September 2002 posts


Previous September 2002  

More September 2002

Mea Culpa: Buffy's Greatest Fear (and why I should give the girl a break) -- cjl, 23:43:51 09/14/02 Sat

A little while back, during the infamous "Buffy the Vampire Layer" thread, I have to admit I got a little impatient with Buffy. (Well, maybe not Buffy so much, but Joss and the rest of the writing staff.) As you'll recall, we were discussing Buffy's season-long tryst with Spike, and whether or not she "got anything out of it"--whether moral clarity, a sense of her own limitations, or just a great rockin' time in the sack. Now I have no objection to a great rockin' time in the sack, but I felt that any benefit she might have derived from an exploration of her darker sexual impulses was more than offset by her regression in a vital area: coming to terms with her nature as a Slayer. After six seasons of watching the Buffster bounce back and forth about finding out what a Slayer really is, I think I might have finally snapped and used a phrase like...

"GET ON WITH IT!"

That was very rude of me. I apologize.

But...

How often is Buffy going to come up against a shadow self, an individual who holds a mirror up to Buffy's darkness, and dares her not to look away? And how often is the "lesson learned" quickly forgotten, or pushed aside for more pressing matters? It seems like every season and a half, she is prodded, taunted and tempted by some dark Other, and no matter how intruiging and provocative the encounter, it's shunted to the back burner in no time. Near the end of Season 3 it was Faith, but by the time Season 4 started, Buffy was dealing with her new life at UC Sunnydale. At the start of Season 5, Dracula came to town and messed with her head REAL bad, but soon Dawn and Joyce's illness took precedence. And in the middle of Season 6, Spike took over the role of provocateur--and do you want to bet that at the start of Season 7, Buffy will be thinking about Dawn, her new job, and re-bonding with her friends, in that order?

There's been so much wheel-spinning on this topic, I could swear I smell burnt rubber in my living room. The cynic in me tends to think Joss is saving the goodies on the origins of the Slayer until the show is ready to go bye-bye, so we might get it this year. But geez, why has he forced us to watch so many iterations of the same plotline if he had no intention of moving forward? Individually, episodes like Bad Girls, TYG/WAY, BvD, DT, etc., are fan-freakin'-tastic, but cumulatively, the decided lack of payoff starts to wear on your nerves. Doesn't he know that pisses people off? (Ah, but remember, cjl, he is an EVIL God.)

Sophist, as a public service, tried to bail Joss out by saying Joss wasn't repeating himself, but actually exploring Buffy and her attitudes towards Slayer-ness by employing variations on the same theme. Well...a nice try, but I don't see much variation in those variations. In each case- -Faith, Dracula, and Spike--there are equal portions of seduction and violence in their temptation of Buffy, the idea of losing yourself to the dark side as an act of near- (or actual) erotic freedom. (Yes, including Faith. In fact, ESPECIALLY Faith. I was saying to shadowkat yesterday that the hottest lesbian couple in Buffy history wasn't Willow and Tara, but Faith and Buffy.)

But let's put my critique of Joss aside and treat the wheel- spinning as a legitimate aspect of Buffy's character, not the manipulation of the Evil God. So I ask the question...

Why does Buffy always avoid discovering everything she can about this vital aspect of herself?

The show has usually offered three inter-related explanations.

First, Buffy has never emotionally reconciled herself to the role of Slayer. The classic dilemma of the post-Marvel Comics superhero, and an echo to ancient myth--the hero's refusal to accept the hero's burden. From the start of S1 all the way up to "Normal Again," Buffy intellectually acknowledges her obligations, but part of her still wants to be the cheerleader with nothing more pressing on her mind than next week's football game, living with Mommy and Daddy in Los Angeles. It's the dream of perpetual adolescence, and even though Buffy KNOWS she can never go back, in "Normal Again," her mind tried to find a way back anyway. It was only her love for Xander, Willow, and Dawn that brought her forward into the real world of adulthood.

Second, denial of the darkness within. Faith, Dracula, and Spike all tell her a slayer is something untamed, her power lies in darkness, she's an "animal" in bed--and Buffy doesn't want to hear it. She's supposed to be the hero of the piece, the bright shining light burning away the shadows of the demon world. If she was actually a bit of demon herself, the morally ambiguities of her job might be a bit too much to bear. But I get the feeling that somewhere in the back of her mind she knows they're right, and that brings up the third and most vital component:

Control.

Buffy, as many posters have noted here, is perpetually obsessed with self-control. She hates showing weakness of any kind, even though keeping her emotions on such a tight reign contributed to the complete ruination of one romantic relationship (i.e., Riley), and screwed up her relationship with her baby sister and her nearest and dearest friends on several occasions. But she's never going to let herself go, because, somewhere inside, she knows the damage she can do. She's seen it in Faith, she's seen it Angel, and she's never going to let it happen to her--no matter what the cost.

(You know, maybe if she'd been honest about her fears with Dawn and Xander in Villains and with Dark!Willow in TTG, she might have made more of an impact. Instead of going with "because it's wrong!", she might have expanded upon the far more effective "killing changes you" comment to Xander at the start of TTG, telling D!W the power inside her scares her to death, because she knows if she loses control for one second, she might hurt the people she loves. Would Willow have listened? Probably not, but it would have made more sense than a high-handed appeal to her morality. No wonder D!W wanted to kick her ass.)

So what is Buffy greatest fear? If you look at all three factors, the answer is obvious. She's afraid of losing herself, her sense of identity. She's afraid the darkness will overwhelm her and...

SHE'LL NEVER COME BACK.

One thing further. Joss all-but-said what I've been saying in "Nightmares," but I also think Buffy's nightmare could have been a bit of a misdirection for the audience. The transformation into a vampire might have been symbolic of another transformation already in process. Suppose Slayers really are "related" to vampires, and as they get older, the demonic energy eats away at their humanity. This would explain why Buffy has been bitten three times by vampires, and all three times, she's come back STRONGER. Progressing from spotting vamps by their poor fashion sense in WTTH, to truly hunting them and practically staking them in their graves during S5. Kittens turning into cats. Maturation or de-evolution?

If Buffy, even subconsciously, senses this transformation in progress, no wonder she doesn't want to know about the origins of the Slayer. So I'm going to cut the girl some slack, and let her find out at her own pace. (Especially since we know Joss is going to inflict horrible pain on our heroine when the truth comes out. He is, after all, an Evil God...)
[> oh wow, cjl... -- celticross, 00:28:51 09/15/02 Sun

I'm gonna admire your post in stunned silence for a moment, as it articulates virtually every problem I've ever had with Buffy as a character.

*stunned silence*

Ok, where to start? I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head re: Buffy's fear of herself. And as other posters have mentioned in other threads, she's also very good at lying to herself. Combine Fear of Self with equal parts Ability to Lie to Self, mix well, serve immediately and you have a Slayer with an almost painfully realistic complex. It's really this lack of honesty on poor Buffy's part has fueled my love-hate relationship with her. I respect Buffy, I admire Buffy, but sometimes I just don't like her very much. Perhaps because I know I'm frequently dishonest with myself, and the things we hate about others...?
[> [> Buffy, Angel's Epihany, and Lazuras -- Scharfholz, 01:10:25 09/15/02 Sun

Maybe Angel should come back to Sunnydale and share his "Epiphany" with the slayer. Then Buffy would realize her existential plight. All that matters is what she does. I think, Buffy is still fighting the fight becuase she feels it is HER DUTY, her obligation. As opposed to Angel, who fights because it is who he is. That said, there is nothing that lends itself to existenial blight like being sucked out of Heaven. Perhaps this season Buffy and friends can have a run in with Lazarus, He'd understand.
[> Well, there's also. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:11:19 09/15/02 Sun

. . . the fact that for a long time Joss thought the show was going to end on the fifth season climax. If it had, then we probably would have gotten Buffy taking a deep look at her Slayer nature. However, he got a contract renewal at UPN and had to hold back Buffy's progress in discovering what it means to be a Slayer so that he can use it for the final season, even if that means temporarily ignoring hints he dropped before.
[> Terrific insight -- HonorH, 17:52:33 09/15/02 Sun

And one that, I think, is all too often overlooked when analyzing Buffy. Yes, she's a control freak, but she's honed that aspect of her personality on herself first and foremost. Her power scares her, because it's all too obvious to her that she could do terrible things with it.

Posit: if Dawn had been the one killed at the end of "Seeing Red," it's entirely possible that Xander, Willow, Tara, and Anya would then have been left with the task of hunting down Homicidal Slayer on the Warpath before she could rip Warren & Co. to shreds. I think Buffy knew that as well, deep down, and it scared her to even acknowledge it.
[> Re: Mea Culpa: Buffy's Greatest Fear (and why I should give the girl a break) -- Deeva, 21:25:38 09/15/02 Sun

(Especially since we know Joss is going to inflict horrible pain on our heroine when the truth comes out. He is, after all, an Evil God...)

Oh, but what a God he is. I couldn't ask for a better or lesser one to build an altar for.

Wonderful insight and pretty much some of the same things rattling around in my noggin that I've been trying to write down but could never gather my toughts well enough to do it. Well said and I especially like the 3 explanations.
[> Re: Mea Culpa: Buffy's Greatest Fear (and why I should give the girl a break) -- Malandanza, 21:34:55 09/15/02 Sun

"So what is Buffy greatest fear? If you look at all three factors, the answer is obvious. She's afraid of losing herself, her sense of identity. She's afraid the darkness will overwhelm her and...

SHE'LL NEVER COME BACK."

I'd add that I think Buffy is very much aware of her dark side and has been since Restless. The First Slayer was pretty unambiguous about what a slayer is --

"I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. (The woman straightens up and looks Buffy in the eye.) I am destruction. Absolute ... alone.
(Buffy frowns.)
BUFFY: The Slayer.

Buffy denies that this picture of the slayer fits her, but I believe that she has never forgotten what the First Slayer told her. It's not that Buffy is unaware of the darkness within her, it is that she suppresses that darkness even as she denies its existence. Spike's comments about her coming back wrong and asking her what kind of demon she is elicited unconvincing denials from Buffy in Season Six. She certainly didn't convince Spike and the doubt on her face shows that she is unable to convince herself. The darkness is there, it is real and it hangs over her soul every moment of her life. She should no more embrace the darkness (or get in touch with her dark side) than should Angel. Buffy denies her dark side, but deep down she recognizes it and keeps such a tight reign on her emotions and clings so desperately to normalcy in an effort to stave off the darkness.

In other words, I agree with you :)
[> Another thought: -- HonorH, 23:36:23 09/15/02 Sun

Buffy always comes out on the other side of her confrontations with her dark side/dark mirrors with a renewed sense that *this is not her*. Buffy is not a killer: she's self-sacrifice. She fought Faith, then went and gave her own blood to Angel. She said, "I guess a Slayer's really just a killer after all," then went and sacrificed herself for Dawn. She ended up actively rejecting Spike, then protecting two of her tormenters in order to save her friend's soul. So it's not that she ignores her dark side, I think; it's that she always rejects it upon confronting it.
Gandalf, Giles, and the "true essence of magic..(season 6 spoilers)" -- Scharfholz, 01:37:57 09/15/02 Sun

I think one can see Gandalf, and Giles as Archtypical representations of the true essence of magic. Both men are wise, and learned, and both use magic only at GREAT need, when the fate of the world hangs by a thread. Read LOTR and you can count on one hand the number of times Gandalf uses magic to resolve a problem ( forinstance, the Balrog the Bridge Of Khazad'dum, the decommissioning of Saruman, and perhaps the encounter with The Mouth Of Sauron) Other than that, he used his WITS, his wisdom, and not open magic. In fact all the wizards in LOTR were forbidden to intervene openly through magic. Because of the great temptation to break this mandate, Gandalf refused the One Ring, both in the book and movie, saying "I would take this ring from a desire to do good, but through me IT WOULD WIELD a power to great and terrible to imagine."

Giles likewise allows himself to be imbued with powerful magic only at great NEED, and out of a sense of Pity. He is around the occult all day long, and he clearly has some magic skill/power (how much we don't know, but I suspect more than meets the eye, and more than we imagine) but he does not normally use his knowledge of magic (as in spells and such) to resolve his problems. He uses his natural gifts (intelligence, resourcefullness, and some physical prowess). Unlike Willow he rejects the temptation to use magic openly and often.

In this odd sort of Comparitive Myth sense, we can see Willow and Saruman as similiar figures. Both were once good, but are corrupted by the power of their magicks. The association is all the stronger becuase Will is a techno- geek and Saruman's elvish name Curunir literally means "man of cunning (technological) devices."

And oddly the plots of both Willow and Saruman are foiled not by the Mighty, not by magic, but by ordinary small human types, who have the courage to sacrifice themselves for the people they love (Frodo & Xander). "You look for a sign, I will give you none, but the sign of Jonah." Both Tolkien and Whedon believe in the power of weakness and meekness to overcome power and sadism. Interesting.
[> Re: Gandalf, Giles, and the "true essence of magic..(season 6 spoilers)" -- Eric, 04:37:16 09/15/02 Sun

Magic in the Buffyverse is pretty Lovecraftian in nature, Unlike Harry Potter magic, which can be used like a common tool. Buffyverse magic is a collection of powers that are "left over" from a time when the earth belonged to demons. Wizards and witches use them for good or evil, but rarely for their original design. The chance for them to be corrupted or injured remains constant. All these are facts well known to Buffy fans.

Here's another perspective. Supposedly in certain Buddhist monastic sects the meditative quest for enlightenment eventually arouses magical powers such as telepathy, ESP, and telekinesis. The monastaries believe that such monks are well on their way to enlightenment. BUT, they also consider these powers dangerous. They personify them as demons and as yet more formidable obstacles to enlightenment. After the monks in question demonstrate a power, they are encouraged to never use them again. Ever. To do so would seperate them from their path and court madness.
Buffy numbers game -- Rook, 03:29:42 09/15/02 Sun

I'm sure everyone's seen those "fill in the blanks" numbers games that float around, with questions like: "50 S on the A F" or 10 A in the B of R"...(The answers for which would be "50 stars on the American Flag, and "10 amendments in the Bill of Rights)

Now, if you're like me, you really hate those things, and find them terribly frustrating and annoying....so I've made one up for Buffy :) just to pass the time until the S7 premiere, after which I'll post the answers, if this post is still around and un-figured-out :)

Bonus points for also citing the characters/episodes in the answers :P

A) 12 total C in the O C

B) 4 L for B

C) 4 T get mistaken for their C

D) 2 W assigned to S

E) 6 S we've seen O S

F) 3 S we've watched D

G) 2 V Get their S

H) 3 E-V in the O C

I) 2 W get G by V D

J) 2 E with C/L/A

K) 3 of B L L T

L) 2 scoobies with a S

M) 3 V that B B

N) 17 times G gets K O

O) 3 S as V

P) 5 P of the S

Q) 2 P G T into R

R) 3 S L their V in H S

S) 2 D of B

T) 4 graves of S W

U) 2 P get E

V) 2 giant S

W) 2 I girls

X) 2 P steal someone's B

Y) 3 H Themed E

Z) And only 1 set of V B
[> Eek, forgot to say: It's Buffy only, doesn't count Angel! -- Rook, 03:30:55 09/15/02 Sun

[> Re: Buffy numbers game -- Ete, 05:04:53 09/15/02 Sun

B) 4 L for B
4 lives for Buffy ?

E) 6 S we've seen O S
6 seasons we've seen on errrr...

F) 3 S we've watched D
3 seasons we've watched Dawn

G) 2 V Get their S
2 vampires get their souls

N) 17 times G gets K O
17 times Giles gets KO (i'm just gonna believe you on that :)


S) 2 D of B
2 death of Buffy

U) 2 P get E
2 principals get eaten

V) 2 giant S
2 giant serpents. (Reptile Boy and Graduation)

X) 2 P steal someone's B
2 people steal someone's boyfriend ? (Willow and Faith ?)
[> [> 4 L for B -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:17:19 09/15/02 Sun

4 Lovers for Buffy
[> [> [> Right :) -- Rook, 07:51:48 09/15/02 Sun

[> [> Re: Buffy numbers game -- Good!, 07:50:05 09/15/02 Sun

You got:

G
N
S
U
and V

:)
[> Right answers are for wimps -- Cactus Watcher, 06:50:27 09/15/02 Sun

It's more fun to think up answers you know are not right, but still have some connection to the show.

A. 12 total cc's in the old Citroen (enginge size)
B. 4 lipsticks for Buffy (per show at least, in high school)
D. 2 Watchmen assigned to sanitarium
E. 6 seconds we've seen Owen sitting (in the cafeteria)
F. 3 scenes we've watched dishwashing.
I. 2 witches giggly by Valentine's Day
K. 3 of Buffy's lovers leave tips
L. 2 scoobies with a suntan (Xander and Cordelia. Buffy has had one once in a while. Willow, OZ, Riley, Tara and Giles seem to always avoid the sun.)
M. 3 Vamps that buy beer (at Willy's)
V. 2 giant sombreros (if Giles bought another one)
[> [> LOL, especially like "V" :) -- Rook, 07:43:36 09/15/02 Sun

[> My answers (such as they are) -- LadyStarlight, 06:59:28 09/15/02 Sun

B) 4 L for B
4 Lovers for Buffy
Angel - Innocence
Parker - The Harsh Light of Day
Riley - Who Are You (with Faith, but it's still Buffy's body) or Where the Wild Things Are (could be at the end of Superstar, but this is the first time it's shown on screen)
Spike - Smashed

D) 2 W assigned to S
2 Watchers assigned to Sunnydale
Giles - WTTH
Wesley - Bad Girls

E) 6 S we've seen O S
6 Seasons we've seen On Screen (?)

F) 3 S we've watched D
3 Seasons we've watched Dawn
(Starting with Buffy vs. Dracula)

G) 2 V Get their S
2 Vampires get their Souls
Angel - Becoming Part 2
Spike - Grave


M) 3 V that B B
3 Vampires that Betray Buffy
The Anointed One in Prophecy Girl
Angel/Angelus in Innocence
Spike in Belonging Part 2

N) 17 times G gets K O
17 times Giles gets Knocked Out

O) 3 S as V
3 Scoobies as Vampires
Angel
Vamp-Xander, Vamp-Willow - Doppelgangland

P) 5 P of the S
5 Parents of the Scoobies
Joyce Summers
Ira Rosenberg (Passion?) (Or Hank Summers, if you go for being shown on-screen)
Sheila Rosenberg (Gingerbread)
Mr. & Mrs. Harris

Q) 2 P G T into R
2 People get turned into Rats
Amy turns Buffy into a rat in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered
Amy turns herself into a rat in Gingerbread

R) 3 S L their V in H S
3 Scoobies lost their Virginity in High School
Buffy: to Angel in Surprise
Xander: to Faith in The Zeppo
Willow: to Oz in Graduation Day Part 1

S) 2 D of B
2 Deaths of Buffy
Prophecy Girl, The Gift

U) 2 P get E
2 Principals get Eaten
Principal Flutie in The Pack
Principal Snyder in Graduation Day Part 2

V) 2 giant S
2 giant Snakes
The Mayor in Graduation Day Part 2, Glory's big snake

W) 2 I girls

X) 2 P steal someone's B
2 People steal someone's Boyfriend
Faith sleeping with Riley (Who Are You)
Veruca sleeping with Oz (Wild at Heart)

Y) 3 H Themed E
3 Harmony themed Episodes (?)

Z) And only 1 set of V B
And only 1 set of Vampire Bones
The Master's in When She was Bad
[> [> Woo, good answers -- Rook, 07:48:52 09/15/02 Sun

You got:

B
D
G
N
O - Right answer, except I wasn't counting Angel as a scooby, had someone else in mind for #3.
P - We've never actually seen Ira, else it'd be 6
Q
R
S
U
V
and Z

Nice!
[> Do I get 200 pts for Typing my name? -- neaux, 07:13:19 09/15/02 Sun

[> Did I get E) right? -- Scroll, 09:26:32 09/15/02 Sun

I'm gonna try for the ones that haven't been answered yet.

A) 12 total C in the O C
12 total Characters in the Opening Credits (Buffy, Willow, Xander, Cordelia, Giles, Angel, Oz, Spike, Riley, Anya, Dawn, and Tara for her one time as cast member in "Seeing Red")

E) 6 S we've seen O S
6 Slayers we've seen On Screen (Buffy, Kendra, Faith, First Slayer, Chinese Slayer, Nikki/New York Slayer)

F) 3 S we've watched D
3 Scoobies we've watched Die (Buffy, Jenny, Buffy again?)
3 Slayers we've watched Die (Kendra, Chinese Slayer, Nikki - I'm not counting Buffy since she's not dead now)
(Yeah, both answers are really stretching it...)

H) 3 E-V in the O C
3 Evil-Vamps in the Opening Credits (Willow, Angel, Spike - actually, this doesn't work because what about Xander?)
3 Evil-Villains in the Opening Credits (Willow, Angel, Spike - this one's a bit better)

L) 2 scoobies with a S
2 Scoobies with a Scar (Buffy - Angel's bite, Spike - eyebrow... though I don't really consider Spike a Scooby)

M) 3 V that B B
3 Vampires that Bite Buffy (the Master - Prophecy Girl, Angel - Graduation Day 2, Dracula - Buffy vs. Dracula)

O) 3 S as V
3 Scoobies as Vampires (Buffy - Nightmares, Willow & Xander - The Wish)

T) 4 graves of S W
4 graves of Someone Waking (Buffy - Nightmares, Ford - Lie to Me, Jack O'Toole's buddy - The Zeppo, Buffy - Bargaining 2) (eh, I know this is stretching it...)

W) 2 I girls
2 Invisible girls (Marcie Ross - Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Buffy - Gone)

X) 2 P steal someone's B
2 People steal someone's Body
(Eyghon/Jenny - The Dark Age, Faith/Buffy - This Year's Girl) (first example is iffy)

Y) 3 H Themed E
3 Hellmouth Themed Episodes (Prophecy Girl, The Zeppo, Doomed)

How'd I do? How'd I do?
[> [> One more guess for F) -- Scroll, 09:52:17 09/15/02 Sun

F) 3 S we've watched D
3 Scoobies we've watched Drunk (Buffy - Beer Bad, Willow - Something Blue, Anya - Entropy. I don't count Spike or Giles as Scoobies, and while we've seen Xander and Riley drink, we never seen them *drunk*.) <= I actually like this answer the best.
[> [> Yep -- Rook, 10:29:15 09/15/02 Sun

You've got:

A
E
F, but wasn't counting Buffy twice - Buffy Tara Jenny
M
W
X - Wasn't counting Eyghon as a "people" - Buffy/Faith Catherine/Amy
:)
[> Re: Buffy numbers game -- Wizardman, 15:15:37 09/15/02 Sun

Here goes:
A)12 total Characters in the Opening Credits- Buffy, Xander, Willow, Cordelia, Giles, Angel, Oz, Spike, Riley, Anya, Dawn, Tara.
B)4 Lovers for Buffy- Angel, Parker, Riley, Spike.
C)4 T get mistaken for their C.
D)2 Watchers get assigned to Sunnydale- Giles and Wesley.
E)6 Seasons we've seen On Screen.
F)3 Scoobies we've watched Die- Jenny, Buffy, Tara OR 3 Slayers we've watched Die- Buffy, Chinese Slayer, NY Slayer.
G)2 Vampires get their Souls- Angel and Spike (and Darla, but this is just BtVS, not AtS).
H)3 Evil-Villains in Opening Credits- Angel, Spike, Willow?
I)2 W get G by VD.
J)2 E with C/L/A.
K)3 of BLLT.
L)2 Scoobies with a Sister?- Buffy and Dawn?
M)3 Vampires that Big Bad?- the Master, Angelus, Spike?
N)17 times that Giles gets Knocked Out.
O)3 Scoobies as Vampires?- Buffy, Willow, and Xander?
P)5 P of the S.
Q)2 People Get Turned into Rats- Buffy and Amy.
R)3 Scoobies Lose their Virginity in High School?- Buffy, Xander and Willow? (What about Oz- I thought he was still a virgin in Graduation Day pt. 1)
S)2 Deaths of Buffy- Prophecy Girl and the Gift.
T)4 graves of Scooby Women?- Jenny, Joyce (I'm counting her), Buffy, Tara?
U)2 Principals get Eaten- Flutie and Snyder.
V)2 giant Snakes- Graduation Day pt.2 and Band Candy.
W)2 Invisible girls- Marcie and Buffy.
X)2 People steal someone's Body- Catherine (Amy) and Faith (Buffy).
Y)3 Hellmouth themed Episodes?- Prophecy Girl, the Zeppo, and Doomed?
Z)And only one set of Vampire Bones- the Master's.
[> [> Re: Buffy numbers game -- Rook, 22:09:29 09/15/02 Sun

You've got:

A
B
D
F - the first one
G
L
N
O
Q
R
S
U
V
W
X
Z

Nice work :)
[> Re: Buffy numbers game -- TRM, 16:35:02 09/15/02 Sun

As it stands, I think:
C H I J K L T Y
remain unconfirmed.

Here are a couple guesses and leads...

I) 2 Willows get Gored by Vengeance Demons
okay, well it was the same Willow, but we saw it twice! The Wish and Doppelgangland
-or-
2 Witches get Goaded by Vengeance Demon
"God! What kind of lesbians are you?" Entropy
-or-
2 Wishes get Granted by Vengeance Demons
hey, I think this one is it! Cordelia's by Anyanka in The Wish and Dawn's by Halfrek in Older and Farther Away

K) 3 of Buffy's Lovers Left Town
Angel in Graduation Day, Riley in Into the Woods and Spike in Seeing Red

L) 2 scoobies with Siblings
from Wizardman's guess, if we don't count both Dawn and Buffy, we have Buffy and Dawn(S5 on) and Tara and Donny(Family)

Y) 3 Halloween themed Episodes
Halloween, Fear, Itself; All the Way -- I really think the Scoobies should face up to it and realize that the myth that nothing happens on Halloween is just plain wrong. Though admittedly, it generally seems like a goof as opposed to some predestined armageddon.
[> [> Oh and perhaps a lead...? -- TRM, 16:50:48 09/15/02 Sun

J) 2 Episodes with C/Larry/A
Larry in Phases and in The Wish. Hey, wouldn't Larry of The Wish be a good addition to the Scooby Gang? he's been in the show before and he's a guy to help Xander even the keel a little bit. Maybe he can be the guy to draw Andrew to the light side (not that Andrew's character really interests me much).

Actually, shoot, I think I figured this one out too; though I had hoped it was Larry...

J) 2 Episodes with Chantarelle/Lily/Anne
Being Lie to Me where she was Chantarelle and Anne where she was Lily, and then adopted the name Anne at the end.
[> [> [> Re: Oh and perhaps a lead...? -- Rook, 22:13:40 09/15/02 Sun

>>J) 2 Episodes with Chantarelle/Lily/Anne

Correct again :)
[> [> Re: Buffy numbers game -- Rook, 22:12:28 09/15/02 Sun

>>2 Wishes get Granted by Vengeance Demons

Correct :)

>>K) 3 of Buffy's Lovers Left Town

Correct again

>>L) 2 scoobies with Siblings

Scoobies with sisters is where I was going...depending on who yo count as scoobies, either way can work.

>>Y) 3 Halloween themed Episodes

Correct again!

:)
The Nature Of Angel -- Kenny, 06:42:00 09/15/02 Sun

I think to get a clear picture of Angel/Angelus we have to look at the nature of Liam's life which brought him to that point in which he was transformed into a vampire.

Liam was an irresponsible hedonist who appeared to be so disillusioned with life that the only good he could see in it were physical pleasures. These he used to fill his existential void and own sense of lack. I think Darla (negative Beatrice/Dante, Paradise) appeared when this had reached a maximum, Liam had given up on the personal discovery of truth, justice and the good, he ultimately had abandonned hope and embraced oblivion and self-destruction, culminating in the departure of the soul; the loss of that which made him human. He had to have the possibility of goodness rekindled through an extreme experience of what it is not i.e being Angelus; faith was not enough for Liam, he had to become evil as part of his discovery of what good is. Darla heralded this experience, a negative beatific vision which lead him into an existence sustained by evil.

The return of Angel's soul leading to many years of confusion, guilt, reflection and the inner struggle of starting to take responsibility for his actions prepares him for coming face to face with his own personal Beatrice who rekindles the desire to return to the search for the understanding of good and evil. This is of course Buffy. Angel is not yet self-reliant in this course of action, his re-transformation isn't complete. He has to do this for himself and not become dependent on Buffy to sustain his desire to pursue goodness etc (season 2). Dependence will lead to disaster and in Amends it's clear that no matter how difficult it is Angel must become emotionally self-reliant if he is to fully embrace his destiny he must develop some degree of faith. As the character Whistler said, "You wanna become someone?".
[> Re: The Nature Of Angel -- Cecilia, 09:17:57 09/15/02 Sun

I think Angel doesn't yet know who that someone is that he wants to be. He tries to be the "someone" he thinks he should be, as others see him. He strives to be the champion because that is who he thinks he should be but the champion he tries to be is unflawed,untarnished. It is like two steps forward and one step back. And I believe the crux of it all hinges on his inability (yet) to embrace his humanity. I thought that after the episode (I believe it was titled "Epiphany") he had come into the realization that his darkest impulses were a result of having a human soul, not despite them. As was pointed out to him during his visit to the home office, the "home" of evil is all around him, inside humanity. Coming to grips with that seems to be the most difficult thing for him to do. Granted, he has had some major distractions in that time (getting his friends to forgive him, Buffy's death, the birth and loss of his son, etc) but sometimes I wonder if he almost welcomes these distractions. The essence of the character, in my opinion, is that his struggle is internal and his redemption will take place when he confronts his own inner darkness instead of shying away from it. He takes responsibility for his inner demon in the form of Angelus and possibly in the form of Liam but not in the form of Angel.

I hope this makes sense, it seemed to make sense in my head but I confess I'm not feeling particularly articulate today.
Classic Movie of the Week - September 14th 2002 -- OnM, 15:56:20 09/15/02 Sun

*******

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

............ from For What Itís Worth by Stephen Stills, 1966

*******

When battles can be won by pushing buttons rather than committing troops, does it impart a false sense of
security? What happens in the event of a ground action, when lives will be lost? And, in this sanitized
environment, do we ever consider the real, human cost on the civilian population of the so-called ëenemyí?

............ James Berardinelli

*******

Evil Clone: Theyíre going to think that youíre anti- American if you keep doing this.

OnM: Iím not anti-American. Iím anti-stupidity.

EC: Well, then youíve got a long, probably endless fight ahead of yourself.

OnM: Fortunately, Iím pretty stupid myself. I find that really helps.

EC: You donít say!

*******

One and 3/7ths weeks to go, dear flickophiles, before we return to the neverending story of The
Proto-Goddess Buffy Summers and her morally ambiguous adventures within Sunnydale spacetime. In the
cooling period between summerís end and the soon-to-be embarked upon Season 7, as I remarked upon
last week, I get to get down with a bit of politically/socially intense cinema, because-- well, because why
the hell not.

September 11th 2002 has come and gone, and fortunately there were no further serious terroristic actions
directed at my home country, for which I, as do nearly all Americans, breathe a sigh of relief. But is this
just the quiet before the formatting of further political vengeance? Is President George just salaciously
sabre-rattling in hopes of finally getting the United Nations to get off itís collective pompous posteriors
and format some effective means of getting madass Hussein out of power and then promoting a serious
route to real reforms in Iraq? Or is he going to attempt to achieve what his father so ingloriously failed to
back during the last U.S.-led gulf war? And if so, will it turn out just as badly, or will we somehow
haphazardly succeed?

I would say something along the lines of ëGod, I hope so!í, but first of all, I try not to lean on God too
much. Even if Iím wrong, and there actually is a benign supernatural creator out there somewhere, I still
think that this is really our problem to solve. Iím still of a mind to criticise Giles for leaving Buffy in the
midst of her depression and returning to England in the fall of last yearís BtVS season, but on the other
hand if he had stayed, would she have come to value the experience of the next few months in the same
way as she apparently has at their conclusion? Giles had faith in his ëdaughterí that she would survive her
trials, and emerge stronger for them. I donít know whether or not he knew of the words spoken to Buffy
by the spirit guide, the ones about the ëSlayer forging strength from painí, but it appears that he felt a
similar motivation. Just as Buffy begins the process of recognizing that ëshe will be powerfulí in
regards to her sister Dawnís future capacities, Giles pushes aside his fears and trusts in his charge to win
her own battles, even when they seem impossibly difficult.

But Buffy has one central resource that always aids her in her eventual victories-- a moral center, and the
growing appreciation that adhering to the dictates of that center entails sacrifice, and sometimes a
challenging of the ëobvious solutioní. Buffy may be a warrior, but she is a warrior for the cause of justice.
When she fails in this goal, she doesnít give up, but learns from her mistakes and tries not to repeat them.
What more can you ask?

One thing that I try to ask of people is that they not wave their flag in my face and demand that I ëstand up
and be a patriotí. It has been my observation over the course of my life since the mid-1960ís that the folks
who so effusively display their ëlove of countryí donít always look past the floorboards of their patriotism
and understand that to be ërighteousí demands an ethical foundation that rests on solid ground. Back
during the height of the Vietnam War, folk musician/activist Pete Seeger often performed a tune called
ëWaist Deep in the Big Muddyí, a ballad highly critical of the moral foundations of the war. Once, when he
performed it on a weekly variey show, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, the brothers
Smothers were succintly informed by the network honchos that the show was going to be canceled if such
ëunpatrioticí displays were to continue. The Brothers continued. The show was canceled. The war itself
wound bloodily on, with tens of thousands of casualites collectively on all sides, until the general American
public began to see that Seeger and his political contemporaries had more than some validity to their
viewpoint. Looking back, I have to ask the same question that so many others have, which is why did it
take so long?

The last Gulf War was very different from the war in Vietnam, and yet it had the same central, and equally
disturbing issue to consider-- Why are we doing this? What do we hope to achieve? The answers
seem obvious at first, but then fluidly drift into ambiguity, like gravity pulling the rain out of the sky,
heedless of whether the final result is food or flood. After the passage of time, we only know where we
are, and not how we got there. The solid terrain has not only changed form, but seems to be endlessly
receding. Weíre soon waist deep in the big muddy, and if there is a fool at the helm, you can be sure as
shootiní that the orders will be to ëpush oní.

When the leadership fails, there is nothing left to do but to call on oneself to ëdo the right thingí. Of course,
you could be wrong in what you feel to be the ëright thingí, but if you are a person who strongly feels that
compassion isnít a sign of weakness, and you have the further strength to stand up to the people who do,
then there is a chance that the end, if not optimal, will at least be better.

We may not be angels, but neither do we need to always bear the burden of stone wings. Someone who
seems to appreciate this difficult aspect of human nature is the director of this weekís Classic Movie,
Three Kings, David O. Russell. Russell has carefully crafted a rare film that isnít afraid to
challenge the notion of what traditional ëpatriotic honorí should mean to the American public, or for that
matter any other country that places itís own economic or political interests above simple humanitarian
concerns. Three Kings tells the story of several Gulf War soldiers who initially engage in a morally
ambiguous adventure, only to discover that they identify too much with ëthe enemyí to continue casually
degrading and destroying them.

The beginning of the film takes place at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, or ëOperation Desert Stormí as it
was conventionally known in the U.S. A cease-fire has just been negotiated with Iraq, whose invasion of
Kuwait has been thwarted by a largely American-led coalition of international military forces. Many of the
soldiers who were sent overseas never actually got to engage in any fighting, and the presence of
international media has made the military very conscious of how things appear to the viewers back home,
watching events unfold on their TV sets.

As Three Kings begins, the first words out of a characterís mouth-- Are we shooting?--
largely foreshadow the satiric nature of the movie. Wanting to know whether or not it is still OK to shoot
at people, a coalition soldier accidently shoots the head off of an Arab soldier who is waving a white flag to
surrender, but who hasnít apparently gotten one of the leaflets that visually instruct him to also put his
weapon down. Shortly after this, we see U.S. troops supervising the surrender of a huge number of
bedraggled-looking Iraqi soldiers, methodically strip- searching them to check for weapons or contraband.
One of the soldiers who resists the search turns out to be, well, ëholdingí a map showing the location of
some stolen Kuwaiti gold bullion hidden in a bunker in some small, remote Iraqi town.

Thus we meet three of the four soldiers who are to carry the main story line. Sgt. Troy Barlow (Mark
Wahlberg), Chief Elgin (Ice Cube) and Pvt. Conrad Vig (Spike Jonze), who now possess the map, enlist
the aid of a Special Forces veteran, one Sgt. Maj. Archie Gates (George Clooney), who quickly decides to
lead them on an unauthorized mission to steal the treasure. Doing so involves ditching the cable TV news
reporter that Gates been officially assigned to escort (possibly as punishment for Gatesí less than zealous
support of what he sees as a misguided military effort). Her name is Adriana Cruz (Nora Dunn), in a role
somewhat reminiscent of Christiane Amanpour, but driven by a journalistic zeal so intense that she is
largely uncaring of her own safety, or anything else but a getting ëthe storyí. Highly suspicious of Sgt.
Gatesí sudden and unexplained disappearance, Cruz sets out on a mission of her own to track him down,
and find out what ëthe storyí really is.

Sgt. Gates tells his companions that we ëcan get in and out, without firing a shotí. He counts on the Iraqis
being more interested in rounding up the ërebelsí who are steadily rising up to oust Saddam Hussein from
power (at the encouragement of the U.S. government, which then abandoned them to their fate), which
indeed seems to be the case. The gold is found, and the Iraqi troops that show up in mid-heist mostly stand
around and wait for the Americans to leave, after which, of course, they intend to slaughter the locals.

Sgt. Gates hesitates, debating whether to stick with the original plan or try to somehow protect the
townspeople, apparently trying to deceive himself that ëit isnít our concerní. Then, reality suddenly and
violently intrudes, and the movie begins to shift ethical gears as one by one the four men begin to realize
that the gold means little compared to the lives of these ësand niggersí and ëtowelheadsí, who now appear
terribly human and desperately vulnerable.

George Clooney, who most viewers still tend to associate with his several-years-long role on ER,
really shows a gift for realizing the character of Sgt. Gates. He walks the fine edge necessary to convince
us that Archie can rationalize the opportunity to get rich without there being any ëconsequencesí of the act,
but when he finds himself getting ëwaist deepí, he doesnít just ëpush oní-- he turns around, and seeks a
better way to return to shore. Archie is intelligent, decisive when he needs to be, and has a moral center,
and Clooneyís performance really sells this to us.

Each of the other men has their own epiphany in this matter, one of the many unconventional twists Russell
brings to Three Kings. Normally, you might expect Clooneyís character to ëleadí them into ëgreater
awarenessí, but instead each man eventually comes to the same conclusion by themselves, and each in their
own way.

Also, nearly all Hollywood movies ferociously stereotype the Arab characters who appear in them.
Three Kings surprises us by depicting the way that culturally, the world is ëshrinkingí and how
different societies are slowly blending together and sharing common values. For example, when Archie and
his men meet the surviving spouse and children of a rebel who was brutally killed by Saddamís soldiers, the
conventional handling of the scene would likely depict the survivors as your basic third-world simpletons,
duly grateful to the ëbrave Americansí for saving them. But this doesnít happen-- instead, "I'm a
business school graduate from Bowling Green," Archie and his men are told. "Your planes blew up
all my cafes."

Other ësmall worldí themes abound. Dunnís character, the TV journalist, stands (irrationally) calmly in the
middle of tremendous potential danger, her presence accepted unquestionably by both sides in the conflict
because they think it's perfectly natural that they should be shown on television. When Sgt. Troy Barlow is
captured by the Iraqis and locked in a room, he finds it filled with the loot of war, including a lot of cell
phones. What happens next has a now familar, and just as chilling resonance, when he tries to call his wife
in America to give her the coordinates of his position and get the army to send help. Realizing that he is
very likely minutes or hours from certain death, he ends up breaking down emotionally as he tries to tell
her how much he loves her and their child. How this subplot eventually plays out is, again, startling in its
unconventionality and in the way it treats the Arabs involved.

This is David Russell's third picture, after Spanking the Monkey in 1994 and Flirting With
Disaster in 1996. For me, it conjured up many similarities in overall tone to films like Robert Altmanís
M*A*S*H (for the satiric and humorous elements) and Peter Weirís The Year of Living
Dangerously (for the pathos) or even to Mike Nicholsí Catch-22, although the ending of ë22í,
if fading memory serves correctly, is far more bleak than the one in Three Kings. A few critics have
commented on whether Kingsí ending was ëtacked oní to make the studio heads happier, and in
fact Russell himself ponders whether he could have done it differently on the DVD commentary track, but I
found it satisfying and not out of keeping with the obvious intent of the filmmakers.

Russellís film isnít afraid to ask the difficult and often actively sidelined questions about the numerous
military actions the United States has involved itself with during the second half of the 20th Century and
now is continuing into the beginnings of the 21st. If an excessive obsession with ëuber-patriotismí is in
danger of evolving into a national ëdrugí epidemic, then clear-headed cinematic voices like Russellís are a
source of some much needed rehab.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technically it depends just whose side youíre on:

Three Kings is available on DVD, which was also the format of the review copy. The film was
released in 1999 and the running time is 1 hour and 54 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is
2.35:1 which is preserved on the DVD. (The director and his cinematographer continuously utilize the
entire frame, so please try to see this film in the original widescreen format-- itís going to be a completely
different film visually if you donít). The screenplay was written by the director, David O. Russell,
based on an original story by John Ridley. The DVD version contains numerous extras, including a very
informative commentary track by the director.

The film was produced by Charles Roven and Paul Junger Witt, with additional production assistance by
Bruce Berman, Alan Glazer, Gregory Goodman, Edward McDonnell, John Ridley, Kim Roth, Douglas
Segal and Kelley Smith-Wait. Cinematography was by Newton Thomas Sigel with film editing by Robert
K. Lambert. Production design was by Catherine Hardwicke with art direction by Jann K. Engel, set
decoration by Gene Serdena and costume design by Kym Barrett. Original music was by Carter Burwell.
Non-original music was by Bono, Thomas Newman and a number of others. The original theatrical sound
mix was in the standard digital formats, namely DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS.

Cast overview:

George Clooney .... Major Archie Gates
Mark Wahlberg .... Sergeant First Class Troy Barlow
Ice Cube .... Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin
Spike Jonze .... Private First Class Conrad Vig
Cliff Curtis .... Amir Abdullah
Nora Dunn .... Adriana Cruz
Jamie Kennedy .... Private Walter Wogaman
SaÔd Taghmaoui .... Captain Said
Mykelti Williamson .... Colonel Horn
Holt McCallany .... Captain Van Meter
Judy Greer .... Cathy Daitch
Christopher Lohr .... Teebaux
Jon Sklaroff .... Paco
Liz Stauber .... Debbie Barlow (Troy's Wife)
Marsha Horan .... Amir's wife

*******

Miscellaneous:

From an Interview with Stanley Hauerwas by Scott McLemee: (see link below for full article)

Q: The issue includes some stunning images from New York, showing the immediate aftermath of the
attacks.

A: That's the work of James Nachtwey. He calls himself an "after-war photographer." He did a book called
INFERNO, with pictures he took in Rwanda, Romania, Somalia, Vietnam. I said, "Jim, how can you look
at this much suffering and not want to kill somebody?" I mean, I'd want to kill somebody. But he doesn't.
When Time magazine came out after 9-11, I saw that his photographs were in it, so I called him up. He
lives two blocks away [from the WTC]. He'd heard it and ran out with his camera and started taking
photographs. They're haunting. We wanted those images there to show that we're not unaware that people
died, that this is a wound, and you've got to talk about the wound.

Q: Haven't the media done quite a bit of that, by now?

A: The current heroization of the people who died is the unwillingness of Americans to accept the idea that
Americans can die as victims.

Q: Is that really a fair characterization of how the dead have been treated? Most of those killed really were
victims -- people who happened to be at their offices at a fatal moment. What the media and the public
have regarded as heroic are the people who lost their lives while trying to save others.

A: I honor that, of course. Anyone would be stupid who didn't honor that. But to turn these deaths into
martyrdom is something done for war-policy reasons, to fuel the desire for revenge. They've made people's
deaths mean more than their lives ever could have. I don't like that at all.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week601/hauerwas.h tml


For a link to the collection of essays being discussed, goto:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/911site/saq.html

*******

The Question of the Week:

Is patriotism a drug?

Post ëem if youíve got ëem, dear friends, and Iíll be back next week (or possibly someone else will) to
entertain/annoy yaíall with one more filmic go at the nature of ëambiguous conflictí before we return to
matters more traditionally Buffyverse-ish. Until then, take care, and fight the power that be, just do it
carefully, OK?

Peace.

*******
Why did Holtz frame Angel? -- Arethusa, 19:27:12 09/15/02 Sun

For a long time I didn't understand why Holtz framed Angel for Holtz's death in "Benediction." Holtz seemed genuinely sincere when he told Angel that he, Holtz, no longer wanted revenge, and was an old, tired man who wanted nothing but Connor's happiness. When Angel asked why Holtz was handing Connor over to Angel's keeping, he says, "I love my son. It's the only way I know to ensure that he'll go on loving me."

And that, of course, is the answer. Holtz told Connor that the boy left Quar Toth to find and get to know his father. He was obviously fascinated with him, understandable since he's probably been told nastly little bedtime stories about Angel all his life. Then Connor meets Angel, and Holtz observes them bonding, however reluctantly on Connor's part, while they fight and train. And Holtz knew it was only a matter of time before Connor discovered the truth about Angel, and about Holtz's kidnapping of Angel's beloved son. He would lose his son's love, and that was the one thing he could not bear. So he created a situation that would irretrivable turn Connor against Angel-he faked his own murder at the hands of Angelus.
[> Re: Why did Holtz frame Angel? -- Deeva, 20:42:27 09/15/02 Sun

And also, barring an event that would require Angel and Connor to sit down and actually discuss things (Holtz knew that this would not happen just yet. But knew enough that it would eventually come to pass), Holtz knew that Connor would not rest until he felt he had gotten his revenge. And as for Angel, what better/worse revenge is there than to have your own child hate you for something you had no part in? To defend yourself and tell the child the absolute truth would make you seem to be taking advantage of the situation as the person who orchestrated the treachery is dead and cannot deny nor confirm the veracity of the situation.

Plus I think that Holtz had enough time in Quor Toth to ponder over the fact that Angel now has feelings that Angelus did not, that he was more human. So Holtz is playing on those feelings.
Angel Spoilers -- zombie, 19:32:32 09/15/02 Sun

What's the matter with kids today? In last spring's cliff- hanger, Angel (David Boreanaz) was locked in a metal box and dropped to the bottom of the ocean for eternity by his 16- year-old son, Connor (Another Day in Paradise's Vincent Kartheiser, who's now a regular). That's enough to tee off anybody, which may explain the return of our hero's dark alter ego, Angelus, who'll pursue the series' mysterious new superbaddie. "We need Angelus the same way that The Silence of the Lambs needed Hannibal Lecter to catch Buffalo Bill," says exec producer Jeffrey Bell. "You need a mind like that to catch a creature so diabolically clever and evil."

Villainous slayer Faith (Eliza Dushku) reappears for a multi- episode arc during February sweeps. And there's a new girl in town, Gwen (Alexa Davalos), "a cat burglar specializing in stealing pararanormal/magical/mystical things," says Bell. "She's been struck by lightning 14 times. There are benefits and certainly negative side effects." Don't try this at home, kids. We have the knowing of things for the coming season of "Angel."
* The first few episodes of season four will deal with the search for Cordelia. The gang will be understandably surprised when they learn what sheís been up to.
* Angel will kind of forget about Cordelia when he meets the grown-up version of Gwen Raiden, the lightning lass we will first meet as a 7-year-old in the first scene of season four.
* Gwen is a very entertaining character, and one fabulous babe.
* We learn that the Axis of Pythia, which might allow Angel to find Cordy, carries a market value of $33 million.
* One upcoming episode will be set in Vegas, as the regulars visit their old Pylean pal Krevlornswath of the Deathwok Clan.
* Wes will continue to grow closer to Wolfram & Hartís Lilah Morgan.
* Angelus returns to "Angel" around midseason, but first:
* Angelís heart will beat again by the third episode!
[> Re: Angel Spoilers (brief rant) -- Earl Allison, 02:22:13 09/16/02 Mon

Gwen ... Raiden?!?!?!

Ug. There goes more of the respect I had for ME, flushed down the toilet.

Wow, aren't we clever? A character with the last name Raiden, who is affected by LIGHTNING. Gee, didn't see THAT coming. Maybe Christopher Lambert will drop by and reprise his Mortal Kombat role -- see, if I can remember the Thunder God from a couple of movies and actual mythology, I'm pretty sure others will, too. The question is, will they be nicer about it than me (probably).

Remember when ME was subtle with things (the good ol' days) -- oh, and when they didn't keep introducing new characters all the time, but fleshed out the ones they had (Cordelia, Harmony, Wesley)?

Maybe the execution will be incredible -- but all I know is, I'll be hearing the awful soundtrack (IMHO) to the Mortal Kombat series whenever I see Ms. Raiden (my eyes hurt from excessive sarcastic rolling, now) onscreen.

And don't even get me started on "villanous" Faith.

Take it and run.
[> [> My main beef is... (spoilers) -- Scroll, 12:11:22 09/16/02 Mon

this whole Angel/Angelus Hannibel Lecter thing. I mean, what, Angel suddenly has amnesia because he's got a soul? Why does the Fang Gang need Angelus to remember something Angel can't? Don't they have the same brain?

Yes, I totally agree that ME should focus on the characters they have rather than bring in new ones. Gwen may or may not be a wonderful new character, but if the writers can't even figure out Gunn, who has been on Angel for over two years now, how are they supposed to make us believe in another Mary Sue? We've already got Fred and St. Corduffy.

I can live with the "villainous Faith" because I pretty much assume it's hype. It's a catch-phrase. But Cordy, Gunn, and Fred all need personality overhauls, Angel needs to remember he has this curse thingy, and Wes -- well, Wes can just do whatever he's doing cuz he ain't doing anything wrong (character consistency-wise). More Wesley will make everything okay... ; )
It Don't Mean a Thing If ... -- Cleanthes, 20:49:20 09/15/02 Sun

In the "True Essence of Magic" thread, I actually tried to answer the question about the true essence of magic. Alas, I wanted to point up that magic ainít science and that has started a great thread of comment about science. Hasnít that been great? Thanks Darby, et. al. However, I no longer think my comments fit into that thread, so Iím going to start a thread, which I seldom do.

Several commentators Iíve seen have pointed up the decline in playfulness and fun in 6th season Buffy compared to prior seasons. Well, the magic went awry.

I see science AND religion sharing the same mindset. Neither (usually) believes that playfulness is an important part of explanation. Even though Godís hooked leviathan or Schrdingerís living dead cat cry out for an ironic explanation, both religion and science ignore this obviousness and instead search earnestly for the "true" meaning.

I say that play, humor and irony cannot be eliminated from the system ñ any system ñ with regard to anything of earnest importance.

Adults laugh less than children as I learned this past week acting as chaperone for my 5th graderís field trip to the local art museum. Alas, too often "oh grow up" has come to mean, "this is serious, dammit, no more jokes!". So 6th season Buffy should have seen less laughter, if the theme was "oh, grow up."

Those spaces in the explanations that religion or politics or science offers ñ what fills them? And why has evolution only proceeded so far? And why does time run at the speed it does? Why do Congresscritters ignore the law of unintended consequences over and over and over?

What makes things truly magical? Heck, come up with a good philosophical explanation of laughter and humor. Or a scientific one. You can't even begin to give a politically correct explanation because that's not funny!

So, Iím hoping the Devon coven does NOT come off as an earnest, Gaia-centered bit of new-agey mumbo-jumbo for the "true essence of magic." Nope, I hope they go with whatís really magic. If they do, I predict theyíll recover the fun, too.

Consider that a skeptical look as skepticism destroys it. You canít allow yourself to be skeptical about skepticism itself if youíre gonna be a skeptic. Earlier in the week I pointed out that you canít apply Ockhamís razor to considerations of the applicability of Ockhamís razor. BUT, you can be ironic about irony into infinityís forever and ever.

Itís almost the only thing that remains robust under self- recursion.

Ainít that a hoot?

Thanks to General Motors for running commercials reminding me that it donít mean a thing if it ainít got that swing, and to the Duke, of course. And thanks to Rufus & Slain for getting me thinking about this. Iím with Rufus on the love angle, too. Cooing love is okay in small doses, but hearty laughter love works even in hearty doses. Tara knew the true essence of magic, and she was always looking for the gentle humor, too.
[> So... magie is humour ? interresting -- Ete, 22:49:27 09/15/02 Sun

[> The Duke -- Cleanthes, 05:40:04 09/16/02 Mon

I used a direct link in my posting and, this morning, I thought I'd give Duke Ellington another listen, but I get the message that Angelfire doesn't allow this kind of linking. The URL then is:

http://www.angelfire.com/co/pscst/ellington.html

the midi file is a link at the bottom of the page.

It's very good.
[> [> arrgghh! where's the swing? -- anom, 21:20:33 09/16/02 Mon

The link just gave me this:

"Found
The document has moved here."

"Here" was a link that took me straight back to the Angelfire "no direct linking" page! Well, I can always play it in my head....

As for humor in science, magic, & religion:

"Those spaces in the explanations that religion or politics or science offers ñ what fills them? And why has evolution only proceeded so far? And why does time run at the speed it does? Why do Congresscritters ignore the law of unintended consequences over and over and over?"

Well, for one thing, evolution has only proceeded so far, so far--we can't see what it's still gonna do 'cause it hasn't done it yet. Time? There's a button that says "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once," & another that points out "It isn't working." Congress...uhh...OK, beats me. I could say it's because those consequences usually don't affect them directly, but that wouldn't be funny. Of course, it's not funny to the people who do have to deal w/the consequences either. But we could get recursively ironic about it.

There's plenty of humor about politics, & even about science, if you know where to look. It's just that it usually doesn't explain much--it seems more like a byproduct. It does exist, we just don't find it that often. Like musical oxymorons (oxymora?). I once heard a muzak-type version of "It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing," which clearly demonstrated that it sure didn't. GM's using it in their commercials seems kind of contradictory too--does it still mean a thing if it's got that corporate swing? Somehow that seems to belong to the same realm as the fact that my attempt to find the Duke on Angelfire brought me a Kenny G popup ad...discouraging, but oddly ¦ propos to this discussion.
[> But I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now ... -- vh, 06:55:26 09/16/02 Mon

... & I laugh more ...

(thanks, Bob)
[> [> Well said, vh! -- trap, 15:01:23 09/16/02 Mon

Doesn't Darby get some kind of award? -- Sophist, 21:15:22 09/15/02 Sun

By this morning, two threads had taken over the entire board, and he started both of them. That's a first in my experience.

There probably should be some consideration given as well to the poster who most contributed to the length of those threads.

Sophist, wondering who that might be. ;)
[> We could always hand out gold stars and clap politely. -- Deeva, 21:27:32 09/15/02 Sun

[> There are still a number of Evils available. Be glad to put in a nomination! -- OnM, 21:29:22 09/15/02 Sun

[> [> And there's most of an alphabet left for the Fourth -- B. Or C. I can't remember., 00:27:08 09/16/02 Mon

[> [> Gee, no one seems to want to have any Virtue.....;) -- Rufus, 03:28:09 09/16/02 Mon

[> [> [> There's also Ambiguities, well I'm the only oen really but;.. -- Ete Second Ambiguity, 13:22:46 09/16/02 Mon

[> [> could Darby be the Thread Evil? -- celticross, 13:14:31 09/16/02 Mon

[> I'm actually feeling a bit guilty about it... -- Darby, 06:40:54 09/16/02 Mon

But I tell myself that there's no way of knowing what the board is going to run with.

Note to self: "Willow - evil or nice?" and "Bad writers! Bad, bad writers! Shame on you!" - are almost as good at getting people going as "Spike - c'mon, he's just EVIL!" But I really only started one of these - the other shifted over into its own perpetual posting machine kinda on its own.

- Darby, biting his tongue on the temptation to say, "The threads just evolved that way."
[> [> (gives Darby a good fist shaking to keep him level headed) -- neaux, 07:17:48 09/16/02 Mon

[> [> Re: I'm actually feeling a bit guilty about it... - - Slain, 13:00:04 09/16/02 Mon

"But I really only started one of these - the other shifted over into its own perpetual posting machine kinda on its own."

I'm glad someone noticed that that was my thread. ;- )But my Existentialism thread did quite well, so I'm not complaining.
[> [> [> And I'm embarrassed about that -- Sophist, 13:23:36 09/16/02 Mon

There actually is a reason for my oversight (not that it's much of one): your post and some others that came under it seemed likely to contain spoilers, so I never read them (and still haven't). I only started reading with Darby's post, since that seemed safe. Rather than actually check the facts (how boring is that?!), I just associated the thread with Darby.

Sorry.
[> [> [> [> Re: And I'm embarrassed about that -- Slain, 15:01:54 09/16/02 Mon

No worries - any thread is of course a collaborative effort, and I think I only posted a couple of times in that one myself. It's been a few months since I posted her regularly, so I'm getting used to the board's particular dynamic again. There aren't any spoilers in those first posts, I should point out, except for in the one with 'Spoiler' in the title. I do suggest you read Darby's first post on magic, if you haven't already, as it gave me some new insight into the way magical power is acquired. I'll be stealing (sorry, referencing) his ideas when I redo my magic in the Buffyverse essay.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And I'm embarrassed about that -- aliera, 16:48:53 09/16/02 Mon

...and Slain that was also a great great thread...one of the ones I printed...all 76 pages I think! Some of the best threads seem to develop that eccentric yet lovable AtPo drift. Twisting the threads in the nicest way.
BtVS and the Sopranos (mock profanity much)(spoilers for BtVS S6) -- Buffyboy, 17:57:39 09/16/02 Mon

I recently "upgraded" my cable TV system to include HBO, specificly to watch "Six Feet Under'" which after seeing about four episodes I actually like. Last night I decided to watch the season premiere of " The Sopranos", a show I have never seen before, just to see what all the fuss is about. In a word: not impressed. It should be known that I'm no fan of "mob" movies. I didn't really care for the Godfather saga and I found the most recent offering to the genre "The Road to Perdition", despite the fine acting and overall excellent production values, to be little more than a celebration of vengeanceóone that would even make a vengeance demon blush. "The Sopranos", with it's unattractive melange of crime bosses, thugs, conmen, spoiled children, hitmen and drug addicts (none of these categories being mutually exclusive) simply left me cold. Anyway, I've only seen one episode and I'm more than willing to change my mind about the show in the future if it proves to be better than my first impression indicates.

What was actually more amazing to me is the writer's use of the "English" language. Whenever the writer didn't know what word to use next he had a ready solution, the f- word. The writer saw fit to insert it almost anywhere, as a noun, a verb, an adjective, in a prepositional phrase or in whatever manner imaginable. Suddenly it hit me: now I knew why Joss Whedon's shows get so few Emmy nominations and win even fewer awards compared to show like "Six Feet Under" and "The Sopranos." No, itís not sex and violence, thereís plenty of both in all Whedon productions. It's the language. And there's an easy solution. All Joss has to do is to write an episode of BtVS where some demon comes to Sunnydale and curses all its inhabitants with Turrets- Syndrome or rather Sopranos-syndrome. It might look something like this.

BtVS Episode 7.X: The Sopranos-Syndrome

Xander, Willow, Buffy and Giles are seated at a table in Xander's apartment. They all appear rather reluctant to speak.

XANDER: Man... I don't know what the f*** to say...See, that's what I f***ing mean...

BUFFY: Xander, just shut the f***-up....Oh Xander I'm so f***ing sorry!

WILLOW: Guys, guys! What the f*** are you two doing... couple of cranky s***-heads. What the f*** did I just say?

GILES: Now listen, we must remain calm. If we can remain calm, we won't say any of those bad f***ing words...Uh, I mean, if you little f***ers would just remain calm you would be able to avoid all this f***ing profanity. Oh f***ing dear!

All four of the Scoobies now are now completely reluctant to speak. Xander quickly grabs a piece of paper and scribbles something on it handing it to Willow. Willow reads the note. It says: Willow, I still f***ing love you. She crumbles up the paper and with a smile throws it at Xander's face. Just then Spike walks into the room.

SPIKE: Well, well, well --it's the whole f***ing Scooby Gang. Ugh? -- I mean, I have this new f***ing soul that, mind you, I paid f ***ing dearly for, and I'm still talking to you f***ing Scoobies like I did before, even worse. Just goes to show you that I still hate the f**king lot of you, f***ing soul or no f***ing soul.

BUFFY: Spike, shut the f*** up!

SPIKE: Bloody F***ing Hell! Watch your f***ing language, luv.

Spike sits down at the table with the others. They all stare at one another not saying a word. Fade to the opening credits.
[> Re: BtVS and the Sopranos (mock profanity much)(spoilers for BtVS S6) -- Nic, 20:28:04 09/16/02 Mon

Totally agree w/you about the Sopranos. I happen to adore mob movies, everything from those old Edward G. Robinson films to cheesy nineties ripoffs. The Godfather, Scarface and the Untouchables are my favorites. Which is why it is a total mystery to me why I hate the Sopranos. I have watched for at least two seasons, and there is not one character I feel any sympathy or affection for. Tony is a big, vicious thug who is not nearly as good to his family or his men as he thinks. He cheated on his wife, threatened to kill his mistress, killed his daughter's boyfriend, and beat bloody a waiter who made the mistake of throwing out melted ice! He always feels bad about the evil he commits, but has not done even one thing to change. But all of this would be OK if he actually had a real personality.

Still looking for one.
[> [> The Godfather Trilogy -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:48:50 09/16/02 Mon

I've never understood the whole hulabaloo over the Godfather movies. The plot and characters are hoplessly confusing in each movie, and it's very difficult to understand what's going on. The book "The Godfather" was infinitely superior to the movies it spawned.
[> [> I adore "Sopranos"... (Sopranos spoilers) -- Rob, 21:08:39 09/16/02 Mon

To Buffyboy:

I would even hold it up on a higher level than "The Godfather" series. I find it much more accessible, and the characters much more likable and understandable, as human beings. Unlike "Godfather," which just oozes operatic grandness from every pore, "Sopranos" is more down-to-earth. Yes, it has had some "grand-opera," including the brilliant Oedipal nightmare that dominated the first season...but the heart of the show is that this "opera" springs from the quiet moments between the family members...and the Family members. I find the dichotomy between these characters' professional lives and home lives, and the moral ambiguities which abound, absolutely intriguing.

I also don't think that "Sopranos," or "Six Feet Under," (which is my other favorite show, besides "Buffy," and I hold in exactly equal footing with "Buffy") succeeds because of their ability to use bad language. Yes, it is an advantage to be able to speak the way people really speak--it comes across as more true-to-life, and also, paradoxically, more filmic--but "Sopranos," and even more so, "Six Feet Under" are so much more than that. These are the only other shows on television in my mind (besides "Farscape") that have fully three-dimensional characters, and are not afraid to be deep...to find something below the surface. Frankly, I applaud HBO's ability to be so honest. Sure, "Sopranos" could be cleaned up and edited to air on network television, but it would not be as real. Gangsters curse a lot. It adds flavor, and reality.

All four of the above-mentioned shows are shows that rely on repeated viewership, and for the audience to be well-versed on all that has gone before. While I'm glad you enjoyed the "Six Feet Under" episodes, I think it is a bit unfair of you to not like "Sopranos" based on its fourth season premiere, precisely because you are in effect walking into a story-in- progress. Just imagine turning on "Buffy" for the very first time in the middle of "Spiral," for example. "What the hell is going on?" you might say. I would recommend that you rent or buy the DVD sets, and see it from the start. Because like "Buffy," it is more of a novel for television than an episodic series. Watch an early episode of "Sopranos" or "Six Feet Under," and just like with "Buffy," you will notice some seemingly throwaway lines here or there that have great significance or foreshadowing of later events. These are all intensely multi-layered and complexly structured shows.

With all that said, I hope I don't come off as too harsh on you, since I did find your cursy "Buffy" scene hilarious. I just disagree with the implication that "Sopranos" and other HBO shows are seen as better only because of the cursing.

To Nic:

I disagree completely with your reasoning behind problems with Tony. Your list included "threatened to kill his mistress..." but that is taking that completely out of context. His mistress had been stalking his wife, and had threatened his family and children if he didn't stay with her. No, he should not have tried to kill her, but she was not completely innocent there.

"...killed his daughter's boyfriend..."--This claim is completely false. He, in fact, decided that it would be best not to do this, but the decision was not his but Ralphie's. He gave the choice to Ralphie. Ralphie told him that he would let Jackie, Jr. remain alive, but later went back on his word.

"beat bloody a waiter who made the mistake of throwing out melted ice!"--This is a running gag. This guy always gets beaten up at least once a year, sometimes by Tony, once by Ralphie. Every time someone is frustrated, they beat this guy up....and it's always for meaningless reasons. One time it was because he couldn't figure out how to put the phone on hold. Not that that makes it better...No, Tony shouldn't have done it...but this example was never meant as serious violence.

I don't find Tony to be a "big, vicious thug" at all. The amazing thing about him is how Dr. Melfi has described him to her psychiatrist...sometimes he can be such a little boy. The paradox is that, in the body of this big Mafia guy, there is a hurting child who has had serious family issues his whole life. And despite his line of work, he basically is a good person. He loves his kids. Loves his wife. Yes, he screws up and does horrible things, but his intentions are always good. Further, he can be very kind. If you're his enemy, yes, you have a lot to fear. But he is fiercely protective of his friends and loved ones. And that is what is so wonderful and infuriating about his character...and that's what keeps me thoroughly entranced, drawn to, and repelled by the character. He is in many ways an Archie Bunker for this generation, although not the same character in any way. But we love him and hate him.

I disagree that he has no personality, as well. He has a very strong one. We have learned a great deal about his personality, his emotional strengths and weaknesses. We have learned little details about him, such as that he enjoys the History Channel and loves old Westerns. I don't understand how you could call the character of a mobster who became completely entranced by (and fell in love with) a family of ducks who lived in his pool, two-dimensional. The fact is, to his business associates, he has to put on the show of the two-dimensional gangster. But there are fathoms and fathoms below the surface. Like Tony says, he finds himself having to play the role of the clown-"laughing on the outside, crying on the inside."

No, he hasn't done anything to change his line of work. But that also is tied into his intense loyalty to his friends. He would never betray them to the government. And to protect his children and keep them provided for, he continues his job. Further, the show offers no trite and easy answers to how to make a bad guy "good," a la "Analyze This." This is not a parody about a mafia guy seeing a shrink, and how everything is made all better. To do that would betray the characters and the story.

I guess you guys can tell by how much I'm writing about other shows how desperate I am for new "Buffy" material to write about!! I haven't made such a long post in months!!!

Rob
[> [> [> Re: I adore "Sopranos"... (Sopranos spoilers) -- Rendyl, 02:08:26 09/17/02 Tue

***"beat bloody a waiter who made the mistake of throwing out melted ice!"--This is a running gag. This guy always gets beaten up at least once a year, sometimes by Tony, once by Ralphie. Every time someone is frustrated, they beat this guy up***

***this example was never meant as serious violence.***

So repeatedly beating someone up to ease your own frustration does not make you seriously violent?

As for the Sopranos as a series, I am glad you like it but I watched for an entire season and just felt like I wasted valuable time.

Ren
[> [> [> [> Not if everybody else is doing it. ;o) -- Rob, 07:27:30 09/17/02 Tue

I know, bad answer. Just wanted to make a point that Tony doesn't make a habit of beating up anybody who pisses him off for minor reasons...This particular guy's just special.

Rob
[> [> [> Another booster. -- Darby, 05:05:06 09/17/02 Tue

I thoroughly enjoy the show. I loved the premiere, but it really was a continuation and probably a poor introduction.

Like another show I could mention, it draws you into a world that is at once very familiar and utterly foreign, and keeps you there, amazed that you can like characters capable of such reprehensible acts (and trusts us better than JW does in that area). And there are levels, and imagery, an' whatchacallem, metaphors, all dat s***...
[> [> [> [> Exactly! -- Rob, 07:28:55 09/17/02 Tue

[> [> [> Re: I adore "Sopranos"... (Sopranos spoilers) -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 06:20:40 09/17/02 Tue

'novels for television' - this is a great way of putting it.

I am also a big Sopranos / Six Feet Under fan (they are the only shows I 'take seriously' apart from Buffy and Angel). Both shows offer complex explorations of the dynamics of family life eg the scenes around the dinner table at the Sopranos' house when meaningful looks and the constant sound of chomping combine to create incredibly tense scenes that don't (or don't need to) contain any dialogue.

Six Feet Under in particular shares with Buffy a preoccupation with death and uses the constant presence of the end of life to make life itself more meaningful (although it has not reached the profundity of 'The Body' yet IMO).

Both The Sopranos and Six Feet Under are wonderful shows so this post is just an attempt to add my support to that viewpoint and try to get more people to watch them!
[> [> [> Re: I adore "Sopranos"... (Sopranos spoilers) -- verdantheart, 06:51:04 09/17/02 Tue

I had to stop watching because my husband would always walk into the room when I was watching (wherever in the house I was watching, BTW) and ask, "How can you watch this s***?" It was easier to stop watching than argue that the value of the program was worth sitting through the profanity.
Responding to Mal, re: Buffy Greatest Fear -- cjl, 22:01:14 09/16/02 Mon

Took Yom Kippur off, and look what happens--I'm shunted to the archives....

Let's take a look at Buffy's situation. She's obviously holding back her dark side with her control freak tendencies and her seemingly limitless capacity for denial. How long can she do this before she finally snaps like a twig? Even though "Normal Again" was admittedly a freakish set of circumstances, Buffy's self-defense mechanisms were very nearly the instruments of death of Xander, Willow, and Dawn. I'm not exactly sure she should "explore" her dark side either, but is superhuman repression the answer either?

Remember what happened the last time one of cast tried to ignore/suppress/hide her demonic side? That's right, Tara "pulled a Buffy" in "Family" and nearly got the Scoobs killed. I think that episode was Joss' way of telling us that unless you confront the darkness inside of you in some fashion, it's going to explode in your face. I also think this is the way Buffy has to go as well. Even if she finds out the worst about herself--if, say, the demon inside her does threaten to overwhelm her humanity--she's got to meet it head on and fight with a clear idea about what the problem is and what the facts are.

She won't be alone in her fight. She has friends who would give their lives for her. She has a brilliant and loving mentor/Watcher who would scour the world and the Underworld for a way to save her. She has her own indominatable spirit. Maybe this ultimate crisis will be necessary for Buffy to come out the other side and realize her true destiny as the greatest slayer of them all: the one who changes the rules of the game forever....
[> Coughs discreetly... -- Drizzt, 22:39:46 09/16/02 Mon

Ummm...interesting, and I do agree that Buffy needs to confront the darkness within herself.

But I disagree on Normal Again.
IMO, both Buffys are equally real; the demon made Sunnydayles Buffy aware of her alternate in an alternate universe, however the Buffy in the Asylum has been aware of Sunnydayle for six years. The schisophrenic Buffy is not fully schisoid; she percieves a reality that noone else on her Earth percieves, but it is real...it is Sunnydayle. The schisophrenic Buffy is telepathically linked to Sunnydayles Buffy; her mind, identity, and sense of self IE center of awareness are completely subsumed within Sunnydayles Buffy most of the time. Major exception was the four months that Sunnydayles Buffy was dead.

So, IMO; when Sunnydayles Buffy took the antidote(not shown, but implied)the telepathic link ceased to be two way...went back to only one way. SO, after this point; the Buffy in the asylum is catatonic and completely unnaware of her universe...her mind and identity become permanently subsumed within the Buffy we know;)

BTW, Normal Again REALLY pissed me off;(
[> [> Ahem...more spec... -- Darby, 04:53:16 09/17/02 Tue

I like the ideas that the "other" Buffy is in the Sunnydale universe, and is both psychic (an uncalled Slayer, linked psychically to the others through the Power - see Fray) and delusional - she thinks she's Buffy, she thinks her family is Buffy's family, but of course they're not. It could lend itself to a future plot that would be pretty easy to set up and which could be used to explore aspects of being a Slayer.

cjl, I really liked your essay. Is it possible the blurring of the linkage between demons and evil over the past season (on both shows) could be a prelude to exploring Buffy's demon side? And how stoked would Cordelia be to find she led the way to embracing the demon side of being a Champion?
[> [> [> The "darkness within" as Thanatos -- cjl, 07:55:32 09/17/02 Tue

Maybe Joss is telling us that the darkness inside is not something to be feared, but accepted, integrated (if not embraced).

But, as usual, you can pile at least three levels of metaphor on any topic in BtVS. Suppose the "darkness within" is Joss' way of describing the horrors of the existential condition? If there is no afterlife, no eternal reward, the burden of life and the lure of Thanatos can be seductive--it takes tremendous control to stop yourself from giving in to that lure.

What if our resident atheist and evil demiurge is telling us, in his own inimitable fashion, that the darkness will take all of us in the end, and the only things we have in this world are our actions and the people we love?

"If nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do."

Hmm...Maybe Buffy SHOULD crib Angel's epiphany...
[> A little further thought I posted: -- HonorH, 22:51:38 09/16/02 Mon

I thought it was a good thought, but it got a premature burial. Here it is:

Buffy always comes out on the other side of her confrontations with her dark side/dark mirrors with a renewed sense that *this is not her*. Buffy is not a killer: she's self-sacrifice. She fought Faith, then went and gave her own blood to Angel. She said, "I guess a Slayer's really just a killer after all," then went and sacrificed herself for Dawn. She ended up actively rejecting Spike, then protecting two of her tormenters in order to save her friend's soul. So it's not that she ignores her dark side, I think; it's that she always rejects it upon confronting it.

Now, an even further thought: Buffy always rejects her darkness, but will there come a time when she *should* embrace it? Darkness isn't always bad. It's just that when you're in the dark, you don't know where you're going. There may come a time when Buffy has to give up all certainty and simply follow her instincts, something that she's thus far resisted doing, which goes back to your original point: Buffy's afraid of losing control. There may come a time when she has to relinquish that, though, and it would be truly interesting to see.
[> Re: Responding to Mal, re: Buffy Greatest Fear -- fresne, 11:26:41 09/17/02 Tue

To be honest, I think that Buffy has already begun to relinquish that control. The moment that she gave Dawn the sword and promised to show her the world as opposed to protecting her from it, Buffyís controlling grip loosened.

And if (spoilers for S7 ahead) the random spoilers about Buffy getting a job at Sunnydale Hight are true, then S7 will see a further continuation of Buffyís evolution from lone (small band of friends included) defender to an integrated member of the community. Not the class protector, but someone who teaches the next generation to defend themselves and to negotiate the dark places. Graduation pointed at this moment, but that was equals banding together to fight. Think how much more successful if those students had been training their entire time at Sunnydale.

So, Iím not sure that we are going to get an epiphanic moment as in Angel. More of a gradual series of small revelations that equal a shift in perspective.

Iím very much reminded of something one of my favorite authors frequently says, which paraphrases to, "You donít teach children. Children teach you." And of a Grave similar moment from one of her books, where the main character realizes that the more that she desperately tries to protect her son from the world, the more desperately he tries to run out to reach it. The trick is teach him the skills necessary to deal with the unexpected.

What Iím really hoping for is that as Buffy teaches Dawn (and Dawnís generation) to deal with the darkness, they end up teaching her.
[> Re: Responding to Mal, re: Buffy Greatest Fear -- Malandanza, 17:02:48 09/17/02 Tue

I see the Buffy/Slayer split as something close to Angel/Angelus. Angel struggles to repress the darkness he knows is just below the surface -- when he fails, we get lawyers locked in basements and portals opened to demon dimensions. I think Buffy has done an admirable job repressing the darkness in her -- at the same time, I think that, in spite of her denials, she is well aware of what lurks beneath her surface. She'd probably be a better adjusted person if she occasionally blew up as does Angel, but I don't think that Sunnydale would be better for it any more than LA is better for having experienced Noir Angel. I think that "superhuman repression" is the best decision for everyone else, even if it means extensive suffering for Buffy -- and I think her "brilliant and loving mentor/Watcher" would agree -- if Kendra is any indication, that's what Watchers want in a slayer.

What happens if a slayer cannot (or will not) control her dark side? We have an example in Faith -- the WC call in their assassins. Neither Giles nor Wesley tried very hard to help Faith -- it was up to Angel and Buffy. Giles is the guy who was willing to kill Dawn to stop Glory -- if he really thought the survival of the world depended upon killing Buffy, he would do so -- and Wesley would help. In this conflict between her dark and light sides, Buffy is as alone as she has always been -- this season has demonstrated that her friends are more caught up in their own problems than in hers. Early on, Xander and Tara suggested that they make things better for Buffy, but this fine sentiment fell by the wayside.
[> [> Everything You Know Is Wrong -- cjl, 07:29:27 09/18/02 Wed

You could be right, Mal, but every instinct in my Buffy- lovin' body tells me you're not.

We've been watching Joss operate for six-plus years, guiding the cast through the stages of life (and through the grinder), building them from callow but eager high school kids to young adults. Joss' specialty has been the reversal of expectation: every time we think a character trait is a weakness, Joss turns it into a strength, and vice versa. (Season 6 was mainly vice versa.) Why should anything be different here?

Let's look at metaphorically. It is a given fact of young adult life--of everyone's adult life--that we see part of ourselves as an obstacle, a dark patch to be ignored or repressed. We feel that our looks, or our ethnic heritage, or how we were raised (or whatever) is crippling us. Truly extraordinary people dig deep, confront what they consider to be the dark part of themselves, and transform it into their strength. Buffy, from everything we've seen so far, is an extraordinary individual.

I think the proper comparison in this case isn't Angel/Angelus but Giles/Ripper. Giles acknowledges the rebellious young dark magician inside him, and even though he's put away the leather jacket and the Cream records, he's used Ripper's street-fighting man toughness to literally survive hell. (I hope he'll teach Willow to do the same.)

I can hear you already: it's not the same thing, because Buffy's inner demon ISN'T metaphorical. But the principle is the same. I think Buffy will eventually find the source of her power, and--even though it might be demonic--find a way to harness that source so she can get rid of the paralyzing fear and self-loathing she's felt ever since she was called.

Who knows? She might be the first in a new breed of slayer, a transcendant slayer, the "higher being" that Cordy never was.
[> [> [> Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong -- ponygirl, 07:47:59 09/18/02 Wed

I like your take on things cjl! Here's hoping for Buffy indeed finds transcendence within her rather than a tragic flaw.

A book I'm reading right now has a quote from St. Thomas that struck me as being very appropriate for Buffy:

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you"
Gender and power in "Grave" -- Quentin Collins, 01:18:57 09/17/02 Tue

I am positive that this issue was examined here in depth when "Grave" first aired, but with that episode about to be repeated, a number of thoughts have occurred to me.

With the new ME mantra being "a return to female empowerment" (as if the females haven't always been the most powerful on the show), I was thinking back to various people who complained that Giles and Xander's contributions to averting the apocalypse in "Grave" was in some sense a betrayal of "girl power". But upon closer inspection, the traits that these men used in bringing Willow back from the edge are traits which are misleadingly called "feminine" traits (as if such traits are a sign of weakness or traits that are only or ought only to be present in women).

Giles did not just blaze in as the patriarchal figure to save the day. Giles went to the coven in England for help and borrowed power from them to go to aid the Scoobies in Sunnydale. The willingness to ask for help and the ability to cooperate with others. These would likely be labelled as "feminine" traits.

Xander confronts Willow not with a stake or a sword and not with powerful supernatural forces but with emotional openness and love. Again, traits which would be labelled as "feminine" traits.

The thing that strikes me as funny is that while the male Scoobies saved the day with their "feminine sides" it was not a lack of power that caused problems for the female Scoobies in season six, but an overreliance on the "male" traits of aggression and domination and a suppression of their more nurturing "female" traits.
[> Re: Gender and power in "Grave" -- Rufus, 03:25:28 09/17/02 Tue

I don't think of power as being just for 'girls' or 'boys'....what Grave showed me was that power can come in many forms from both genders. I didn't see Xander helping Willow as a betrayal but as a reaffirmation of their lifelong friendship....that being another form of power...the power that results from love. As long as we see power as only a physical act of domination we miss that power is expressed in many ways. In the Buffyverse we see that power comes in many forms and not all of them destructive, some are acts of creation...all just different ways power manifests in the Buffyverse. The return to 'Girl power', at least to me is just Buffy returning to the confident hero she was in season five, the insecurities and conflict not totally gone, just accepted and handled in a more mature way.
[> Excellent observation. -- HonorH, 10:09:06 09/17/02 Tue

I had the same thought myself at how Xander brought Willow back. She was all hellbent and nihilistic, mad on power and using as much force as she could muster. He came in and had only his heart, his love for her, as a weapon. The "comfortador," so to speak. So it was in reaching out and embracing his feminine side that he found the strength to stop Willow.
[> [> G'n'X talkin' S6 world save-age... -- cjl, 11:07:18 09/17/02 Tue

XANDER: So what are they saying? The two of us became "all girly" and that's what saved the world?

GILES: As usual, Xander, that's an oversimplification of the principle. Within each individual, there are masculine and feminine aspects, the animus and anima, which...

(XANDER tilts head back, closes eyes, and makes loud snoring sound.)

GILES: Oh, that's very mature.

XANDER: Come on, Giles, all this talk about male and female- ness doesn't fit around here. Buffy, Will, and Anya are about as female as they come, and they can kick ass better than 99% of the men on this planet.

GILES: Precisely. That's why everyone finds this television programme so interesting. It inverts the stereotypical gender roles so the audience can rethink its cultural biases.

XANDER: Which brings us back to: so Buffy is the warrior princess, and I'm supposed to be the loving, nurturing type in this group?

GILES: Is that really so bad?

XANDER: Well...I guess not. But I don't want everyone out there to think I'm going to be cleaning the bathroom and baking cookies next season.

GILES (sighs, exasperated): Xander, the most mature individuals--and you've got quite a bit to go on that count- -find a balance between their masculine and feminine aspects. You can be warm and nurturing without losing any of your typical masculine qualities. It's not like one is any more "powerful" than the other. After all, you saved the world by simply loving Willow, not by subduing her with physical force.

XANDER: So nobody thinks I'm any less of a guy?

GILES: No, of course not. And I think your little sexual attraction to Spike amplifies rather than diminishes your masculine quality.

XANDER: My WHAT?! What the h---oh. You're playing with me a little, aren't you, G-man?

GILES (smiling): If you say so. And don't call me that.
[> [> [> ROFL ! -- Ete, 11:13:29 09/17/02 Tue

[> [> [> LOL!! -- ponygirl, 11:16:31 09/17/02 Tue

[> [> [> LMAO! -- shadowkat, 11:33:17 09/17/02 Tue

Nice play on the slash fanfic angle cjl. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Can you tell that I miss G/X interaction? I hope ASH isn't U.K. only in S7... -- cjl, 11:41:00 09/17/02 Tue

[> [> [> Turning green . . . -- HonorH, 14:24:18 09/17/02 Tue

*Sigh* Coming up with Silly Scenes at the drop of a hat is a specialty of mine, but you, cjl, have thus far beat me to the punch twice--and with brilliant humor, to boot. Either I need to do some quick catching up, or I need to admit to myself that I shall never own the title of Queen Wiseacre on this board. The latter sounds easier. Perhaps I'll aspire to be the Clown Princess.
Soul Metaphors in Btvs & Ats Intro. (Spoilers Seasons 6 Btvs, 3 Ats ) -- shadowkat, 05:51:45 09/17/02 Tue

Soul Metaphors in Btvs and Ats Intro. (Spoilers Season 6 Btvs an Season 3 Ats. Long!)

All Btvs and Ats quotes are from Psyche Transcripts. Philosophers are quoted from the book Sophieís World by Jostein Gaardner. Thanks Masq for allowing long monstrous posts.

Finally bored, frustrated, and annoyed enough to write another monstrous essay as a mild attempt to calm my crankiness and to keep myself away from spoilers. Gone cold turkey.

This essay got away from me. I donít know why. And itís not really an essay so much as me trying to figure something out through writing about it and sharing it with others. Hey, twenty heads are better than one, right? Actually none of my posts are meant to be essays so much as explorations of issues that I see in Btvs and Ats that a) relate to my own life in some undescribable way and b) bug me. I tend to just think better when I write than when I do just about anything else. So if you see errors in thought, logic, or analysis? Kindly point them out. Thanks.

Souls ñ what do we know about them outside of Btvs and Ats? Well according to Plato, the immortal soul separated man from the lower beasts and made it possible for us to concern ourselves with the realm of ideas. I think therefore I am point of view. Never really understood Plato very well, so donít shoot me if I misunderstood. Descartes seems to see the soul as a separate entity from the physical machine. Itís what makes us more than just a machine, gives us a consciousness, feelings, emotions, and sensations. I think the robots on Btvs would have confused Descartes. And he knew the soul existed because well, he didnít trust his senses on what did or did not exist. Thoughts exist and we canít see them. Lock saw people as having a blank slate, a tabula rasa, when they were born and their personality was developed by how they reacted to the things around them. To some people an orange may taste sour, to others tart. While of course it appears round to everyone. The primary attributes stay the same, itís the secondary ñ the ones that we discover through our senses and interpret that vary. And from wandering about on the internet, we can interpret what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell in an unending variety of ways. There doesnít appear to be a consensus on the secondary stuff. Not sure what that has to do with souls, but I found it interesting.

My own view is that we all have souls and they are immortal and exist after we die. Where they go? Havenít a clue. But Iíve seen my grandmotherís dead body and that was enough to convince me that we had souls. Of course Iím a bit like Descartes, donít entirely trust my senses. But this isnít really relevant to Btvs and Ats. Weíre not really interested in what I think a soul means or what a bunch of dead philosophers think ñ we want to know what it means and represents in Btvs and Ats, otherwise weíd all be discussing this stuff on the Plato Board not the All Things Philosophical about Buffy/Angel board. Key words being Buffy and Angel.

What I find most fascinating about Btvs and Ats is the writers do not limit themselves to one meaning for any given metaphor. They use metaphors to represent a wide range of inter-connecting ideas. Souls arenít limited to good and evil and having a conscience. If you think that, youíre missing half the show. The thing about the Buffyverse is every time you think you have it figured out, they uncover another layer; itís a bit like peeling an onion. This is my attempt at understanding what the writers are exploring with their constant references to souls. What are the multiple meanings of the metaphor? Agree or Disagree, but remember to be kind, this is just a tv show and merely my interpretation of it. I donít profess to be able to read the creators collective minds.

TBC...SK (PArts 1-5)
[> 1. Soul metaphor for Guilt, Angel/Angelus, Gunnís sister, -- shadowkat, 05:53:48 09/17/02 Tue

1. The Soul as a metaphor for GUILT ñ Angel/Angelus, Gunnís sister,

The first time a soul is mentioned in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is in Season One, Angel. Angel tells Buffy that he was cursed with a soul approximately 90 years ago, heís 245 at this point. He states ñ "When you become a vampire, the demon doesnít get your soul, thatís lost, no conscience ñ no remorse, itís an easy way to live." For Liam it was a gift. Prior to his turning, Liam was held back by feelings of duty to his family, guilt at not living up to his fatherís expectations, guilt at not being a success for his family, and the inability to do what he so desperately wanted to do which was slam his failure down Daddyís throat. It is the first thing he does when his conscience is removed.

Angel has the same problem. Heís tormented by his guilt for loving Buffy. He is powerfully attracted to her, but knows that heís older than her and shouldnít be with her, etc. He feels guilty for getting her in danger, which is indirectly his fault since he was responsible for the existence of Dru and Spike and it is his life force that restored Dru. If it werenít for him ñ Dru, the Judge, Spike wouldnít exist. He feels powerfully guilty about that. He also feels guilty for Buffy putting him first and being tormented by dreams about him. So in a moment of weakness he gives in and sleeps with Buffy. Loses his soul. Itís the easy path again. "The pain is gone!" Well not quite. He clearly still feels tormented by his feelings for Buffy. Life isnít as easy as it was before. Now he has to prove himself again as the big bad vampire. Heís spent way too much time atoning and he looks like a failure, the "slayerís lap dog" to the demon crowd. So he hatches the worst possible plan he can conceive of. A plan that will rival all the other big badís even the dreaded Master. This will certainly earn him a place in history. Question ñ is this plan constructed out of a sense of guilt? Not really. More a sense of pride. He needs to prove himself again. Spike has done more in the last 90 years to be worthy of the BB title than he has and thatís got to smart. Angelusí worst flaw is his vanity, his pride. Having no conscience holding them back, vampires are proud of being evil ñ they embrace it. Angelus fell down on the job.

Poor Angelus ñ just as heís about to succeed, the mouth of hell gaping open behind him, he gets the dang soul back. And instead of just chopping off his head, Buffy pierces him with a sword and sends him to hell. Then he comes back, awash with guilt and unable to do much about it.

On the surface, Angelís story appears to be one that is ALL ABOUT GUILT. Heck Angel is a walking metaphor for guilt. How we handle it. How it tortures us. And how we live with it. So itís no surprise that the audience begins to think, soul = guilt. No soul? No guilt. No guilt? Evil. But I think thereís more going on with both the guilt metaphor and the soul metaphor. Actually the fact that a soul isnít the only metaphor ME uses to symbolize and discuss the problem with guilt, makes me realize thereís more going on.

First what is guilt? It keeps us from hurting each other? Well not exactly. We still do that. All the blasted time. It just makes us feel bad about it. And makes us think twice before we do it.

How do we handle guilt? I had an interesting conversation with a Lieutenant in the Navy a while back. He served on the USS Enterprise which was sent to bomb Afghanistan after 9/11. We discussed guilt. He said one of the hardest parts of his job was morale. As a gunnery Lieutenant, his group was in charge of cleaning, positioning, repairing, maintaining and targeting the guns on the boat. They had a Muslim chapel on board and many of their fellow officers were Muslim. The group they were targeting was a fanatic Muslim faction. To handle guilt, people often demonize the enemy, make them sub-human, evil. Otherwise it becomes difficult to fire a bunch of guns on them. But demonizing the enemy has a nasty side-effect ñ racism, religious prejudice--hate. Donít want to go there. So he struggles to get the men to think less emotionally about it and not to direct their hatred towards one religious group or ethnicity. Not to deal with their guilt by making some other ethnic group to be worse than they are.

Sort of reminds me of Buffy in Living Conditions. She hates Kathy, her roommate. To rationalize her hatred of Kathy and make it possible for her to get rid of Kathy, she decides Kathy is a demon. A soul-sucking demon. Turns out sheís right. But still, what if she was wrong? What if Kathy was just an ordinary if slightly obnoxious girl? Riley does the same thing with the Initiative, rationalizes the militaryís actions based on the fact that they are hunting demons. In AYW ñ he states, "If it came to a war between us and them, theyíd win. Have to exterminate them." The survival rationale. And in New Moon Rising? He tells Buffy all demons are bad, no graduations, we kill them. Riley keeps it simple, that way he doesnít have to feel guilty.

Buffy isnít so lucky. She does feel the weight of her slayer duties. She does wonder if sheís just a killer. In The Gift, she even asks Giles if thatís all she is. In Weight of The World, she is overwhelmed with guilt ñ which erupts from a momentary desire to just let Dawn die. If Dawn died, all her problems would be solved. Willow pushes her out of it. But it takes a while. Buffy feels guilt for Faith and handles it by telling herself that what happened with Faith wasnít her fault, it would have happened any way. But a part of Buffy isnít so sure. Part of the reason Buffy canít stake Spike ñ is she canít rationalize it in her head. With the chip, he canít hurt anyone but her and she knows if push came to shove, she is stronger than him. She would kill him not the other way around. As she tells Dawn and Xander in Villains, "being the slayer, does not give me a license to kill." A job she has to do every day in the demon world. But to live with herself? She makes choices. Only killing those demons that pose an obvious danger to the society and world in which she lives. Decisions the Watcher Council would probably take issue with, but Buffy can no longer trust the Watchersí justifications and rational, they used these same justifications to put her and her mother in danger and to kill Faith.

The theme of a soul = conscience/guilt is repeated in Angel Season 1, War Zone, with the introduction of Gunn. In this episode, Gunn, a street fighter who has formed a vampire hunting squad to defend his territory, is faced with killing the person he loves most in the world, his sister Alonna. Alonna has been turned into a vampire. In the following scene, the writers cleverly show us the temptation of letting go of guilt. Itís an interesting metaphor for the temptations young street kids face when given drugs such as speed or crack and told to join violent gangs to support the habit. Like the vampire who loses their soul, these kids use the crack, the speed, to deaden themselves, to stop feeling the responsibility, the pain, and the guilt.

Alonna: "We were on the right track - just on the wrong team. All that rage and hatred we got? We get to keep all that, only on this side there is no guilt, no grief - just the hunt and the kill - and the fun! And come on, how often did we go out in the daylight anyway?"

Reminds me of a gang leader in some of the movies Iíve seen and the SE Hinton Books. Let go of the guilt ñ just have fun! The drug removes that. Ecstasy certainly does. Youíre so high, you donít care.

Gunn: "Alonna, I can't do this!"
Alonna: "You were made for this. - Oh, and all that misery and moping gone, I promise you."
Gunn: "I was never gonna let anything happen to you. I was supposed to protect you. You were my sister."
Alonna: "I still am. (Gunn shakes his head) So why don't you kill me? - Why *don't* you? (Spread her arms wide - Gunn just looks at her) Ah! *You* can't! Because you got the guilt - and I got the greatest guilt cure ever. I can free you! We can be together - our family can stay together - forever."

Again the metaphor = without a soul, your guilt-free. Oh you still care about those who were important to you. Alonna clearly still loves Gunn, feels a connection to Gunn. But she wants to switch from continuously fighting to be good, to protect others. The old if you canít fight them? Join them approach. Hey ñ we can stay together and the bad kids (vampires) are having more fun. All you have to do is give up your humanity, your soul.

Alonna: "Remember when we were kids - in that shelter on Plummer Street, hmm? (Gunn nods) Second floor was all rotted out. - You used to dare kids to cross, and of *course* you were the best at it, because you were the - you were the bravest. I wanted to be like you so bad, so I went up, and the floor gave out. I would have broken my neck, but - you'd been watching me the whole time. You were standing right below - and you caught me. - Ever since I can remember you've been looking out for me. - But you don't have to any more, because I'm good, and it's my turn to look out for you now."
Gunn: "How?"
Alonna: "Look at you. You're running and hiding, cold and hungry. You call that living? (Gunn looks down) You're the one that's falling now. Let me catch you. - Donít you want to stop falling? (Gunn nods slightly) I'm gonna fix it. (Morphs into her vamp-face) Oh, say goodbye to everything you ever knew."
She wraps one arm around his neck and stretches up to bite him.
Gunn: "Good-bye." (he stakes her). (WAR ZONE, Ats Season 1)

The temptation must be overwhelming. According to Alonna ñ once you become a vampire, you stop being cold or hungry. You just want, take, have! And you donít care about the consequences. The reason Alonna and Gunn are so poor and hungry all the time is they canít do that. They canít just go after what they want. When they do? They are overcome with guilt.

But unlike Angelus ñ Alonna doesnít lose her capability to love others when she becomes a vampire. Clearly the soul metaphor does not equal love here. It only equals guilt or conscience. Alonna for all her faults, still wants to save Gunn. Still wants to help Gunn.
Still feels responsible for her brother. Their connection is deep enough to survive her death. Of course her ability to love is limited to those people she feels a personal tie to, whether they be human or demon.

In Angelís storyline ñ love does not appear to be strong enough to survive the loss of Angelís soul. Angelus does not appear to feel a personal tie to anyone in his life. Perhaps love wasnít something Liam can feel strongly? Or perhaps, love isnít part of the soul metaphor?

TBC - SK
[> 2. Soul as metaphor for love, Angel & Darla -- shadowkat, 05:55:34 09/17/02 Tue

2. Soul = change of heart or ability to love, Angel and Darla

In the Surprise/Innocence arc of Season 2 Btvs, the soul was used as a metaphor for love. Not so much loss of love as a change in the type of love demonstrated. It was similarly used in this manner in the episodes Lullaby and the Darla pregnancy arc on Ats. Interesting use of the metaphor, which is also inconsistent, since it is not used with any other vampire on the show, all the others actually appear to be more than capable of loving one another. So why single out these two?

The metaphor in Surprise/Innocence was used to demonstrate a common teenage fear ñ I sleep with the guy, he turns all evil. It was perfect. Angel loses his soul the moment he gives in to his carnal desires and sleeps with the girl he loves. Unlike Riley, Parker or Spike, when Angel sleeps with Buffy ñ she is just a girl, barely seventeen years of age and a virgin. Angel is also portrayed as far older than she is, emotionally, mentally and physically. Riley, Parker and Spike actually are portrayed more like equals of varying maturity. And just in case we missed the Lolita reference ñ they repeat it in Becoming Part I ñ literally having Angel visit and start to stalk a fifteen year old girl, who is sucking a lollipop and wearing pigtails. With the soul ñ Angel is the kind fatherly presence, the older brother, the kind protector, the mysterious lover, who appears in time to save her or throw her a kiss then disappears. Without a soul ñ he is the obsessive stalker, the crude frat boy, the wolfish predator, the sadistic lover, - who drops bloody gifts on your doorstep and tells you that your sexual technique was lacking in expertise. Angelus could give Parker a few pointers.

Itís not until we are given glimpses into Angelís past and see what he was like as a human that we realize, even as a human, Angel didnít really know love. It was not until he met Buffy that he felt anything close to it. The writers have moved away from the love metaphor in Angelís case. Angelís soul no longer equals love so much as it just equals a conscience or rather the ability to feel remorse.

This love metaphor is however echoed with Darla. While Darla certainly feels affection and lust for Angel/Angelus, she does not love him. Something she realizes in Lullaby when she admits that the child she is carrying is truly the only thing she has ever loved.

Angel: "Well - you've never *loved* anything, Darla."
Darla: "That's true. Four hundred years and I never did - till now. - I don't know what to do."

Angel: " What I do know is that you love this baby, our baby. You've bonded with it. You've spent nine months carrying it, nourishing it..."
Darla: "No. No, I haven't been nourishing it. I haven't given this baby a thing. I'm dead. It's been nourishing me. These feelings that I'm having, they're not mine. They're coming from it."
Angel: "You don't know that."
Darla: "Of course I do! We both do. Angel, I don't have a soul. It does. And right now that soul is inside of me, but soon, it won't be and then..."
Angel: "Darla..."
Darla: "I won't be able to love it. I won't even be able to remember that I loved it. (Starts to cry) I want to remember."

Here the soul is a metaphor about love. Without the soul ñ Darla canít love her child. Sheíll kill it. She wonít even remember what the love was like. This metaphor for some reason appears to be reserved for Angelus and Darla. Because when we are introduced to other vampires? We do see affection, even love expressed.

James and Lisabeth in Heartthrob certainly shared a great love and both seem aware that that type of affection is not shared by Darla and Angelus who scoff at them both for being weak. James even tells Angel when he meets up with him again ñ that if he can love now, than heís not the same man who screwed Darla to save his own neck. According to Cordy, Angel can only love again because he has a soul.

JAMES: But if you've changed ... if you're not the same man who screwed Darla and couldn't care less what happened to her...
ANGEL: Where did you hear ... Oh, you mean back in the day. Right.
CORDELIA: (comes up behind Angel, addresses James) He has changed. A lot. He has a soul now and he cares about people.

Interesting comment of Angelís by the way, apparently he hasnít changed that much. He doesnít care what happens to Darla until she either becomes pregnant or human. He certainly doesnít care enough to stake her the way Gunn does Alonna. Although that can be read either way like so many things in Btvs. Have to love the ambiguity makes for lively debates.

Spike and Dru are of course another example. For over a century they remain devoted to each other and share great love. Love that is commented on by the Judge who wants to burn them for it in Surprise. "You stink of affection and jealousy." When Angelus appears, the Judge declares him clean. Apparently Spike and Dru have something Angelus doesnít. Love. This may explain something that continues to confuse viewers of the show, how is it possible for Spike to love Buffy when Angelus didnít appear to? (Unless of course you count Angelusí sadistic desire to kill her and all her friends as love. Could be what made him nuts enough to end the world. Although I think itís more likely that he just wanted to prove himself the Big Bad vampire again. Angelus does however seem to consider love to be a toxic thing ñ it is an incentive to do good, gets in the way of evil deeds.) And yes I think Spikeís love for Buffy is m