
Marti also tells you that dark side of Xander. The dark side of
Buffy. The only characters whose dark sides not explored are HArmony,
Cordelia, Giles, OZ, Angel - because we've already seen them,
we don't need to explore them. MArti is most interested in examining
the dark sides of the three main SG, the dark side that hasn't
been explored and that the writers are afraid to explore too much
in fears of alienating their audience. They waited until they
felt more secure in Season 6 to do that. (From what I've seen
on the internet, turns out they were right to be afraid. Their
audience doesn't seem to like to see darkness in the three leads...
which probably disappointed them. Can't say I blame them.)
I actually found VampXander to be as interesting as VampWillow.
They were the Spike/Dru of the Wishverse.
And I bet you money if the show ever decided to make them vampires
= that would be the characters you would see.
(IT won't happen, the closest we'll ever get to VampWillow is
DarkWillow = but DarkWillow proves my point.)
Why is it so hard to accept that there are dark aspects to these
characters? There is darkness in everyone. Just because we choose
not to go there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And Whedon like
myself, likes to explore what would happen if we did. What happens
if someone like Willow decides to ignore her conscience and let
it rip? Well we saw what Whedon believes will happen. It may not
fit with your view, but you don't know Willow as well as Whedon
does. Whedon knows what Willow does when we aren't watching.
And what he shows us? He chooses to show us for his own reasons.
Oh as an aside which actually is oddly relevant to my point -
it is an eerie September morning here in NYC, the sky looks exactly
the same, clear blue, pretty, as it did exactly one year ago at
8:43 am. And I hear planes, traffic, nothing amiss. Reminds me
of a Gilbert and Sullivan line : Nothing is what it seems, skim
milk masequardes as cream.
Believe me when I tell you - just because the pond looks calm
and serene does not mean there isn't something nasty bubbling
underneath. Last year taught me that. It's not a lesson I will
forget. And Whedon wisely echoes this in his pieces of work.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm disappointed, s'kat
-- Sophist, 08:32:09 09/11/02 Wed
I thought we were in agreement -- don't listen to what the writers
say, watch what they show us. ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm disappointed,
s'kat -- shadowkat, 09:39:38 09/11/02 Wed
Which I'm doing. We just are interpreting what they are showing
us differently. ;-)
Just read an analysis of Lock recently. He makes the point that
we interpret what we see, hear, tast, smell, touch differently.
Ie. We agree the show is BTVS and it stars a girl killing monsters.
But the layers we're discussing can be interpreted in a variety
of ways.
Note on Willow - I don't think they are going with Willow being
an inherently sadistic person, just that she has these tendencies
which would come out if taken over by dark magic or being turned
into a vampire. Willow herself is not sadistic. Anymore than well
most of us are. I think that's
the crux of the arguement.
LAst night Buffy made it clear - DarkWillow wasn't Willow.
It was a possessed version.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- meritaten, 18:20:17 09/12/02 Thu
If this was to be a lesson to Cordy, if it was to guide her in
later decisions, wouldn't she have had to been able to remember
it? When the spell is broken, Cordy returned to the same point
in time when she made the wish. She has no idea that her wish
was anything but a statement made in anger.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow -- Miss Edith,
06:08:57 09/13/02 Fri
I think it is easy to fanwank past events based on the current
evil Willow. E.g pointing out Willow was using magic she shouldn't
have in Faith, Hope and Trick when Giles told her off for doing
powerful spells she couldn't control. It is easy to say she liked
power by using examples such as The Dark Age when Willow starts
ordering Xander and Cordy around telling them if they can't behave
they will "get the hell out of my library". Or Earshot
when Willow wants a questionare done and tells her friends "today
people". But people could just as easily say that the writers
intended to show Willow becoming empowered by magic, and her thrist
for knowledge being disaproved off by Giles who was a stuffy fuddy
duddy in the early days. And examples of Willow finding some inner-confidence
are surely to be praised? E.g fans loved the incident in The Dark
Age or in Reptile Boy when Willow uncharacteristically speaks
up for Buffy in an angry tone, condemning Giles and Angel's expectations
of Buffy.
Is it really clear that Willow always had the potential to go
evil? I would say no personally. If Willow had become truly corrupted
by power and I did think she had become arrogant I would reassase
her past behaviour. E.g when trying to kill Buffy, if she was
doing so because she wanted Tara back and felt bringing Buffy
back had caused Tara's death karmicly that would make sense to
me. I would see Willow playing god, and trying to organise peoples
lifes and I would look at past instances. But the writers choose
to play Willow as an addict. She was possessed by black magic
at the end. Hence her torturing of Giles, her mocking of Dawn,
her homicidal urges etc. Dawn asks if Willow is back on the magics.
Willow talks of herself in the third person saying she is the
magics and "Willow doesn't live here any more". I did
see a possibility for Willow to become corrupted by power when
she used spells on Tara, and then dismissed Tara's reasons for
leaving as "no good reason". But it was later presented
as Willow becoming hooked on magic, and Tara returned to Willow
once she had gone cold turkey. She lost it after Tara's death,
and became possessed by magic. Does that suggesete anything to
me about her behaviour. Not really. If the story arc had been
handled in a more interesting way I may have studied Willow's
past behaviour. But aren't we really only supoosed to be looking
at Willow's reasons for using magic as a crutch? Was Willow possess