September 2001 posts


Previous September 2001  

October 2001


On the downhill side . . . ? -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 16:47:02 09/25/01 Tue
. . with apologies to Harlan Ellison.

The spoilers, apparently, indicate a relatively mundane (if such can be used in this form) resurrection of Buffy. (I hope that this is NOT a spoiler, as fans have been awaiting the sure and certain resurrection ever since they found out a.) that Buffy was up for a certain 2 year run and b.) that Sarah M. Gellar was going to be in it.

I think, however, that if this IS the case that Whedon & Co. may have missed a bet. They've been willing to surprise and challenge audiences since season one. I think that they could have done so again --

-- by letting Buffy be gone. Death counts.

How could they have reconciled this with the continuing episodes and Gellar's return?

Consider this. We know that Dawn is made of Buffy, blood to her blood, or Buffy's sacrifice last season would have been but vain. Some earlier entries on this site have expressed puzzlement regarding this -- if Dawn is, essentially, a clone of Buffy why does she look different?

Why indeed? Any supernatural magic that can (and we have suspended disbelief in this regard) fuse the Key to multiple dimensions in human form AND change all records and numerous human memories to correspond to this creation -- could easily change one young female's appearance to suit. (I think certain people would have found it odd to see two Buffies in one town -- although, if the Robo-Buffy is any guide, it would have taken a while.)

A route Whedon and Co. might have taken is to have Dawn's appearance go to its natural state -- duplex Buffy -- after the Key was invoked and Glory defeated. This would have made a very interesting field for drama. [It would have been rather hard on Ms. Trachtenberg, but I hope her service of last season will win her numerous other roles.]

If they had followed this lin they would have a very young woman -- girl, really -- in the body of an aging Slayer, burned out with battle fatigue. A Dawn/Buffy would have to grapple with the same stresses our Buffy had had to deal with years ago. In addition, she would have full knowledge of her own artificiality -- that she was a construct, a copy of her beloved older sister -- and that even that love was something created. She could nto forget this; she would be reminded every time she looked in a mirror.

This would be a demanding role -- but S. M. Gellar has already shown the acting chops to portray very different characters in the same series. She could certainly have done this successfully for years.

The reaction of the Scooby Gangers would also be fertile ground for drama. Instead of being the loyal followers of their kick-ass leader, they would have to be the guides and mentors of a fledgling Slayer. Every time they too looked at her, almost every day, they would recall the leader they had lost.

I'm sure that Whedon & Co. will provide numerous effective stories over the next two years. But, perhaps, they missed a bet.

Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting and clever idea. They wouldn't do it, but it's still a clever idea. -- OnM, 20:28:33 09/25/01 Tue
So, in honor of your eminent non-boringness, let me welcome you to the BtVS Society for the Perverse and Exceedingly Curious Transformations and/or Re-animating Episodes, or

BtVS/SPECTRE!

(...with apologies to Iam Fleming!)

;)
Computer sounds (WAAYYY O/T) -- Sebastian, 08:47:09 09/26/01 Wed

Does anyone have suggetions to a good website where I can obtain Buffy-related sounds for my computer?

Specifically, I would like to get the sound vamps make when they are being dusted - but all I've found so far for sounds are quotes and the like.

Please help.

Thanks - S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Something for Solitude to clarify -- Drizzt, 10:46:36 09/26/01 Wed

Not me. Another option though is to record the sounds you want DIRECTLY from tapes of one of the shows as digital files, then transfer them to your hardrive.

The recording media and technicalities of file transfer? I do not know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me? I'm no computer geek. Try OnM or Pgrrl. -- Solitude1056, 11:22:17 09/26/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Computer sounds (WAAYYY O/T) -- JoRus, 18:45:14 09/27/01 Thu

No, I don't know of a site with the sound. However, if you're running Windows, and you have a sound card on your computer...look on the back of your comp. Is there a place where the speakers plug in? Is there a place marked "mic" or microphone next to the speaker plug in? So...plug in a mic. Go to your start menu. Look under Programs, accessories, entertainment...ought to be something that says "sound recording" . You can use that to record sounds to a folder on your harddrive. Test it first, then capture the sound with a Buffy episode. I hope I'm not being insulting simplistic here, just trying to help.
Lord of the Rings trailer -- spotjon, 08:29:45 09/26/01 Wed

Okay, I have to confess that I was more interested in watching the new LOTR trailer than the Angel premiere. I am so very much looking forward to these movies, but I'm really hoping that they don't mess around with the story too much. Who else here has read the trilogy, or anything else by Tolkien? The Hobbit is a nice prelude to the trilogy, though it doesn't come close to the trilogy's magnitude. No other fantasy books that I have read come even close to Tolkien's books, and I'm not sure that any others can. The one thing in the movies I'm hesitant about is Arwen's apparently expanded role. They had better not change her character into Xena Warrior Princess, or I'll be seriously ticked at Peter Jackson. :-)

Can... not... wait... for... this... movie....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- Voxpopuli, 09:19:33 09/26/01 Wed

I read the Hobbit, the Lord of The Rings (trilogy), and the Silmarillion, and I agree with you: I can not wait to see this movie. But this time, I am avoiding traillers, pictures, everything that could spoil the surprise of the first movie, as much as I can. I guess I already have those characters in my mind, how they should look like, and all that stuff, and I do not want to start watching the movie already suspecting it is not gonna ne good because I do not like part of the cast,... But if the movie fails my expectations... I'll watch the next two parts anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- Shaglio, 09:50:32 09/26/01 Wed

I never read the Hobbit or the Lord Of THe Rings series, but my friend has and he said it was dificult to read because of his writing style. I personnaly have never read anything better than the Wheel Of Time series by Robert Jordan. My friend has read both and her thinks that WOT is much better then LOTR. I'm still dying to see the movie though. I remember watching the Hobbit cartoon as a kid and I'll never forget "Where there's a whip, there's a way." That song is awesome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> WOT vs. LOTR -- spotjon, 10:49:02 09/26/01 Wed

Personally, I don't think that the Wheel of Time series even comes close to the Lord of the Rings. The WOT books are easier reading, to be sure, but there isn't anything particularly original in the series. Not that everything needs to be original, but I don't think that Robert Jordan has really planned out his series very well. The first three books were awesome, IMO, but the series quickly went downhill from there, degenerating into numerous drawn-out and pointless plotlines. I can't help but think that Jordan is purposely making the series longer in order to make more money, and the story is suffering as a result. I also don't care for the women in the series, as they all seem to be clones of one another, personality-wise. The women are all petty, self-serving, back-biting, proud and mean. I can't understand why Jordan would create a fantasy world with only women like that.

I like Tolkien's characters much more, because they actually believe in doing whatever it takes to defeat evil while remaining in the good. Jordan's books have a hazy spiritualism where there is no right or wrong, only a vague "cosmic balance" between the light and the dark. He doesn't know how to write a character with any real sense of morality at all. I've been reading all the WOT books up until the last one, but I don't think I'm going to bother anymore. The writing and plots no longer interest me, and the sense of urgency seems to have vanished from the story.

If you want an easy-reading introduction to Tolkien's works, pick up the graphic novel adaptation of The Hobbit. You should be able to find it at any Border's, in the huge "Tolkien" section of the store. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Jordan vs. Tolkein - I second spotjon's commentary -- Solitude1056, 19:21:07 09/26/01 Wed

I've read both - all 3 of the Tolkein trilogy, and the first 3 of Jordan's. Yeah, Tolkein's harder to read. He makes you think, and he doesn't give you the characters right away - there's several characters that you may dislike at first, but like Iago, you don't know why they're doing what they're doing... you just come to trust, along with the hobbits, that it's okay despite that not-knowing.

Jordan's easier to read. He's not original. He's not even remotely original. He's got a standard plot line, but with some promising characters. But his story doesn't develop - it just gets more complex. That's the grade-B form of "development," IMO. At some point a writer does need to wrap the story up, or it just turns into an endless soap opera. Sure, it's entertaining, in some vague way, like eye candy and grade-B movies are. But it's not something that a year later I'm saying, "gee, I wanna re-read that one."

Tolkein, on the other hand, has not only a beginning, middle and end - but a fully fleshed-out, complex and completely developed world around his characters. That's what really drives his story - the mythology within which the characters evolve. And they do evolve, and not always in ways we'd like, and not always sympathetically. Good folks go bad, and bad do good, and nothing is ever quite what it seems - right on down to Gollum, one of the little bads from The Hobbit.

Speaking of which, I'd never had my heart break from reading a story until I was reading Tolkein. In the third book, I believe it is, Sam Gamgee stays awake to keep an eye on Gollum, who still wants to get the ring from Frodo. It's then, as they lay so close to Mt. Doom and the end of the line, that Sam sets aside his natural distrust and dislike of Gollum, and really looks at him. And Sam is finally able to see, inside of Gollum, that there's still a hobbit in there, however twisted Gollum was by having the ring all those years. It's the recognition of Gollum's humanity, despite the ring's addiction twisting him, that's a truly heart-breaking part of the story. But Tolkein doesn't give that part to you on a silver platter, but it's there in the whole story, Gollum's humanity, that is - you have to work for it, though.

Tolkein makes you think. And he makes you remember, years later, passages and quotes and characters - even minor characters like Treebeard. I doubt, in fifty years, that many writers publishing these days will be able to claim that sort of fame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Jordan vs. Tolkein - I second spotjon's commentary -- Shaglio, 06:34:09 09/27/01 Thu

"He's not original. He's not even remotely original."

His world is quite original, though. Any fantasy story can have dragons, elves, dwarves, orcs, ogres, etc. But Jordan created his own races and monsters that are unique: Ogier, Nym, Trollocs, Myrdraal, Dragkhar, Grolm, and so on. Plus his "One Power" is much diferent than standard storybook magic. His world is very complex and thought out in it's history and culture. Sure he borrowed little bits from diferent real-life historical societies, but he mixed and matched them to create whole new cultures. And I know Artur Pendrag Tanreal sounds a lot like Arthur Paendrag, but the character isn't nearly the same as King Arthur.

There comes a point in time where virtually everything anyone can imagine has already been written about, so every work written thereafter will remind you of something someone else already wrote. More and more writers generateing more and more stories make it harder for those who come later to be perfectly original.

With that said, as soon as I'm finished rereading Good Omens (my copy has "the Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnus Nutter, Witch" on the front cover), I'll take a crack at The Lord of the Rings series. Should I read the Hobbit first? Sorry everyone for straying so far away from Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Jordan's world, and The Hobbit -- spotjon, 07:07:58 09/27/01 Thu

His world is quite original, though.

I agree that Jordan put a lot of work into creating fairly original creatures and otherworldly powers, but he has largely misused them. The trollocs which were so frightening in the first book now are hardly given a second glance. The same with the Myrdraal and other monsters. Jordan focused too much on non-essential characters, and has dragged out the series to a ridiculous degree. I should have known something was wrong when the hero of the series killed the same bad guy at the end of each of the first three books! And now we find out that that bad guy wasn't really the bad guy after all, and it just gets longer and more tedious after that. He seems to think that just because he created this huge and complex world, that he is obligated to explore every nick and cranny of it before he can end the series. I don't think that the great ending we keep hearing about is worth trudging through these books anymore. I have been holding on, expecting the series to get better, but I no longer think it can recapture the promise it started out with. It's a real pity.

In regards to reading the trilogy, it might not be a bad idea to start with The Hobbit, as it sets up the storyline and a few of the characters for the LOTR trilogy. It's not totally necessary, though, and the tone of the book is different than that of the trilogy. The Hobbit was written more with a fun adventure feeling as opposed to the enormous heroic scope which is found in the trilogy. The Hobbit has more the feel of a children's story than the later books, with the little moral insights that Tolkien throws in at times. However, everything important to the plot is explained in the first book of the trilogy, so you wouldn't be missing out on the essential bits of knowledge if you go straight to the trilogy. I guess it all depends on whether or not you think you can finish up through the first book of the trilogy before the movie comes out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jordan's world, and The Hobbit -- Shaglio, 08:51:49 09/27/01 Thu

"The trollocs which were so frightening in the first book now are hardly given a second glance."

Yes, but by the same token I was watching the reruns of the 1st season of Buffy the last couple days and it seemed that she was absolutely terrified by a couple vampires. She killed a few, but she ran away from a lot of them (including Jesse). Now, 5 years later, she thinks nothing of dusting half a dozen to a dozen vamps in a nights work. They hardly appear as menacing as they did in WttH and The Harvest. As Buffy gets stronger, her old adversaries don't seem as dangerous and new ones must be brought in (notice she didn't hunt many vamps last season). Likewise, as Rand, Mat, and Perrin get stronger, their old adversares aren't as overwhelming and new foes need to come into the picture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Jordan vs. Tolkein - I second spotjon's commentary -- Andy, 13:18:31 09/27/01 Thu

"With that said, as soon as I'm finished rereading Good Omens (my copy has "the Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnus Nutter, Witch" on the front cover),"

Ooh, great book :)

"I'll take a crack at The Lord of the Rings series. Should I read the Hobbit first?"

I think it's okay to read The Hobbit first so long as you keep in mind that the tone of the story really doesn't represent what you get in Lord of the Rings, especially after the first half of Fellowship of the Ring. The Hobbit was intended to be a children's book, so it's a lot goofier. When Tolkien started on LOTR, he kept up a lot of that children's angle in the first book until he decided he had bigger plans in mind and from that point forward the book got darker and more mythic in tone. I only point this out because I've known people who have sworn off LOTR because they started reading The Hobbit, disliked it, and figured LOTR was the same thing.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey, Shag! O/T -- WW, 17:13:51 09/28/01 Fri

I'm just reading Good Omens for the first time, and loving it!

BTW, did you catch the other Arthurian references in WoT? We made a list years ago:

Rand al'Thor = Arthur Nynaeve = Ninian Thom Merrilin = Merlin Moiraine = Morgan le Fay Egwene al'Vere = Guinivere

I know there are tons of others that I've forgotten (I read the last book almost a year ago now) but the point is that even though Jordan uses the obvious parallels in names, the characters themselves don't share the same destinies this time around the turn of the Wheel--for instance, I'd be exceedingly surprised at this point if Rand ended up with Egwene, as Arthur did with Guinivere.

I've enjoyed WoT, but I do think it's about time Jordan ended it. I should go and read the rest of this thread now, before I get redundant... ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey, Shag! O/T -- Shaglio, 07:47:37 10/01/01 Mon

My friends and I caught some of those references, but not all. It's been a while since we all read "La Morte De Artur" in high school. I agree that he should be wrapping it up soon (before I go crazy). I need closure on some of the story lines, and he just keeps adding new lines. I know he said that not all plot lines will be resolved at the end of the series :(

I wish the series would go 10 books, but I have a feeling it'll go 12 since all the major book ending have been every third book (The Dragon Reborn, The Lord of Chaos, and Winter's Heart). So it makes sense that Tarmon Gaidon will be at the end of book 12.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- Talia, 10:23:49 09/26/01 Wed

The trailer was, in my opinion at least, jaw-droppingly awesome. Waiting for this movie is killing me already. The books are wonderful, and the footage I've seen looks like it lives up to them in every way (the whole thing could yet be crap, but my expectations are rising despite my best efforts). I for one am glad they expanded Arwen's role. Tolkien didn't write especially good female characters. The important female characters in the LotR are: Galadriel, powerful but doesn't get to do all that much other than sit in the woods and look pretty; Eowyn, who kicks the dark power's butt but then settles down to a nice quiet married life like a good little girl; and Arwen, who does absolutely nothing except love Aragorn and sit around and look pretty. Within limits, expansion of the female characters will bring the books up to date without undermining their essence. Anyway, enough of the feminist mini-rant. Go see the movie, people. Support them for supporting Angel with the advertising dollars. Frodo lives! Buffy lives! And they all lived happily ever after (but not together.) (SMG is short but not that short) ~Talia the sleep-deprived~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I should like this ... -- Dedalus, 11:14:34 09/26/01 Wed

Rowan should be coming up shortly.

Anyway, I should like LOTR, but I don't. And granted, I'm in a 1% minority here, but I just can't get into it. After hearing many protests, I've tried to read the books. So far, I haven't even made it through the first one. I've tried. I swear I've tried. But you know, last time, I got through the first hundred pages, and nothing had happened. All the hobbits do is walk and stop and eat and eat and then eat some more. I can't trust a book where nothing happens for a hundred pages. I know some of it is boring exposition, but I LIKE boring exposition. But you know, page after page about the life cycles of hobbits, map after map, and nothing happens.

My LOTR as a kid was the Chronicles of Narnia. CS Lewis made Narnia a real place. Tolkien did not do that with Middle Earth, at least as far as I'm concerned. Rather than listening to a story, it's like I'm listening to someone listening to a story. I'm like Joss ... I like emotional storytelling, the things I like are things of the heart. I even made it through the Hobbit as a kid, but remained quite unimpressed. The action seemed so distant and methodical. It was very hard to get emotionally wound up in.

Granted, I should like it, because I like this sort of thing, but I don't. The trailer looks cool, and I'll go see the movie, but unlike virtually everyone else, I hope it veers wildly from the books. Part of my urk is the bloated sense of Tolkienism sweeping the land. I was in a comic book store a few weeks ago, and someone was mentioning that he evented fantasy literature. Um ... no. I'm thinking not. Actually, he got most of his stuff from all that tenth century literature he use to teach. If they were doing a Beowulf movie, then I would be more excited.

Actually, if I may make a suggestion, Buffy fans should check out Terry Brooks. Especially the award-winning Word and Void trilogy, beginning with Running with the Demon and ending with Angel Fire East. Very Buffy-ish. And it gets to you, completely emotionally involves you. The best fantasy trilogy I have ever read. Nice theological overtones, too.

As far as the movie goes, it's clearly setting itself up for a fall. Especially with the internet culture that thrives on tearing everything to pieces. Which is not to say it will actually be bad ... it's just saying that a lot of people will take great pleasure and go to great pains in convincing people that it is bad. This is like Star Wars, only worse, because there's already a clearly established, borderline sacred book that it is built on. Any deviation will find backlash, and by necessity, the deviations will have to be there. A movie is not a book. GWTW was a huge success, but it veered wildly from the book. Its only saving grace was that there was no internet back then.

Still, I'm sure it will do okay critically, and it will be a huge box office smash. And like I said, I'll probably check it out myself, but I'm just not too excited.

:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Beowulf -- Ryuei, 12:34:48 09/26/01 Wed

Actually there was a movie (that I think went straight to video) called Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert that came out a year or two ago. I personally thought it was a fun movie. It has a neat post- Apacolypse take on the original story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> then may I suggest "Riddley Walker" ... -- Solitude1056, 20:48:41 09/26/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> GWTW movie =/= book? Where? -- Solitude1056, 20:47:30 09/26/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: GWTW movie =/= book? Where? (O/T) -- Cassandra, 00:06:55 09/27/01 Thu

There are several differences. Scarlett has more than one child in the book, but only one in the movie. Scarlett's brother-in-law is an interesting character, but I don't remember him being in the movie at all.

Small enough changes plot-wise, but there was a noticeable difference in the characterization. The Scarlett of the movie is less complex and more petulant. She's a stronger, more self-sufficient, more developed character in the book. Both book and movie were exceptionally well done, but, IMO, the book is better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- Rattletrap, 11:43:49 09/26/01 Wed

Got to agree, LOTR is fabulous and the movie looks to be as well done as one could expect from Hollywood. I'm already partly gritting my teeth because I know it won't work as well as the book did- -partly because they are trying to condense 6 weeks of reading into 6 hours. Nonetheless, it promises to be a great series of movies, and I'm psyched about the special effects.

I'm always struck by the similarities between Whedon and Tolkien. Both are great "subcreators" who have developed these elaborate and functional, if fictional, worlds in which their characters exist. TV doesn't really permit the close attention to detail that Tolkein demonstrated in LOTR--I don't see any languages in the Buffyverse as developed as Tolkien's elvish tounge (complete with regional dialects and everything); or the same attention to history, geography, and culture. At the same time, Whedon, IMO, shows a much better aptitude for developing his characters emotionally and mentally over time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- mundusmundi, 13:30:07 09/26/01 Wed

Looking forward to the flick. And, for any fanatics out there, the Marquette University archives (Milwaukee, Wis.) has a Tolkien collection, complete with rough drafts, original sketches, etc., of his entire oeuvre. Got to work on it summer of '96 (along with Joseph McCarthy's personal writings -- MU's most notorious law school alumnus -- which were, um, considerably different but still most interesting).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> here's a link -- mm, 15:14:49 09/26/01 Wed

to the Tolkien Collection, if anyone's interested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- Jen C., 17:56:14 09/26/01 Wed

I read them all -- several times. The Silmarillion sometimes gave me a headache, but it was worth it since it gave great background on the elves and the history of the rings. The movie looks great! The mines of Moria look awesome and I can't wait for the Balrog! I'm so excited...I plan on seeing it one time for every year that I've been waiting for it to come out....(I'm embarrassed to say how many times that is)

By the By, did anyone see the Ralph Bakshi version? I really liked it - though I understand that it didn't appeal to everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lord of the Rings trailer -- Andy, 19:13:21 09/26/01 Wed

I read The Hobbit and LOTR for the first time a couple of years ago. Loved them both. So much so, in fact, that it pretty much made most other fantasy books I'd read immediately irrelevant. That is, I'm sure there are plenty of fantasy stories out there that are original or drawn from a different tradition than what Tolkien was inspired by and those are fine, but I just can't imagine bothering with any of those "party of adventurers goes off on a dangerous quest with little world maps and glossaries in the front of the book" stories now. Tolkien was so thorough when he did it that I simply don't need anything more in that particular niche :)

I'm really looking forward to the films because I think Peter Jackson's an extremely talented filmmaker (come to think of it, The Frighteners is kind of like a Buffy episode except without Buffy in it...), and it's downright scary how exactly the images from the film so far match what was in my imagination when I read the books.

As for Arwen's expanded role, I'm in favor of it. My only concern is that I don't want to see Arwen elevated into being such an asskicker that it somehow diminishes Eowyn's role in the story. If Arwen is supposed to be great, then Eowyn should be that much greater :)

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The funny thing is... -- Solitude1056, 20:52:49 09/26/01 Wed

I can't remember any of the female characters (other than Galadriel) in Tolkein's stories. Huh, nor in C.S. Lewis' stories, either, but I was never too big on C.S. Lewis once I got tired of getting hit over the head with his Xtian bias. Great stories, but enough with the imagery. (Tolkein's is at least a bit more subtle.) Now, L'Engle, on the other hand - great female characters, like Meg. That's modern fantasy for me. No maps, but yes to the odd fellow group banding together to save something. And with math 'n science to boot, even if I never did figure out what a tesseract was...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> A tesseract... -- spotjon, 06:26:20 09/27/01 Thu

..is the fifth dimension, of course! :-) I never understood it either, so I just took it on faith that it made some sort of sense. Man, it's been years since I read that book. I need to try to find a copy of it somewhere.

In regards to Lewis' Christian bias in his stories, I remember reading that he and Tolkien had long arguments about the use of allegory in writing. Tolkien disliked Lewis' blatant Christian symbolism, feeling that it was overbearing and lacked subtlety. Tolkien's works were greatly influenced by his Christian faith, but he refrained from making his writings into sermons. (Much to his credit, I believe, though I am a huge Lewis fan.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A tesseract... -- Shaglio, 06:51:57 09/27/01 Thu

. . is a rhombus shaped house (instead of the normal square or rectanglar shape). It makes for some pretty awkward furniture arrangements in the four corners of the house. The obtuse angles aren't too bad, but the acute ones can get a little cozy and cramped. You need to do a lot more kitty- cornering in them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> kitty-cornering. hmm. sounds obscene. -- Solitude1056, 14:36:02 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A tesseract... -- Rattletrap, 07:04:29 09/27/01 Thu

Tolkien and Lewis, despite being extremely close friends, had long arguments about a number of things. Tolkien never particularly liked the Narnia stories because of their lack of development and internal consistency (at least compared to Middle Earth). At the same time, I've read in at least one place where Tolkien claimed LOTR was written to shut CS Lewis up--he kept going on about how Tolkien had created this great world and needed to tell some stories with it, finally Tolkien got fed up with it and wrote LOTR. This is probably exaggerated, but not without its grain of truth. For the interested, C S Lewis reviewed LOTR shortly after it came out, and his reviews are published in the compilation of essays On Stories along with a number of other writings on Science Fiction and Fantasy literature. If you can find a copy, I highly recommend it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> CS Lewis Screwtape -- Cleanthes, 09:37:25 09/27/01 Thu

On a tangental note, anyone who likes both this posting board and the Narnia books will ADORE Lewis's book, "The Screwtape Letters".

The book is not an allegorical tale, but rather a flat-out devil's advocate exposition of the nature of evil. Screwtape himself is, well, a devil. My edition has a great forward with citations to Boethius and others. And, as a bonus, only 172 pages. I wanted more! I sometimes wish I had an uncle Screwtape myself - or at least I do when I'm feeling especially nihilistic or postmodern...

Tolkein's specialty was philology & medieval literature. Lewis was a philosopher and theologian. I first read both the Narnia books and Lewis when I was an atheist, but even then, I didn't find the theology threatening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The funny thing is... -- rowan, 08:34:39 09/27/01 Thu

I found the female characters in the Silmarillion to be more memorable than in LOTR, but I do grant that Tolkien was more comfortable and capable writing men. Women seem to function more as archetypes and symbols rather than full people for him....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Bias -- Malandanza, 09:59:03 09/27/01 Thu

"but I was never too big on C.S. Lewis once I got tired of getting hit over the head with his [Chris]tian bias."

Complaining about Lewis' Christian bias is a bit like not reading Lovecraft because you don't like the oppressive atmosphere of horror in his books, or not reading Austin because all her books talk about the relationship between love/marriage/money/social status (don't flame me -- I love JA). I mean, you knew what was in the books before you began reading them -- so why complain? :) Now, if you want to see excessive use of Christian imagery, try Pilgrim's Progress -- not only are you hit repeatedly over the head with the imagery, but (just in case you don't get the point) they also explain in detail just exactly what the images meant (which, actually, is helpful if you are not a biblical scholar -- some of the allusions were a bit obscure).

Seriously, though, I agree with Cleanthes about the Screwtape Letters -- I recently came across this book and it has one of the more interesting portrayals of demons I have read. Certainly worth reading -- even if you are an atheist (just as Dante's Inferno is worth reading even if you don't believe in Medieval Catholic lore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Bias -- rowan, 10:56:08 09/28/01 Fri

Yes...if the writing is good & thought-provoking, who cares about the bias?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Except... -- Malandanza, 09:58:11 09/30/01 Sun

"Yes...if the writing is good & thought-provoking, who cares about the bias?"

.it does annoy me when something that purports to be a dispassionate observation turns out to be hiding an agenda. "Documentaries" that are seriously biased, biographies written by family apologists, etc. But when people complained about being offended after seeing movies likt The Last Temptation of Christ, I have little sympathy -- they knew that the movie would offend them before they set foot inside the theater.
Angel and grief -- celticross, 09:11:48 09/26/01 Wed

Reading posts, I've been surprised by the number of people who have expressed displeasure over the way Angel's grief was handled in Heartthrob. Frankly, I liked it. I thought it was tasteful to avoid a scene of Angel sobbing on Cordy's shoulder. I think what threw a lot of people was Cordy's line about James and Elizabeth's "forever love"...just because you're with someone for a long time doesn't necessarily mean the emotions involved are healthy. I've also sensed a bit of a double standard...people were expecting Angel to completely break down, apparently. What do you think Buffy's reaction would have been if she'd gotten word Angel was dead? I suppose I get a bit miffed at the suggestion that it's ok for her to move on with her life, but Angel needs to stay in love with Buffy forever. That's one of the things that made me want to reach through the screen and smack Buffy during Sanctuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and grief -- Drizzt, 10:58:08 09/26/01 Wed

Buffy and Angel will love eachother forever, but they are no longer in love.

Buffy in the afterlife would be really pissed if Angel got all mopy and suicidle about her death! I can see Buffy and Angel in Heavan: Punch! Slam! Bang! and Buffy says "Angel, you killed yourself because you were upset by my death?!?" She would agree with Cordelia that Buffy would want him to move on and honor her by doing good and being good.(big paraphrase there)

One other thing is that Angel allways accepted that Buffy was the Slayer and would therefore die young. He never had any illusions of her living to be an old woman. So with this in mind it would be inconsistent for Angel to be TOO suprised by her death. Like Buffy, Angel accepted-without liking- that Buffy would die young.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and grief -- The Godfather, 11:02:57 09/26/01 Wed

Well the script for FOREVER differs with you on whether or not they are still in love with each other. Angel said, "The woman I love." Present tense. That is hardly the point.

The point is you are right, Angel proved his love to Buffy more by continuing the fight in her name. This is a man who has never really dealt with the grief of losing someone so deep and beloved, so integrated into his soul. He dind't know how he was supposed to react. He didn't realize how well she had taught him. She taught him to keep fighting as long as he could because there's always something worth fighting for. He couldn't let down because of that- he just didn't realize it.

Buffy would never have wanted Angel to crawl up and die. That would have been the worst disgrace of all and disrespectful to everything she is to him. In his actions now, he proves the utter depth of his love and he shows that even in loss, he can be a warrior.

-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel and grief -- Drizzt, 11:13:16 09/26/01 Wed

Thanks! You explained it better:) RE Angel dealing with his greif.

I agree that the love between Buffy and Angel is very deep and strong. Also agreed that their love is inherently romantic.

They love eachother more than most people could understand, however they have moved on and are no longer in the phase of "you are my world" of the first phases of being in love. They have the real thing that lasts beyond a crush or a phase, but they HAVE moved on...in a bittersweat way.

One thing to add: neither has ever been in love with anyone else...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel and grief -- The Godfather, 11:54:11 09/26/01 Wed

I concur completely with this.

They are in a more adult and accepting phase of their love. They are comforted from afar by the simple concept of it being better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

I believe they will reunite come series end but even should they not, I believe they will reunite as friends. They have something no one else will ever be able to touch. They will always be each others' most important and strongest love.

But they are becoming adults and sadly that means accepting that in all reality, they are likely over(this being a fantasy show, I believe reality will step out for them) so they must carry on and move on.

And in doing so, accepting that they may never again be, have strengthened their bond more than will ever realize.

I like the story being told. I don't like the idea of Angel with a new romance because it seems contrary to his character and honestly he has nothing to offer someone while he is on his quest but should he..I have always believed it should be an older character not a young girl..

JMO, Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Remember, it -has- been three months since Buffy died... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 13:46:10 09/26/01 Wed

What we have to remember, too, is that it's been three months. Angel's had three whole months to deal with this. It's not that he's -ok- with Buffy's death, he's just moved on from moping and crying about it. He's had sufficient time to grieve, and now its time for him to start getting on with his life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel and grief -- Kerri, 14:12:01 09/26/01 Wed

You said it! Angel is honoring Buffy in continuing to fight-that's what she would have wanted. Their souls are intertwined forever, and IMO they are and will always be soulmates. I was a bit disappointed and putoff by Angel's lack of grief. We saw Angel not wearing his usual black-he wore khaki-and I guess to me there just seemed something a bit wrong. I just hope Cordy and Angel don't get involved as rumors have mentioned-I'd really have a problem with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That came out a little wrong -- Kerri, 14:31:20 09/26/01 Wed

"I was a bit disappointed and putoff by Angel's lack of grief. "

I really wasn't suggesting that Angel never hurt over Buffy's death. I'm sure he did. He went off to grieve alone. And alone is the way you'd expect Angel to grieve-he tends to be a private person and rarely even opened up to Buffy-I always just got the idea that they understood each other. I think that the feeling of being part of each other is why Angel can go on. He and Buffy are forever intertwined, as he told Buffy in The Zeppo, "I love you. Nothing can change that, not even death." I wanted him to seem just a bit more devestated-that's all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angel's grief -- Simplicity, 14:52:53 09/26/01 Wed

I think the point of Heartthrob was that Angel loved Buffy but he's not in love with her. They have been seperated since mid season three (if you discount the biting going on in Graduation Day 1). It's been three and a half years and his wounds have healed a little. His grief isn't fresh either, he has had three months to deal with it. If he was still prostrate with grief, we'd be worried about the guy.

I also think that Angel began putting emotional distance between himself and Buffy after he saw her with Riley. He knew that she was moving on. I think he wanted to move on in his own way too.

Also, Angel knows that she's a Slayer, as Buffy said there is an "expiration date" on the package. I think that subconsciously he has prepared himself for that for years. When he walked into the hotel he saw Willow and he knew. It was if he had been expecting it.

Cordelia summed it up by saying that he was "honoring her" by continuing to fight the good fight. I don't believe Buffy would want him to grieve too much, she'd want him to get back out there and help people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel's grief -- The Godfather, 15:50:22 09/26/01 Wed

But what about FOREVER..both his actions and the script clearly indicated that he was and is still in love with her. And he still references her in the present tense when he said, "The woman I love is dead."

I don't mean to harp here but I'm not a fan of ambiguity. I feel like the B/Aers are being pulled along for the ride and never allowed to jump off because the writers want them to stick around in case they are needed. Thus screw them most of the time but dangle some candy on occasion to keep them watching..

-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel's grief -- celticross, 20:17:28 09/26/01 Wed

" I feel like the B/Aers are being pulled along for the ride and never allowed to jump off because the writers want them to stick around in case they are needed. Thus screw them most of the time but dangle some candy on occasion to keep them watching.."

Exactly! Which is why I kinda jumped off the B/A shipper wagon in Season 1 of AtS, with IWRY. I felt like I was being thrown a bone for being a good little shipper...and hence felt a little cheap. And Forever didn't help much, with the one lovey scene, which happened to fall in the middle of Angel's "Dark Arc" and really hurt the credibility of it all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: When bad things happen to good vampires -- mundusmundi, 14:57:56 09/26/01 Wed

The actor Michael Caine once talked about how he got the idea underplaying a tragic scene by watching on TV the reactions of the families of the astronauts who perished in the '86 Challenger explosion. They didn't overemote, or at least not before the cameras; rather, they looked numbed by the experience. Same with some of the family members of the recent tragedy, e.g., Ted Olson, husband of Barbara Olson, who was on the plane that hit the Pentagon. I'm sure he probably cried his eyes out in private, but I was amazed at how composed he was on TV. I thought Angel's reaction was similarly, effectively muted. I didn't take it to mean he was less mournful than say Spike was, just that different people (or vampires) can express their grief in different ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> "If I felt less, I could speak more" - Mr Darcy in P&P -- Rahael, 15:56:19 09/26/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not Mister Darcy and not P & P - it was the chap that Emma ends up marrying in Emma -- Helen, 02:45:07 09/27/01 Thu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But entirely agree in regard to Angel ... -- Helen, 02:53:30 09/27/01 Thu

and will stop trying to be such a smart arse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quite right! *Hangs head in shame* -- Rahael, 15:27:01 09/27/01 Thu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: When bad things happen to good vampires -- Rufus, 08:42:49 09/27/01 Thu

People react to grief differently. Some become vocal, act out in an obvious way, and some internalize their emotions. Just because someone isn't grieving in a way that is most recognizable as grief, doesn't mean they don't feel any pain, it just isn't obvious to the average person. Cordy and the rest of the gang knew that Angel had been greatly affected by the death of Buffy. But when the season started we must remember that it had been three months since he first found out. Also look to Buffys final words about loving her friends and to "live-live for me", how would becoming imobilized indefinately be living and carrying on the fight that was so important to Buffy. Angel had time to get over the relationship, time to grieve....just because after 3 months he seemed to be recovering from the worst of it doesn't mean that Buffys death meant nothing to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel and grief -- The Godfather, 14:50:56 09/26/01 Wed

Cord and Angel would put me off the show permanently so I hope they don't go that way. I love the family vibe on the show and would hate to see that compromised so cheaply.

-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> In Joss I trust, I'm reserving my judgement -- Ally, 14:55:53 09/26/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and grief -- Joann, 17:38:35 09/26/01 Wed

I didn't expect Angel to fall on the floor and thrash himself against the wall because Buffy died. I just was hoping for a David Greenwalt moment. Something I could always remember since I won't be seeing any B/A moments anytime soon except on reruns.

He could have been alone for a few moments, looked at some momentos, made an expression of grief that we would recognize as deeply personal and then came out to Cordy beating her breast -- "Hey, here I am. I'll help you. Just listen to me." Right. Now I am all fine and better, he said! It was a forced recovery.
If you're "archiving" episodes from FX -- Humanitas, 14:05:49 09/26/01 Wed

I'd advise taping the 4:00 show, instead of the 7:00. They don't have all the annoying "bugs" for shows later that evening, you get full-screen credits, and I even think the earlier showing is un-edited. At least, "WttH" maps perfectly to the transcript on Psyche's site.

I have way too much time on my hands, don't I?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: If you're "archiving" episodes from FX -- Kerri, 14:14:07 09/26/01 Wed

"At least, "WttH" maps perfectly to the transcript on Psyche's site."

Do you know that the 7:00 show was edited? I didn't notice any ovious problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: If you're "archiving" episodes from FX -- Humanitas, 15:47:28 09/26/01 Wed

I didn't compare the 7:00 show directly, but the transitions seemed a little abrupt to me, maybe because I was expecting syndicated butchery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: If you're "archiving" episodes from FX -- Tanker, 16:07:42 09/26/01 Wed

I had the transcript up for the 7:00 show (I have too much time on my hands too). No cuts, and yes, the cut to commercials was abrupt. They might have saved enough seconds for another promo, maybe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: If you're "archiving" episodes from FX -- Humanitas, 17:51:01 09/26/01 Wed

Interesting. We've been hearing so many rumors about additional edits, that we're all jumpy. Nice to know that the rumors seem to be greatly exagerated. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: If you're "archiving" episodes from FX -- Cynthia, 18:34:31 09/26/01 Wed

Alas, no cable, no FX. But I just read in the tv guide that Fox, channel 5 will have Buffy on Saturday's at 6:00 pm and UPN channel 9 will have the same? episode on Sunday at 8:00pm puting it up against the primetime viewing schedule.

I should tell you that here in NYC, that channel 5 owners, who own the Fox syndication station brought, with special permission from the Fed, channel 9 which is a UPN channel. So Fox gets Buffy because its parent company owns it, and UPN gets it because they have a deal with Fox. Strange but true.

So, while some of the board will be finished with season one in about three weeks, I'll still be look at it (fussy image and all) for three months. Talk about confusion with timelines LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> eight days a week -- 32207, 08:21:41 09/28/01 Fri

Yep, down here, our WB affiliate will be showing the syndicated weekend Buffy's starting with WttH and the 3rd season, Anne, on Saturday and Sunday @ 6pm respectively. Now with FX schedule and UPN's season 6, we have a serious load of distractions from your schoolwork (productive time after work and what not). So much for Med School, hello white collar middle management..... (grumble)

-Spiff
Confirmation of Buffy Premiere *Spoiler*? -- Wisewoman, 17:52:05 09/26/01 Wed

Deeva has posted some links to spoilers below which seem to support a script fragment we discussed a couple of months ago. I posted the supposed shooting script fragment on my site at that time and then forgot about it, but now that it looks like it might be authentic, I'll post the url again:

http://www.wisewomansway.homestead.com/buffyspoiler.html

Warning: For serious spoiler ho's only... ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> From a fellow spoiler whore... -- Kerri, 19:33:12 09/26/01 Wed

Last season I told myself I wouldn't read anymore wildfeeds, etc.-but who was I kidding? Appanrently some lucky folks have seen the episode and reviewed it(there is a full synopsis at www.bloodyawfulpoet.com) and it seems to pretty much confirm your script. 6 days! yay!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: From a fellow spoiler whore... -- Dariel, 21:40:35 09/26/01 Wed

You guys are terrible! I'm just going to pretend I didn't see those links. Well, until tomorrow when I just can't stand it anymore!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Tomorrow? You've got some awesome will power there. ;o) -- Deeva, 21:50:29 09/26/01 Wed

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Tomorrow? You've got some awesome will power there. ;o) -- Dariel, 20:41:46 09/27/01 Thu

Not. I lasted all of 15 minutes!
Behind the scenes/E channel -- Cynthia, 18:50:01 09/26/01 Wed

Found this on another board. Thought you might be interested. I'm not able to see this because I don't have cable. If anyone watches could you post a summary?

Date Posted: 18:49:28 09/26/01 Wed Author: lurker26 Author Host/IP: jon2.lnc.com / 206.99.186.31 Subject: E! Behind the Scenes Look at BTVS (m)

Just checking out tvguide online for tonight and noticed this on E!:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer 60 min. A behind-the-scenes look at the TV series.

Rating: TV-PG Content: Suggestive Dialog Category: Entertainment & Magazine Shows Release Year: 2001

Show times Date Time Channel VCR Plus+ Monday, 1 8:00 PM 4 E! 976979 Tuesday, 2 2:00 PM 4 E! 830802 Tuesday, 2 6:00 PM 4 E! 887686 Sunday, 7 1:00 AM 4 E! 135129 Sunday, 7 8:00 PM 4 E! 870755 Friday, 12 2:00 PM 4 E! 525928
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Behind the scenes/E channel -- Dedalus, 13:08:17 09/27/01 Thu

That is good news. I love behind-the-scene stuff. But when will it be on? Is that this week or next week?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Behind the scenes/E channel -- Cynthia, 19:07:15 09/27/01 Thu

I'm assuming that the name of the day combined with the number means October. So they start running on Oct. 1 and then at the various times listed during the week.

So it's next week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Got it - missed it the first time - thanks -- Dedalus, 09:19:22 09/29/01 Sat

DVD's finally coming out? -- Cynthia, 18:53:08 09/26/01 Wed

Another tidbit.

Date Posted: 18:15:51 09/26/01 Wed Author: FOXchase73 Author Host/IP: pool-141-150-184- 137.atc.east.verizon.net / 141.150.184.137 Subject: Buffy Season One DVDs Release Due 1/15/2002

Hey all, I just read at www.dvdfile.com that Fox has annouced a date of 1/15/2001 for the Buffy Season 1 DVDs which is great news!They just annouced it so take a look! I would imagine a new 3 tape VHS boxset of Season 4 will be released also on that date following the pattern of the years previous. We can hope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: DVD's finally coming out? -- Cynthia, 20:05:05 09/26/01 Wed

Found it listed for $50 at Amazon.com. And, yes, it's our (USA) region. Amazon seems to be taking pre-orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: DVD's finally coming out? -- spotjon, 06:32:24 09/27/01 Thu

Fox has annouced a date of 1/15/2001 for the Buffy Season 1 DVDs...

January 2001?!? They sure did a good job of sneaking those in without us knowing about it! ;-) Maybe the Ghost of Christmas Past will come and visit me this year.

I assume the person mean 2002, not 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: DVD's finally coming out? -- Cynthia, 19:10:54 09/27/01 Thu

Yah, 2002. Amazon lists at $50 but suggested is around $39. I'm going to assume price will drop to suggested price or below as more vendors start taking pre-orders. I'll have to buy at the store (no credit card, sigh).

I can assume that on the DVD's there are no cuts. You think we may even get the scenes that were edited out of the shooting script?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> All the DVD details...Yes, it's really happening!!! -- Rob, 11:10:37 09/28/01 Fri

From DVDFile.com

"On January 15th, Fox unleashes Buffy The Vampire Slayer: The Complete First Season. Presented in full frame with English and French 2.0 surround tracks, extras include a full length audio commentary on "Welcome to Hellmouth" by Joss Whedon, three "Joss Whedon Talks" interviews on six episodes ("Welcome To Hellmouth," "The Harvest," "Witch," "Never Kill A Boy On the First Date," "Angel" and "Puppet Show"), an additional interview with Whedon and actor David Boreanaz, a Buffy trailer, the original pilot script, a photo gallery, biographies and DVD-ROM weblinks."

I've heard rumors that there will be commentaries on every other episode besides "Welcome to the Hellmouth" as well, all with Joss, but we'll have to wait till the date gets closer to find out. Hopefully the price will drop down from $50, since it is only a 3-disk set, but even if it doesn't, I of course will be first in line to buy it!

So, yes, it's really happening...unless God forbid something horrible happens like last year. (Which is really annoying by the way...since, if the set had been released last January, as scheduled, we'd probably be getting the THIRD set right now!! but what can you do?) I'm so excited!!! :) :) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> YAY!!!!!!!! -- Deeva, 12:29:51 09/28/01 Fri

I've been waiting for so long for this that I was tempted to buy the tape sets. Glad I didn't and I really didn't want to start recording so many episodes (Did that with another show and while it's not hard to do, storage is an issue). It's almost like Christmas!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: YAY!!!!!!!! -- OnM, 11:53:26 09/30/01 Sun

Certainly agree with you about the taping, but it's going to be awhile before we see seasons 2,3,4 and 5 on DVD in the U.S.

I have S4 & S5 completely taped off the original broadcasts, but my coverage of S1,2 and 3 is spotty. Since the DVD's of S1 will be out in just a few months now, I'm not too concerned with that year, but will tape S2 and S3 for viewage in the meantime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yessssss!!!!!!... OK, I'm calm now. -- OnM, 20:55:02 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Dude. Woah. Okay, prescription from the Second Evil: take two DVDs, and post in the morning. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 19:51:08 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: DVD's finally coming out? -- Deeva, 12:34:54 09/28/01 Fri

"You think we may even get the scenes that were edited out of the shooting script?"

Not unless there's a section of deleted scenes. Sometimes those can be good (very rarely) and bad (very often). Almost all of the deleted scenes that they show on the dvd's that I've seen are cut for a pretty good reason. Didn't make sense, too long or gave a way too much too early.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: DVD's finally coming out? -- Rob, 16:30:54 09/28/01 Fri

Yeah, I don't really care as much about the extras. I'm just excited about having great copies of all the episodes. I hope all the other seasons come out eventually...sooner rather than later!!

The one extra I'm really psyched about is the Joss commentaries. I've heard they're extremely insightful and take you into his mind...What a wonderful, wonderful place that must be!
Dawn a thief? -- bible belt, 20:05:51 09/26/01 Wed

This may have been discussed, I'm a little green, but does anyone remember Dawn stealing a pair of earrings from Tara? I don't know the name of the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn a thief? -- Drizzt, 20:28:46 09/26/01 Wed

Dawn stole earings from Anya not Tara. The episode was Intervention.

Also stole a magic book from the Magic Shop/Giles in the ep Forever when she wanted to ressurect Joyce.

Broke into the Magic Shop in the ep Blood Ties I think, but she was only after information inside Giles's notebook in that instance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn a thief? -- Deeva, 21:47:37 09/26/01 Wed

I wonder if the stolen earrings will be addressed? It was very curious to see her taking them but I really can't think why she would do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn a thief? -- Jennifer, 06:01:58 09/27/01 Thu

Yeah, it was Anya, and Joss said that it would be cleared up this season. It's like the time Tara botched a spell with Willow and we didn't find out why until the following season. Good ole Joss, always keeping us guessing!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn a thief? -- bible belt, 16:23:06 09/27/01 Thu

Thanks, I do that a lot, as you'll discover, if you read very many of my posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn a thief? -- Drizzt, 16:35:37 09/27/01 Thu

No problem. One thing is if you know the correct episodes you can see a summary of them that Masq has done. Also you could read the 1st Anniversery Character Posting Party entry on Dawn...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn a thief? -- bible belt, 11:12:40 09/28/01 Fri

Thank you. Will do that.
Buffy rerun obsevations -- vampire hunter D, 22:20:17 09/26/01 Wed

I've been watching the first season on FX (for the first time for most episodes) and I can't believe how much everyone changed. I don't even rember Aly having hair that long (by the time I satrted watching the show regularly, she was wearing it shoulder length). I was also amazed at how much younger Sarah looked. And, is it just me, or did she have bigger boobs back then?

But the main reason I posting now is something else I observed. The cheerleader who spontaneously combusted, who played her? I swear it looked like Amber Benson. Does anyone know who that actress was (I have noticed that Joss & Co. do reuse actors over and over in different roles).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy rerun obsevations -- Brian, 04:03:48 09/27/01 Thu

I was surprised when Xander refered to himself as invisible twice during one sequence, setting up what happens to him in "Fear Itself" and Willow's reference to a railroad spike in the head, foreshadowing the arrival of Spike. Cool!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy rerun obsevations -- rowan, 08:30:45 09/27/01 Thu

I have also enjoyed seeing Harmony and Amy's first appearances. It's also been interesting comparing Katherine Madison to Willow and speculating on Willow's future...and how gungho was Giles about living on a Hellmouth? Time has beaten that enthusiasm out of him.

It's great to see the old shows again. I'm remembering all over again why I fell in love with this show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just finished watching Graduation. I've now seen ALL of Buffy--woohoo! (Spoilers) -- Dichotomy, 16:11:31 09/27/01 Thu

I just finished watching Season 3 and loved it! Yes, Buffy did start out with bigger boobs in Season 1, but she also had more meat on her bones in general. She is now wafer thin. Did you also notice how their voices sound younger too? Even Angel's, whose voice should have stopped changing a few hundred years ago, you'd think.

Spoiler Space

Something that stuck in my mind as I watched past seasons: If Amy is going to be deratted, could she be one of the Bads this season? She had those black magic eyes before she turned herself into a rat.
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Warren -- MPN, 07:07:54 09/27/01 Thu

WARREN: Well, I made it so if she heard me and she didn't answer... it causes this kind of feedback.

BUFFY: If you call her and she doesn't answer, it hurts her. You're one creepy little dweeb, Warren...

-Shooting Script for Episode 5.15, "I Was Made To Love You"

We are first introduced to boy genius Warren Mears in the fifteenth episode of Season 5, not an exceptional installment by any means, but still an enjoyable outing with a nice combination of both comedy and drama. At this point, Buffy is still feeling sorry for herself about Riley's departure, and to add another loop to the Slayer's emotional roller-coaster, we can now throw in the revulsion toward Spike's confession of love. The episode basically revolves around Buffy's despair at the collapse of her recent relationship, and her fear that something is wrong with her. At the end of the story, the Slayer has apparently learned a valuable lesson, deciding that it is more important for her to start loving herself and her life rather than worry about finding someone to love her. The key instructors in this lesson are Warren and his girlfriend-bot April.

I find Warren to be a sort of parallel to Victor Frankenstein. Like the most famous "mad scientist" in all literature, Warren obviously possesses a phenomenal intellect, but he uses it in the wrong ways and for the wrong intentions. Granted, Frankenstein creates the monster in his quest for knowledge, while Warren builds April for selfish reasons, hoping to find emotional completeness through her, yet both of these geniuses end up cruelly abandoning their creations who remain utterly lost and confused without their masters.

The first scene with Warren takes place at the Spring Break party, although we already feel like we know him since April has mentioned his name so many times. The shooting script describes him as " 20-ish, a little nerdy and awkward," and this seems to be an accurate sketch. This scene, which culminates with Spike being thrown through the window by an infuriated April, provides enough evidence for us, the Scoobies, and Buffy to conclude that April is a robot and Warren is her creator. Unusually, but not exactly surprisingly, it is Xander who figures out why she was built, claiming that Warren has created a sex-bot (in one of the funniest moments in the episode that also kind of makes you realize how much you miss Oz)

XANDER: She's a sex bot. I mean, what guy doesn't dream about that? Beautiful girl with no other thought but to please you, willing to do anything...

He looks around the table at all the women... Anya, Tara, Willow, Buffy... all wearing looks ranging between disgust and more disgust.

XANDER: Too many girls. I miss Oz. He'd get it. He wouldn't say anything, but he'd get it.

The argument that ensues between Buffy and the Scoobies over how to judge Warren provides, in my opinion, the perfect outline for discussing him as a character. While Buffy is ready to jump down his throat and label him a sleazebag (which is not completely inaccurate), Willow points out that perhaps genuine loneliness was the backing behind Warren's creating April. It is compassionate and empathic Tara who truly seems to feel for the young robotics expert, however.

TARA: But it's so weird. I mean, everyone wants a nice, normal person to, you know, share with. If this guy, if he couldn't find that... I guess it's kind of sad.

Her words do have some truth to them, and as sorry as we feel for what happens to April, I think it is important that we do not simply label Warren a cowardly pervert. This is of course difficult, as his treatment toward April throughout the episode is nothing short of shameful. As if that were not enough, we see him treating Katrina poorly as well, despite the fact that he claims to love her. He tells her to shut up, pushes her around, and while this may partially be for her protection, it does not reflect very favorably on him as a person. Taking a closer look at his two robotic creations, April and the Buffy-bot, we see that they are subservient and acquiescent: they wear pink, smile all the time to look pretty, and don't possess a shred of genuine intelligence. "Crying is blackmail," April remarks cheerfully, and we can only wonder what other helpful little lessons Warren has programmed his girlfriend with. Buffy's words about "some guys getting it right" at the end of the episode ring true, as Warren truly seems to be hopeless when it comes to understanding how relationships should work.

For all of his unfavorable traits, however, let us not forget what a painful feeling loneliness is. Isolation is something we have all experienced. As children we create imaginary friends for ourselves who we eventually outgrow when we develop stronger ties with other people our own age. As we grow older, however, it's not quite as easy, and as BtVS so outstandingly pointed out time after time in the earlier seasons, loneliness and isolation in the teenage years can truly hurt a person to the point where it becomes an almost physical pain.

Anyway, getting back to Warren, he built April to fill the void in his life, and I think he can genuinely be believed when he says that April was designed for more than sex.

WARREN: No! I mean, I made her to love me. She cares about what I care about and she wants to be with me. She listens to me and supports me. I didn't make a toy, I made a girlfriend.

BUFFY: A girlfriend? Are you saying you two... are you in love with her?

WARREN: I really thought I would be. I mean, she's perfect. But it's just... I don't know. It was too easy and predictable. She got boring. She was exactly what I wanted and I didn't want her. I thought I was going crazy.

Granted, this isn't much of a vindication, but it is somewhat refreshing that Warren saw more in April than a sexual object. Obviously, things are simply not meant to be between the genius and his robot, and it is no surprise that perfection gets tedious quickly. Relationships are built on both concord and conflict, and being with someone who constantly agreed with everything you said and did would eventually become very mind-numbing. April has no real independent thoughts; she knows what she was programmed to know. Personally, I'm reminded of Spike's impassioned speech to Buffy and Angel in "Lover's Walk," where he states that:

"Real love isn't brains, children, it's blood, it's blood screaming inside you to work its will."

Warren and April's relationship has no real feelings or emotions to it, save perhaps for Warren's initial attachment to the robot (which is hardly analogous to the love between Buffy and Angel, or Spike and Drusilla, etc.) April's own devotion to Warren is the result of a computer's memory function, not of blood, or heart, or soul. Warren obviously has a phenomenal mind, but if Spike is to be believed (and who wants to argue with Spike on the subjects of love and blood?), Warren's intellectual prowess is incapable of replicating true love. It is not very surprising that the robot designer finds himself attracted to Katrina, a girl who is obviously independent, headstrong, and intelligent (and simultaneously unwilling to put up with crap from him). Whereas April presents no contest to be with, pursuing Katrina is a challenge, and what person doesn't enjoy a challenge?

Here is where Warren blows it, however. He thinks he can escape April by simply abandoning her, hoping her batteries will run out, and his actions put all of Sunnydale in peril as his creation does not understand her own strength or her destructive capabilities. By only programming her to love him, she is at a complete loss without him, and the more humane thing to do would have been to give her some kind of back-up function or shut her down altogether. Instead, he tries to escape his problems in a cowardly way and ends up putting other people in danger. When Buffy forces Warren to actually confront his robot, he panics and shifts the blame to her. Granted, he knew Buffy was no ordinary person and stood a much better chance against April than he ever would, but this just further accentuates his worst flaw; his cowardice. Warren is obviously a very jumpy person, and tends to grow nervous quite easily, which in turn leads to cowardly actions on his part. At the end of the episode, he makes no true effort to resist Spike's commands regarding the construction of the Buffy-bot, despite the fact that he knows he shouldn't be making another robot, especially one that looks like Buffy who he owes big time. His second (albeit brief) appearance is two episodes later in "Intervention." When he turns the Buffy-bot over to Spike, we can see how nervous he is in the presence of the vampire. Despite the fact that there was no way that Spike could hurt him, the demon's threats were no doubt more than enough to get Warren working on a new robot, further reflecting his fear. His last spoken words before disappearing reflect his spineless nature:

WARREN: Now, uh, you said I could leave town -

To get out of the room, Warren has to pass right by Spike. He tries to do so as Spike is still staring at the bot. Without taking his eyes off her, Spikes hand shoots out and grabs Warren by the collar.

When Spike is busy playing kissy-face with his new toy, we can hear Warren bolting out the door in the background, and we expect no less from him.

Despite his flaws, however, Warren's actions regarding April allow him to teach Buffy a beneficial lesson. When Tara first offers her sympathetic words regarding the young genius, stating that everybody needs somebody, Buffy's resolve to call Ben is stronger than before and she follows through with this intention. However, by the end of the episode, after seeing how incomplete April was without Warren, she draws a parallel between herself and the robot:

BUFFY: Nah -- people are the strangest people. I mean, I'm not that different from her. I've got so much more than her -- I've got this great life, all this power, all these friends, my family, but still, every time I don't have a boyfriend, I feel like someone took away my arms.

Xander stops fussing with the window and looks at Buffy, concerned.

XANDER: You feel like that? Armless?

BUFFY: Well, kinda. I feel like something real important is missing. But it isn't. I mean, it is missing, but it isn't that important, you know?

In the end, she decides to call things off with Ben.

It's somewhat ironic and amusing that the character we sympathize more with at the end of the episode is the one who wasn't even alive to begin with. Still, despite being rather unlikable, Warren is not an evil person, and he does not want to see other people hurt because of his carelessness (though he probably should have thought of that before he gave April super-strength and defense mechanisms). I'd like to think that we haven't seen the last of Warren, and who knows; his character definitely showed an interesting spark in the two episodes in which he was featured. With a little development he could become quite an enjoyable supporting character: perhaps having learned his lesson he could try building robots for good intentions, or conversely, become selfish once more and use his gift of creation for malevolent purposes. While obviously not Big Bad or Scooby Gang material, I still think there are some interesting stories left to be told with Warren, and hopefully, we'll get to see some of them unfold in the coming season.

All quotes were taken from the shooting scripts on Psyche's site (thanks).

Enjoy the premiere everyone.

-Marc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Warren -- Cactus Watcher, 08:30:46 09/27/01 Thu

Good job, MPN.

I think "I Was Made to Love You" is one of the worst episodes in years, mostly because Warren's creation is ridiculous. April is a sample of the partronizing way Hollywood portrayed women in the 1950's, but she sure as heck isn't any man's idea of a perfect girl friend. What guy really wants a girl friend who tries to beat up any other woman who looks at him? What guy wants a girl friend who constantly babbles platitudes? And having April growl is as idiotic as Buffy implies. I'm glad MPN brought up some of Warren's good points, because as a designer of human beings he's a nincompoop!

A little off the topic, but in my book Buffy's trying to make April feel good about herself, as her batteries run down is just about as perverse as Warren using her for a sex-bot. Besides, the comparison between April's slavish attention to Warren, and Buffy's desire to have some kind of relationship with a guy again, is pretty far fetched. Unless you think Buffy is a complete idiot, you're not going to believe she's going to keep up her goofy act around Ben for long whether or not she ever runs into April. Yes, people do very stupid things for love, but it's past time we should think of Buffy as being as stupid as was implied in "I Was Made to Love You."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Warren -- Wisewoman, 19:48:30 09/27/01 Thu

Nice job, enjoyed the essay, and it'll be interesting to see more of Warren in Season 6.

CW: I dunno about that last scene between Buffy and April--to my mind the pathos was the result of the implication that there are women out there very similar to April, women who only exist in relation to a man, their man, and Buffy was drawn to comfort April because of that. Even Buffy's anger at Warren seemed to be as much because of how slavishly devoted he'd made April, as that he had made her at all.

Maybe it's a "chick" thing (lol), but I genuinely felt sympathy for April, I appreciated Buffy's concern and tender treatment of her as she "died" and I felt the whole thing was very touching.

Go figure...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Dito on WW's comments -- Drizzt, 20:31:33 09/27/01 Thu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> What is it that Buffy says over and over about Robo-Buffy? -- Cactus Watcher, 06:45:52 09/28/01 Fri

It isn't real.

The ending with April is classic tear-jerking manipulation. Buffy's voice softens and the music gets sentimental. April represents people (not JUST women) with a genuine emotional problem, but at the end of the day she's not one of those people. She' just a pretty, but annoying pile of junk.

Real people deserve our genuine concern. We can spare well written characters a few tears. But, come on, guys! Don't let yourselves be jerked around by second rate stories (IMHO a male-bashing story at that)! Make Mutant Enemy work for our loyalty!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What is it that Buffy says over and over about Robo-Buffy? -- Wisewoman, 10:04:56 09/28/01 Fri

But the whole basis of science fiction and fantasy is to evoke an emotional response to something "not real" that represents something very real, whether it be a type of living being, a political or religious ideology, or a planetary environmental system.

That's why I've always enjoyed it so much. Granted, April was not the cleverest of metaphors, but on a visceral level, it worked...at least for me.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think were back on the same page ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 15:08:04 09/28/01 Fri

My only problem with what you said is your phrase "is to evoke an emotional response." I think science fiction and fantasy become worth reading or watching only when they evoke both a rational and an emotional response. Otherwise for me, I might as well be watching Days of Our Lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll buy that... ;o) -- WW, 16:55:56 09/28/01 Fri

..the addition of "rational" improves the definition, no doubt about it.

Emotional responses differ, obviously. I am disgusted with the blatant manipulation of films like Beaches, Terms of Endearment, Steel Magnolias, etc., and yet moved to tears by Rutger Hauer's last speech in Bladerunner. To my mind, April's "death" scene was closer to the latter, and the former three are right up there with Days of Our Lives...lol!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Warren -- Rufus, 09:30:29 09/27/01 Thu

Thanks for the essay.

I may not like Warren, but I can understand why he did the things he did. His building of the Sex- bot, April came from the feelings of lonliness and alienation that many have felt at one time in their lives. The big difference is that Warren had the technical expertise to go far beyond a blowup doll. His creation was built for sex but he did consider that he was building the perfect girlfriend. Once every sexual need was satisfied, Warren became bored. He had built a machine of love, but her love was only superficial. April couldn't interact in a unique way past her programing. I guess she was like watching the same re-run on television over and over again. You eventually know the story so well that you yearn for more variety, a new story. Warren is kind of sad. Sad because in the end he was shallow and self involved enough to abandon his creation without regard to what would happen to anyone that would encounter her. I found the scene at the end with Buffy talking to April touching. April may have attacked Buffy, but her intentions weren't evil like most of the opponents Buffy has fought before. April was so sugary sweet and innocent (not talking about her special skills here) that how could anyone react other than to treat her like a child. April wasn't evil, Warren wasn't evil. April was the result of lonliness, her ability to feel jealous a surprise to Warren. April may have been a mechanical reality, but not a human one. Warrens treatment of April and his girlfriend Katrina told me that he is immature and selfish. Character flaws, but not in league with the evil Buffy battles everyday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Warren -- Drizzt, 17:34:09 09/27/01 Thu

April had personality, but that personality had no depth.

Warren could have programmed her to have genuine emotions instead of scenerio responses and facial expressions that mimick the expressions humans make when they have emotional issues. Could have used a Random Number Generator and a learning program to have her develope quirks and personality independant of his original program; but then she might change in a way he could not predict, and Warren being a coward would want to avoid that.

Another issue is the intillectual thing. Warren could have told April to read a few hundred books on all sorts of subjects, and program her to be able to respond inteligently in conversation; that would be a different sort of threat to a weak man. Warren is a nerdy person; so a robot with a lightning fast computer for a brain and photographic memory could in theory become superior to him intillectualy. Think Data from Star Trek.

I like the image that just came to mind of Data talking to April, discussing love in his logical way...then cassually asking her if and how she would like to be reprogrammed so that she would not be unhappy about Warren rejecting her. Romance of robots where one is logical and smart while the other is emotional and ditsy? LOL
First Anniversary Post- Joyce Pt 1 -- The Godfather, 16:35:23 09/27/01 Thu

I apologize in advance for not making any coherent sense. My bad.

-Shawn

****

JOYCE: It's hard. New town and everything...It is for me, too. I'm trying to make it work. I'm *going* to make it work.

-Welcome to the Hellmouth

And thus is all begins. We met Joyce earlier in the ep but she was basically the token mother telling her little girl to have a great day and not get into trouble. I'm sure not one of us here hasn't heard those words from our own parents. But it is with this scene that Joyce Summers begins to expand and we start to get to know this woman who is an integral, in fact probably the most important, part of Buffy.

Let's start with the briefest of actual history. By the linescore.

We don't know when exactly Joyce was born but it's reasonable to speculate that she was between 45-50 when she passed on. We know only of one husband, Hank. She divorced him. She initially had only one child, a little girl named Buffy but later was given a second named Dawn. She died of complications from cancer.

Amazing how that barely scratches the surface, neh?



SEASON 1-

Joyce: Honey, a-are you worried your father isn't gonna show?

Buffy: No! N-not really. Should I be?

Joyce: Well, of course, not! I-I-I just, I-I know it's a hard situation. You just have to remember that your father adores you. No more than I do, by the way.

Nightmares

When we first meet Joyce, she is a recently divorced single mother of a teenage trouble-making daughter who has just been expelled from her ultra-ritzy high school in Los Angeles. Joyce is looking for a new start. She has moved her little girl to a small Southern California town where it's likely that no one will be able to draw immediate conclusions. Also, it seems like this is the only school that would take Buffy after she burned down her gym.

In the first episode, she moves swiftly between concerned but wary parent to supportive optimistic cheerleader to reluctant disciplinarian. You can tell that she is trying to find the balance between all three but stumbling badly with a child who is far too independent. She seems to be wondering what happened to her baby girl. Buffy seems to be wondering that too. Buffy tries to reassure her mother that she won't disappoint her again but ultimately she is never given a choice in the matter. Due to this, Joyce will spend much of her raising years moving between these three parenting traits.

Ultimately Joyce is at a loss. She is trying to restart her own life after her marriage ended and yet guide he troubled daughter. She is undertaking a new business and a new adventure. She is worried and wary but optimistic and hopeful. These four words will personify Joyce for the majority of her run on this show.

It is shown early on that the Joyce/Buffy dynamic is one of the most essential ones. Joyce acts as the ground for Buffy while the Scoobs are the sky. Buffy is obviously in-between, always striving for a balance that she never quite achieves.

In THE WITCH, Joyce urges Buffy to get back on the horse and back to what she used to do. She tries to press Buffy towards calmer, more solid adventures. Buffy is of course reluctant, reminding her mother that it is HER life. Joyce seems taken aback and it is through this that we understand just how much Joyce lives through Buffy. And how new she really is at this.

Joyce: Honey. Uhhh! Great parenting form! Little shaky on the dismount.

THE WITCH

It is also in this ep that another constant theme that is Joyce comes to light; she is a very hard- worker. In this one, Buffy seems to be asking her mom to spend more time with her, showing signs of missing the old school family ties. Joyce doesn't blow her off exactly but rather is very invested in the opening of her gallery. Her reasons? To give her and her little girl a good life.

And ultimately she's doing pretty good. She's running a successful gallery and thus far has managed to keep Buffy from extreme trouble. Problem is, she just doesn't know what is going on.

Two of the best examples of this are the episodes ANGEL and PROPHECY GIRL.

In ANGEL, Buffy brings home a mysterious and charismatic man that is injured. She chats briefly with Angel but you can tell that she is immediately on edge about this older man. We can speculate that this is either because of his age, worries for her daughter or that something fairly personal and involving Hank has entered the equation. It's quite hard to tell but it could reasonably be a combination of all three.

When she tells him it was nice to meet him, there's a warning in her tone. It's quick clear that she doesn't buy for a minute that he is her tutor. Angel is respectful to her but that doesn't seem to lift her concerns. If only she knew the truth, then she probably would have understood her fears about him. But simply, it's much to early for that and one wonders if she could have handled it that soon.

PROPHECY GIRL shows a tenderness to the Buffy/Joyce relationship that is so familiar and warming that I recall being troubled by anyone who criticized this woman. She and Buffy are obviously not extremely well off; they're struggling financially. The house they live in is quite large and Buffy is a growing girl with no job meaning that the majority of her spending money comes from the Bank of Mama.

Just the same, Joyce knows what prom means to her daughter. Normalcy. She knows what looking good means to her. She just doesn't quite understand that Buffy is staring down the barrel of a loaded pistol. Just the same, Buffy is touched.

People always talk of the deep symbolism of Buffy's dress being white as she walked willingly towards her death. I think another type of symbolism is at work here. Early in the ep, Buffy is looking through her scrapbook, remembering when things were simple and easy. Remembering the good ol' days of being a child. The pictures move her nearly to tears and she wants so badly to touch that place inside of her. When Joyce gives her the dress, it's like the last piece of the puzzle has been locked into place. Buffy was reluctant to go to her death but her mother, so trustingly good, so painfully loving tells her why she must. Joyce embodies every reason why Buffy must fight.

And so Buffy takes the dress, puts it on and goes to say her goodbyes to her friends. She's accepted her fate and is now wearing that dress, a symbol of her family and all that is good as her armor.

Buffy: And you had your whole life ahead of you.

Joyce: Yeah.

Buffy: Must be nice.

PROPHECY GIRL

Clearly she doesn't believe this but at this point, it simply doesn't matter. She knows her fate. And curiously, in Joyce's eyes, you get the sense that she too knows that something is amiss. Sadly, due to the break in seasons, we never get to see Buffy's initial post-traumatic reactions. It would have been fascinating to see how Joyce tried to get her child through this mess.



SEASON 2-

This season spotlights the best and worst of Joyce. She runs through all the emotions and still manages to come out kicking. She makes mistakes but they are understandable even if they are not commendable. She tries, sometimes too hard, to understand her child who seems to be trying to pull away more and more. She fails to grasp the horror of her daughters' destiny, insisting on innocence and then finally accepting it with a bleeding heart.

The season opens with Buffy coming home from a summer in Los Angeles. Joyce is quickly brought up to speed. She asks if Buffy stayed out of trouble and her ex husband confirms that she did. He says however that Buffy was distant, elsewhere. This is something that Joyce sees for herself later in the episode. Her facial expressions are key here where the dialogue fails. You can see the concern but the strange feeling that there is a wall between them, something Joyce feels she can't climb over. So simply, she hopes for the best.

Joyce: Well, welcome to my world. I haven't been able to get through to her for so long. I'll just be happy if she makes it through the school year.

When She Was Bad

This wall is Buffy's slaying. At this time Joyce doesn't have the words or knowledge to identify it as such but as Buffy becomes the Slayer more, her relationship with her mom who cannot share in her world with her fails a bit. This is never more apparent than in SCHOOL HARD.

Buffy's responsibilities as a Slayer are overtaking her life more and more, she barely seems able to breathe. Joyce simply wants her little girl to survive in school and wonders why she can't. And because she doesn't know the ins and outs of her daughters' life, she has no choice but to chalk it up to Buffy getting herself into trouble.

She so desperately wants into Buffy's life but the Slayer holds her at arms length over just about everything. All the way up to and including school. Easily, the school relationship is the more natural mother/daughter moments of their relationship. Joyce believes Buffy can do better than she is, she knows Buffy is smart and creative but simply cannot understand why. This is a metaphor for the concept that as adults and parents grow older, they lose focus on why things don't work so easily. There's always something screwing up the whole mess.

This is really the first ep in which Joyce is actively involved in Buff's everyday nightmare. Spike and his crew overtake Sunnydale High during Parent/Teacher night. This is one of the major eps about Buffy trying to balance her real world life with her nightmare job. It's not going so well. It is during this time where it is safe to believe that Joyce starts realizing that there is something different about Buffy. She is shocked by her childs' cool under pressure way. And then, in a tribute to the Summers women, Joyce shows the same strength when she goes after Spike to protect Buffy. Oddly though, she then files it away. She compliments her daughter and their level of understanding grow but in a way, so does that wall separating them. Joyce simply does not seem willing to open herself up to the concept of something greater despite the fact that she has now seen it with her own eyes.

But something is growing here, some kind of respect for something she doesn't understand.

Joyce: Ampata, don't you look wonderful! Oh, I wish you could talk my daughter into going with you.

Ampata: I tried, but she is very stubborn.

Joyce: Well, I'm glad someone else sees that.

Buffy gives her mother a look and gets it right back. She turns back to Xander and Ampata, smiling.

INCA MUMMY GIRL

Joyce wants Buffy to be normal even though she can sense that she's not. Whether or not she thinks like Cord did in season 1 that Buffy is in a gang, we don't know. Just the same, she wants her daughter to have fun and be young. Buffy is resistant because of duty. What we see here however is that the truce between mother and daughter has deepened.

It takes a major beating in TED though.

It's reasonable to assume that Ted is the first man that Joyce has been interested in since her divorce. He is charming and charismatic and he seems willing to take the reigns of control which Joyce appreciates for a few minutes. She seems worn down by having to decide so much and we can guess that much of her previous choices were dictated by Hank. It is in this struggle that we see her becoming a stronger more independent woman but at this time, she's still looking for the ground.

Buffy doesn't like Ted. Not unexpected when you do consider that this is the first since Hank. Joyce takes this but seems to be certain that Buffy will adapt. We understand later that she is drugged up and in such a euphoric state but just the same, I'd like to focus on this. Joyce has seemed to go from seeing Buffy as a child needing a guiding hand to an adult who should respond in such a manner. However, I don't believe that in a sound mind, Joyce would ever discount Buffy telling her that anyone had threatened her. She seems to be coming to trust Buffy's instincts more and such a discount can only be seen as off-kilter.

The mother/daughter team goes through one of the hardest trials of the their relationship after Buffy kills Ted. Obviously Joyce is inclined to believe the best in her daughter but this all points back to a time not along ago, a time that is very painful because everything around her was breaking down. She believes her baby is a good person but this act terrifies her. She finds that she can't even look at Buffy which traumatizes her little girl to no end. Joyce's act of putting things away is symbolic of again packing away innocence and expectations. She seems to have taken on a doomsday stance here.

Luckily, this doesn't last long before Joyce realizes the golden rule of love in the BuffyVerse: It's BAD. A completely demented Ted finds Joyce and demands that she leaves with him immediately. Joyce tries to reason with him as she moves through her emotions of shock and joy. She doesn't hit terror until Buffy is brought into the equation. Quickly, Joyce realizes that the situation is very wrong and attempts to get away. She struggles, unwilling to give in until she is finally knocked out.

And then again, she represses.

Buffy: I wouldn't worry. He's not coming back.

Joyce: I wish I could be so sure.

Buffy: Trust me. He's on the scrap heap. Of life.

TED

And Buffy again, allows it. She has almost become the protector here, ensuring that her mom's world stays together, understanding how fragile everything is. It's a strange twist in their dynamic but one that Joss doesn't allow to settle before he swaps them back around in BAD EGGS.

In this one, Buffy finally gets to understand what her mom goes through day in and day out when she is assigned an egg baby. Joyce derives great pleasure from harassing the hell out of Buffy, enjoying the payback. Just the same, she is keenly aware of her daughters exhaustion and thus worried. Buffy tells her it's fine and indeed it is; she's just worn down from the slaying and the Angel loving.

Later that night Joyce walks into Buffy's room to find her daughter awake and looking like she is about to go out. Not able to tell the truth, Buffy is frustrated into the position of again appearing to be the delinquent teenager. Joyce seems annoyed and yet more comfortable with this role. At least she can understand it. At least she can do something about it. The disciplinarian part of Joyce has always seemed the most confident. At least early on. This is probably why when after another eagle- eye look at her daughters' world, she stays in step with her need to deny what is unfolding before her eyes.

Joyce Summers is a by the book kind of woman. If logic can't define it, it shouldn't exist. All that she is seeing goes against this and thus she rails, convincing herself that it is not true and instead compensating in the parenting department. Buffy, still desperate to keep her mom in the dark, still needing to have that un-connected innocence in place, accepts this reluctantly.

Joss seems to like to continuously toss this relationship up in the air and redefine it. He starts one of the most important legs of this journey on Buffy's birthday. She is turning 17 and this weary warrior needs to let some steam off. Joyce promises a shopping trip. Buffy promises she'll be there. Things are light and easy between mother and daughter only hitting a snag when Buffy reiterates her desire to drive and Joyce denies it. I'm uncertain as to whether this is a trust issue or merely being overprotective but Buffy hardly mounts a large protest, deferring to her mom's judgment on the matter. It's a non Slayer disagreement and maybe for her there is relief there.

After Buffy spends the night with Angel and then wakes up alone, she returns home, unsettled and emotionally wrecked. Joyce recognizes this and asks if she is alright. Curiously, Buffy retreats from her mother. It's like she's holding a dam back and knowing that if she lets go, Joyce will know everything. She gets the hell away from her mom as quick as she can. Later on however, it only her mother who can comfort her.

In one of the finest scenes Joss has ever filmed, Joyce lights a candle to celebrate Buffy's birthday and her daughter tells her to let it burn. Joyce looks at Buffy and then just knows. She knows. Kristine Sutherland who portrayed Joyce has said that that was her favorite scene because in that one there were no words, no need for anything. She just knew that Buffy needed her, knew something was wrong and knew that her place was taking care of her daughter. It was one of the most poignant and effecting moments of all.

As for the wonderful world of Slayage that Joyce can't seem to accept, the evidence is mounting. In BBB, she is once again mind controlled as well as all the women in Sunnydale into being obsessed with Xander. She again, represses.

And then the boy she was wary of comes back into the picture.

Angel- now Angelus seems to understand how important Joyce is to his beloved. So he leaves a picture of her for Buffy to find, a clear warning of who his target is. And then he watches Buffy panic. She starts putting guards on her house but is to late to stop Angel from revealing to Joyce that he made love to her daughter. Joyce is floored, caught clearly off guard by information she honestly believed her daughter would share with her.

Joyce: Was he the first? No, wait. I don't wanna know. I don't think I want to.

Buffy: Yeah. He was the first. I mean, the only.

Joyce: He's older than you.

Buffy: I know.

Joyce: Too old, Buffy. And he's obviously not very stable. I really wish... I just thought you would show more judgment.

Buffy: He wasn't like this before.

Joyce: Are you in love with him?

Buffy: I was.

Joyce: Were you careful?

Buffy: Mom, this is no time...

Joyce: Don't 'Mom' me, Buffy. You don't get to get out of this. You had sex with a boy you *didn't* even see fit to tell me you were dating.

Buffy: I made a mistake.

Joyce: Yeah, well, don't just say that to shut me up, because I think you really did.

Buffy: I know that! I-I can't tell you everything.

Joyce: How about anything? Buffy, you can shut me out of your life, I am pretty much used to that. But don't expect me to ever stop caring about you, because it's never gonna happen. I love you more than anything in the world.

PASSION

Joyce seems to struggle between anger, frustration and fear for her daughter. Clearly she is dismayed by Buff's choice but I think it's curious that again she notes the age difference. My mind whirls here back to Hank but I'll try to stay true to the text. She yo-yos between telling Buffy how disappointed she in her choices, to her anger at not even knowing Buffy was dating to her desperate need to tell Buffy how much she loves her. That she's the most important thing in her world. These comments almost immediately diffuse the situation. And mother and daughter again sit in calm but once again, their relationship has shifted. Joyce is realizing now that her little girl isn't so little anymore. She's just not quite ready to accept it.

I wonder then what she attributes Buff's collapse in KILLED BY DEATH to. Joyce is a smart woman and she has to know something is afoot. She seems to think that Buffy is just emotionally wrecked over Jenny's death but she doesn't seem to grasp the full nature of what exactly is happening. Just the same, by trying to know who Giles is and what he is about, she shows a willingness perhaps to start knowing even if she can't yet accept it.

But accept it she must in BECOMING 2.

Acceptance seems to be the key phrase for the last several eps. In fact all of this season. Joyce must come to accept that Buffy is not just a little girl and the world isn't such a simple place. Joss has always said that the scene in B2 where everything comes out is something of a metaphor for when a gay individual comes out to their family.

Joyce: Do what? Buffy, what is happening?

Buffy: Just have another drink.

Joyce: Don't you talk to me that way! You don't get to just dump something like this on me and pretend it's nothing!

Buffy: I'm sorry, Mom, but I don't have time for this.

Joyce: No! I am tired of 'I don't have time' or-or 'you wouldn't understand.' I am your mother, and you will *make* time to explain yourself.

Buffy: I told you. I'm a Vampire Slayer.

Joyce: Well, I just don't accept that!

And what rational person could. Really all of this is too much. Joyce is struggling to understand but failing miserably. Buffy is the adult here and Joyce the child and it's unsettling.

Buffy: Open your eyes, Mom. What do you think has been going on for the past two years? The fights, the weird occurrences. How many times have you washed blood out of my clothing, and you still haven't figured it out?

Joyce: Well, it stops now!

Buffy: No, it doesn't stop! It *never* stops! Do-do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely it is, how dangerous? I would *love* to be upstairs watching TV or gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the world... again.

Joyce: No. This is insane. Buffy, you need help.

Buffy: I'm *not* crazy! What I need is for you to chill. I *have* to go!

Joyce: No. I am not letting you out of this house.

Buffy: You can't stop me.

Joyce: Oh yes I...You walk out of this house, don't even *think* about coming back!

Probably the most horrible words she has ever said. And by the end of the episode, ones Joyce regrets with every part of her heart and soul. In anger and frustration, fear and confusion, she tried desperately to turn back the clock, to make it not real. But she couldn't. This was a part of her daughters' life she couldn't possibly understand. On the show, she immediately folds, broken.

It is later in that ep however, when she finds the letter left By Buffy that we see the true pain and failure cross her face. She loves her daughter and has always lived for her. What more can there be? And yet, she has still failed. The devastation is deep and thus she breaks down in tears.


SEASON THREE

It's been a long summer for Joyce Summers and it shows quickly in both body language and appearance. Everything about her is crisp and controlled. Even her emotions. When she berates Giles in ANNE, her emotion are kept carefully in check otherwise you suspect she might start sobbing at any moment. We can tell from the dialogue that this woman has literally put her life on hold, barely leaving the house because she thinks Buffy might call and mentally going over her final conversation with her daughter over and over. She is stuck in a holding pattern of her own creation and with each day that passes and with each time a lead doesn't pan out, she deflates a bit more.

And yet when she sees her daughter, none of this matters. All that exists, all that is real is holding her. She crushes Buffy to her. Buffy closes her eyes and inhales her mother, finally home. Finally safe.

It's in DEAD MAN'S PARTY that we see the bits and pieces of what Joyce has been up to. he has been struggling to survive in Buffy's absence and in that, finding that first supportive person she can in the individual of Pat who is from the get-go, a Pink Lady gone bad. She's also brought into evidence a strange thing that never really develops but has always lurked beneath the surface of Joyce; alcoholism. Buffy made a comment to her mother in BECOMING 2 about having another drink and in this one, she is again seen nursing the bottle. It's not a great shock that Joyce needs something to distance her from all the pain, it's only too bad none of this ever got brought into the light. It would have been interesting to see.

In this ep, Joyce is also striving desperately to make things right between she and Buff. It's obvious that during the summer Joyce tried to understand her daughters' world. In the early parts of this ep, she allows for Buff to go out slaying even though her tone indicates she wishes she would not. She is over compensating, her tremendous guilt on apparent display.

It's not long before some of the anger and confusion comes back into play.

Joyce: Buffy, you made some bad choices. You just might have to live with some consequences.

And this is true. Buffy acknowledges this and for a moment, the wall grows again. Joyce seems to want to resurrect it by again refusing to completely understand Buffy's place in the world.

Joyce: Nothing's settled yet. I just wish you didn't have to be so secretive about things. I mean, it's not your fault you have a special circumstance. They should make allowances for you.

Buffy: Mom, I'm a Slayer. It's not like I need to ride a little bus to school.

Joyce: Couldn't you just tell a few people, like Principal Snyder and maybe the police?

Joyce: I mean, I would think they would be happy to have a... a superhero. Is that the right term? I mean, it's not offensive, is it?

DEAD MAN'S PARTY

But the facts are staring her right in the face and later that night, even Joyce has to come to terms with this as she watched Buffy and her team in action to defeat what Pat becomes when she places a strange mask on her face.

Still, everything is not quite calm between the two of them just yet. Buffy panics after a fight and gets ready to bolt again and Joyce comes unglued, allowing her emotions to spill out. How could she not? All of this has simply been too much. This is a child that she loves more than herself and she simply is at a loss of how to parent. The fact that Buff has lived by herself and seems willing to do it again only makes things that much worse. Joyce seems to truly see Buffy running away as Buffy punishing her for not understanding. Buff tries desperately to dispute this but Joyce is raw here, so hurt and scared and angry. She reveals that she has spent every moment wondering and her expressions brings this point home in living colour.

And yet, when it is all said and done, when the battle has caused the anger to slip away, again, their embrace is the only thing that comforts either of them. They go quickly to each other, only concerned for each others' safety.

When Faith comes into the picture, Joyce is quick to welcome her in, seeming to see a way out for her daughter. What she doesn't understand is that Slaying is a tremendous part of who Buffy is and she can't simply walk away. Joyce increases her need to have Buffy out when she discovers that her daughter has died once. It's a sobering reality check that leaves the older Summers' woman emotionally drained but finally understanding what all of this means.

Again we mostly see Joyce in the context of protecting her daughters' bets interests when she strong- arms Snyder into accepting Buffy back into the school and then shows a unity with her daughter, a common respect.

Unfortunately Buff is still keeping secrets. Angel is back and Buff can't stay away from her beloved. Joyce and Giles catch Buffy in a lie and team-parent her. It's jarring to Buffy because she can't seem to get her feet on the ground to what her relationship is going to be with her mom. Joyce seems equally confused noting only that she is still scared Buffy will vanish. One can certainly understand her fear.

It is in BAND CANDY that we start to understand maybe who Joyce was before she was Mrs. Summers. When she and Giles are kicked back to their youth, she reveals a devil may care attitude and a zest that is unlike Joyce. We can only guess that time, marriage and pain have aged her so much that that inner child is almost completely lost. She throws caution to the wind, finally take a leap at the Big G. It's truly fascinating to see this Joyce in action. Shades of her daughter? What stopped this activity? Is it part of why she is so hardcore on keeping Buff in line? She seems to delight in rebelling in a way that even Buff never has. And since this image of Giles is consistent with expectations of his youth, it makes sense that Joyce is also. Of course when the magicks wear off, Joyce's sensibilities return and she is suitably embarrassed.

Things are going pretty well for Buffy and Joyce but mom still hasn't dropped her hope that Buffy will find a way out of this hell. With Faith in the picture, things look promising. Especially considering how high Buff scored in her SATS. But it's the same drill as always; Buffy is reluctant. Still Joyce pushes, even scheduling college talks.

It's funny how some knowledge will get you in the drivers' seat. We see how calm she has become, how confident. She only wants the best for Buffy and this all looks right. When Spike comes by the house, she even has an amusing moment with him where she draws from her experiences with Hank to give him advice. And since we know from the flashbacks in BECOMING 2 that their relationship was quite troubled, it's all very interesting.

It is in LOVERS WALK where we finally see Angel and Joyce finally appear in a scene together again. She warns him away, not understanding that the true threat is the blonde vamp behind her. Buffy quickly diffuses the situation but suddenly Joyce is confused over who is good and who is evil. Troubling concepts for someone trying to understand that dead doesn't always mean dead.

Sadly though, the time for Joyce not to understand is coming to a close. In GINGERBREAD, she is forced to finally understand that what meets the eye is often just an illusion. Thrown into hysteria by a demon due to her compassion for the deaths of children, she almost does the unthinkable by killing her own child. At Buffy's witch-trial, she finally vents a bit.

Joyce: Since when does it matter what I want? I wanted a normal, happy daughter. Instead I got a Slayer.

GINGERBREAD

The only disappointing thing here is that we don't get to see how Joyce reacts to what she almost does to her daughter but it's clear that she finally understands the nature of the world she lives in. And that even those claiming the righteous ground can be consumed by it.

Of course Joyce doesn't have much time to consider the moral lesson she has just learned before she is placed in mortal jeopardy by Buffy's world. When the very people who are supposed to protect Buffy insist on putting her through a trial, the demon Buffy is supposed to fight without her powers takes Joyce hostage. And while afraid, Joyce remains confident, assured of her daughters' strength and courage. It is this ep that we truly see the strength of Buffy's devotion for her mother. Even powerless and assured of death, Buffy goes to save her mom.

The last major thing that happens in relation to Joyce during third season aside from Buffy insisting her mom leave Sunnydale before Graduation in order to keep her safe is the conversation she has with Angel.

Joyce: Oh. I understand Buffy spent the night.

Angel: I'm sorry about that. We came back after patrol.

Joyce: I, I'm not interested in the details. That's not why I'm here.

Angel: Okay.

Joyce: I'm here because I'm worried about you two. In general.

Angel: What happened before, when I changed, it won't happen again.

Joyce: That's not all I'm concerned about. I don't have to tell you that you and Buffy are from different worlds.

Angel: No, you don't.

Joyce: She's had to deal with a lot. Grew up fast. Sometimes even I forget that she's still just a girl.

Angel: I'm old enough to be her ancestor.

Joyce: She's just starting out in life.

Angel: I know. I think about it more now that she's staying in Sunnydale.

Joyce: Good. Because when it comes to you, Angel, she's just like any other young woman in love. You're all she can see of tomorrow. But I think we both know that there are some hard choices ahead. If she can't make them, you're gonna have to. I know you care about her. I just hope you care enough.

THE PROM

It's all really a bit of emotional blackmail but her intentions are sound. She is worried about her daughter and rightfully so. Angel is a vamp and he has already caused Buffy so much pain. Joyce is simply trying to take care of her little girl. This is paralleled when in GRADUATION Buff orders her mom out of town. She never really gives her a choice in the matter.

We don't know if Joyce ever liked Angel but we do know she certainly respected him and her objections to him were based on the age old concept of him not being good enough for her baby girl. Angel, sadly, agreed. Interestingly, Buffy never found out about Joyce's roll in her beloveds' departure.

TBC-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: First Anniversary Post- Joyce Pt 2 -- The Godfather, 16:37:20 09/27/01 Thu



SEASON 4

Season 4 starts with Buffy moving into the new dorms and Joyce moving quickly to deal with her empty nest syndrome. She has moved boxes from the gallery into her daughters' room in order to achieve the effect of a filled house. It's disillusioning for Buffy but revealing for Joyce. She has lived her whole life for Buffy and now Buff no longer needs her. She needs to fill that void quickly.

The next time we see her is in full mothering mode when she is trying to comfort Buffy about what Parker did to her.

Joyce: "Oh, that's not true actually. The candy was for me. - Your father loved spending time with you." Buffy looks down: "Not enough, I guess." Joyce: "Buffy." Buffy: "Oh, that just paved right over memory lane, huh?" Joyce: "Our divorce had nothing to do with you." Buffy swallows: "I don't know. - I'm starting to feel like there is a pattern here. - Open your heart to someone, and he bails on you. Maybe it's easier to just not let anyone in." Joyce gets up: "I thought it might be easier. You must have noticed that I am not exactly the social butterfly I was when I was with your dad. I don't think I made a single new friend the year we moved to Sunnydale." Buffy: "Why not?" Joyce: "Fear. I didn't believe I could trust anyone again. It's taken time and a lot of effort, but I've got a nice circle of friends now. - I mean, don't get me wrong. I - I'm still a little gun shy. It certainly didn't help that my last boyfriend turned out to be a homicidal robot. I will *always* be here for you. And you got Mr. Giles and your friends.Believe me, there is nothing to be afraid of."

FEAR ITSELF

This dialogue is nice because it brings back moments from the past(even if it doesn't admit to the confirmed loving she received from Giles) in regards to Ted and Hank. She speaks without pain about her ex-husband and she assures Buffy that no matter what, she's there. She tells Buff to open her heart up and trust again. It makes you think that Joyce has a fella on the side.

Unfortunately Joyce goes into MIA territory after this. It appears that Buff becomes so involved in her new life with the Initiative and Riley that she forgets her mother. No one cracks the point home harder than Faith who resents all that Buffy has but fails to appreciate.

Joyce: Actually, I was thinking my daughter is going to kill you soon.

Faith: Is that a fact?

Joyce: More like a bet.

Faith: (smiling) Whoa. You got a pair on you, Joyce. I like seeing that in a woman your age. (steps closer to the bed) Guess you can afford to talk that way. I mean, in the world according to Joyce, Buffy is gonna come crashing through that door any minute.

(Joyce doesn't say anything but is trying to remain calm.)

Faith: But . . . look what I found.

(Faith grabs a bundle of envelopes from the table and hops onto the bed beside her. She starts flipping through the pieces of mail.)

Faith: 'Buffy Summers. Buffy Summers. Buffy Summers. Buffy. Buffy.' A lot of letters. She, uh, hasn't been by in a while, huh? And you'd think with a crazy chick like me on the loose --crazy chick with a wicked grudge against her, no less-- she'd call and give you a heads-up. But Buffy's too into her own deal to remember dear old mom.

(Faith gets up and stands in front of the bed again.)

Joyce: You don't know the first thing about Buffy. Or me.

Faith: Don't I? I know what it's like. You think you matter. You think you're a part of something and you get dumped. It's like the whole world is moving but you're stuck. Like those animals in the tar pits. It's like you just keep sinking a little deeper everyday and nobody even sees.

Joyce: (sounding bored) Were you planning to slit my throat anytime soon?

Faith: Don't tell me you don't see it, Joyce. You served your purpose. You squirted out the kid, raised her up, and now you might as well be dead! I mean, nobody cares! Nobody remembers! Especially not Buffy-fabulous-super-hero! Sooner or later you're gonna have to face it. She was over us a long time ago, Joyce. (voice rising to a shout) Too busy climbing onto her new boytoy to give a single thought to the people that matter! I mean, you're her mother and she just leaves you here to die!

THIS YEARS' GIRL

And sadly, this is all true. The bonds have broken down between mother and daughter and Joyce feels un-needed. Buffy never comes by and Joyce is alone. She's lived her whole life for Buffy. It's heartbreaking but just the same, showing that Summers spirit, Joyce believes that Buffy will come and is rewarded by her daughters' arrival.

However the concept that she has been put away and out of Buff's life comes into play again in RESTLESS.

JOYCE: Oh, hi, honey. BUFFY: Why are you living in the walls? JOYCE: Oh, sweetie, no, I'm fine here. Don't worry about me.

BUFFY: It looks dirty. JOYCE: Well, it seems that way to you. I made some lemonade, and I'm learning how to play mah-jongg. You go find your friends. BUFFY: I, I think they might be in danger.

JOYCE: I-I'm sorry, dear. Um, a mouse is playing with my knees. BUFFY: I, I really don't think you should live in there.

JOYCE: Well ... you could ... probably break through the wall.

RESTLESS

At the end of this, Joyce asks her to break down the walls Buffy has put between them but Buffy walks away. Joyce seems content with where she is but we see that she would rather be with Buffy.



SEASON 5

Season 5 opens with Joyce telling Buffy that she is lonely and Buff promising to make up for that. She tells her mom that they should get together mom and you can see that Joyce misses the old relationship they had, when they were tight. Just the same, things are changing very quickly.

In the final frame of this ep, we are introduced to Dawn who is Joyce's other child. This one was created by magicks but even after Joyce discovers this, she cares little. This is her daughter.

I could go ep by ep through this but this season really isn't about individuals eps when it comes to the SUMMERS women dynamics.

Joyce has cancer. Brain cancer. She develops this early on in the season and this draws her family together. She is strong and resilient throughout, offering hope to her family and to her daughters. Even in her worst moments, she is more concerned with her daughters. When she seems to recover, she moved quickly to help Dawn, never allowing for even a moment that this child is not hers. The emotions are there and she knows she loves her baby.

But it is the relationship with Buffy that steps fully into the light after a season of neglect. Buffy is torn to shreds emotionally by her mom's illness. In one of the most moving scenes of the season, Buffy breaks down in her kitchen while doing dishes in LISTENING TO FEAR. She spends every moment she can with her mom.

Joyce finally dies in THE BODY, succumbing to an aneurysm. Buffy comes home to find her mom and works desperately to save her but ultimately can not. It is something that Buffy will never forget and yet in dying, she has finally elevated Buffy to the final stage of maturity and brought out the best in her daughter.

And when you consider how devastated and broken Buffy's friends are, you understand that Joyce was more than Just Buffy's mom, she was all of theirs. They truly can't understand how someone so good and loving as Joyce could go. And in this, they all achieve their finest moments.

OVERALL

I'm gonna shorten this up because I've gone too long.

This is one of the most passionate characters this universe has ever had. Sure, she's been mostly one-tracked in her love and devotion to her daughter and sure she has made some hideous mistakes but everything she has done has been in the name of love. She has always tried to understand Buffy and live in her world. She has always tried to bring out the best in Buffy. When you consider that good people do not come out nowhere and that courage doesn't just appear, you can truly understand what Joyce means to this universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: First Anniversary Post- Joyce Pt 2 -- Drizzt, 18:06:14 09/27/01 Thu

WOW! I have only seen three eps from season one. Season four did not have much of Joyce. Season five was for me my only way to define who Joyce is; you have provided a backstory on her that has increased my appreciation of Joyce.

Thank You.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: First Anniversary Post- Joyce Pt 2 -- Helen, 02:02:34 09/28/01 Fri

Fabulous - I have always liked Joyce and was genuinely horrified when we lost her.

I think you're right to highlight that Joyce continued to think of Dawn as her daughter, even when she knew this was not the case. Perhaps Dawn, despite being supernatural herself, was a way for Joyce to compensate for what she didn't get with Buffy. Dawn is not normal, but she has no evident special skills, and isn't allowed to patrol or get involved in Slaying in any way. Instead she is allowed to be just a little girl, growing up, trying to make sense of her place in the world (something all teenagers go through, not just those who are actually Keys) and this allows Joyce to be the kind of mother she never got to be to Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nicely done. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:39:21 09/28/01 Fri

It's easy to criticize Joyce for what happens in a particular episode, but as you point out, she was always trying to do the best she could for her daughter/s.

Just a quibble, and I'm not an expert in medicine, but I don't think that all life-threatening brain tumors are necessarily cancer. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: First Anniversary Post- Joyce Pt 2 -- Voxpopuli, 09:55:33 09/28/01 Fri

I've always thought that Joyce did not quite like Angel. Actually Xander did not like him, Joyce did not like him, and Giles was pretty much on the same ground as Joyce about Angel. Willow liked him, or not really felt the danger in him, as clearly as the other ones did. It must be very tough to be the mother of a slayer, but after some time, she kind of got used to the unusual, and although surprised and maybe scared by some things, she had an attitude that made things seems easier than they actually were, specially after season 2. Sometimes you could see the Lioness Joyce, behind her usually calm behaviour, other times you could see her trying hard to understand and to accept things around her. She could feel the danger and yet not quite put a finger on it. Funny that even in Crush, she was not horrified at Spike being in love with Buffy, actually she sounded worried, but not grossed out. Actually she seemed to tolerate Spike better than Angel, and Spike so very well noticed it, that even when he could have killed her to get to Buffy, he never did it, nor attempted to cause her harm, he'd rather sit with her and complain about life and his sorrows. Something that she could clearly relate to, due to the things she has been through. Dawn has got a very similar thing about her, a sort of openness that Buffy does not have. If Joyce was shocked and took it not so nicely when the reality of her daughter's life struck her, she was able to get over it, and move on, and struggle on a daily basis to keep some foot on the ground and live a life as normal as possible. If being a slayer is hard for Buffy, for Joyce it must not have been easy either. Maybe being a slayer's sister is not easy too. So the Summers' women thing that Spike seem to love so much seems to be a general trait.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: First Anniversary Post- Joyce Pt 2 -- Rendyl, 14:14:18 09/28/01 Fri

The one thing I can say about all the Posting Party threads is that each one (either in the original post or in following comments) has brought out aspects of the character profiled that we had not considered or fully explored. Nice job GF.

I have always felt bad for Joyce. As GF mentioned, in some episodes she makes near tragic mistakes while in others she becomes all that holds Buffy together. Being a parent is hard. Being a single parent even harder. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to parent a Slayer.

I have a six year old. When things get overwhelming for me I can (as we call it in our house) hand her (or whatever burdens are making my crazy) off to my husband. He can do the same. It is a tremendous relief and source of strength to know I have help. I do not have to do it all alone. Joyce did. I have an enormous amount of respect for single parents. Raising kids by yourself is hard. I appreciated GF's comments because they discuss her good points as well as the bad. Many times in the series it seemed only her faults were visible.

Ren -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great essay!!! -- Kerri, 16:56:47 09/28/01 Fri

Nice job! Really fantastic essay! I really don't have too much too add about Joyce-you pretty much covered it all. I liked the season 5 developements, and Buffy and Joyce's relationship. One of the most memorable scenes between the two Summers is when Joyce is about to go into surgery and she tells Buffy how important she is to her. It's interesting to see how after Joyce's death Buffy has asumed the role of mother to Dawn. Buffy has become more like Joyce, and Dawn more like Buffy- the cycle continues. Joyce would definately be proud of her daughter as she jumped into the portal. Again, great job!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very good............:):) -- Rufus, 13:25:41 09/30/01 Sun

Joyce will be missed. I enjoyed her turn in Band Candy. Buffys horror on finding Giles and Joyce having an intense snog cut me up. Her reaction of rolling her eyes at Snyders interest in her was great. Every child should have the experience of seeing the parent at a young age, it could be quite that shock that a parent actually had a life at one time. Joyce had a rather thankless part in the show as the mom figure was not much in evidence. My favorite part was when Joyce accepted Dawn understanding that as one time she wasn't real. Dawn became an actuality because of the love that Joyce and Buffy had for her. To die without warning was very realistic. So many words left unsaid, no goodbyes. Only what she was left to consider. It was the influence of Joyce that helped shape Buffy into who she is now. In Band Candy you can see that questioning the powers that be wasn't a slayer trait but a Joyce trait. I think that saved her daughter over the first five years as a slayer. Buffys sacrifice also came from her mother. Joyce was willing to live with the chance that someone would hurt her to get to Dawn. Joyce wasn't a perfect parent but a compassionate one. I'm glad that the Watchers didn't get their meathooks into Buffy before her mother had the chance to help Buffy become who she is instead of what the Council would have deemed acceptable.
The Good Ol' Days -- Nostalgia, 17:14:14 09/27/01 Thu

I was just watching the 3rd episode of Buffy on FX and my god, am I the only one who misses the simple days of season 1? Season 1 isn't nearly my favorite but everything was so straight forward and enjoyable. Am I the only one who feels this way? please reply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Good Ol' Days -- Brian, 19:57:17 09/27/01 Thu

What I realized tonight watching "Teacher's Pet" is that Buffy is smart. That is the quality that allows her to survive as long as she did. It's not her Slayer strength per say, nor her connections to the world, although they are useful. It is her ability to think. She knows how to think "outside the box", how to delegate jobs, and how to use the solution of one problem to solve another. And when she thinks she is right, nothing can stand in her way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Good Ol' Days -- Sheri, 09:16:15 09/28/01 Fri

These early episodes really remind me of the "monster of the week" episodes from The X- files. You've got everybody still trying to figure out what is possible (notice how everybody looks at Buffy like she's a little nutty when she first suggested that Miss French is a big bug--definate Scully moment if you ask me)... plus you've got those spooky open-ended endings (uh-oh! She's become her own cheerleading trophy!).

Does anybody know if these similarities are intentionally modeled after the X-files? or is it just my imagination?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Good Ol' Days -- vampire hunter D, 10:45:25 09/28/01 Fri

Actually, the early episodes remind me more of a live-action Saturday morning cartoon than the X- Files. They have the same theme and generally play out the same. It wasn't till the second season they got out of this "monster of the week" style and began the type of serialized storytelling that makes me watch the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Enjoying the new days! -- Kerri, 17:00:02 09/28/01 Fri

I enjoyed season 1 and loved season 2, but 5 was definately my favorite! To me BtVS just gets better as it continues. I love how it has become more complex and moved from the black and white to the grey. It's one of the few shows that just keeps getting better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Enjoying the new days! -- Rufus, 22:32:23 09/28/01 Fri

I agree, I'm up to School Hard and can really appreciate how complex the Buffyverse has become. But I enjoyed The Gift while some are still yearning for the early days. We can't go back, we can tell tales about the past but can only go forward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Enjoying the new days! -- OnM, 11:48:05 09/30/01 Sun

It's a very valid question to ask, I think, whether or not people would have gotten as hooked as they did if the 'monster of the week' theme didn't start things out. You have to set the stage before you can bring on the complexity, and I think it was done just about as well as it could be done.

If they had gotten overly cerebral in that first season, I doubt the show would have made it into a second year, because it would have had only this little tiny cult following, and that would not have been enough to sustain the advertising revenue the network would want to renew the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Enjoying the new days! -- Rufus, 12:54:41 09/30/01 Sun

I agree, they had to set up the hero and the forces she fights in a black and white manner. This way we could accept a very young girl killing every night. Even Angel admitted without a soul it was simple, easy, no complicated thoughts about guilt. I think it's the same with the early years, we knew who wore the black hats so could be comfortable in cheering their demise. That really ended when Spike first made a deal with Buffy in B2. Evil has become more and more of a grey area. Now, we can see situations where the whole of the situation is evil but the intent in the beginning was not. I'm thinking about the boy who brought his jock brother back to life using parts of dead girls only to eventually slide towards murder to get the end result. Maggie Walsh at one time had the best intentions til she decided to take the attitude that the ends justified any means. In the beginning the complex situations we have now would only confuse people enough that they may have missed the point and tuned out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Enjoying the new days! -- Naomi, 11:39:06 10/01/01 Mon

In my opinion Buffy showed us a fairly grey view of the world even in the beginning (although obviously it became more prounanced later on). After all surely Angel was an early example of a sympathetic vampire striving to do good long before Spike. Angel was another example of a vampire who based his reason for doing good on his feelings for Buffy. Whilst this may be seen as a fairly narrow and overtly harsh view we must remember that Angel wallowed in self-pity for almost 100 years and only decided he wanted to "be someone" after catching sight of Buffy. His actions were never entirely "white" as we see Darla tempting him with Joyces blood when Joyce is in a critical condition and needed a hospital not Angel swooning over her blood. His advances to an imature Buffy were hardly noble. He had 100s of years of experience behind him whilst she was only a child with ambitions to be a cheerleader. I would agree though that the vampires were presented in a rather one-dimensional way. Darla has none of her later spark and most of them appear to be little more than walking corpses. However even in the 1st season we are given villians to sympathise with and even relate to such as Macy the girl who was so traumatised by her treatment by others that she wanted to create as much havoc as possible. My point therefore(and yes I do have one) is that even in the 1st series Buffy contained a lot of its later promise and I dont think its accurate to dismiss the season as being so simple and black and white as in my opinion it never really was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> It was the tip of an Iceberg......... -- Rufus, 12:43:54 10/01/01 Mon

Why I talk about it that way is that many people can't seem to get past the first few seasons preferring to only accept demons as they were first shown. When we don't know someone it's easy to make value judgements, now that we know more demons it's not so easy to brand them all evil as we know it's not true. Most our opinions are based upon the scanty first encounters with some demons. As we have gotten to understand the situation more it's evident that there is more to the situation than meets the eye. If you,re new here welcome by the way...:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Enjoying the new days! -- Bible belt, 20:53:44 10/01/01 Mon

I agree with you about the grey area thing, if I understand you correctly, because Angel is right there from the begining. Seeing the shows for the first time you don't know anything about him yet, they just haven't revealed his character completely. I admit though, I wont be caught up untill we get to the forth season. I've got a lot to look forward to this fall.

About tonights rerun: Willow didn't let Hiena Xander out of the cage. What a relief, I knew she was smarter than that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Good Ol' Days -- Dee, 12:08:18 10/02/01 Tue

I LOVE the old episodes. They are funny, and didn't take themselves so seriously. The new episodes are good, but I can't help feeling that the writers need to "find the fun" again.
Trouble ahead on Angel? -- Dichotomy, 17:16:18 09/27/01 Thu

Well of course there's trouble ahead, or it wouldn't be interesting. But I'm getting a distinct Cordy in BIG trouble vibe. A big point was made of showing how wrecked she was after her visions, with Dennis (is that his name?) tending to her, trying to comfort her ravaged mind and body.

I think this also ties into the increasingly affectionate relationship between Cordy and Angel. Even if it's not meant to become romantic, the first ep really emphasized their mutually supportive and deepening friendship. As I said in an earlier thread, Angel smiled more enthusiastically and more often in this one ep than I ever saw during the Buffy years (which I just spent all summer watching) -- and those Buffy years smiles were more often bittersweet smiles--not a lot of teeth showing.

I know that we are supposed to see a less dark Angel this season, (and BTW, I don't take this relative "cheerfulness" as discounting his grief over Buffy). What I'm wondering, in a rather roundabout way, is are the writers allowing him more intense expressions of happiness (especially where his friends are concerned), so that when one of them (and I'm thinking Cordy here, for the reason above) is very much in danger of perishing (moreso than usual, that is) the loss or near loss will seem that much more dramatic? And will this new, more joyful Angel suffer more openly than we've seen in the past?

(Too many parenthetical phrases, I know.)

Input?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Trouble ahead on Angel? -- Shiver, 18:17:49 09/27/01 Thu

A lot of Angel's bitterness came from his inability to be with the woman he loved. Having Buffy be so near yet so far was a constant thorn and reminder of what he could not have. Is it possible that Buffy's death might even be a relief to Angel - he knows she is safe, and at peace, and he is no longer torn by the "what if I just went back to see her one time ..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Trouble ahead on Angel? -- b, 19:25:33 09/27/01 Thu

If that's the case then what will happen to his relief when Buffy calls with the "Hi I'm alive." message?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Trouble ahead on Angel? -- Shiver, 09:40:39 09/28/01 Fri

Joss, cruel as he is, keeps insisting that A/B are over for good and has stated in interviews that A is not B's soulmate, there is another ... I think that A will remain in his state of realizing that he can live without B, after she calls to say she's back ... and this is Joss's way of easing us into the transition of splitting the two up forever. I think he had his first epiphany of the season when he realized he wasn't willing to commit suicide over her death like James was over Elizabeth's.
Some Thoughts -- Helios, 19:10:05 09/27/01 Thu

Pacifists are not serious people

Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.

It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea becomes. It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede. It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?

Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more violence.

There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position. But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked--a situation such as we are now in--pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.

In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:

``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, `he that is not with me is against me.'''

England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans--perhaps a great many more--to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some Thoughts -- American, 19:22:38 09/27/01 Thu

You are a ridiculous fool rationalizing the actions of madmen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Pacifists are Evil? LOL ....Oh and sickum Trollbot...:-) -- Drizzt, 20:38:54 09/27/01 Thu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You should give credit when you copy someone else's work -- change, 03:38:16 09/28/01 Fri

This article was written by Michael Kelly of the Washington Post http://www.msnbc.com/news/634264.asp?0dm=N16UO. It's considered polite to credit the original author when you post their work (unless you are Michael Kelly).

By the way, I don't agree with the article. People have a right to be Pacifists if they want. It is, in fact, a protected right in the USA. It also is not clear just what the war on terrorism will accomplish. Israel has been raging an all out war on terrorism for as long as I can remember, and it is one of the most unsafe countries in the world. The only respites they have had have been during times when they were negotiating with the PLO. If we make this into a two prong war with one prong trying to resolve the Israeli/Palistinian issue and other problems in the area, and the other prong trying to track down and eliminate the terrorists groups, then we might have a chance at accomplishing something. If we just go after the terrorists without solving the underlying problems, then we are just wasting our time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You should give credit when you copy someone else's work -- bible belt, 09:50:16 09/28/01 Fri

I agree with you about the Arab-Israeli thing. Not all Palestinians are terrorists. I may be called anti-Semitic, but our government should put some pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. As for the article, it seems that most discussions about this event are just a throw back to the sixties; you're either a warmonger or a peace-loving hippie. I think this goes back to Bush's use of the word war. It reminds me of Reagan and the other Bush's "war" on drugs. Who doesn't want to see these terrorists brought to justice? It seems to me Colin Powel has a handle on this thing so far; he hasn't turned any countries into nuclear punch-bowels, yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You should give credit when you copy someone else's work -- JM, 10:54:42 09/28/01 Fri

Frequent lurker, occassional poster. Thanks for giving us the by-line. I know there a lot of very intelligent posters here, but it seemed suspiciously cogent for a spontaeous missive. Although I'm not lock step with Mr. Kelly, I agree with a number of his points.

And I think that I will make this my last post on this issue, since I doubt that I am capable of defending my positions adequately or objectively. There is a reason money, religion, and politics are are often proscribed topics.

(Not that I meant to discourage discussion among others. This board is the most civilized I have ever encountered. Keep up the impressive work. Happy posting! I will continue to enjoy.)

PS Sorry in advance if I am keeping alive a topic that has been ordained to die. I won't be doing it again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No reason to be sorry, JM, the topic will be around for a long, long time... -- OnM, 21:26:22 09/28/01 Fri

..it's just as you very well may know, if you are a regular lurker, that we did do quite a bit of discussion on this for an entire week/week-and-a-half after 9/11. We just decided to try to keep the board mostly Buffy-ish, and shift these still valid discussions off to ivyweb or other places. The net is plenty big enough, as we know only too well.

Feel free to post more, if the urge strikes you, and thanks for the compliment. We do what we can!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: No reason to be sorry, JM, the topic will be around for a long, long time... - - JM, 10:06:58 09/29/01 Sat

Actually, I did read the discussions, or some of them. I found surfing for pleasure a little difficult to enjoy for about the first week so I had to pull them out of the archives. The ones on this board were about the only discussions I could stand to read. Most other places got a little too emotional or inarticulate. Good decision about keeping the board on topic though.

So to do my part, kinda, if there is a troll bot is there a troll slayer as well? TB should wear a sailor suit (with skirt). TS should wear the not-black leather pants of the serious but not evil. JMHO. (Just a rhetorical question. LOL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I'm back ... -- Trollbot, 18:44:29 09/28/01 Fri

Hi Helios.

I want to hate you. I want to hate you because you're so bad. You're so bad but bad can be so cool sometimes.

You are so bad, but you're so good. You have a cool name like Helios, you quote Orwell with such authority, and you use Big Words like "implacable." I love Big Words. Only Big Bads can use Big Words. My heart is yours. I know it shouldn't be. I know it's wrong, but I can't help myself.

Why are ninety pound geeky trolls who live in their parent's basements and use all their time posting strange, often misspelled and incoherent, messages on internet boards instead of actually going out in the daylight and contributing something to society so unbelievably sexy?

Helios makes my circuits get all warm.

*Trollbot stares up at Helios in complete awe and admiration*
Where have they gone? -- Yellowork, 09:41:59 09/28/01 Fri

Am I missing something or did Season Five mark a definite change in the style of the show, by which I mean to say the way the story is being told? Though there were 'dream sequences' around, there seemed to be a surprising infrequency when you consider that the season follows directly on from 'Restless'. The dreams come and go, some are prophetic, some are silly, some are frightening but they all seem to me to add something to the show, perhaps as much as the flashbacks which have turned up more. I feel some of the time in Season Five, the production team seem to have spread themselves a bit thinly, and the dreams are one of the casualties of this process. Perhaps I am wrong, but wasn't part of the joy of the first four seasons watching waves of order emerge out of chaos? The Fifth Season brought us top-notch stuff like all the others - loved Spike, Harmony, Dru, 'Crush', 'The Body'. However, when you look at the various layers of theme, plot and characterisation even in the first two seasons (which seem to amount to a set of siamese seasons to me) and compare them to the current season, the recent matter seems a little 'thin'.

PS: Giles, Anya, Willow, Xander, Joyce; is everyone else on the show an only child? Will we ever learn of siblings?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where have they gone? -- I'm not bible belt, 13:33:10 09/29/01 Sat

I missed the first three seasons. I'm catching up on them now, so I haven't seen a lot of the dream sequenses; loved Zander's in, "Never Kill a Boy on the First Date." They probably don't want to repeat themselves too much. Just a thought; I wonder if they would go as far as to end the series like Saint Elsewhere.
VERY POSITIVE EW review of Buffy premiere--no major spoilers; doesn't reveal how Buffy comes back -- Rob, 13:53:44 09/28/01 Fri

"EW GRADE: A Genre: Drama, Horror

You knew she'd be back, didn't you?

I'm not just talking about the return of ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' the show. I mean Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar), the vampire slayer who sacrificed herself to save her sister, Dawn (Michelle Trachtenberg), at the end of last season and the end of this series' stay at The WB. In making a business move over to UPN, this remarkable creation by writer-producer-director Joss Whedon -- a work of resonant fantasy unequaled in television -- has come up with a ripsnorting two-hour season premiere.

I'm not going to spoil the plot mechanism that returns Buffy to action (it's not giving anything away to repeat: You knew she'd be back, right?). But other mechanisms deserve their due, one of them being Gellar's witty performance as the ''Buffybot'' -- the robot Buffy who was used as comic relief in a few episodes last season. In the first hour of the ''Buffy'' premiere, written with slicing wit by executive producer Marti Noxon, the series that had turned morosely bleak regains its stubborn humor, as Buffy's pals -- Willow (Alyson Hannigan), Xander (Nicholas Brendon), Spike (James Marsters), Giles (Anthony Stewart Head), Tara (Amber Benson), and Anya (Emma Caulfield) -- crank up the Buffybot as a temporary-replacement slayer until they can figure out how to raise Buffy from the dead. ''We need the world and the underworld to think that Buffy is alive,'' says Giles -- the underworld being that universe of vicious creatures who forever threaten the heroes' small town of Sunnydale, site of the demon-spawning Hellmouth. (Just explaining the ''Buffy'' mythology after five seasons is both tricky and a testament to the richness of the world Whedon and company have created.)

Anyway, Gellar-as-Buffybot is chipper, literal-minded, and, literally, mindless: Her whirring motor ''brain'' works overtime during what Willow calls the bot's ''most dangerous challenge ever'' -- which proves to be passing herself off as human at the local school's Parent-Teacher Day. Noxon's script glides smoothly from this humor to some hard-boiled action scenes. Hannigan is terrifically commanding in the opening sequence as a witch-power-enhanced Willow who beams out telepathic orders to her friends -- she'll remind comic-book fans (of whom Whedon is one, big time) of the telepath Jean Grey in ''X-Men.''

The show's first hour -- again, I'm not giving anything away that hasn't been previously announced -- paves the way for Giles' exit from the series; Buffy's Watcher (her trainer, counselor, and confidant) is returning to his native England, where in real life Head will head up his own new Whedon-created series for Brit telly. As usual in ''Buffy,'' tender moments such as Giles' leave-taking are handled with a sorrowful delicacy as touching as any show on the small screen.

''Buffy'''s second hour revs up the plot. This section is written by coexecutive producer David Fury, and its more serious, scary-movie elements pay homage to a couple of films by director Brian De Palma, specifically ''Carrie'' and (lesser known but befitting the teleplay author's name) ''The Fury.'' I'm leery of divulging specific moments, but the closing hour features demon bikers, a few brief scenes that confirm the producers aren't going to shy away from the ongoing romance between Willow and Tara, plus Xander's first use of the musical-comedy theater as metaphor (''We got trouble, right here in Hellmouth city,'' he says, a Music Man of mayhem). This is perhaps a winking prelude to the musical episode Whedon has vowed to do later this season; reserve your seats now.

The final hour rewards fans with a renewal of dramatic energy for the series and, at the same time, enables new viewers to catch up on what amounts to a fresh start for the show. Taken together, the two hours unfold like a legend being told for the first time. Who'd have thought that lowly UPN, so blessed to be the new home of ''Buffy,'' can now hold its head high and boast that it can go toe-to-toe with HBO? It's got a series with as much emotional punch as ''The Sopranos'' (yeah, go ahead, the snobs among you, sneer) and one whose scarifying coffin scene alone gives new menace to the phrase 'Six Feet Under.'"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> WOW! Go EW!! -- Wisewoman, 16:16:45 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: EW always rules - they've supported the show for a long time. -- Dedalus, 18:34:49 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I picked up a copy today and was quite happy to see...... -- Rufus, 22:33:48 09/28/01 Fri

How many of the critics like the premire so much.....Hurry up Tuesday....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I picked up a copy today and was quite happy to see...... -- Rob, 08:29:29 09/29/01 Sat

http://www.scifi.com gave a great review too...Another A!! You can go to the site to read it if you want. I didn't, because there was a spoiler alert at the beginning. Although I'm not usually completely allergic to spoilers, for this episode I am! Why is Tuesday taking so darn long to get here?!?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I picked up a copy today and was quite happy to see...... -- Dedalus, 12:54:01 09/29/01 Sat

I loved the sci-fi review. Elevated to the status of classic, indeed.

And, hmm ... they're looking for freelance writers ...
The Mayor: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- d'Herblay, 14:33:11 09/28/01 Fri

66 days dwindled to one before I knew it, and what had seemed an pleasant exercise became a dreaded responsibility. But the other day I was reading the New York Times article on Angel from this past Sunday. Joyce Millman is my favorite professional Buffy-crit writer, but when I got to her sentence "Angel morphs fangs, a prehensile forehead and glowing eyes when he's in a fighting mood" I found I could not exorcise from my mind the image of Angel carrying his car keys between his eyebrows. The moral of this story is that even very smart people can look like idiots sometimes. Let what follows serve as further evidence.

Sunnydale, California, as Mr. Trick puts it, has "quaint." Good schools, good weather. While the manufacturing industry seems to have abandoned the town, leaving a plethora of abandoned factories and warehouses, the citizens seem prosperous, polite and quiet. It's "two hours on the freeway from Neiman Marcus." It has twelve cemeteries and one nightclub. It's either Santa Barbara nearer the desert or San Bernardino after a very expensive canal project.

Every healthy community needs healthy governance, and Sunnydale would be no exception, were it healthy. But Sunnydale has a sickness. Joyce, in "Gingerbread," provides the diagnosis: "silence is this town's disease. For too long we--we've been plagued by unnatural evils. This isn't our town anymore. It belongs to the monsters and, and the witches and the Slayers." But mostly it belongs to its mayor, Richard Wilkins III.

Thomas Hobbes suggested that any government, no matter how authoritarian, is preferable to the state of continual warfare that would exist without it, and the citizens of Sunnydale seem to have agreed. It is a secret of American democracy that the smaller the electorate, and the more say the average voter has in how he is governed, the more likely it is for the social and political mores to take on an authoritarian cast. Indeed, in some of our small cities, hundred-year periods in office are not out of their mayors' reaches. The conspiracy of silence in Sunnydale takes in not only the highest levels (the police chief and Snyder in "School Hard" and "I Only Have Eyes For You") but every citizen. Snyder says in "I Only Have Eyes For You," "We're on a Hellmouth. Sooner or later, people are going to figure that out." By "Gingerbread" they have, but Joyce's direct democracy turns into mob rule as the active citizenry is suborned by demonic influence into fomenting Hobbes's war of all against all. Afterwards, the city returns to the state of tacit compliance which it prefers.

The civic values of Sunnydale include a tacit agreement that good citizenship involves ignoring the evil all around, much as the civic values of 1950s sitcom America included the tacit agreement that its citizens would ignore racism and put their energies into constructive matters such as lawn care. And just as Spike, who has 150 or so years of life and un-life to choose from, seems to prefer to live in 1977, the Mayor seems to prefer the caricatured virtues of the 1950s--cleanliness, milk, "Family Circus," golf, Boy Scouting, pretty girls in pretty dresses rather than evil leather pants, and watching one's language. I'm not sure how much of the portrayal of traditional American values as being a mask over an evil face (Willow, in "The Initiative": "I've seen honest faces before. They usually come attached to liars") is intended as a statement on Joss's part, but his skepticism of government--not just the Mayor, but the FBI's school for invisible assassins, and the Initiative, doomed by its own corruptibility--is clearly stated. Not for nothing does he show an unchecked governor becoming a giant snake which devours everything in its path.

Of course, the social contract with the citizenry of Sunnydale is not the only contract the Mayor has entered into. He governs not only with the consent of the governed but with demonic assistance. As Faith says, "Mayor's got it wired, B. He built this town for demons to feed on and come graduation day, he's getting paid." Evidence in "Lovers Walk" suggests that he has sold his soul, and he refers to the tribute to Lurconis in "Band Candy" as one of his "campaign promises." It's fair to say that he enjoys his position only with the understanding that he will tolerate Sunnydale's less savory side. But the Mayor has been protective of his turf, driving out El Eliminati and crippling Balthazar. Would his tolerance extend to letting the world end before he has achieved his Ascension?

There are some people who are willing to suspend their disbelief in vampires and witches and troll gods, but who are unwilling to extend that suspension to accept coincidence. Those people might find it hard to accept that Buffy's presence in Sunnydale is the result of some sort of mystical convergence drawing her to the Hellmouth in time for the Harvest. I think it is entirely plausible that if Joyce had to move two hours away from LA to find a school that would take Buffy, then that school may have accepted Buffy only at the behest of the Mayor. And she was accepted just in time; the counter-factual world of "The Wish" has no place in it for the Mayor. It is interesting that between the events of "The Harvest," when Buffy is essential to preventing the Master's release, and those of "Prophecy Girl," when she is necessary to that release, the Sunnydale government replaces the touchy-feely-but-sensitive-to-wrong-touching Principal Flutie with the draconian Snyder. And it is when the Mayor's "big year" is about to begin that Snyder expels Buffy.

(Before someone starts waving "Becoming" in the face of this theory, let me point out that less than forty-eight hours transpire between Angelus's taking possession of Acathla and his attempt to end the world. Compared to the events of "The Harvest," awaited for sixty years, and those of "Prophecy Girl," foreordained in the unimpeachable Codex, "Becoming" is apocalypse as impulse. Whistler saw it coming, but Giles didn't, and there is little reason to believe that the Mayor would have either. There is also little reason to believe that he would have suspected Angelus, who had shown no inclination to end the world in "Surprise," of such ambitions. In "Lovers Walk," the Mayor says of Spike, "We had a world of fun trying to guess what he'd do next"; I am willing to chalk up "Becoming" to a failure of intelligence rather than to any tolerance of apocalyptic activities in his town.)

Machiavelli writes, "The first thing one does to evaluate the wisdom of a ruler is to examine the men that he has around him." Such an evaluation reveals firstly the separation between the two contracts into which the Mayor has entered. Those who abet him in maintaining Sunnydale's conspiracy of silence form a much larger group than those assisting him in the Ascension. The first group includes Snyder, the police chief and, apparently, the city council, and takes advantage of the ingrained desire for peace and quiet of the people of Sunnydale. The second is limited to Deputy Mayor Allan Finch, Mr. Trick and then Faith, and various vampire lackeys. Had the Mayor been able to utilize his police force in his attempts to bring about the Ascension, there might now be a "Richard Wilkins Museum." Based on the events of "Bad Girls," Buffy should have been in jail even unto her graduation ceremony. Police have been known to ignore the crimes of the young, white and pretty; generally, however, assaulting police officers is not a crime they ignore.

The tension between the two agendas of the Mayor is illustrated by his changing relationship with Principal Snyder. When we first hear that the government of Sunnydale is aware of its peculiar situation, we see Snyder as an active participant in the cover-up. He is essential to the harassment of Buffy in the second season, calling the Mayor with the "good news" after expelling her in "Becoming, Part 2," and remains a thorn in her side through the third season. But as the Mayor's priorities shift from keeping Sunnydale's secret evils secret to becoming a decidedly more overt evil himself, Snyder's position changes. The key episode illustrating this shift is "Band Candy." Before this episode, he has seemed to have direct knowledge of the Mayor's plans for the city. In the episode, he distributes the tainted candy himself. But while Mr. Trick assists with the preparation of Lurconis's sacrifice, Snyder has sampled the candy. Although he, in his regressed state, boasts of having received a commendation from the Mayor, Snyder reveals himself as a tool to be manipulated, rather than a manipulator.

As Snyder's desire for normalcy and order becomes further divergent from the Mayor's plans, he struggles to regain his bearings. In "Choices," the sight of the Mayor indulged in skullduggerous dealings with the incorrigible Scoobies, as well as of one of the inhabitants of the Box of Gavrox, brings Snyder to a state of shock. His orderly world has been upset. Still, he acquiesces to the Mayor in the preparations for graduation. But when the Mayor reveals himself for what he is, and the desire for order is revealed for what that desire can become, Snyder remains, fearlessly calling for discipline and calm. He is eaten.

Of those who form the inner conspiracy, that of the Ascension, Deputy Mayor Allan Finch is the most problematic. By no means evil, and a bit out of his depth, Finch still makes a capable assistant. It is left unclear in "Bad Girls" and "Consequences" if he truly intended to betray the Mayor, but we get the impression that he would have done the right thing had Faith not impaled him. Mr. Trick's complicity is less surprising. He is, by his vampiric nature, evil, as well as a close reader of bottom lines. If he cannot be the big bad, he will attach himself to one who can.

But it is through his relationship with Faith that the Mayor is best revealed. It is emblematic of Joss's perversity that some of the most touching scenes of fatherly affection on Buffy come when the Mayor is encouraging Faith into murderous ways or basically pimping her out in an attempt to turn Angel to the dark side. But even as he corrupts Faith, the Mayor builds her self-esteem. It is at first a strange match between the Reader's Digest-reading family-values glad-hander and the rebelliously anti-conventional riot grrl, but the Mayor's enthusiastic embrace both of evil and of Faith win her over. We can see the process in "Enemies." At the beginning, Faith treats the Mayor's suggestion that she wear her hair back with disdain and rejects the milk he offers her. By the end, after failing to turn Angel and finding herself at an irreconcilable impasse with Buffy, but finding that the Mayor still accepts her for who she has become, she breaks into a huge grin at his suggestion of miniature golf.

Faith's own mother mostly enjoyed "the drinking and passing out parts of life," we are told, and Faith never really found a parental figure in the Watchers' Council who could match Giles's paternal relationship with Buffy. It is no surprise that she would gravitate towards the Ozzie Nelson-like Mayor. When Willow accuses Faith of throwing away friends like Buffy and having no one, Faith responds, "I got someone. I got him." But whereas the Mayor seems to really respond to Faith's firecracker attitude, Faith's love for the Mayor seems predicated on what he can give her--fancy apartments, fancy knives, fancy murders--until we see her in "This Year's Girl." In Faith's dream, she and the Mayor have a picnic--and it is safe to assume that no one ever took Faith on a picnic before. What Faith remembers is the Mayor's tenderness. He shows his concern over her worrying and shows kindness to a garter snake. Then Buffy takes him away from her, devastating Faith.

"This Year's Girl" also reveals how much Faith's coma affected the Mayor. Of all the Big Bads, he is the only one to leave a Last Will and Testament, the only one to acknowledge that he might face Buffy and lose. Going into the Ascension without Faith by his side is not a prospect he relishes, not only because he needs her skills in the fight, but because he has convinced himself that the Ascension is when Faith will finally be able to come into her own. "It's your big day," he says to her in the hospital. He seems to believe it.

Angel deduces that Faith is the Mayor's "human weakness." Of the five Big Bads, the Mayor seems to be the only one to have had a human weakness; of the five Big Bads, the Mayor seems the most human. He may be invulnerable, unaging and soulless, but he seems to have truly loved both his wife Edna May and Faith, and he achieved those states through acting on his originally human desires. He is a man who values order and normalcy. It is unclear to me how becoming a giant snake promotes those virtues, but from "This Year's Girl," we can surmise that the post-Ascension world he envisions contains museums and schoolchildren. He seems to have really believed that such a world would have been better for Faith, and perhaps he believed that such a world would have been better for all of us.

His affection for Faith is the human weakness that Buffy acts on to defeat him, but the weakness that makes the Mayor most human to us is this desire for calm and control. It is a desire present in most of us, and it is a desire that must be limited, for it is easily perverted. For, just as the Mayor came to believe that preserving control required demonic Ascension, the desire for order can overtake what makes us most human and, if left unchecked, can devour everything in its path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great post! -- Dichotomy, 15:33:30 09/28/01 Fri

"It is emblematic of Joss's perversity that some of the most touching scenes of fatherly affection on Buffy come when the Mayor is encouraging Faith into murderous ways or basically pimping her out in an attempt to turn Angel to the dark side. But even as he corrupts Faith, the Mayor builds her self-esteem."

Yes! I found that especially true in the following scene:

Mayor: (giggles) Well, that's swell. You know how I feel about loose ends. And the big day is so close, you can smell the excitement in the air. Say, are you ever coming out of there?

Faith: I don't know.

Mayor: Aw, come on.

Faith enters, in a pink/white dress, barefoot.

Mayor: Wow, aren't you a vision?

Faith: I feel I look stupid in this.

Mayor: You look lovely. Perfect for the Ascension. Any boys that manage to survive will be lining up to ask you out.

Faith: It just isn't me, though.

Mayor: Not you? Let me tell you something. Nobody knows what you are.Not even you, little Miss Seen-it-all. The Ascension isn't just myday. It's yours too. Your day to blossom, to show the world what a powerful girl you are. I think of what you've done, what I know you will do (carresses her face) no father could be prouder.

Faith: I hope I don't let you down.

Mayor: Impossible. Now come on, change back into your street clothes. I'll buy you an icee.

They share a smile.

I found myself totally caught up in the sweetness of the exchange, with the touching music that accompanied it, and actually had to remind myself that they were evil. Big evil! It was one of those shaking-your-head-to-clear it kind of moments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Mayor: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Wisewoman, 16:10:40 09/28/01 Fri

Well done, d'Herblay--not just a study of the Mayor, but of Sunnydale as well.

I've been fascinated by Harry Groener since I saw him play Tam Elbrun in "Tin Man," an episode of ST:TNG (late 80s?). Even though he was playing a very sympathetic character, there was still a touch of madness about him. I think that's his forte, the subtext of the macabre in the moral majority.

I miss Mayor Wilkins...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good job!!! -- Kerri, 17:12:48 09/28/01 Fri

Awesome post d'Herblay!

The Mayor's relationship with Faith was an interesting parallel to Buffy and Giles' relationship. Also enjoyed you theories on Sunnydale-nicely done!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Mayor: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rattletrap, 19:34:43 09/28/01 Fri

Very well done d'Herb--love the use of political philosophy, very appropriate.

Coupla comments:

On one of the interviews in the Slayer Chronicles box set, Doug Petrie comments that David Greenwalt has a box of handi-wipes and is a bit obsessed with personal grooming, and is always talking about "What's good for America," and that the writers were kind of needling him with that character.

Harry Groener's Mayor was, IMO, the best villain the show has had to date. He could constantly tiptoe the line between outrageous humor, sinister creepiness, and genuine affection. The scene in Graduation Day pt. I, where he walks into the library and confronts the scoobies was wonderfully tense and a bit frightening even though he never did anything or made any overt threats, it was all subtle and conveyed with gesture and voice inflection, and still creeps me out even after having seen it several times.

anyway, just my $.02 thanx for the great post

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Mayor: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rufus, 22:25:32 09/28/01 Fri

Pimp is a good description of the Mayor in respect to Faith. He made her feel good about herself easing her from killing demons to finally an innocent elder proffessor, all while telling her how wonderful she was and offering her cookies. No surprise that he turned into a big snake, the bigger the sin the larger the snake I guess...:):):)

Enjoyed your essay very much, thank you....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hobbes, Machiavelli, and the Mayor: kudos! -- Solitude1056, 20:25:56 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ya know, I was kind of aprehensile that somebody would catch that Millman flub. ;) -- OnM, 20:51:06 09/28/01 Fri

The mayor still stands out as one of my all time favorite Buffy villains, for all the reasons you so deftly spoke of and more.

Great post!

I'm hoping that Buffy will eventually get to face a 'human' evildoer again, since if you intend to keep upping the ante as she gets more and more experience under her (black?) belt, where else is there to go after you've fought a god but to fight a human?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No one is more evil than the mild mannered guy next door who waves as you leave for work......:):):) -- Rufus, 22:28:10 09/28/01 Fri

Evil with a benign cover....everyone falls for it. The Annoying One, The Mayor, Ted.....OnM...oooops sorry OnM I was looking at your name while typing.....;) I think I meant Sol.....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ya know, I was kind of aprehensile that somebody would catch that Millman flub. ;) -- bible belt, 10:04:26 09/29/01 Sat

Yes, ones who create gods, they're the frightening ones.
By the way, everybody, I'm back... -- Rob, 16:33:58 09/28/01 Fri

Hey, everyone! I was posting a great deal here midway through season five through the end, but I haven't been around during the summer, basically because I was trying my hardest to keep my mind off "Buffy." Because when my mind was on "Buffy," all the questions about the season premiere were driving me crazy and I was afraid I'd be tempted to read spoilers! I'm happy to report that I've been a good boy and have not read any spoilers. Now that the show's almost back though I needed to come back. It's my favoritest Buffy place to be on the net! Can't wait to post and read tons of post about the season premiere!!! :) :) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome back! -- Drizzt, 17:18:59 09/28/01 Fri

Good for you on resisting the urge to check spoillers:-) The only spoiller I have read was something by Hercules the whealchair guy. Oh boy he is annoying! Anyway I avoided any other spoillers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: By the way, everybody, I'm back... -- Dedalus, 18:59:17 09/28/01 Fri

Greetings and salutations, Rob.

I have no idea who you are, but greetings anyway.

:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Why, thank you! LOL. :) -- Rob, 20:37:43 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome back... -- OnM, 20:40:12 09/28/01 Fri

..but if you were absent from the board all summer, you missed some great stuff, especially the 1st Anniversary Character Posts, and the writing of the ATPo epic Dark Alchemy.

Unfortunately, this means that you will now have to buy tickets to join in for the new season, whereas had you hung around, it would be a freebie! Sorry!

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ditto, Dedalus ;o) -- Wisewoman, 21:00:44 09/28/01 Fri

I think we just missed each other, Rob, but let me add my "welcome back." I'm sure there are a few of us you won't have met yet...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ditto, Dedalus ;o) -- Rob, 08:27:34 09/29/01 Sat

Thanks again! Glad to be back... Although I do kinda wish I hadn't missed those character posts...Well I definitely won't stay in hiding next summer! :)
question about reruns on Fx -- bible belt, 18:17:05 09/28/01 Fri

In Teachers Pet I noticed that Angel and Buffy seemed to know each other a good deal more than they did in The Witch. It seemed as if there was an episode missing in there. I haven't seen the first three seasons, so I've tried to imagine how the last scene in the Bronze would appear if I hadn't already seen the last two seasons, but I can't. Was that just part of the development of Angel's character-a tease or something like that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question about reruns on Fx -- John Burwood, 01:08:07 09/30/01 Sun

I think the final scene on Teacher's Pet was planned to show Buffy getting seriously smitten with the mysterious stranger who already knows all about her being the Slayer - at a time when dating was rendered very difficult because of the slayage. Try to imagine having no idea who or what Angel is. At this stage, he is pure mystery.
Fun, fun while we wait for another new episode (OT) -- Solitude1056, 20:27:22 09/28/01 Fri

http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/ or click here. I ended up with Stoicism... what did you get?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmm... -- Wisewoman, 20:58:09 09/28/01 Fri

Okay, I was 100% Sartre, though I don't feel all that existential (lol), and 97% Aquinas, which was a shock until I took the Judeo-Christian God out of the equation, and then realized I can back Aquinas all the way! ;o)

Did you ever do the religious preference test of this same sort? I was really surprised with the results I got, because while I was taking the test I was sure I was going to end up as something completely different (in other words, I couldn't discern any way to fudge the answers to conform to my preferences) and it ended up confirming exactly what I am--quite a pleasant surprise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmm... -- Solitude1056, 21:14:53 09/28/01 Fri

Yeah, and I never really think much of morality in the first place, so the whole test was a bit confusing to me. I usually consider morality to be a human invention that's essentially worthless. Wait, I guess that is rather Stoic, when it's not existentialist... or something. (It's late.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm 100% Sartre too . . . -- d'Herblay, 21:18:15 09/28/01 Fri

. . so maybe the entire site is a marketing ploy to sell copies of Being and Nothingness. I'm 89% Rand, which I just can't stomach. I mean, I call myself a "civil libertarian," and a "cyberlibertarian" and occasionally even a "libertarian," but I've always felt that there was a difference between the classical liberal virtues and Rand's extreme self-interest. Plus, Rand is always someone I've associated with the type of people who sit around with their computers all day, obsessing over fantasy TV shows, posting their obscure theories to the internet . . .

. . uh.

Well, maybe I should take a look at The Fountainhead.

Anyway, also on the site is the Buffyverse character selector. I've taken it twice, and both times I came up: 1) Angel. 2) Angelus. 3) Buffy. It's the brooding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well, I'm 100% stoic, 97% Spinoza, and came up Xander - three times.. -- Solitude1056, 21:49:43 09/28/01 Fri

Go figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey! I came up Xander, too. That was a surprise...LOL -- WW, 23:02:57 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, I'm 100% stoic, 97% Spinoza, and came up Xander - three times.. -- Rattletrap, 05:49:43 09/29/01 Sat

Cool link, I came up Giles followed by Oz, Xander a distant third. Very nice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> So where's the scooby test??? -- Masq, 11:49:34 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Here -- d'Herblay, 12:43:41 09/29/01 Sat

That is, here.

If the link isn't active for you, you can cut & paste this:

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php3?client=buffy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Should I be worried??? -- VampRiley, 13:29:32 09/29/01 Sat

For the philosophy one I got:

1. Sartre (100%) 2. Kant (85%) 3. Mill (80%) 4. Stoics (76%)

And for the Buffy one I got:

#1 Angel #2 Angelus #3 Faith

Again I ask you: Should I be worried?

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How's your car, VR? -- Wisewoman, 13:46:20 09/29/01 Sat

After you logged off the chat last week we found out there had been a tornado(?) in D.C. Is that what destroyed your windshield?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How's your car, VR? -- VampRiley, 16:45:23 09/29/01 Sat

Nah. There was a storm that night where I live. Although...the storm may have been like the edge part of the tornado or something. Not entirely sure. From that storm at my house, there was some lightning. One of them hit a branch on a tree in my front yard. And when it fell, it crashed into my front windshield. I got a ride to class the next day. And after class, I took my car to get an estimate. It's costing me a couple hundred (parts and labor) to get it replaced. Got it replaced. Borrowed money fron parents. Now I owe them money again.

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did you answer "yes" to "I sometimes like to kill people"? -- Masq, 14:32:36 09/29/01 Sat

If yes, worry. If no, then you're just extremely sexy in an dark kind of way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did you answer "yes" to "I sometimes like to kill people"? -- VampRiley, 16:47:52 09/29/01 Sat

Thanks, Masq. ;-) But if I were to answer with a "no", would you believe me?

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It only matters what you tell yourself... -- Masq, 19:06:57 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did you answer "yes" to "I sometimes like to kill people"? -- VampRiley, 17:04:08 09/29/01 Sat

Hey Masq. Just realized something. When I took the Buffy test, I saved my results to look at later. Just looked at it again and realized I made a mistake: Spike is actually #3 and Faith is #4.

I'm not actually sure how I feel about this.

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Only worry if you have a sudden craving for Weetabix....;) -- Rufus, 18:51:27 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey Vamp, I was 100% Kant & #1 Angel ... we be similar until that Angelus part -- Liq, 15:31:08 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmm, Willow first and Spike dead last. They know me well. - - Masq, 14:28:04 09/29/01 Sat

# 1 Willow # 2 Dawn # 3 Oz # 4 Angel # 5 Giles # 6 Tara # 7 Buffy # 8 Dru # 9 Xander # 10 Anya # 11 Cordelia # 12 Faith # 13 Angelus # 14 Spike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh jeez, I can't accept this -- Liquidram, 15:27:51 09/29/01 Sat

# 1 Angel # 2 Buffy # 3 Xander # 4 Dawn # 5 Faith # 6 Spike # 7 Willow # 8 Anya # 9 Angelus # 10 Giles # 11 Oz # 12 Cordelia # 13 Dru # 14 Tara
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh... must be the leather pants. That's gotta be it. -- Solitude1056, 16:21:45 09/29/01 Sat

well, that and the whole insanity thing.

# 1 Faith # 2 Dawn # 3 Xander # 4 Buffy # 5 Spike # 6 Willow # 7 Angel # 8 Angelus # 9 Anya # 10 Dru # 11 Giles # 12 Oz # 13 Tara # 14 Cordelia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm Buffy, then Dawn.......:) -- Rufus, 18:49:36 09/29/01 Sat

3: Willow 4: Xander 5: Angel 6: Cordy 7: Oz 8: Giles 9: Anya 10: Tara 11: Faith 12: Spike 13: Angelus 14: Dru
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No big surprises here for me, either... -- OnM, 19:49:50 09/29/01 Sat

# 1 Dawn # 2 Xander # 3 Giles # 4 Willow # 5 Buffy # 6 Oz # 7 Anya # 8 Tara # 9 Angelus # 10 Cordelia # 11 Faith # 12 Angel # 13 Dru # 14 Spike

Sorry, Faith! I luv ya, but I don't wanna be ya!

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm 100% Aquinas, and 97% Giles. -- JoRus, 13:29:46 09/30/01 Sun

I suppose that figures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Me too... -- Scout, 01:23:47 09/29/01 Sat

100% Sartre and I always come up as Dawn. The Sartre didn't surprise me that much, but Dawn did because I often find her annoying...

oh, wait.

I'd better go reflect on this for a while.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I'm 100% Sartre too . . . -- Marie, 01:32:33 10/02/01 Tue

..followed by Kant, but I've never read anything by any philosophers, so I have to admit the results didn't mean much to me. Going to have to start - can anyone recommend anything to start me off?

Then I tried the Buffyverse one, and came up 1)Anya, 2)Spike and 3)Faith - kinda worried about that!

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmm... -- Cactus Watcher, 21:28:24 09/28/01 Fri

I ran one of my fictional alien religions through the test and came up with Aquinas 100%. Can you really separate the Christian God from Aquinas or are these folks just pulling our leg? ;oD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmm... -- bible belt, 10:31:46 09/29/01 Sat

Secular Humanist here. Athiest/Agnostic came in third, which suprised me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Really? You might wanna change your nick... ;o) j/k -- Wisewoman, 11:05:39 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Right there with you WW! -- Kerri, 10:37:49 09/29/01 Sat

Same top two here! Aquinas surprised me a bit at first too, since I am not particually religious in the sense of organized religion. Thanks for the quiz, Sol. Very interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmm... -- bible belt, 10:48:33 09/29/01 Sat

My second one was Unitarian something or other. I considered joining the Unitarian church once, but then the commercials ended and Buffy came back on. BtVS is my religion right now I think. Do I need help?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- WW, 11:07:37 09/29/01 Sat

You're surrounded by people who worship at the Temple of Joss, twice a week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- bible belt, 11:38:35 09/29/01 Sat

That's very comforting to know. I'm glad I found you all.

I think I will change my nick though. It probably does give the wrong impression and puts people off, and then I'm not taken seriously, or taken at all. How do I change it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- Dedalus, 12:35:05 09/29/01 Sat

Well, your nickname is kinda funny then, at least in an ironic way. Besides, there are several Christians running out and about around here. Quite frankly, I've come to the conclusion that it is damn near impossible to grow up in the West and not be a Christian on SOME level ...

As for changing you name, just type in what you want. Like "I'm Not Bible Belt."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- I'm Not Bible Belt, 13:07:16 09/29/01 Sat

Thankyou! A very clever and simple solution. Of course, I didn't think of it.

Your right about growing up in the West. That name probably does reflect something about my psyche. Maybe I'll keep it, mayby I'm giving it too much thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- Dedalus, 13:20:20 09/29/01 Sat

LOL.

The West indeed.

I was standing around in Barnes and Noble one day, reading the journal of a Catholic monk.

In it, he said the only way to get rid of something, be it a religion or whatever, was to embrace it completely.

It made sense at the time. Of course, I was pretty sleepy at the time, so ..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- I'm not bible belt, 13:47:26 09/29/01 Sat

Interesting thought, I wouldn't want to get lost in it though, and start flying jets into tall buildings or get toasted in some compound in Texas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That probably wasn't your point though. -- bible belt, 14:47:02 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You may need help, but at least you've come to the right place... -- Shaglio, 12:13:42 10/01/01 Mon

"In it, he said the only way to get rid of something, be it a religion or whatever, was to embrace it completely."

So if I want to get rid of my girlfriend, I should just give her a bear hug? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe make it mock-Latin, like 'Non Biblicus Beltum'? -- OnM, 11:38:56 09/30/01 Sun

Or of course, in mock-Swedish, if you're a muppets fan. OK, maybe not...

Or if you're a Monty Python fan, maybe just 'Stop Groveling'.

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I get to worship 7 days a week....when I have control of the remote :) -- LadyStarlight, 14:19:27 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 100% Kant, and Dawn, Tara, Buffy -- Rahael, 18:32:18 09/29/01 Sat

Now what does the Kant thingy mean? I've hardly read anything about him in depth. Is this a good thing or bad?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Kant... -- Solitude1056, 19:49:29 09/29/01 Sat

The only thing I know about Kant is from taking a theology class way-back-when & ending up (somehow) in a debate with one of the grad students about Kant versus Barth, or maybe it was Muhlmann, or, uh, one of the other theologians. Anyway, Kant had some sort of argument about ultimate belief making things so, and my retaliating argument was that no matter how much I believe there's a five-dollar bill in my pocket, it doesn't change the reality that the only thing in my pocket is lint. Other than that, I dunno. Never really saw much reason to read Kant, anymore than I ever did to read Nietzsche, for that matter. I always figured it was enough that I could spell the damn name. (Strangely, I always misspell Elie Weisel's name. Or Elie Wiesel. Or whatever it is.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ultimate belief making things so.... hmmmmmmm -- Liq, 22:54:20 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kant... -- Rahael, 09:19:42 09/30/01 Sun

Thanks, that stimulated some dim stirrings in my brain of a long forgotten philosophy class!

Philosophy teacher insisted on pronouncing Kant with a certain emphasis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I came up with Spinoza. Interesting l'il quiz... -- OnM, 21:11:21 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Kant for me.... not sure I agree -- Liq, 21:30:34 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 100% Aquinas......who is that guy again?????:):):) -- Rufus, 22:20:03 09/28/01 Fri

Also 94% Aristotle, 92% Hume, 89% Mill, 89% Sartre, 80% Nietzsche, 78% Spinoza, 76% Bentham, 64% Epicureans, 64% Kant, 53% Hobbes, 53% Ockham, 53% Stoics, 50% Plato, 48% Cynics, 48% Rand, 46% Augustine, 42% Prescriptivism, 37% Noddings........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 100% Aquinas......who is that guy again?????:):):) -- Rattletrap, 05:44:19 09/29/01 Sat

Ditto for me: 100% Aquinas, 96% Augustine, 80% Mill (always a personal favorite of mine).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 100% Rand! -- Deeva, 00:08:45 09/29/01 Sat

I'm not sure I agree with the results but it's certainly interesting. I'm only vaguely aware of the life and times of Ayn Rand. If it's anything that I think it is, then "Woo-boy!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> According to the Scooby test I'm also Buffy. Ayn Rand & Buffy. What a combo. -- Deeva, 21:47:03 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 100% Bentham, 98% Kant, 97% Mill. -- Darrick, 05:49:17 09/29/01 Sat

I'm a little suprised about Bentham actually, it'd be interesting to see how the quiz was developed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 100% Bentham -- mundusmundi, 06:40:09 09/29/01 Sat

Just nipping Mill at 98%, followed by 81% Epicureans, 74% Sartre, 72% OnM, oh wait....

As for the character test, it appears that I'm, erm, Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 100% Sartre, 88% Kant, 80% Spinoza.... -- LadyStarlight, 08:22:53 09/29/01 Sat

...guess I've got some research ahead of me. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Tried the Buffy thing -- LadyStarlight, 08:33:16 09/29/01 Sat

and came up Willow #1, Dawn #2, Angel #3. Go figure!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ah-hah, a closet existentialist... next thing you know, she'll be muttering about viscosity. - - Solitude1056, 09:25:59 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ah-hah, a closet existentialist... next thing you know, she'll be muttering about viscosity. -- LadyStarlight, 11:40:07 09/29/01 Sat

And you're going to make me research that, aren't you? Geesh, I didn't think this hard in library school!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Uhhh-- does that have anything to do with Oil being the Lifeblood of your car??? -- OnM, 19:55:11 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ok, now that someone's explained this thing called "morality"... -- Solitude1056, 08:58:48 09/29/01 Sat

A college classmate who majored in history & philosophy is the one who sent me the test - I wrote her back in exasperation. She explained. I retook the test. Now I'm 100% Sartre, 99% Aristotle, and 95% Rand. Okay. That makes a lot more sense! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> So what we're saying is "Existential Scoobies" was actually a stroke of genius! -- Wisewoman, 11:09:33 09/29/01 Sat

What with the preponderance of Sartre, so far...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thank you, thank you very much -- Dedalus, 12:39:17 09/29/01 Sat

Okay, I came up with 100% Sartre, followed by Nietzsche, Stoics, and Augustine.

I guess that morality is worthless one really put me over the top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Could someone explain to me what Sartre's about? Not too familiar with him. -- VampRiley, 21:12:00 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sartre's about picking "none of the above" more often than not -- Masquerade, 07:37:27 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sartre (my take) -- Masq, 07:40:23 09/30/01 Sun

http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/philos.html#ex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 100%Sartre, 91%Hume -- bible belt, 09:57:26 09/29/01 Sat

Did the character thing: Angel, Oz, Zander, Dawn, in that order. I was hoping for Zander to be first, I really like him. He can shim a window.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fun, fun while we wait for another new episode (OT) -- JM, 11:06:25 09/29/01 Sat

Super neat. 100% Aquinas, which was nice. Only 49% Augustine, too bad, kind of like him too. I guess admire more than incorporate, apparently.

WTH, Anya? Love her but I'm not, well, maybe, now I think about it . . .

This thread must be preserved. I'm going to be referring to it whenever I read anyone's post from now on. Really gives context to people's responses. Plus, more fun the Meyers-Briggs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Maybe we need a category in "Meet the Posters" for test results? -- WW, 11:13:24 09/29/01 Sat

I agree, we gotta keep track of this. Particularly useful for the argument ad hominum (it's been so long--is that the one where you attack the person, rather than the proposition?)--Anyway that's what I mean it'll be useful for, lol!!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Does anyone really want to stand by their results?? -- Masq a Sartrean?? I'm just undecided on these issues., 11:39:39 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Does anyone really want to stand by their results?? -- JM, 11:46:34 09/29/01 Sat

Probably not, just like MBTI should never be used for recruiting, etc., IMHO. However, I thought it was a really interesting thread because it also includes people's responses to their results. Agreed, no stereotyping or pre-judging allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No (53% nietchzie is way to low) -- vampire hunter D, 12:47:19 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps the "Roman Emperor" quiz would be more accurate -- mundusmundi, history geek, 15:46:18 09/29/01 Sat

I scored Q. Horatius Flaccus as #1 (I'm afraid to ask who the hell that is), fortunately followed by everybody's favorite Pax Romana "Good Emperor," Marcus Aurelius. Great questions, such as "Do you think conquest is a legitimate means to civilize a people?" and "I'm insane and I love it!" It's in the History section.

On "Historical Personalities" in general, Gandhi and Hitler were my #1 and #2 respectively. Such fine lines between those two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nero . . . -- d'Herblay, 16:07:23 09/29/01 Sat

. . with Catullus at #2. A whole semester spent translating Cicero and I can't remember what Catullus actually did. (The quiz is here.)

On the first historical figures quiz I came up with: 1) Lenin, 2) Hitler, 3) Augustus, 4) Jesus, 5) Muhammed, 6) Lincoln, 7) Ghandi (sic). OK. I'm starting to worry about myself now. But on the other historical figures quiz, Gandhi came up second, behind Joseph Smith (!?!), spelled correctly and well ahead of Hitler at #18. Of course, this quiz just comes right out and asks, "Did you kill many millions due to personal suspicions?" and "Do you seek for the total domination of your race over all others?" It's easier for me to recognize the early warning signs of genocidal intent with questions like that.

I think it's time for some one to construct one of these so each of us can see what ATPoBtVS poster we're most like. Then I could take it and find out that I'm much more like, say, "rufus," than I am like "d'Herblay."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hadrianus...huh? -- WW, 17:51:49 09/29/01 Sat

Okay, is he, like, the guy with the Wall? He was followed by Paulus, and Marcus Aurelius.

First history test: Jesus Christ (oh, puhleeese!), followed by Ghandi[sic] and Abraham Lincoln.

Second history test: Gandhi, Moses, Joseph Smith (gotta figure out who this Smith guy is...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Joseph Smith: founder of Mormonism -- d'Herblay, 20:21:10 09/29/01 Sat

Now doesn't that bring a smile to your face?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> May I just say...AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHH! -- WW, 21:05:11 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nero . . . -- Rufus, 18:56:53 09/29/01 Sat

And the problem with that is?....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Blimey! -- Marie, 02:03:39 10/02/01 Tue

I don't know what to make of these quizzes! First, I came up Anya, Spike and Faith, now I came up Lenin, Christ and Hitler, and in the other one, Joseph Smith, Gandhi and Moses!!!

Help!

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think the results reveal more about the quiz than they do about you -- d'Herblay, 11:01:18 10/02/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> and Quintus Horatius Flaccus . . . -- d'Herblay, 16:22:47 09/29/01 Sat

. . is better known as the poet Horace. Another semester spent translating him and all I remember is "carpe diem."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> No, no, d'Herb...that was Robin Williams, I'm sure... -- WW, 17:54:51 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> If only I knew who these dead guys are (were?) ... -- Solitude1056, 16:26:29 09/29/01 Sat

# 1 Hadrianus # 2 Q. Horatius Flaccus # 3 Catullus # 4 Iulius Caesar # 5 Marcus Aurelius

HUNH?

I think that second one is made-up. Sounds like someone from a bad Victorian gothic pulp fiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Know what you mean -- VampRiley, 21:33:20 09/29/01 Sat

For the first historical quiz:

# 1 Abraham Lincoln # 2 Jesus Christ # 3 Muhammed # 4 V.I. Lenin # 5 Adolph Hitler # 6 Augustus Caesar # 7 Mohandas K. Ghandi

For the second:

# 1 Mohandas Gandhi # 2 Moses # 3 George Washington # 4 Joseph Smith # 5 Julius Caesar

And for the Roman Emporer quiz:

# 1 Catullus # 2 Paulus # 3 Q. Horatius Flaccus # 4 Hadrianus # 5 The Gracchi

Okay. The first two quizes, I know them. But the last one...Who are these people?

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Know what you mean -- Brian, 04:41:05 09/30/01 Sun

# 1 Catullus - Helped save Rome from barbarian invasion # 2 Paulus - a Roman jurist # 3 Q. Horatius Flaccus -a Roman general murdered by his own troops # 4 Hadrianus - a Roman emperor # 5 The Gracchi - Tiberious and Gaius Gracchus, brothers who attempted land and economic reforms in Rome. Opposed by many of the Senate, they were destroyed by intrigue and betrayal, However, many of Gaius' laws remained. I wrote a play about these brothers back in college. They were cool guys! For Romans.

And it was a thrill to pull out my books from college to dig up this information. Ah, sweet library.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- VampRiley, 07:31:49 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps the "Roman Emperor" quiz would be more accurate -- LadyStarlight, 17:46:45 09/29/01 Sat

Roman Generals quiz #1 Marcus Aurelius #2 Plotinus #3 Lucretius

Historical Figures #1 Joseph Smith #2 Gandhi #3 Moses

So, the question is: Do I take over the world, or start a new religion? Hmm, decisions, decisions.

(for those of you who don't know, Joseph Smith founded Mormonism)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> So LS will convert everyone, or I'll cut off everyone's heads. -- Solitude1056, 18:27:36 09/29/01 Sat

# 1 King Henry VIII Tudor # 2 King Nebuchadnezzar II # 3 Alexander the Great # 4 Julius Caesar

So, how'd Julius Caesar get in there at #4, a second time on a completely different test? Hm. I'm sensing a pattern...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. -- Solitude1056, 18:31:42 09/29/01 Sat

No more tests for me! I took the historical figures test (not the same as the other one I took just a few minutes ago) ... and this one says:

# 1 Jesus Christ

Okay, no more tests for me! That was too frightening. I'm gonna go put on my leather pants now & listen to overly loud music while reassuring myself that I really did test #1 on Faith only two hours ago.

(Well, it's either this or go read spoilers.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too, Sol... -- WW, 18:47:39 09/29/01 Sat

I mean, what is that all about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm. Answering "No Opinion" to all questions = Abe Lincoln -- mm, 18:59:26 09/29/01 Sat

Answering "Yes" arbitrarily to all questions also equals Honest Abe. Answering "No," however, including to the question "Is religion/spirituality important to you?" leaves you with Jesus Christ. Too much irony in my diet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm -- Rufus, 19:01:39 09/29/01 Sat

1: Abraham Lincoln 2: Jesus Christ 3: Muhammed 4: V.I. Lenin 5: Adolph Hitler 6: Augustus Caesar 7: Mohandas K Ghandi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> #1 Jesus Christ. Chortling. Then, ROFL -- VampRiley, 21:36:38 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Does anyone really want to stand by their results?? -- Malandanza, 22:43:29 09/30/01 Sun

S-O-R-T of...

1. Kant (100%) Click here for info 2. Aquinas (81%) Click here for info 3. Prescriptivism (81%) Click here for info 4. Bentham (73%) Click here for info 5. Mill (69%) Click here for info 6. Augustine (63%) Click here for info 7. Spinoza (63%) Click here for info 8. Stoics (62%) Click here for info 9. Plato (53%) Click here for info 10. Aristotle (51%) Click here for info 11. Ockham (50%) Click here for info 12. Rand (50%) Click here for info 13. Cynics (41%) Click here for info 14. Sartre (41%) Click here for info 15. Noddings (40%) Click here for info 16. Hume (34%) Click here for info 17. Nietzsche (30%) Click here for info 18. Epicureans (27%) Click here for info 19. Hobbes (10%) Click here for info

I expected Aquinas and Augustine to be high (I tend to see things as moral absolutes)-- even without a belief in God and with the belief that humans are inherently good. I was hoping Sartre would be a bit higher... but he ended up about where I expected him to be.

I have to look up Hobbes now and see why he is so antithetical to my personal philosophy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Question #13 -- Masq, 11:36:55 09/29/01 Sat

(13) To what extent did a poorly-worded inexplicable question skew your results away from your true philosophical leanings?

o A lot o Most of the time o Some of the time o Hardly ever o Just once and it pissed me off o Sartre who?

Masq,

1. Sartre (100%) Click here for info 2. Aquinas (94%) Click here for info 3. Augustine (81%) Click here for info 4. Mill (75%) Click here for info 5. Plato (69%) Click here for info 6. Aristotle (65%) Click here for info 7. Noddings (63%) Click here for info 8. Bentham (61%) Click here for info 9. Stoics (61%) Click here for info 10. Spinoza (60%) Click here for info 11. Rand (59%) Click here for info 12. Kant (45%) Click here for info 13. Hume (38%) Click here for info 14. Epicureans (30%) Click here for info 15. Nietzsche (27%) Click here for info 16. Ockham (22%) Click here for info 17. Cynics (15%) Click here for info 18. Hobbes (15%) Click here for info 19. Prescriptivism (15%) Click here for info
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question #13 -- bible belt, 12:08:44 09/29/01 Sat

Answere to #13: Sartre Who?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who the hell is Rand? -- vampire hunter D, 12:32:19 09/29/01 Sat

I got a 100% Rand, but only a 53% Nietzie. I don't even know who Rand is or what he said. Meanwhile, I believe in Nietzie almost as much as Tyr Anasazi on Andromeda (and yet i still can't spell Nietzie right.). This proves this test means nothing

Actually, I didn't like the choices given in any category. Whoever made this up was too narrow in their thinking on this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Who the hell is Rand? -- Dedalus, 12:42:34 09/29/01 Sat

"Whoever made this up was too narrow in their thinking on this."

Agreed. I didn't like most of the choices, either. I think Chuang Tzu has rendered me incompatible with western philosophy ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Who the hell is Rand? -- bible belt, 13:13:43 09/29/01 Sat

Agreed...was the I Ching even in there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Uh, Ayn Rand was a woman. She was married, had a love square going on... -- Deeva, 13:22:52 09/30/01 Sun

with another couple, with her husband involved also. She was very into the principle of pleasing oneself first, then others secondly. But that's just a teeny tiny bit of her that I heard of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Aquinas, Giles and Gunn. Go Figure. ;) -- Humanitas, 12:32:44 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Jesus, Lenin and Hitler?!? -- Rahael, 18:41:33 09/29/01 Sat

Ok, that test was definitely off. Surely to measure between such men (hmm, where were the women?) one would need to ask questions also on actual methods of governance, as well as attitudes taken to oppressive regimes, and economic and political theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fun, fun while we wait for another new episode (OT) -- Shaglio, 10:51:06 10/01/01 Mon

I came up 100% Kant and 90% Sartre - which means absolutely nothing to me since I know doodily squat about philosophy. So why do I come here? To learn from others.

I came up 1) Willow 2) Tara 3) Xander which means maybe I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Who knows? I hope I didn't offend any lesbians by that :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fun, fun while we wait for another new episode (OT) -- Ryuei, 11:57:04 10/01/01 Mon

100% Aquinas for me. I'm not too surprised. I've always admitted to being a Vatican II Buddhist - and the theology of Karl Rahner which formed the basis of the theology of Vatican II has been called Transcendental Thomism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fun, fun while we wait for another new episode (OT) -- dream of the consortium, 11:21:08 10/02/01 Tue

100% Aquinas, not surprising. Ten years of Catholic education does not uproot easily. Dawn, strangely, because I found her really irritating. I am a youngest sister, though... Willow and Tara follow, which makes more sense. I think I would like to be a Tara, but am much more a Willow. Glad my computer is back up before the premiere.
Classic Movie of the Week - September 28th 2001 -- OnM, 20:31:04 09/28/01 Fri

*******

It seems like all my friends are dead. (long pause) When I'm dead, will you be sad?

I couldn't live without you.

You couldn't?

No.

We better go together, then.

How should we do it?

We could... jump off a building. (pause) Throw ourselves under a subway. (pause) O.D. (long pause) If I asked you to kill me, would you?

What-- What would I do? (pause) I couldn't live without you.

You'd kill yourself too, then?

Yeah. (pause) Yeah.

*******

But I don't know / What love is Is there something else / Giving me the chills But if my hands / Are the color of blood Then I can tell ya / Sure I can tell ya Love kills / Love kills

............... Joe Strummer

*******

Ahh, sweet romance.

No, scratch that. It isn't about romance, or love, for as the great Harlan Ellison once so profoundly commented, 'Love ain't nothin' but sex misspelled'.

No, scratch that too. Too damn depressing. If all we are to be are animals in heat, blind procreative urges driven by eons-old DNA, then there is no real meaning in any of our art. Because all true art, at it's core, is driven by passion, and passion ain't nothin' but lust misspelled. Therefore, it logically follows that lust must have a value beyond the mere reproduction of the species, or else why would God be so cruel as to put us in heat from adolescence until death?

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

Hold on, I'm thinking. It'll come to me any moment now. Just because every single other species of female animal on the planet has a fixed cycle of estrus, and males only respond sexually when they detect a female in heat, and still manage to populate adequately, sometimes even profusely, there must be a reason why we humans should need to be turned on all the freakin' time to get the job done.

Ah!! That's it! Aliens, that's the ticket. Many thousands of years ago, they stopped by our little green and blue and white jewel of a planet, and liked it so much they decided to stay for awhile. While they were here, they did some studies on the local flora and fauna, and noticed these odd creatures that looked something like chimpanzees, but who had less hair and the ability to make tools and possessed some rudimentary language skills.

"How quaint!", they thought. These odd creatures have intellectual potential, they just lack something to make it big time, lessee, what is it... aha! They need passion! We'll simply alter their DNA to make them want to have sex all the time instead of just annually, then their minds will have to adapt to this constant additional stimuli by becoming more inventive about sex to keep it from getting boring, which of course it wasn't when they only did it once a year. This new mental adroitness will lead to further inventiveness, and ultimately to passion, from which all art and commerce springs forth. Damn, we're good!! Have to see if we can do this on any other worlds...

So, off they went, and here we are, and we still don't really understand love. Thus we invent God, who... oh, never mind.

The camera fades almost instantly up from black to show a man, a very young one, likely early 20's, presented in profile and facing rightwards. The room he is in is poorly lit, there is dark shadow on the right side of his face, and he is facing into dimmer light that rapidly increases into blackness. He seems disconnected, perhaps even catatonic. Another man, older, heavyset, crosses in front of him and then sits down to the side.

"Did you call 9-1-1?", he asks, waits for a response, which does not come, the younger man does not seem to hear him. The older man repeats the question several more times, but to no avail. He stands up, and soon reveals that he is in the midst of a crime scene, there are police all around, and then we see a body bag being carried from the room on a stretcher. The police lift the young man to his feet, and take him from the room, out through the hallway and into the street where throngs of people await-- press, bystanders, the curious. He is unceremoniously ushered into the back seat of a waiting police car, which then drives off. The young man's name is Sid Vicious, and the body that was just carried from the building was that of his lover, Nancy Spungen, and thus starts the sad but involving story of their ill-fated-- well, romance is assuredly not the right word. There probably aren't any words that really accurately describe what these two people were to one another, although passionate, co-dependent, ardent, self-involved, neurotic, mutually self-deceiving, ultimately self-destructive all fit the bill to significant extent. You will notice that the word 'self' comes up more than once.

In this current week's (season premiere) Angel episode, we were introduced to yet another variant on the vampires-in-love theme, and left to ponder the by now obvious fact that when it come to matters of the heart, having one that no longer beats seems to make no difference in just how screwed up and obsessive one can be. James and Elizabeth had what appears to be a love so strong that it lasted for centuries. Elizabeth died while still wearing a locket given to her by James in 1767; James, upon learning of her demise, sets out to join her in eternity, while also wreaking as much emotional damage as possible on her destroyer as well.

His plan to do so takes a twist when he finds out that the woman Angel loves is already dead. James is incapable of understanding how Angel can want to go on 'living' without his true love, and so accuses him of never really being in love at all, supporting his argument by recalling Angel's physically passionate but emotionally detached relationship with Darla. Before turning to dust, he boldly confronts Angel with the statement that 'I have lived, where you have just existed' all these numbers of years.

Is this true? Does Angel's seeming emotional distance from the death of Buffy a sign of disconnection, or of maturity? The answer lies in the term 'seeming'. We really do not know what Angel is thinking, but through the medium of Cordelia, who increasingly has become a sister figure to the Brooding One, we get a healthy clue-- Angel has realized that the cause Buffy served has become his cause also, and to collapse in despair, or further, take his own life to sooner join her spirit, would be selfish and pointless. Life goes on, there is grief, then there is acceptance, and the world has returned to some semblence of balance again.

Balance is not something present in the world according to Alex Cox's film *Sid and Nancy*, this week's Classic Movie pick. Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen, portrayed with incredible acting finesse by Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb respectively, are two of the most unsympathetic 'ordinary' characters in the history of cinema. He is the marginally competent bassist for the famous punk group The Sex Pistols, she is a junkie wandering about England, hooking up with whatever band will give her food, sex and dope. There really shouldn't even be a story here at all, since the film pulls no punches and gives no quarter in showing the results of the characters pathetic lifestyle.

What is incredible is that by the time the movie concludes, which it does with one of at least two 'perfect moments of cinema' that grace the screen during the 1 hour and 51 minutes that it plays out before us, we in the audience somehow manage to see through the thick wall of denial and irresponsibility that both Sid and Nancy wear like some bizarre badge of honor, to the flickering core of humanity underneath. Would Sid Vicious be alive today if he never met Nancy Spungen, or vice versa? It seems very doubtful, neither individual appears to have been mentally equipped with the tools needed to rise above their own inherent weaknesses. Death may have very well been inevitable, just a question of time or place. The question left to us by the filmmakers, then, is the same one James put to Angel-- given the 'inevitability' engendered by our being whomever we naturally are, do we live, or do we merely exist?

As with the question I started the column with this week, involving the origins of our sex drive and the passions both base and beatific that spring forth from it, there really is no one right answer. For how else can there be such existential beauty in the image of two young lovers, standing silhouetted in a filthy alleyway, kissing one another, lost in the moment, while trash literally rains down around them?

Probably why the aliens never came back.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

Punk technical:

*Sid and Nancy* is available on DVD, in fact I believe that there are two versions available-- a basic disc with just the movie and a deluxe Criterion Collection edition with lots of extra goodies. The basic disc was the review copy, so no specific info is available on the other edition. The basic disc does have the theatrical trailer, and is double sided, with the original widescreen theatrical version on the one side and the cropped, pan'n'scan version on the other. The widescreen side is enhanced for 16x9 televisions (anamorphic).

The movie was released in 1986, running time is 1 hour and 51 minutes. Sound is standard Dolby surround. The screenplay was by Alex Cox and Abbe Wool. Director of photography was Roger Deakins, editing by David Martin.

Cast overview:

Gary Oldman .... Sid Vicious
Chloe Webb .... Nancy Spungen
David Hayman .... Malcolm (McLaren)
Debby Bishop .... Phoebe
Andrew Schofield .... John (Johnny Rotten)
Xander Berkeley .... Bowery Snax
Perry Benson .... Paul
Tony London .... Steve
Sandy Baron .... Hotelier (USA)
Sy Richardson .... Methadone Caseworker
Edward Tudor-Pole .... Hotelier (UK)
Biff Yeager .... Detective
Courtney Love .... Gretchen
Rusty Blitz .... Reporter
John Spaceley .... Chelsea Resident

*******

Miscellaneous and whatnot:

Thought that I'd take a little time on occasion-- maybe once a month-- to explain some of the technical terms I have used in this and in past columns, so that if you happen to be at a really boring party, and need an excuse to get ejected, you can just start talking about this stuff. (Works for me every time!) Course here, since it's written down, you can also just skip it if you like. Democracy and freedom in action!

This month: What's with the widescreen stuff?

This is a good week to talk a little about this subject, since this year we are going to have *Angel* presented in a widescreen format. Whether Buffy will be as well is unknown at this point, but there are two more shows that for sure will join it this season. One is the new Star Trek 'prequel', *Enterprise*, and the other is a show that actually started widescreen showings last February, NBC's perennial doctor-drama, *ER*.

Our standard television system has been with us for over 50 years at this point, an absolutely incredible length of time for one technology to be utilized without any fundamental changes in how it works at a core level. Some of the confusion that exists concerning the newer digital standard (ATSC, vs. the old NTSC system) occurs because unlike the old technology, where there was only one technical system in use to produce TV picture and sound, the new digital system actually encompasses as many as 18 different formats! Three of these 18 formats are classed as 'high definition', the remainder are either 'standard' or 'improved' definition.

The use of widescreen formatting is not dependant on a level of picture resolution-- you do not need to be 'hi-def' to have widescreen on your TV. (It also does not require that the system be digital-- laserdiscs, the predecessor to DVDs, were doing widescreen video well over 10 years ago, and laserdiscs were an analog medium.) What we have seen so far on the shows mentioned above is what is generally referred to as 'letterboxing', where the wider format is achieved by bracketing the picture by black bars at the top and bottom. When watching a letterboxed movie on TV, some people are under the assumption that the original picture filled the screen, and that the black bars have removed parts of the picture that should be there. This is completely untrue, and in fact, it is the other way around-- the vast majority of movies have been made in a format much wider than the proportions of a normal TV screen, and when the movie image is filling the TV screen, it is because the sides of the picture have been cut off!

This technique of cropping or even re-editing the film to 'fit' a TV screen is commonly referred to as 'pan and scan', and is considered by movie lovers to be somewhere between moderately annoying and abjectly evil in that it alters the visual look of the film from the original intent of the cinematographer and director. Granted, not every film made is equivalent to a Van Gogh or a Matisse, but can you imagine a museum taking one of these artworks and carving 1/3 of it away because they only have frames in a certain size?

So much for the background-- now to the specifics. Movies (or TV shows) can be made in a variety of screen formats, what are referred to as aspect ratios. Aspect ratio is simply the proportions of the image, expressed as either whole numbers, or a decimal fraction. For example, our 'normal' TV screens are made in a ratio of 4 units wide by 3 units high. Expressed in decimal form, this is 1.33:1. To present anything wider than this ratio on such a TV, and still preserve the original appearance, you must either make the physical screen wider (not too practical!), or add the black bars at the top and bottom.

Other common theatrical aspect ratios are 1.66:1 (very popular in Europe), 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The standard for the high-definition TV system is 1.78:1, which expressed in whole numbers comes out to 16x9. Note that this ratio is extremely close to the 1.85:1 theatrical ratio, and so many films will now transfer directly to these newer displays virtually without alteration.

Angel, Enterprise, ER, and most likely all other current TV programming done in widescreen will utilize the 16x9 ratio-- you may have noticed that the width of the black bars is exactly the same for all three programs. People who are fortunate enough to own an actual widescreen TV-- usually an HDTV-- can press a button that will electronically zoom these images to fill their 16x9 shaped screen, eliminating the black bars entirely, without losing any picture information.

I'll close this out by noting that there are some folks who dislike this format, usually because they have TV screens 27" or smaller, and the letterboxed image looks too small to them. All I can say is take heart-- TV's keep getting both larger and cheaper all the time, and there are a steadily increasing number of 16x9 sets appearing in smaller screen sizes if you aren't possessed of a very roomy living room. Once this format becomes common, and technology adapts, you will wonder how you ever put up with that boxy, squarish image for so long.

*******

So, that about wraps things up. Time to stick a fork in it, and leave you with...

The Question of the Week:

Were you ever friends with anyone who was engaged in a very self-destructive relationship, and if so, how did you handle it? Did you become involved or basically stay out of the way? If you became involved, did you succeed in making things any better for the friend or their companion, or did your actions backfire?

Post 'em if you got 'em!

*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - September 28th 2001 -- Wiccagrrl, 11:11:11 09/29/01 Sat

Great review. Been a while since I've seen this one- gonna have to go back and rewatch it.

I'm sure many people here are aware (but I thought I'd bring it up, just in case) that Joss and Co. have said repeatedly that Spike and Dru were intended to be a sort of vampire "Sid and Nancy"-type couple. (I'm guessing they meant in the obsessive, reckless, self-destructive sense)The show has even occasionally put in little in-jokes regarding this- Spike rocking out to "My Way" (which was in the movie) and Harm's burning Spike's stuff, including a Sex Pistols CD.

Clearly, both characters grew way past that initial first image- and unlike Sid and Nancy have both discovered life past this relationship. I'm curious- how closely does the parallel work? Spike and Dru were clearly obsessive and reckless. Was it a self-destructive relationship?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks! As to Spike and Dru... -- OnM, 19:38:55 09/29/01 Sat

..I would say no to the self-destructive part. Dru may be mad, but she also is far more intelligent than Nancy apparently was, and her destructive urges were more directed at humans than at herself. Spike? He's certainly very 'punk', but he is extremely focussed compared to Sid, at least going by the movie.

The major comparison I was drawing (Malandanza noted it too, in a post of his earlier this week) was the degree of obsessiveness involved with Sid and Nancy, James and Elizabeth, Spike and Dru and later Spike and Buffy.

I wonder how many times Elizabeth pulled that little trick of asking the one lover if they'd die for the other?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not much of a choice, is it? -- Humanitas, 07:38:38 09/30/01 Sun

That reminds me of a sixteenth century duelist (can't remember the name at the moment) who used to tell his opponents, once he had them at his mercy, that he would spare their lives if they would renounce God. Then, when they did, he'd kill them anyway. It seems he got off on sending people straight to Hell. Scary, huh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just found out about this and thought I'd pass it along... -- OnM, 21:10:09 09/29/01 Sat

*The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension* will be released on DVD in early January 2002, and is supposed to be loaded with goodies and extras, including an anamorphic widescreen presentation and remastered soundtrack. Yee-hahhh!

Buffy and Buckaroo in one month! Too good to be true, somebody's gonna screw something up...

I'll pretend that they won't though. (~sings~) Don't worry - be happy...

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buckaroo??????? -- Rufus, 22:04:38 09/29/01 Sat

I loved that show.......still waiting to get a DVD player though.....maybe Santa will be kind to me...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just found out about this and thought I'd pass it along... -- Andy, 04:27:05 09/30/01 Sun

Not only that, the Mad Max special edition is also coming out in January. First time ever that the original Australian soundtrack will be heard in the US. Woohoo! :)

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> and do you remember who had a rockin' part in that one? -- Liq, 03:42:14 10/01/01 Mon

Joel Grey!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Really good link that Sol 1056 passed along to me re: Widescreen and Art -- OnM, 19:45:11 10/01/01 Mon

For which I thank him most kindly, and pass it along in turn to ya'all. This also relates to the thread above where we were talking about general respect for art and altering shows like the syndicated BtVS and others.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/09/11/ebert_widescreen/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great Article! Thanks to both of you. -- Humanitas, 15:23:43 10/02/01 Tue

Understanding -- Hooker Vamp, 21:00:27 09/28/01 Fri

Imagine you are a 4-year-old girl. On Sept. 11, you kiss your daddy goodbye in the morning and wave as he leaves for work. That evening you see your mother crying and desperately watching television. You wait for daddy to come home as he always does. Except this night, and every night thereafter, he does not come home.

Adults say many things to you but you really don't understand what happened to your daddy. You want to understand, but you can't. So you lose yourself in a world of play - the only escape little kids have when tragedy taps them on the shoulder.

That is what the murderous attack on America was about - that 4-year-old girl and the thousands of other little kids in her situation. Those children can't possibly understand the evil that altered their lives forever. And we should protect them from that evil. All Americans should want the evil stamped out forever.

But we all don't. Some of us want to understand the terrorists who attacked us. At California State University a professor was quoted as saying: "We should try to understand why there are people in the world that hate the United States." The attacks, the professor said, were an assault on the forces of "globalization."

That kind of foolish thinking is creeping into the national discourse now that the shock of the attacks is wearing off. But like the 4-year-old girl, I don't understand the point. Who cares why the terrorists did what they did? Who cares why some people hate America? It is simply not important to explore the motives of brutal killers unless you're doing a psychology thesis or something similar.

Should I try to understand why Jeffrey Dahmer slaughtered people? Why Hitler hated the Jews? Why Mao murdered millions in China? Am I supposed to waste my time trying to ascertain the motives of monsters?

That would be a colossal mistake. Do you think General George Patton tried to understand the Germans he captured? No, he killed or imprisoned them without a second thought. He did that because they were fighting for a brutal regime. The general could not have cared less that Germany got hosed in the peace agreement after World War I.

America must now reject and scorn the voices of the appeasers and excusers. We owe the terrorists nothing but death and destruction. They have forfeited any kind of due process or consideration by attacking innocent civilians in order to please their god, who approves of mass murder.

The federal government of the United States is in place to protect the citizenry. That is its primary function. The feds let us down by failing to take national security seriously enough. Now our government must act aggressively to punish those who attacked us and discourage the maniacs who would do it again. Understanding the terrorists is only necessary in order to catch them. You can't persuade evil. You can't reason with fanatics.

I get frustrated with Americans who see the world through their own selfish prism. The Holocaust would not have happened if the nations of Europe had recognized the evil dripping from Hitler's every pore. But they wanted to understand the Third Reich, to negotiate with it in the hope of attaining peace.

It is no different today. There is an incredible evil in this world and it is not capitalism or a foreign policy that tilts toward Israel or a failure to recognize global warming. No this evil kills women and children in the name of God and rejects all humane behavior. This evil is easily understood if one looks at the face of the 4-year-old girl waiting for her father to finally come home. And that's the kind of understanding America needs right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Trollbot Alert! Attack, attack... -- WW, 21:05:44 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm tired, mommy, I don't wanna attack. Do I hafta? Can't I do it tomorrow? -- OnM, 21:15:27 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'd rather go for "Masq, delete, delete," myself. But whatever. -- Solitude1056, 21:16:37 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'll do it for you Sol. - Masq, delete, delete, delete. - Please -- Liq, 21:22:04 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> So am I deleting or not? -- Masq, Masq, Masq, 11:17:17 09/29/01 Sat

I don't mind deleting boring trolls, but once others start taking the thread in their own merry direction, I like to watch!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Depends. Are we dealing with merely trolls or troll-gods? -- mundus and his magic hammer, 13:28:44 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> So far, seems like a mere troll to me. Not even a hammer. -- Masq, 14:30:10 09/29/01 Sat

I'm not even put off by the various odors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So what you are saying is that this isn't even a Troll God.....pffffft!!!!! -- Rufus, 17:06:08 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Visions of mediocre 60's folk-rock covers of "if I had a hammer" ... in eight-part harmony. -- Solitude1056, 14:39:43 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> eight-part harmony? Anthony? Where are you-u-u-u-u? -- Liq, 15:24:58 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about Trollbot ... -- Dedalus, 09:17:38 09/29/01 Sat

Um, is Trollbot suppose to be all lovely dovey to these trolls? Perhaps he/she/it needs a reprogramming or something. You know. Download some Trollbot kung-fu that can be used to quickly and effectively dispatch trolls. What do you guys think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about Trollbot ... -- JM, 09:57:36 09/29/01 Sat

Is she programmed to growl? The aggressive are often impressive by an aggressive display. In addition, flower dress plus curled lip is a combo that should send anyone running screaming away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Trollbot: Love is her/his Gift... -- WW, 11:04:15 09/29/01 Sat

Trollbot destroys 'em with love! They can't take it...those who thrive on discord flee in terror before it...lol!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Donno, but I put "Trollbot" in the FAQ-ctionary -- Masq, 11:23:01 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: LOL! -- Dedalus, 11:57:09 09/29/01 Sat

The Goddess and Her Gift - An Analysis of the Fifth Season - by Dedalus -- Liquidram, 21:19:57 09/28/01 Fri

Dedalus has gotten his Season 5 Analysis Essay - The Goddess and Her Gift completed for us just in time before Season 6 kicks off on Tuesday. I highly recommend you take some time to read this incredible essay!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Three WOWs! -- Drizzt, 22:18:05 09/28/01 Fri

I have a scale of how impressed I am by posts here.

-1= Yuck a Troll;( 0= minor question or comment 1= A good point 2= Oh that is neat! 3= WOW! 4= Two WOWs 5= Three WOWs 6= KABOOM!...this is Wisewomans term:-), and is technically off of my scale!

Dedalus you have been added to the ranks of my three WOW hiarchy:-)

age, OnM, Solitude, and Masq were allready Three WOWs for me

Loved your essay Dedalus:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thanks for the three wows ... now if I can only make it up to Kaboom ... -- Dedalus, 09:25:45 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Definate KABOOM in my oppinion! -- Kerri, 10:25:13 09/29/01 Sat

WOW! One big resounding "WOW"! Great essay once again, Dedalus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Definate KABOOM in my opinion! -- Dedalus, 12:00:17 09/29/01 Sat

Thanks for the Kaboom!

That'll probably do it for me for awhile. Unless the season premiere is so awesome I can't refrain from pulling something together on it.

Anyone notice just how many names I pulled into one essay? Slotkin, Campbell, Jung, Plato, Heraclitus, Zimmer, Abelard, Tillich, etc.

I think I'm going to go post that over at usenet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Definate KABOOM in my opinion! -- Lia, 16:49:59 09/30/01 Sun

Woaaaaaaah! That was really really really good! Woah!!

It fully filled my brain with Buffy goodness and ponderings in the way that usually only a brand spanking new episode can, which is pretty dang impressive.

Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful, can't wait for my copy of Regeneration through Violence to finally arrive.....:):):) -- Rufus, 22:34:55 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Goddess and Her Gift - An Analysis of the Fifth Season - by Dedalus -- Wisewoman, 22:57:13 09/28/01 Fri

Kudos, Dedalus. This essay brought up so many different ideas and issues for me that I'm at a loss as to what to address first!

I'm going to have to take a bit of time to re-read and digest it, but in the meantime:

"Buffy's story really begins with the Neolithic period, when for the first time the role of women in primitive human society began to take on divine dimensions. In the Near East, in particular, female figurines and pottery began decorating the earliest settlements, perhaps used as shrines or talismans which would aid in the growth of crops as well as ensuring successful child births. With the development of early agriculture, the concept of the goddess was eventually inspired. From this origin point erupted countless incarnations of female deity, ones that usually revolved around motherhood and fertility."

There is an absolutely wonderful reprint of a lengthy article from Current Anthropology (1996) by Leroy McDermott entitled "Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines" on the 'net. It's in several sections, but by far the most interesting is "Comparing Modern Bodies with Prehistoric Artifacts," and the photographs and diagrams it contains. The url for that section is:

http://cmsu2.cmsu.edu/~ldm4683/6.htm

This is O/T for Buffy, but your essay brought it to mind, and it is fascinating.

BTW, were we having an on-line conversation about a month ago concerning David Bohm, Deepak Chopra, et al, or was that someone else? (Forgive me, I'm getting old and I don't have the patience to sift through the archives!) If it was you, then I have some further comments that will make more sense once I know.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Goddess and Her Gift - An Analysis of the Fifth Season - by Dedalus -- Dedalus, 09:24:32 09/29/01 Sat

Yes, twas little old me.

Thanks for the comments. I'm glad the whole thing didn't topple over. I think it holds up relatively well, even for its length.

And we talked about Bohm, whom I like, and I was making fun of Deepak for being so New Agey and hokey. I too sometimes forget who I had what conversation with, so don't feel too bad.

I kept quoting Alan Watts, and I just gotta say - typing it out for you, I think I actually semi "got" what the Tao is about for like the first time .. ever. I like epiphanies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> David and Deepak and Alan, Oh My! -- WW, 11:00:51 09/29/01 Sat

Ah, good. Glad it was you. Add to Bohm and Chopra and Watts: Zimmer, Heraclitus, and Campbell, and you have another glimpse into Unity Consciousness or the "quantum soup of energy and information," the numinous ground of being:

Zimmer: ... ultimately, the Great Goddess "is the energy of the world, taking form in all things. All friendly and menacing facets are facets of her essence. What seems a duality in the individual god, is an infinite multiplicity in her total being." ...in the goddess religions of India, the female divine, unlike the masculine gods, is ultimately beyond pairs of opposites, and is in the end the field of time and space itself.

Heraclitus: He believed that the father of all things is this war [of opposites], but he also intuited that this surface dichotomy would eventually be consumed by an even stronger unity. This spirit he defined as "logos," and in it, "All shall become the One, and the One shall become All."

Campbell: "Her womb is the field of space, her heart the pulse of time, her life the cosmic dream of which each of our lives is a reflex..."

These quotes, which appear in different parts of your wonderful essay, are, I believe, referring to exactly the same concept that the other three call quantum metaphysics (Bohm), the quantum soup of energy and information (Chopra), and the Way (Watts). And I think perhaps the best of these descriptions is Tao, simply because it is singular; quantum metaphysics implies the existence of other quanta, and other metaphysics; energy and information are a natural duality; the unified ground of being is the Tao.

Duality is just one of the trickier and more interesting rules of the Great Game we're all playing...

Are you with me here, Ded, or am I babbling?

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Energy and Duality and Tao, Oh MY! -- Dedalus, 11:55:39 09/29/01 Sat

"Duality is just one of the trickier and more interesting rules of the Great Game we're all playing."

Wow. Great quote on your part. I really like that bit of phrasing.

As for the quotes you isolated, I'm not sure I even saw how well they fit together, but I get it. No babbling on your part, whatsoever. Or even if it is, it's the best kind of babbling. We all need more babbling in our lives.

I think what hit with the Tao, and the Tao as the philosophical Tao of Lao and Chuang, was the sudden realization that the Tao wasn't just ... well, the Force. A lot of Westerners seem to run with that kind of quasi-mystical interpretation ... "ooh, it's energy." Hence my problem with the "everything is energy" argument. Energy can only be recognized and defined when set against a gestalt that includes matter. Energy can only be known by virtue of non-energy. As Bohm said, subatomic particles exist as both particle and wave, but I finally realize why it would probably be a mistake to categorize the Tao as solely wave - because wave is only one part of the dance between itself and the particle world of matter! As for the Tao, the Tao is the dance. The Tao is the relationship between the two, not one pitted against the other. If it has an opposite, it's not the Tao. At least the Tao of heaven or Tien.

Relatively simple issue, but it took me about some odd four years of reading up on it and contemplating before it really hit me. My eastern philosophy professor in college was always talking about how the Tao - in its purest state anyway - wasn't mystical. Actually, while he was talking about it, my classmates and I were winking and nudging about the Tao and the Force. One of the more comical among us attempted to use the Tao to levitate a Coke can in that very class, lol. Anyway, the prof always suggested that the mystical part was really just the realization of that relationship.

And this of course nicely dovetails into Buddhism, and things like interdependence, and such. I like how it goes from particles/waves to people/people to society/society to binary star system/binary star system. And that's really, as Watts would say, "it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Now we're getting somewhere... -- WW, 12:56:31 09/29/01 Sat

I'm going to respond to the following portion of your post above: Hence my problem with the "everything is energy" argument. Energy can only be recognized and defined when set against a gestalt that includes matter. Energy can only be known by virtue of non-energy. As Bohm said, subatomic particles exist as both particle and wave, but I finally realize why it would probably be a mistake to categorize the Tao as solely wave - because wave is only one part of the dance between itself and the particle world of matter! As for the Tao, the Tao is the dance. The Tao is the relationship between the two, not one pitted against the other.

Okay, I hope I can be coherent enough so that this makes sense. That quote describes perfectly what I meant about the Tao, the Way, and it's non-dual nature. It is not "just energy," and it certainly is not matter. Energy and matter are essentially the same thing, in different forms. Energy and matter are a duality. Thinking outside the box, transcending that duality, is the concept of "information"--not the type of information that is currently all the rage in the Information Age, but an information that literally "informs," i.e. puts in form, or puts in formation. The information is what determines which part of the duality is manifested, matter or energy, nature or culture, self or other, and all the other dualities we see as composing our world. So while all that the information has to work on appears to us to be dual, in reality there is only the unity...well I hate to use Force or Source, under the circumstances, but that's the closest I can come in this analogy...of information.

So, yes, I do equate the Tao with the Force, or the Source, but I do not equate any of those things with energy and/or matter--all three terms totally transend and encompass any dualities.

Are you still with me, Ded? (lol) ;o)

No, no, wait, there's a better way to describe it and you used it yourself above: Tao/Information/Force/Source = The Dance. Oh, I love that! What we all need is better Dance instructors (lol)!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now we're getting somewhere... -- Dedalus, 13:16:58 09/29/01 Sat

We're getting major places. I like what Watts said. In the end, there are only two kinds of people in the world - The Wave People, and the Particle People. I am more partial to waves myself, but that's not our little enigmatic Tao.

Actually, the concept of the Dance is pretty heavily invoked in eastern circles, as I'm sure you know.

But I'm still with you (even though, in reality, there's nowhere to go).

BTW, I will post an article I did for SciFi Dimensions about the Tao and the Force. I'm about to be late for a dinner at the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ooops, I was babbling a bit... -- WW, 13:20:11 09/29/01 Sat

"...energy and information are a natural duality" should have been "energy and matter...," with information transcending them both.

Aaaaargh, I knew I wasn't quite awake yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ACK! My head just exploded! -- Humanitas, 13:36:24 09/29/01 Sat

First the KABOOM-age of Deadalus' Essay, and then piled on top of that even more KABOOM in the thread...

Eeew. Bits of my head are making it hard to see the screen. Now, where did I put that duct tape?

[wanders off for cranial repair]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ooops, I was babbling a bit... -- Rufus, 13:41:31 09/29/01 Sat

So you are saying that there is no such thing as nothing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well...yeah....pretty much. ;o) -- WW, 14:04:22 09/29/01 Sat

I shoulda paid more attention to "On Being and Nothingness" when I had the chance, lol!

Why is there something, rather than nothing? You got me. If nothingness exists then it must be outside of infinite space and time, which sounds like a conundrum to me.

If the universe had a beginning in time, as most physicists still believe, if it was the result of a singularity, a Big Bang, then presumably there was nothingness before the Big Bang...except whatever it was that caused the singularity...

Okay, so my brain is about to join Humanitas's and spew all over my screen!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well...yeah....pretty much. ;o) -- Rufus, 15:33:18 09/29/01 Sat

I usually make the most simple statements so I can understand what everyone is talking about......;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Tao of Buffy -- Dedalus, 08:31:16 09/30/01 Sun

Actually, doesn't there have to be non-being? Isn't being the friction between itself and non- being?

Okay, this is an interesting story, and it fits in nicely with what we were talking about. And no, I didn't make this up, because it's too wierd to make up. Anyway, on the news a few years ago, they ran this story about this black guy and a klansman. The two met at a demonstration or something, and somehow got to know one another. I mean, they actually patiently entertained dialogues, listening to what the other had to say. As odd as this may sound, before it was all over, the two became ... well ... friends. I mean, the white guy was still a card-carrying, white-robe wearing member of the Ku Klux Klan, and the black guy was still ... well, black. I'm not saying they ever had one another over for dinner or wound up going fishing together, but there was a mutual liking on both sides. I hadn't thought about that in years, but it just struck me. That was certainly the Tao in one of its finer expressions.

Ooh, btw, I mentioned Paul Tillich in my essay, and I was reading some more in his Systematic Theology about God as Actuality, and it was remarkably Taoistic. He even once defined God as "eternal process." Sounds like Lao Tzu. The ground of being produces polarity, but it is not at its root polar. It is very interesting, and quite out there for a Western theologian. Incidentally, his American protege, John Shelby Spong, maverick Episcopalian bishop, just wrote a book outlining a New Christianity for a New Age, and though I was just flipping through it, it had some very Tao-y statements in it.

As for my article on the Force and Tao, it should still be up -

http://scifidimensions.fanhosts.com/Jun01/forcetaobutterfly.htm

It's all about quantum physics too. Sounds right up WW's alley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awwww... :o( -- WW, 09:15:28 09/30/01 Sun

Might be just me, or my ISP, but I can't get into your article this morning, wait, I said that wrong, I mean I can't access on the Internet...I'm sure I'll be able to get into it, once I can get into it!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In the meantime... -- WW, 10:05:49 09/30/01 Sun

..ever run across the site "Myth, Metaphor, and the Gospel?" http://www.actus.org/index.html#op

Particularly section 4.9 (directly after the Tillich section) which compares the Tao to the Gospel?

The (brief) Tillich section is pretty good, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In the meantime... -- Dedalus, 14:50:10 10/01/01 Mon

No, I haven't, but thanks!

I'll check it out.

I'll also see what is up with that link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And, as an aside... -- Wisewoman, 14:12:34 09/29/01 Sat

Maybe what Whedon is trying to say is much more radical than love is what makes us whole. Maybe he is saying love is what makes us real.

Do you think maybe Joss read The Velveteen Rabbit as a child?

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> can only imagine Anya's reaction to that book -- mm, 14:44:43 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is there something beyond KABOOM? Like, maybe, KABOOM-squared? -- Solitude1056, 14:53:24 09/29/01 Sat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: KABLOOIE! -- mm, 15:17:58 09/29/01 Sat

Or maybe KAZAAM! (No, wait, that's Shaq....)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wild, Wild West -- mundusmundi, 15:14:55 09/29/01 Sat

I've pooh-poohed the Richard Slotkin/Buffy-as-frontier-myth before, but Dedalus's analysis is a persuasive defense of that theory. I like the "town-tamer" idea, though it seems in this case that the "bandits" (read: vampires) aren't infiltrating outsiders like in most Westerns, but are an organic part of Sunnydale. True, many vamps are drawn to Sunnydale from other parts, but without the Hellmouth their population would likely be on the low level of most American metropoleis. (Actually, I'm thinking of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven as the closest Western analogy to Buffy. Gene Hackman's sadistic sheriff functions as a sort of frontier Mayor Wilkins, and allegorically the film addresses some of the same concerns about violence and redemption that Whedon obsesses over.)

At the same time, I still think the show's appeal is more primal, and the link to prehistoric times even more spot-on. In the Paleolithic Age, women often joined men in the hunt. (The First Slayer seems to have emerged around this time.) Once agriculture began to dominate in the late Neolithic period, as Dedalus said, women's roles became increasingly domesticized and "the goddess" was chased away, so to speak, by more patriarchal gods.

Lastly, I liked Dedalus's thought that Buffy "is really the first (mythology) for adolescents." Children love myths -- hence the appeal of anything from Narnia to Harry Potter -- and more discerning adults often find the same stories not childish, but childlike in evoking a sense of wonder and meaning in life. It is here again that I see the primal power of the Buffyverse: it functions for us as a modern ritual -- "a kind of televised psychotherapy or projected dream," Dedalus writes. My only regret is that Buffy wasn't around when I was a teenager. Maybe it would have helped me sort through the angst I was dealing with at that time. ('Bout all we had by way of fantasy in the 80's was ALF, or arguably Reagan's mind, and those were no good.)

I guess all this is my roundabout way of saying great essay, Dedalus. IME, your very best.

-mm

P.S. An illuminating short piece by Slotkin on recent events can be found here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wild, Wild West -- JM, 01:10:32 09/30/01 Sun

Don't agree with everything from R. Slotin's recent essay, though I do much. However, I bow to IME. I've never seen the abbreviation before and I hereby forswear use of IMO, IMHO (please), JMO, etc. forevermore. IME is much, much more eloquent, and smacks of none of the false modesty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: IME -- mm, 06:57:25 09/30/01 Sun

I first saw it used here by Anthony8, and liked it for the same reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wild, Wild West -- Dedalus, 08:36:15 09/30/01 Sun

Thanks mundi. I'm not sure I completely buy the Slotkin thing myself, but some of it does seem to tie in nicely. Especially the regeneration through violence thing. And I love the idea about Unforgiven!

And yeah, too bad Buffy wasn't around during high school. All we had was Beverly Hills 90210!

Thanks for the compliments. I will check out the link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: finally finished it...%-):-) -- bible belt, 19:20:50 09/29/01 Sat

And I thought I was just infatuated with her.

Really impressive!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thanks :-) -- Dedalus, 08:37:45 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I thought it was an excellent essay -- Rahael, 09:21:54 09/30/01 Sun

Halloween Ep Summary - ** MAJOR SPOILAGE ** -- NonCreativePsuedonym, 15:40:39 09/29/01 Sat

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Our story begins with a Halloween Bonanza Sale at the Magic Box. Anya is dressed as one of Charlie's Angel's and is zipping around on Roller Skates. Xander is a pirate. There are tons of customers buying creepy things. Willow is pissed off that the witch costumes are so stereotypical, but can't help thinking a little girl wearing the same kind of costume is cute. Dawn is just walking around chatting with scoobies and then she spies a shiny coin on a table nearby and snatches it. Anya tells Buffy to go get Mandrake Root from the basement and Buffy says "Okay but don't blame me if we have this conversation over and over again." (which I'm assuming has something to do with the Groundhog Day episode.)

While she's grousing she bumps into Spike on the stairs and asks him why he's lurking there and tells him he needs a collar with a bell on it. Spike asks if it can be leather and then wonders why everyone always thinks he's lurking. Buffy says it might have something to do with the the fact that he's always lurking. He says he came through the tunnels to get this kind of weed to spice up his blood. She just looks at him, disgusted. He says he was gonna pay for it, then admits he was gonna nick it. Because, he adds, he goes where he pleases and he takes what he wants. He asks her why she's working at the shop because he thought she'd had it with customer disservice. She says it's a one shot deal, no more loop de loop (Groundhogs Day) and mentions something about a mummy hand. (?) He helps her reach the mandrake root from a high shelf and the stage direction says: "They're close to each other, the air is charged between them." He asks her if she feels like a bit of the rough and tumble. She is surprised. WHAT? He says "Patrolling! Hello?" She says she should stay and help with the store, but maybe tomorrow night. He plays it off and says it's not like he doesn't have other plans. "The Great Pumpkin's on in twenty." He leaves and Buffy heads up, sighing. She says, "So much easier to talk to when he just wanted to kill me." (yeee)

So the store closes and everyone is pooped. Giles says they have to clean up and Willow suggests doing it magically. Both Tara and Giles nip that in the bud. Anya is beside herself while counting all the cash they made. Xander watches her doing a little dance with Dawn and says, "I'm gonna marry that girl." Buffy starts yelling at him because she thinks he means Dawn, then she gets it. Then Xander says he has an announcement. Anya: Now? I thought you were going to wait for the perfect time. Xander: I did. They tell everyone. Willows reaction: That's -- that's... wow. Everyone is very happy for them and Buffy says they have to do something. They end up having an impromptu engagement party for them at Buffy's house.

There is a scene where some creepy guy walks up to a creepy house while creepily singing pop goes the weasel. Inside his house are creepy toys. He hears children lauging outside and murmurs something about them getting a surprise as he picks up a large butcher knife and hums pop goes the weasel some more.

The party is underway. Giles is pouring libations, Anya is flaunting her ring, Willow decides they need decorations and does a quick spell. Giles and Tara are concerned and Tara brings it up to Willow in the kitchen that what she did was not necessary. Willow argues that the decorations are super biodegradable, seeing that they will vanish in a few hours and the magic was harmless. Tara says it's okay to do magic when you're helping people, but not all the time. Willow is exasperated and says Tara is always coming down on her. Dawn comes in and the girls stop arguing, but it's not resolved.

Xander is listening to Giles talk about the future and is starting to feel a little suffocated. Buffy is getting rather emotional herself... she says "I've been out of commission for three months and you... how many other things have changed since I've been away?" Dawn jokes that she got a tatoo. Buffy says over her dead body... the kind that doesn't come back. Dawn asks Buffy if she can sleep over her friend Janice's house. Buffy is reluctant but lets her go, it's not like she'll be out wandering the streets. Cut to Dawn wandering the streets. She meets up with Janice and they talk about how stupid their guardians are for falling for the old sleep-over trick. They meet up with Zack and Justin, two handsome seventeen year olds. They are both impressed by Dawn and Justin is super smitten. The four go around doing basic halloween mischief. Zack secretly asks Justin if he likes Dawn and if he thinks they'll go All The Way.

Zack and Justin are daring Janice to go smash a pumpkin on creepy, pop goes te weasels guy's porch. Dawn says she'll do it and they are totally impressed. She is gaga for Justin and wants to look cool for him. As she's about to smash, creepy guy comes out and invites them inside for a surprise. They are nervous but Zack is loving it. Once inside, creepy guy asks Dawn if she wants to help him in the kitchen with the surprise and Justin volunteers himself instead. In the kitchen, creepy guy is humming again and Justin is getting plates, creepy guy turns and gets the knife, a small smile on his face. He turns back, and there is Justin behind him in VAMP FACE! Justin says, "Boo." And sinks his fangs in. Creepy guy drops his Surprise which was just a big Halloween rice crispy treat thingie. Turns out he was just a nice old guy who used to make toys for kids. But hey wait a minute... Justin is a vampire! He runs out of the kitchen and tells the others to bolt. Dawn asks why and Justin says he stole the guy's wallet when he wasn't looking. After they get away, Justin and Zack hang back and Justin talks about being grossed out by creepy guy's blood. Zack says a spritz of Dawn should wash that right out.

Meanwhile, back at Buffy's, Anya goes on and on about her plans for the wedding, a new car, a baby... and Xander desperately tries not to hyperventilate. Anya talks about how rare it is to find the person you're meant to be with and now Buffy is starting to feel the need to escape. She and Xander slip out on the porch. Xander confides that he never thought there'd be so much involved. Buffy convinces him that all of this is a good thing and he agrees that he's wallowing, not drowning. He feels better and asks Buffy, "Once more into the breach?" She says her breaches are wearing a little thin and she might take Spike up on his offer to patrol.

Justin is charming Dawn. He gives her half the money from the wallet and says, "So begins your life of crime." She tells him she steals stuff all the time. She hasn't paid for lipstick in forever. He says she's a girl after his own heart. Cute AND bad. He offers her his jacket because she's cold. It's very cute and sweet except for the fact that he's a vampire. Dawn asks where Zack is and Justin says he went to get the car. Dawn is surprised he has a car. Cut to Zack thowing an unconscious and bloody-necked woman out of a car.

Buffy is watching some trick or treaters and then she longingly watches a couple sharing a kiss. She absently steps into the street and is almost hit by an ambulance, coming to the rescue of the bloody- necked woman. Buffy follows it to find a small crowd gathered around the obvious vamp victim.

Giles gets a call from Janice's mom and they both realize they fell for the oldest trick in the book. Giles dispatches the scoobies to go looking for Dawn. He's slightly put out when he finds out Buffy left to go patrolling with Spike. Giles: (sourly) "Always nice to be in the loop." It should be noted that when Giles interrupted -- Xander, Anya and Willow were getting their "funk on" while Tara watched, still feeling the sting of the earlier argument.

The four teens end up at a make-out spot and park. Janice and Zack fall out of the car, kissing and laughing. Janice runs off playfully and Zack says, "I love it when they run." And goes after her. Dawn and Justin share a sweet moment and a sweet kiss. Dawn melts. Justin realizes it was her first kiss and Dawn gets embarrassed, telling him she's a spaz. He kisses her again and tries to get fresh. She stops him, but she's weakening.

Willow and Tara go to look for Dawn in the Bronze. They start to joke around and it looks like all will be well with them, but Willow wants to do a spell to find Dawn. It will momentarily put everyone who isn't Dawn in an alternate dimention. Tara warns Willow that Giles wouldn't like it. Willow angrily does a spell to quiet the club so she can bitch at Tara in peace. She accuses her of taking Giles' side and talking to him behind her back. Tara says that Willow is using too much magic. She says, "What do you want me to do? Just sit back and keep my mouth shut?" Willow says, "That'd be a good start." (whoa) Willow instantly regrets it but can't take it back. Tara: "If I didn't love you so much I would." Tara turns to leave. Willow calls after her but the sound comes back up in the club.

Justin "accidentaly" bites too hard on Dawn's lip. He says he can't help it, she's just so beautiful. Dawn melts again. They make out some more and Justin gets all bumpy. Dawn sees this and starts to scream.

BOOM! Buffy crashes through Spike's door. "Get your gear together, we need to--" She sees an old black and white horror movie playing on the TV... a half eaten bowl of popcorn on the chair, but no Spike. The TV is casting eerie shadows. Buffy calls for Spike again, and there he is next to her. They both scream in surprise. Spike: "You know, in civilized cultures that's called trespassing." Buffy: "Good thing you're uncivilized. We've got trouble." Spike: "Giles found you?" Buffy is confused, then freaking when Spike explains about Dawn. He says she and her little friend pulled a Houdini. He just did a sweep of the tunnels and Giles is poking around in the cemetary. He tells her it's probably fine, they're just doing a bit of mischief. Buffy says they have to find her and opens Spike's weapons chest. Spike: "I don't think she's in there." Buffy throws him a crossbow... all business. (Rats.)

Giles hears a scream and finds Zack standing over Janice who he thinks is Dawn for a minute, he whacks Zack with a flashlight and then sees that it's not Dawn. Zack tries to be cool vampire guy -- calling Giles grampa and whatnot -- but Giles kicks the crap out of him and impales him on a tree branch. Zack's final words: "Dude, that sucks!" Winded but still damned cool, Giles sasks Janice where Dawn is.

Dawn is trying to fight Justin off but he tells her he really likes her, she's not like all the other girls who are stupid and boring. He just wants to be close to her. It's hard for Dawn to resist him when he's being all charming. She lets him get close to her and he says, "It'll only hurt for a second..." Giles: "I bet you say that to all the girls."

Dawn snaps out of it. Angry Giles comes out of the bushes and threatens Justin. Just then, headlights flick on from the other parked cars and a bunch of adult vamps step out of cars with blood dripping from their mouths. Giles is surrounded. Suddenly, a hand clamps down on his shoulder... it's Spike. "Is this a private game or can anyone have a go?" And then Buffy appears on Giles other side. She sizes up the situation and yells at Dawn. "Were you parking? With a vamp?" It's a really funny scene where Dawn and Buffy are arguing and everyone is standing around waiting to fight. Then Buffy asks the whole group if anyone came there just to make out. One couple raises their hand... they are terrified. Buffy says "That's sweet. Run." They high- tail it out of there and the fight begins. Spike takes on a vampire named Carl. Carl: "What is your malfunction man?" Spike: "It's Halloween, you nit. We take the night off, those are the rules." Carl: "Me and mine don't follow no stinking rules. We're rebels." Spike: "No, I'm a rebel. You're an idiot." Spike dusts Carl but loses his crossbow. Dawn is backing away into the woods when Justin pops up behind her. "Trick or Treat." He tackles her and Dawn looks more hurt than scared. Dawn: "I thought you liked me." Justin: (sincere) "I do. And you like me too." Dawn: (sincerely) I do. Justin smiles, then stiffens. Dawn has found Spike's crossbow and dusted her first kiss. She lays there, frozen, tears welling up in her eyes.

Everyone is back at Buffy's. Xander and Anya leave. Spike follows behind, saying he should bugger off since Big Bad's shouldn't venture far from their crypts on Halloween. Buffy says, "Good fight." THEY BUMP THEIR FISTS TOGETHER AS SPIKE EXITS. (How cute is that??) Tara is still pissed and says she's going to turn in. Willow follows close behind. Buffy tells Giles that Dawn is taking it hard and he says it's not surprising, but they can't ignore that kind of behavior. Buffy says he's right. She's glad he's there to sort it out. "Don't be too hard on her, okay?" She leaves Giles holding the bag. He watches her go, not happy about the big avoiding of responsibility.

Giles: We need to talk. Dawn: Is this the part where you tell me you're not angry, just disappointed? Giles: Pretty much. Except fot the bit about not being angry.

Upstairs, Willow says she's sorry, but Tara says it's not that easy. Willow says she can't reverse time and take it back, then makes a joke about doing a spell that Tara does not find amusing. She says she's tired and gets into bed. Willow picks out a flower from a jar on her night stand. Willow: "Lets just forget about it." Then she says something softly in Latin that means Forget. The flower glows for a second, then Willow gets into bed. Tara says something about her feet being cold and Willow says she'd better warm her up. They kiss sweetly and Willow asks if she's still mad. Tara: About what? They cuddle and Willow smiles. All is right with the world again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thank you, thank you, thank you... -- WW, 16:51:00 09/29/01 Sat

It's a disease, I know, but I'm helpless in the face of spoilers ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Why WW you spoiler whore you.....:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:04:50 09/29/01 Sat

Of course I'll never peek......I've already read it at another site.....so at least here I won't peek....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Isn't Giles supposed to be back in England? -- OnM, 11:27:33 09/30/01 Sun

Liked the ending though, even if this is just a fanfic. Nice moral ambiguity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Isn't Giles supposed to be back in England? -- WW, 11:42:21 09/30/01 Sun

I think he comes back for a few eps, 'cuz he's gotta be here for the musical!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ahem... careful with the spoilery statements in subject lines... -- Public service announcement, 10:19:42 10/01/01 Mon

Some of us are chaste, ascetic nonspoiler-monks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, thought that was pretty much common Buffyverse knowledge at this point... -- OnM, 19:38:00 10/01/01 Mon

..rather than something you'd have to go to a spoiler source to learn. Both Joss and ASH have been very public about him not being a regular in S6.

As most posters here know, I'm usually pretty careful about spoiler material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Must.. not look...No..must get away...Ohhh...look at the pretty, shiny thing! :o) -- Deeva, 21:39:06 09/29/01 Sat

Shadow -- Malandanza, 21:08:48 09/29/01 Sat

Xander: Jesse, man. We're buds, don't you remember?

Jesse: You're like a shadow to me now.

The Harvest (Psyche's Transcripts)

I was going through some of the older episodes for quotes for my Jonathan posting when I came across this scene between Xander and his ex-best friend Jesse. Jesse's positive memories have faded to a mere "shadow" of what they had been and he is willing to kill Xander without a second thought. However, his obsession for Cordelia (Jesse was Cordy's "stalker") is still strong as he shows later in the episode:

Jesse watches Cordelia from the side. He walks onto the dance floor. The song is over, and Cordelia stops dancing. She starts to leave, but Jesse is standing in front of her, fingers on his lips.

Cordelia: Uh, what do you want?

Another song, "Ballad For Dead Friends", starts. Jesse lowers his hand, takes hers and leads her back onto the dance floor.

Cordelia: Hey! Hello! Caveman brain! What are you doing?

Jesse: Shut up!

It seems that Darla was not entirely forthcoming when she sadi "what we were informs what we become" (or something like that) -- the good in Jesse does not have a bearing on his new vamp personality, but the evil is stronger than ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shadow -- Humanitas, 07:44:45 09/30/01 Sun

Perhaps Good is inherently self-sacrificing, and Evil is self-interested. Since Vampires are effectively without a concience, that might explain it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shadow -- Rufus, 13:15:02 09/30/01 Sun

I disagree. To be made a vampire is like a birth. You are who you once were, but made anew, with powers and a new direction towards evil and chaos. Jesse was basically a social leper when it came to Cordy, she never would have given him the time of day. He then finds as a vampire that because he no longer feels any guilt over the words he uses with others that now Cordy shows an interest. It wasn't Jesse that Cordy rejected but his superficial looks and persona that she found unsuitable. When he became a "caveman" she gave him a look. But that doesn't mean that "what we once were informs all that we become" isn't true, it means that there is a period of adjustment while the new vampire cuts his/her teeth in the new reality of being a demon. Liam found this out when he became Angelus and killed his family thinking that he would win a contest. What he did find was that once dead they could never approve or disapprove of him again. His victory was short as he found out the only battle was with himself. Vampires are what they once were, with a new bent towards evil. I think that like a human can eventually ignore their inner compass towards good, a vampire can eventually become more conflicted about exactly how evil they will be. If in life the vampire was evil then I doubt there will be any change to the personality as a whole, but, if you have a good person become a vampire, I do believe that they will eventually be affected by the original personality. A spectrum of behavior allows for a vast range of possibilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Shadow -- Malandanza, 17:03:01 09/30/01 Sun

"To be made a vampire is like a birth. You are who you once were, but made anew, with powers and a new direction towards evil and chaos...But that doesn't mean that 'what we once were informs all that we become' isn't true, it means that there is a period of adjustment while the new vampire cuts his/her teeth in the new reality of being a demon...Vampires are what they once were, with a new bent towards evil. I think that like a human can eventually ignore their inner compass towards good, a vampire can eventually become more conflicted about exactly how evil they will be. If in life the vampire was evil then I doubt there will be any change to the personality as a whole, but, if you have a good person become a vampire, I do believe that they will eventually be affected by the original personality. A spectrum of behavior allows for a vast range of possibilities."

We have been shown that the demon part of a vampire is an unreasoning creature. The personality of a vampire must come from the human host. Certainly, Jesse's post-vamping obsession with Cordelia came from his human memories. He remembered enough of his former life to convince Xander and Buffy he needed help when he was leading them into a trap. It isn't the details of his human existence that were "like a shadow" to Jesse, it was the emotions that went with those details. All that was good in him was, if not extinguished, dampened. The evil was magnified. Darla's statement is correct -- up to a point. "What we once were informs all that we become" should read "The evil that we once were informs all that we become."

Look at the essentially good people that we have seen vamped: Jesse, Spike, Vampwillow, Penn (from Prodigal -- the Puritan vampire), Darla (the second time around), Drusilla and Gunn's sister. Not one of these vampires (including pre-chip Spike) have been affected by the good of their former personalities. In fact, because they were so good prior to the vamping, the evil that they do seems more shocking. They are controlled, not by the fragments of their former good personality, but by the suppressed evil, the darkness that lay undisturbed in the depths of their subconsciouses. Vampires created from good people resemble those people only slightly -- they are gross caricatures of their former selves. By constrast, vampires created from evil humans resemble their hosts quite nicely -- Darla (the first vamping), and Angelus being the best examples (primarily because we haven't seen the origins of most of the evil vamps -- I expect that the Gorsh brothers or the white supremecist vamps didn't change much).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Gorsh brothers......LOL.......;) -- Rufus, 18:35:49 09/30/01 Sun

I think you're right about them.

Darla says that "the same love will infect our hearts even if they no longer beat-simple death won't change that." Even though the vampire is predisposed to prefer evil, they can be infected by love. Death may change the direction of the moral compass, but even the vampire can't escape occasionally falling in love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The actor who plays Jesse... -- Deeva, 13:17:01 09/30/01 Sun

Eric Balfour, is currently on HBO's Six Feet Under. While watching the first 3 episodes from the reruns, I kept thinking to myself "Where do I know this guy from?" He still plays a high school character, albeit he's a senior. Well, there's my random bit.
Syndication, with an irrelevant sidebar on dentists -- Rattletrap, 06:37:01 09/30/01 Sun

Our local WB station has picked up the rights to air the old Buffy eps. on weekends. "Welcome to the Hellmouth" just aired last night, but AARRGGH! they hacked several pretty noticeable chunks out of it, and broke 6 or 7 times for commercials in a 1 hour time slot. The scene where Buffy and Giles first meet, and the scene where Aura finds the dead body in her locker were both gone. I'm pretty sure there was something else missing, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet. "Anne" is supposed to air tonight, and I suspect it will suffer the same fate. Has anyone else been catching it on weekends? Is this flagrant disregard for high art going on everywhere?

Now for the irrelevant sidebar: I've noticed that when Angel comes back from hell at the beginning of season 3, his teeth are a good deal straighter than they were when he went in at the end of season 2. This confirms my long-standing suspcicion that hell really will be just an eternity of dental work.

counting the days 'til uncut DVDs

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Where do you live? SF syndication seemed OK -- Masq, 07:34:12 09/30/01 Sun

Granted, I wasn't paying 100% attention

Plus... Buffy 7 days a week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Where do you live? SF syndication seemed OK -- Dedalus, 08:52:58 09/30/01 Sun

You know, from what I can tell, FX has indeed not been interrupting with commericals any more than when they ran back on the WB ... I know how much Joss hates that sort of thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I suspect that in terms of syndicated programming, the affiliates can pretty much do... -- OnM, 11:12:56 09/30/01 Sun

..anything they want to as far as adding extra ad time. It would be interesting to know whether or not Fox actually imposes any requirements as to how the episodes air.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It's not too bad in D/FW -- Tanker, 11:48:26 09/30/01 Sun

I only noticed two lines cut (Jesse's "bibbling idiot" line and Xander's reply) and one extra commercial break, a short one, that came at a logical place to make a cut. They might have shaved a shot or two off some scenes; I don't have every frame of WTTH memorized, but I had a gut feeling that a couple of scenes were a bit shorter. No other dialogue was cut, though. I was very pleasantly surprised. This was on my FOX affiliate, btw. I think I'll write them to thank them for not butchering it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: It's not too bad in D/FW -- bible belt, 13:24:56 09/30/01 Sun

I heard the "bibbling idiot" line and Xander's reply, if the line your talking about was just before Cordelia told Buffy gym class was canceled because of the dead body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not on Fox4 KDFW you didn't -- Tanker, 17:41:43 09/30/01 Sun

WTTH (and all the eps) are airing uncut on FX. But the Dallas Fox affiliate cut the bibbling idiot line. I noticed its absence because it's one of my favorite lines, although I'd cut it too, if I were in charge of cutting things.

p.s. GO COWBOYS!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Correct, I'm watching on Fx. -- bible belt, 20:08:26 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Where do you live? SF syndication seemed OK -- Rattletrap, 12:54:10 09/30/01 Sun

I live in Oklahoma City. This wasn't the F/X syndication, sadly F/X is not available on my poor man's cable and would require me to upgrade at more $$ than I'm willing to fork over. Out WB affilliate has picked up the rights to the weekend reairing, one episode on Saturday, one on Sunday. We'll see what happens tonight.

BTW, thanx Ded, Jesse's "bibbling idiot" line was also cut. I'm deliberately avoiding looking at Psyche's transcript because I know I'll find more stuff and it will just make me even madder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is this flagrant disregard for high art going on everywhere? -- OnM, 11:09:40 09/30/01 Sun

Yup. See my CMotW post re: Widescreen movies on non-widescreen TV sets.

"Oooo, I luuvvvvv commercials, give us more commercials! They make me feel all warm and wanted inside!"

--Adverbot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks for the heads up -- Cactus Watcher, 15:10:27 09/30/01 Sun

Looks like in Phoenix channel 45 (UPN) will have the old reruns, but only once a week on Sunday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Syndication, no dentists though :) -- LadyStarlight, 15:31:55 09/30/01 Sun

If I may make a suggestion, *ahem* Move to Canada. Buffy 7 days a week (depending on where you are/what system you have) and uncut reruns. Life is good!
Famous First Words -- Cactus Watcher, 07:49:33 09/30/01 Sun

Enough with the witless quizes! Let's try something more in our own line for entertainment while the hours creep by till Tuesday evening.

What will Buffy's first words be when she returns? Can you think of any lines from any past shows that would fit seriously or as a joke? If you know what Buffy real first words are going to be, don't blab it now. Don't limit yourself to Buffy's old lines. Just to be cruel I'll give you two of the most obvious lines to get things started.

a. Realizing she is alive again - "Death is my gift... pfffff!"

b. On her way to find Dawn and the Scoobies, she passes a car. She catches her reflection in the rear view mirror, she stops and stares for a moment (ALL TOGETHER NOW!) - I may be dead, but I'm still pretty!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Famous First Words -- Brian, 08:45:05 09/30/01 Sun

How about those classic comic book lines: "Yeah, I died, but I got better."

With Buffy, of course, the "Yeah" is very optional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Famous First Words -- KO Archer, 09:49:14 09/30/01 Sun

How about:

Buffy crawls out, dusts herself off.

Buffy: ...Twice now. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Famous First Words -- OnM, 11:03:48 09/30/01 Sun

Ooooo, good quiz, CW!!

Taking into account what we see Buffy wearing in the trailers that have been playing for the past few weeks on UPN, my first thoughts might be:

"Nice dress!"

Some other possibilities from the not-so-far reaches of my warped brain:

"If you leave me, can I come too?" (obscure musical reference)

"Uhhh, people... been here, done this..."

"But I don't want to be a messiah!!"

"Guys, I didn't put in for overtime, here, really..."

"Oh, sh*t!" (I read in some oddball survey taken some years ago that this is one of the most common expressions spoken by people just immediately before sudden expiration, barely edged out by 'Oh, God!')

Actually, it's pretty hard to beat your 'Death is my gift... pffft' suggestion, CW. It's got my vote!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Famous First Words -- Cactus Watcher, 11:51:57 09/30/01 Sun

Like your "Nice dress." Along the same idea, if the hand coming out of the grave in the trailer is indeed Buffy, she takes lines from Xander and Giles:

Buffy claws her way to the surface, rests exhausted for a moment then sees the headstone. "Okay, whose nightmare is this?" She looks down at her dirty and less-than-stylish burial clothes. "It's mine."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hand emerging from the grave not the Buffster's? -- OnM, 12:06:17 09/30/01 Sun

Like most fans, I've seen that hand pop up out of the ground for nearly a month, now. I strongly suspect that this clip is intended to be deliberately deceiving, and that the hand is someone else's, probably a vamp.

Several months ago, I did a post stating that I thought that the idea of Buffy emerging from under six feet of soil, assuming she could even get the coffin lid open against the weight of the soil was essentially impossible, unless she's coming back as Superwoman. Yes, vamps can do it, so maybe she would have the strength, but what about breathing? Vamps don't need to, she does.

So, I think it's a trick to make us think that is what will happen when in fact it will not.

At least, I hope so. I'll wait until after I view the ep to make the call as to whether it all worked or not, but I find this idea just too derivative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No argument on that. -- CW, 12:14:59 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hand emerging from the grave not the Buffster's? -- John Burwood, 12:23:48 09/30/01 Sun

I see your point, but not sure I agree. There is a seductive symmetry to a vampire Slayer having to claw her way out of her coffin just like a vampire. And, remembering Nightmares, I am inclined to suspect that Buffy's first, naturally disorientated, words are more likely to be something along the lines of 'Oh no, I'm a vampire.' Only much cleverer than that, for sure. What else would she first think if there is no-one around to meet her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm betting it's hers -- mundusmundi, 12:33:24 09/30/01 Sun

There is a seductive symmetry to a vampire Slayer having to claw her way out of her coffin just like a vampire.

I agree. The symbolism would be quite powerful and fittingly Jossish.

First words? If she's understandably disoriented, it may be a full act or two before she says anything beyond "Urgle burgle gobble goop." If the mood is somber, it may be something simple, like "Why?" If they're going for a joke, the words "Bloody hell" would bring a smile to my face.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, that's the next best choice! -- OnM, 15:13:33 09/30/01 Sun

1. "Death is my gift... pffff."

2. "Bloody Hell"

3. "Nice dress..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hand emerging from the grave not the Buffster's? -- bible belt, 13:08:32 09/30/01 Sun

Yeah, like, "I'm hungry...for some icecream...no, not a vampire."

Buffy's soul is still around, and Willow will put Buffy's consciousness into the Buffybot and she'll live forever...nah! I guess that's too Treky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Obviously Spoiler Whores cannot participate in this conversation ;o) -- Wisewoman, 12:40:07 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, us whores should set up a union..........:):):) -- Rufus, 12:46:28 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I see can the picketline now... CW unfair to Spoiler Whores -- Cactus Watcher, 12:53:26 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, no, I'd like to work out a niffty benefits package first....:):):) -- Rufus, 12:56:15 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I personally think something should be done... -- Kerri, 13:50:54 09/30/01 Sun

about the elitist and discriminatory attitudes of non-spoiler-whores!!! Just because we have no will power doesn't mean we are lesser people! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, what she said! Equality for the Spoiler Whores! (I have accepted my destiny) -- LadyStarlight, 14:09:36 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I must say that the continuing use of the word 'whore' may be inappropriate... -- OnM, 15:10:48 09/30/01 Sun

..in that not only is it a harsh and unpleasant sounding monosyllable, but it implies that the transfer of money is somehow involved, rather than something just done for pleasure.

So can't you all just be 'sluts', instead?

Just a suggestion!

*Anne* is playing right at this moment on Fox... gotta go, one of my all time favorite eps!

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I tried suggesting that, they won't listen to me... (pout) -- LadyStarlight, 15:33:16 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually... -- Kerri, 16:17:00 09/30/01 Sun

Ok-so I went to dictionary.com and here is what it said under "whore"

whore (hr, hr) n. 1.A prostitute. 2.A person considered sexually promiscuous. 3.A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Humm...I could see the last one.

As opposed to "slut"

slut (slt) n.

1.A woman considered sexually promiscuous. 2.A woman prostitute. 3.A slovenly woman; a slattern.

So what do all you other spoiler whores/sluts think? Do we need a p.c. term as part of our union? Will powerfully challenged? Nah. Whore works for me. lol. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How about something less judgemental... -- Cactus Troll, 16:36:05 09/30/01 Sun

like SAC (Spoiler Avoidance Challenged) ;oD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I preferred "ho" - it just sounds silly. Spoiler Rake! Spoiler Ho! Spoiler Shovel! -- Solitude1056, 16:48:10 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whore has a sound that I like unlike "slut" which just sounds dirty.....:) -- Rufus, 18:37:51 09/30/01 Sun

"Ho" makes me feel like I haven't spent enough time in the garden. Whore just feels right......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I always liked ho better than whore. Something less formal & more silly. -- Deeva, 21:41:30 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, who you callin' a rake? ;-P -- Humanitas, 12:43:58 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> We may just loose it hours before the season begins..... -- Rufus, 18:39:49 09/30/01 Sun

Only our board woud busy themselves looking up the definition of "whore" and "slut" as a way to pass the time. I think we need chocolate and a round of cats to keep us sane.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Only our board: Yeah, makes ya kinda proud, don't it?.... ;-) -- OnM, 20:58:30 09/30/01 Sun

Tune in next week, when we deconstruct 'bitch'!

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Only our board: Yeah, makes ya kinda proud, don't it?.... ;-) -- Rufus, 22:23:28 09/30/01 Sun

Now this part definately OT. Thinking about bitch, my husband has decided to call our two female cats Bitch One and Bitch Two. In some ways an insult to cats..;)

But, yes I'm proud of our board cause we can be smart but not take ourselves toooooo seriously. So what next, a deconstruction of the week?.......:):):):)Wouldn't that be fun along with the movie of the week..;)

Only a day and a bit left.......holding myself together with the promise of a new Angel ep tomorrow and some chocolate along with my feline company.....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- OnM, 20:24:47 09/30/01 Sun

Some words change their meaning over time, and 'slut' is one of those. Increasingly, the dictionary definitions you cited have been replaced or supplemented as general public/cultural usage adapts to changes in society.

I find it odd that in the case of 'whore', your dictionary definitions say 'a person', whereas the definitions for 'slut' say 'a woman'. I have never heard of a male prostitute referred to as a whore, although I supposes technically you could. It just always seems associated with females.

I have heard the term 'slut' occasionally used in conjunction with males, although it is very recent- the last few years basically.

I would amend the definitions you gave as such:

whore:

1. A prostitute - one who exchanges sexual favors for direct remuneration. 2. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

slut:

1. A woman considered sexually promiscuous (traditional). 2. A unusually sexually assertive woman (contemporary). 3. A person having intense, almost irrational preoccupation with a hobby interest.

BTW, how about 'spoilerphiles'?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yah, OnM's got my vote for "spoilerphiles" - - Solitude1056, 06:40:49 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> more like spoiler junkies, if you ask *me* ... not that you did, but whatever. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 16:49:33 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I must say that the continuing use of the word 'whore' may be inappropriate... -- WW, 17:47:09 09/30/01 Sun

I usually use "ho"--don't know why I got all official this time :o}

Personally, I consider the terminology appropriate as I might be tempted to offer certain services of a personal nature to anyone in possession of reliable advance plot information, in exchange for said information!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Spoiler sluts has a pleasanter ring to it....:) -- rowan, 08:03:12 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hand emerging from the grave not the Buffster's? -- Rattletrap, 13:07:11 09/30/01 Sun

Good point, OnM. My bet for the hand coming out of the grave is that it's part of a dream sequence.

My suggestion for first words: "Whoa."

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Famous First Words -- Liq, 13:37:16 09/30/01 Sun

First word: "Toothbrush"

First sentence after stumbling around Sunnyvale & catching view of self in remaining unbroken store window: "Hair roots - Ugh - must go to Spike's."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "Formaldehyde? I don' need no STEENKIN' formaldehyde!" -- d'Herblay, 21:14:45 09/30/01 Sun

Or: "This doesn't cheapen 'Forever' at all."

"I was in a wonderful place--mountains of ambrosia, rivers of honey--but why am I telling you, Tara. You'll find out after episode fourteen."

And, of course: "Darla's WHAT?!?!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "Formaldehyde? I don' need no STEENKIN' formaldehyde!" -- Malandanza, 22:15:53 09/30/01 Sun

Buffy's eyes flutter open. Her vision, blurred at first, slowly clears to reveal an anxious Spike leaning over her. He carefully begins to lift her out of her coffin. "This can't be heaven," Buffy murmurs dreamily, "otherwise you'd be an Angel..." Spike drops her -- she flops back and watches helplessly as he nails the lid of the coffin back down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Now that is funny......... -- Rufus, 22:25:43 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Famous First Words -- Millan, 01:52:46 10/01/01 Mon

"Death is my gift... pfffff!"

LOL! I love that suggestion!

I will not be able to personally see any episodes for at least half a year, probably more. Hence I will probably fade even more to the background over here than before, since I will try not to know too much of what's happening.

Ok, sooner or later I'll probably give in to temptation, but for now, I'll try to blend with the walls for a while.

/Millan

"I guess...now that I know there's something to know I can't not know just because I'm afraid somebody'll know I know...you know?" - Willow, Buffy Vs. Dracula
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Famous First Words - 'Could I return this Gift for a store credit?' -- OnM, 06:42:19 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually... -- Malandanza, 09:37:49 10/01/01 Mon

Here's something from the original script for the pilot:

GILES: Buffy, remember that you are the Slayer. It is a great gift.

BUFFY: Yeah? You think I could return it for store credit?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ya know, it's really scary when you manage to be accidentally clever! -- OnM, 19:33:07 10/01/01 Mon

So did that remark ever air? I don't recall it, but I haven't seen the S1 premiere for quite a while now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Where's my vanilla-scented shampoo? Grave dirt is hell on hair! ;) -- rowan, 13:38:50 10/01/01 Mon

Some commentary on the role of women in war from the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer -- OnM, 10:46:14 09/30/01 Sun

Actually, there are an extraordinarily large number of great articles in today's edition, but this one might be the most Buffy-centric, since of course our fiction inevitably parallels/mirrors reality. This quote from the article that I'll give a link for below particularly struck me:

Charles Fourier, the progressive French thinker, wrote in 1808: "Social progress and historic changes occur by virtue of the progress of women toward liberty, and decadence of the social order occurs as the result of a decrease in the liberty of women." If Fourier's parallel is correct, then feminism has resulted in a major new step in our society, in which we no longer speak of "women's" responses to violence and war, but of individual women's responses that are every bit as differentiated as those of men.

From: Women in war: Roles run gamut

By Elaine Martin / c. 2001 The Philadelphia Inquirer

http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/09/30/opinion/MARTIN30.htm

Here is a link for the Opinion Section, should you wish to pursue any of the more reality-based stuff:

http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/09/30/opinion/

Any thoughts as to the influence of BtVS, or for that matter any of the new breed of fictional 'female warriors' that are starting to enter the public consciousness, at least here in the West, as relates to the comments made in this article?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some commentary on the role of women in war from the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer -- Rendyl, 12:44:27 09/30/01 Sun

I am not sure how it applies to BTVS but I am disturbed that a professor of women's studies seems unaware of the participation of women in war. Women warriors (as OnM has termed them-grin) have always existed. In many cases they had to impersonate men to fight, but they did fight. Women have defended their families and homes for centuries. I am in no way trying to belittle the strides made in womens rights but women did not magically grow a backbone once 1960 arrived. AGGHHHHHH!

Okay, done ranting.

Buffy (for me anyway) shows that most people have an enormous potential (for good or bad) inside them. The freedom and opportunity to completely realize it may be new but the potential itself has always been a part of us.

If my daughter were a little older BTVS is a show I would like her to watch. The women are strong and competent without having to give up being women and the choices made by the characters on the show have consequences.

I also like the very quiet nod to women warriers through history in the "there has always been a Slayer and she has to hide what she is" part of the mythos. I have no clue if that is the intended meaning or not but I get a kick out of it.

Ren -who is annoyed with the author of the article, not cute and cuddly OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cute and cuddly? Moi?? -- OnM, 20:05:07 09/30/01 Sun

I think that she was speaking in more general terms, and mostly of Western culture. While you are absolutely right about women defending their homes/countries throughout history, on a purely statistical basis as relates to major battlefield conflicts, compared to men, their numbers were small.

Things have changed a lot since the 60's where the most 'modern' female fighter would have been a character like Emma Peel on 'The Avengers'. It seems hard to believe it today here in 2001, but her behavior was considered pretty out there in 1965. If a TV show like 'Alias' had been put on back then, people would have completely freaked. Today, we watch it and go 'coooll!!'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some commentary on the role of women in war from the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer -- bible belt, 12:47:33 09/30/01 Sun

"...decadence of the social order occurs as the result of a decrease in the liberty of women."

Amen to that, just look at Afghanistan.

Sorry, don't mean to bring that deal up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> More of a question, really... -- Wisewoman, 17:41:55 09/30/01 Sun

OnM your question got me thinking about the female warrior in popular culture, and I'm trying to remember one who was not created by a man?

I'm sure there are some, but my mind has gone blank. We have Joss to thank for Buffy, of course, and my personal top three in film were all created by James Cameron: Ellen Ripley in Aliens, Sarah Conner in Terminator 2, and Mace in Strange Days.

I'm not familiar enough with shows like Xena, Sheena, Relic Hunter, etc., to know if they are written/created by men or women.

Somebody help me out here--where is there a strong, action-oriented female hero created by a woman?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Lara Croft -- Drizzt, 18:54:59 09/30/01 Sun

Do not forget Lara Croft! She was created for the target demographic of teenage males, but she is popular with some girls...

I do not know if there are any popular female heros created by a woman.

OT: Are there any comics created by women that have heroic female characters? I am completely ignorant about comics except for Fray:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Lara Croft -- Andy, 10:37:18 10/01/01 Mon

If you're talking about comics by women that feature female action heroes on the kind of singular, iconic level that characters like Buffy exist on, I can't think of any. However, there are some comics, such as Wendy Pini's Elfquest or Colleen Doran's A Distant Soil, that do feature a nice variety of characters including tough women :)

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Lara Croft -- Drizzt, 11:32:36 10/01/01 Mon

Thanks, I read some of the Elfquest comics years ago, different in a good way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Lara Croft -- Andy, 17:48:44 10/01/01 Mon

Elfquest, along with the old X-Men comics, was one of the series that really hooked me on comics. I still reread them occasionally today and they hold up just fine :)

I'm not sure why there haven't been more female action heroes created by women. It seems like there's just a general distaste for action stories by female creators, particularly in comics ("too boy's club" seems to be a common sentiment from prominent women in the comics industry, at least).

I wonder why male creators lately have been more and more interested in heroines. The immediate answer might be that it simply allows them to combine a tough protagonist and T&A in one single character, killing two birds with one stone :) OTOH, I found interesting something that comics artist David Mack once said. Mack was describing how he created his series, Kabuki, about a group of Japanese assassins in the near future who are all women. Mack said that as he wants to explore his own personality through his work, it would be easier to do that by stepping as far outside himself as he could get with his characters. So he distinguishes his characters from himself by sex and gender, time, place, and culture. So most of the main characters in the series are women. I wonder if more male creators don't do this at least subconsciously. And I wonder if women wouldn't do the same, creating men instead of like female protagonists.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lara Croft -- Drizzt, 18:26:39 10/01/01 Mon

All I can say about this issue is it would be cool to compare how a woman would do things, probably less T&A, unless it is a lesbian;) But I am more interested in the differences in personality and presentation IF it were a woman running a whole show, or writing an entire comic.

Wait! How much influence will Joss have when Marti Noxton is officially the go to person? Joss is spread pretty thin, and is branching out from just doing Buffy. He has said that he prefers to let his writers do thier own thing for an ep as long as it does not interfere with his OVERALL vision of a season and the series...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More of a question, really... -- OnM, 19:53:22 09/30/01 Sun

You're right-- I can't think of any, at least not off the top of my head. I believe Xena was a creation of Rob Tapert, Wonder Woman was the creation of a male, same I believe for Sheena and Lara Croft.

Good question...anyone else know of female created female superheroes in pop culture?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thelma & Louise? -- Solitude1056, 20:54:10 09/30/01 Sun

Which is curious, since "Louise" means "woman of war." Just an aside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> These aren't iconic, but... -- Humanitas, 12:55:12 10/01/01 Mon

There is a collection of sword-and-sorcery short stories about female heroes, written mostly by women, called Chicks in Chainmail. There is also a sequel, entitled Did you say Chicks!? Great stuff!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ok, not a warrior, but a detective? If that counts, don't forget Nancy Drew... -- Solitude1056, 22:15:44 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think women-made female heroes are less "mythic" and more real-to- life heroes -- Masq, 14:58:57 10/02/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Maybe that was my point. -- Wisewoman, 19:07:59 10/02/01 Tue

On the one hand, I welcome the advent of strong, self-sufficient role models for young women, but on the other, I wonder why these role models seem to be the result of a male vision?

Are the male writers creating the characters that they wish were real? If female writers create a different sort of female hero, are their sort more accessible to young women?

What I'm trying to say is, if characters like Buffy and Xena, et al, are the product of male minds, are they having any positive effect on young females? Do teen women relate to them and want to emulate them? I don't know any teenage women, much less any who watch Buffy, so I have no one to ask on this (well, except you guys, of course).

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Strange you mention this... (OT) -- Solitude1056, 14:48:19 10/01/01 Mon

I just finished reading "Warrior Queens," by Antonia Fraser. Quite a fabulous book, covering everything from Boudica to Tamara (of Georgia) to Rani of Jhansi. Like Fraser's other nonfiction works (Marie Antoinette, The Weaker Vessel), this one is marvelously well-documented, with just a slight touch of Fraser's quiet humor and sense of irony. She traces the historical basis of each queen/ruling figure, as well as their treatment at the hands of later generations and their de- evolution into pseudo-fictional characters.

Four years ago, I recall a friend commenting about the ongoing press coverage of the death of the british Princess of Wales, Diana. She observed that we were in one of the rare moments in humanity where we were watching the birth of a mythos. Just think: five hundred years, a thousand years (assuming our race makes it that far, of course), parents will tell their children of a beautiful princess (or perhaps queen, by that point) who sleeps eternally on an island somewhere in Britain, but she'll rise up to protect her people when she's really needed. Gee. Sound familiar? And thing is, it's not that Diana did so much in her lifetime, it's the knowledge of what she might have achieved, had she not died, and that "might have" will become fact by the time she's truly faded into legend. Of course, a natural part of this is for her legend to mingle with several other stories, until it's impossible to tell what's reality and what's story - hence, all-myth.

My friend, at the time, didn't watch Buffy, but she commented that Buffy was one of the few ongoing female fictional characters with the substance to possibly become part of a larger myth, and even subsume it. Five hundred years from now, our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's descendents may talk about a beautiful blonde princess who fought back evil, died twice, was unacknowledged in her lifetime but stood as a beacon of love and light, saving humanity. They'll say she now sleeps on an island, waiting to come back at the right time to lead her people into battle against evil, once again bringing the world into a golden age... Buffy, Diana, Galadriel, Xena, Margaret, Elizabeth, who knows what name she'll have by then. And the historians will tear their hair out and say, the only historical figure they can find is some princess named Diana who died young in a car crash with a drunken driver at the helm. Not at all the romantic end one might expect, and the historians will shake their heads at the ignorance of the populace for believing in myth. They'll do their best to diverge the story of Buffy, Xena, Galadriel, who-knows-else, from the reality of Queen Elizabeth, Princess Diana, Eleanor Roosevelt, Indira Ghandi, Joan of Arc, Queen Christina, Queen Zenobia, or Queen Jhanga. But it won't change the power of the myth.

At least, that's where my mind is today, introspective 'n all that...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Strange you mention this... (OT) -- Humanitas, 17:58:31 10/01/01 Mon

Hmmm. Could be. Certainly the myth could arise in this fashion, and ultimately it might be more important what people belive about Diana than what her actual life was like.

I'm not sure that I think historians will be tearing their hair out the way we do over Authur, though. The one thing our society is utterly manic about is record-keeping, and in a variety of media. Of course, much of the electronic data will be decayed or un-readable in a millenium, but a fair portion of the print should survive. For example, look at the picture we have of the American Civil War. Granted, it's still not all that clear, but it's a heckuva lot clearer than the picture we have of, say, the Norman Conquest, especially in terms of the lives of the soldiers. The rise of common literacy means that there is simply more evidence generated, and available to historians.

None of this means that the legend-making process is dead, though. People are going to do that, no matter what. Look at the popular perception of JFK. The historical evidence says some profoundly unpleasant things about the man, but he's still regarded in the public mind as a hero.

Ultimately, of course, we can't ever determine what The Truth is about any historical event, whether it happened four centuries or four days ago. We can only know what the evidence tells us, and that is always subject to interpretation. That record is always incomplete, because the totality of human experience is impossible to record. So we resort to myth-making to fill in the gaps. I just think that (barring cataclysm or a mayor-like Ascention) historians a thousand years hence will have a lot more to work with than we do.

For their sakes, I hope so, anyway. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Strange you mention this... (OT) -- Rahael, 18:19:46 10/01/01 Mon

Yes I agree with Humanitas, posterity's view of Diana is going to be much more jaundiced than it is now. Especially as more people spill the dirt on her saintliness as the years go by.

Also the myth creating space is an opportunity to voice contemporary political opinions and ambitions (i.e myth of Elizabeth 1 during reign of James 1 &6th) and not all of it is uncritical. Its a double edged sword, hero worship!

Also, Indhira Ghandi - again, bad reputation already, is only going to get worse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Strange you mention this... (OT) -- Rahael, 18:22:32 10/01/01 Mon

Yes I agree with Humanitas, posterity's view of Diana is going to be much more jaundiced than it is now. Especially as more people spill the dirt on her saintliness as the years go by.

Also the myth creating space is an opportunity to voice contemporary political opinions and ambitions (i.e myth of Elizabeth 1 during reign of James 1 &6th) and not all of it is uncritical. Its a double edged sword, hero worship!

Also, Indhira Ghandi - again, bad reputation already, is only going to get worse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Strange you mention this... (OT) -- bible belt, 18:39:31 10/01/01 Mon

I don't think historians will even care about Diana and her dirt. The focus for the 20th century will be on World War II and the techno revolution, especially nuclear weapons. I know that's getting off the subject a little bit. Except for Hellen Keller, I think woman will be lumped into one group as gaining more liberties in the 20th century without much attention being given to any individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Not quite my point. -- Solitude1056, 22:14:11 10/01/01 Mon

What I was getting at more was that fictional and real tend to combine into a myth. King Arthur may have been a real Romano-British dude running around Wales at some point, but it's unlikely he stepped in every spot that's called King Arthur's Footprint or the guy never would've had a chance to get anything done. For that matter, if Washington really did sleep every where he's reputed to...

You can look at Robin Hood to see what I'm talking about, perhaps in a clearer vein. So far, the possible "real" Robin Hoods are three or four different people, but the myth incorporates elements of legends that predate Robin Hood by several generations to several hundred years. Those myths got lumped into the new myth, and wrapped around a person, somewhere in there. Yes, we may have much more written text now than a thousand years ago, but there's still a lot of stuff from a thousand years ago to provide contemporary information - church records, tax receipts, land grants, contracts, suits, and last wills 'n testiments. There's always something to find, even if it's just a few swords and a bucket of pennies buried in some farmer's back yard. But the point about JFK is right on target: yes, we know dirt about him, now. In a hundred years, which will matter more: the idea of Camelot, and an American Golden Age, or the reality of a philandering young man who just happened to be charismatic but also led the U.S. into one of the worst military decisions in the century? I vote that it'll be the idea that takes hold, as the centuries pass... and my point was that in the development of myth, it no longer matters what is real, and what is an older story or different story or utterly fiction. We're not operating in a world of Gods and Goddesses who walk the earth while we're not looking; we look to Hollywood and publishing houses to provide those stories of something-beyond-us, and those stories may be what's used to add to the bare remembrances of a distant past.

People will get remembered, though not in the way that we see them now. And other folks will, as each Age requires it, be transformed into myth. King Arthur, and JFK, and George Washington, and Lenin, are all examples of people who've become larger than life, in death, with trappings already being added around them that may not even be real, let alone identified originally with them. I'm just suggesting that Buffy's story may resurface in the form of another Hero with remarkably similar attributes and story, and she'll end up as part of a myth.

Part of it, of course, depends on what a culture needs, and it creates or adapts its myths accordingly. So how our Buffy would appear in a millenia depends entirely, IMO, on what that millenia needs... if they're highly technical, Buffy may represent Nature, as a force of Nature, setting the balance. If they're earth-bound and low-tech, Buffy may represent someone who can wield powers they've since lost.

Who knows...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not quite my point. -- Humanitas, 13:25:41 10/02/01 Tue

I totally agree with you about the myth-making. It's a subject that has facinated me for a long time, as someone who's both a history geek and an entertainer. I think that's one of the reasons I've always liked novels based on myths (T.H. White, Parke Godwin, etc.). It's fun to think about what events might have given rise to our legends, and about how current events (or TV shows) might transmute into legend in the future. FYI: DVD specifics... -- A8, 17:08:30 10/02/01 Tue

..may be found here:

http://www.dvdreview.com/html/news.html
"Die Duve" -- Aharon D. Shulimson, 16:43:23 09/30/01 Sun

Someone posted a item last year that included a reference to the short film, "Die Duve," a parody of "The Seventh Seal." I have been trying unsuccessfully to locate a copy of this film. I would be appreciative if anyone who has a copy of it would contact me at aharon@xmission.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "Die Duve" -- Wisewoman, 16:57:04 09/30/01 Sun

Your best hope is OnM. I think he has an old Beta tape copy of it.

Good luck ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You actually have that good a memory, or am I on some secret WW database somewhere? -- OnM, 19:34:55 09/30/01 Sun

You're right, I did have a copy, the only thing is if I can still find it-- it's been years since I've played the tape, and I think it was mixed in with a whole bunch of other stuff. I also don't know the condition it would be in.

I will see if I can locate it, and help this person out, but no promises. I don't think it ever has been released on video, but I'm not certain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I live to surf... -- WW, 19:42:05 09/30/01 Sun

Plug Die Duve into Google and you get exactly 1 hit--a transcript of your post to this board in March 2001.

I think Ben Jonson said, "The next best thing to knowing something is knowing where to find it." I don't know much, and the ol' memory is fading fast, but I know how to surf!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good heavens, I've been cached! -- OnM, 20:52:19 09/30/01 Sun

Ya know, I did a search also, but didn't come up with that one because I included a ref to Ingmar Bergman, hoping to grab some cross-links, since the film was a parody of his work.

BTW, info from the IMDb: (BTW, note my misspelling of the name. Sorry, my memory isn't always so good!)

De Dva: The Dove (1968)

Directed by: George Coe & Anthony Lover

Writing credits: Sidney Davis

Credited cast overview:

Pamela Burrell .... Inga
George Coe .... Viktor
Sidney Davis .... Death
Madeline Kahn .... Sigfrid
Stan Rubinstein .... Olin
Tom Stone .... Gustav
Peter Turgeon .... Uncle Anders
David Zirlin .... Chauffeur

Also Known As:

Dove, The (1968) (USA: short title) Runtime: USA:15 Country: USA Black and White
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The Seventh Seal -- Rahael, 18:13:11 10/01/01 Mon

Sorry for going off topic, but I just saw the Seventh Seal tonight for the first time at the National Film Theatre. Just wonderful. Got the feeling that not everyone in the audience shared my opinion.

How is it possible I've got away with not seeing this before? I know I'm going to be having some weird dreams tonight!
I love this! -- Liquidram, 18:04:59 09/30/01 Sun

Being able to see the old eps for the first time is so cool. Just finished watching "Anne" and caught two things.... one blatantly obvious, and one probably coincidental (although, does Joss actually know that word - "coincidence"?)

I noticed immediately that "Lily" was the same actress who plays "Anne" on Angel. (I also noticed that the demon bad guy was the same actor who played Doyle's ex-wife's new demon fiance.) At the end when Buffy gives Anne her waitress uniform and the girl says "Can I be Anne?" it suddenly occurred (duh) to me that this was not only the actress, but also the same character from Angel who now shelters homeless kids.

The 2nd smaller thing was when Buffy was fighting the demon and he screams "They aren't supposed to fight back!" and she says "Yeah, but it was fun." Same line Spike says to Glory after she says "The vampire is lying." in Intervention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I love this! -- Drizzt, 18:23:23 09/30/01 Sun

Recycling is good in any form, even if it is recycling a character or a cool line:)

Joss is good with the really subtle touches of plot continuaty; make us see more details every time we watch an episode.

Joss Rules!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I love this! -- d'Herblay, 19:21:02 09/30/01 Sun

If you've got FX, Liq, October 18 should, by my calculations, be special for you then.

Abashed, I must admit that I did not recognize Anne from Angel as Lily from "Anne" until it was pointed out to me on this very board. Julia Lee seems to have lost a lot of weight over the years. Plus, I'm an oblivious person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ok, I'll bite, so to speak... which ep is 10.18? -- liq, 19:23:17 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "Lie To Me," unless I miscounted -- d'H, 19:27:45 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I love this! -- vampire hunter D, 12:18:08 10/01/01 Mon

Yeah, when I first saw Anne on Angel, I thought I recognized her, but wasn't sure till I read a reviewof the ep on the Sunnydale Slayers site. Speaking of Anne, I like what they've don with her. I hope that we'll get to see more of her and the Homeless Shelter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I love this! -- Shiver, 17:43:07 10/01/01 Mon

In "The Harvest", the Master said, "Here endeth the lesson ..." and I got the urge to go through all the transcripts and see how many times that was said by bad guys up until Spike said it last :-) But I didn't do it yet!
Alias... (OT) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:15:34 09/30/01 Sun
It ain't Buffy, but it's daaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmnnn good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alias... (OT) -- OnM, 19:45:58 09/30/01 Sun
We were talking about the rise of 'women warriors' in the fiction of modern western culture a couple threads down, and now here we have yet another one, and a very good one by the looks of things so far. Of course it remains to be seen if they can sustain this level of energy over the course of the season, but I'm certainly gonna tune in next week.

Anyone else see this as the real American remake of (the movie) La Femme Nikita? Incredible fight scenes, intelligent and capable actors, twisty-turny plot, all that good stuff in spades.

James Cameron, please take note-- this is what 'Dark Angel' should have been, which BTW is not to slight Jessica Alba in any way. I truly think she does her best, but the writing is where Dark Angel really suffers, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Andy, 20:23:15 09/30/01 Sun
Yeah, I liked it and La Femme Nikita was definitely in my head as I watched. I admire that the show, while certainly playing to our fantasies about glamorous super-spies, is also seemingly unafraid of punishing the audience with some unpleasant developments. I guess James Bond once lost a wife, but I don't think we've ever seen his teeth get yanked out (at least not in the films) :)

My big complaint is that I didn't like the soundtrack :)

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- OnM, 20:34:59 09/30/01 Sun
Know what you mean-- one the one hand, they had some good artists providing the tunes, but they seemed just a little too foregroundish to me. I think 'Miami Vice' was the last show to successfully pull this technique off, and even then it wore thin after the first season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Sofdog, 14:56:02 10/01/01 Mon
Ditto on the music. It distracted you from the action rather than enhancing it. They should refer to "Witchblade" on this point. That show's music editing is flawlees. Inspired, even.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hell yeah! -- Deeva, 21:34:10 09/30/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Cactus Watcher, 21:46:40 09/30/01 Sun
Must have been a different show than I saw. What I saw was dog do-do on a stick! An anorexic, second-generation double agent? She's been in grad school how long and gets D's??? If you've ever seen a spy movie, any spy movie, this first episode stole something from it. Throw in some Death Wish and Rambo scenes and you've got Alias. Never seen such a horrible mish-mash of cliches. The bad guys make Wolfram & Hart look like the Salvation Army, but the heroine is gonna out fox 'em? Yeah, right! Gadzooks, it was bad! Very odd running time. I suspect it was cut down from two hours with commercials, which would mean they cut out 20 minutes or so of God knows what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Drizzt, 22:40:32 09/30/01 Sun
I missed it, but because of these extremely different oppinions I am now curious:)

If it is good...cool. If it is full of bad cliches as Cactus Watcher says; cool also, because I will consider it to be a parady of La Femme Nikita, and I LOVE parodies!

I really doubt anything will aproach Nikita in quality in the genra of "female spy", but I would be happy to be wrong about that;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's not a parody, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:49:50 10/01/01 Mon
if you're in 'I want to see a really bad glitzy movie' mode, it's a fine example.

Samples: Sydney (name stolen from Relic Hunter) like all great secret agents has a special talent that sets her apart from the rest... She writes really fast!

Sydney, as linguistic genius, notices odd writing on a document displayed at a briefing. She asks if it is hieratic (an old Egyptian writing system). The Boss says, "Actually it's Demotic," and goes on to explain the agent who wrote it loves ancient writing systems. Unfortunately Demotic is MODERN Greek, so modern, it wasn't considered classy enough to be used in Greek newspapers until the last few decades!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Demotic script... -- Tanker, 07:30:29 10/01/01 Mon
.. is, in fact, an ancient Egyptian writing system. It was used on the Rosetta Stone.

Here's a Yahoo search, which just happens to confirm my last sentence:

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=demotic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> OK, I'm not perfect either ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:59:09 10/01/01 Mon
But, use a good dictionary. You'll see my definition is a correct one, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Stupid things I like. -- Drizzt, 10:58:36 10/01/01 Mon
Thanks for the example of sillyness:) I did not mean to imply it is a parody; but if it is really dumb(to me at least) I would still enjoy it if I THINK of it as a parody...vs just going "Are they serious? This show is stupid!"

Stupid things I like: Beavis & Buthead Three Stooges ANY Leslie Neilson movie... Celebrity Deathmatch Banjokazookie Man...this is a Troma film, and is REALY STUPID! Has an average joe white guy with the super power to turn into a japaneese superhero, complete with white face paint and a traditional japaneese outfit. His weapon of choice is CHOPSTICKS. Also they do a weird lip- sink thing when he is in his japaneese superhero mode. Kind of a sillier version of the fork guy from that film(?) with the skull in a bowling ball, super-fart-guy, and MR RAGE played by Ben Stiller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I know a movie you might like -- Cactus Watcher, 18:31:17 10/01/01 Mon
It's called Plan Nine From Outer Space and it is available on video. It is just about the worst movie ever. (Not just my opinion). If you've seen it before, go ahead treat yourself and watch again! It's a dumb-movie lover's dream. It also marks the last movie appearence of Bela Lugosi, the original Dracula.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Seen it twice! Will rent it again sometime:) -- Drizzt, 20:04:27 10/01/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Stupid things I like. -- Shaglio, 06:47:33 10/02/01 Tue
Mystery Men. I saw it for the first time about a month ago.

"You must learn to master your rage . . ." ". . . Before my rage becomes my master? that's what you were going to say, wasn't it?" "Not necessarily."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Alias... (OT) -- Brian, 03:19:47 10/01/01 Mon
Man, I agree with you 100%. I turned it off about 1/3 of the way through the show. It rang my "this is just stupid bell" way too many times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Sue, 06:35:28 10/03/01 Wed
I don't know.

She's no Nikita.
A saucy little distraction from Marie & Liq before the season premier -- Liquidram, 20:09:28 09/30/01 Sun

Heartstings

Think of two words that begin with an "S", add a dose of a vampire's favorite beverage and you have this dark little fic from the two of us.

WARNING: Depending on your point of view, this story is rated somewhere between an "R" and an "NC-17". If light violence, bad language and S-E-X bugs you, then stay away.

If it doesn't, then enjoy and please! Feedback!! Feedback!! Feedback!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A saucy little distraction from Marie & Liq before the season premier -- LadyStarlight, 06:21:00 10/01/01 Mon

Go read this!!! It's a great story & I wish I'd written it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Read the story last night & gave my feedback... -- Drizzt, 11:05:49 10/01/01 Mon

but my feedback was on the form at Liquidram's site.

Liquidram, did you want feedback here or there...or both?

Just in case, here is feedback on this thread also. Loved it! Kayla was interesting, and the ending had a bittersweet irony. The fight Spike had with the "demon" was very funny;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Feedback anywhere is good -- Liq, 14:02:45 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A saucy little distraction from Marie & Liq before the season premier -- Cactus Watcher, 07:37:36 10/01/01 Mon

Wish I'd read Heartstings last night, instead of watching TV. Pretty good, and sexy, sexy, sexy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A saucy little distraction from Marie & Liq before the season premier -- Dedalus, 14:56:57 10/01/01 Mon

I will give you feedback, L. Promise.

I don't know if you've already sent me a copy of the story or what, but I'm staying with a relative for a day or so, and I only have access to public computers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> We'll be patiently waiting ..... -- Liq & Marie, 15:43:30 10/01/01 Mon

Shippy Spoilery Speculation not involving Spike *SPOILERS* -- Wisewoman, 20:13:13 09/30/01 Sun

If you have not read the complete summaries of the Premiere and Hallowe'en episodes, do not read this or you will be spoiled!

Further spoilage involves the latest UPN Buffy promos which are available on their site and have already aired...so only spoilery if you've been avoiding TV all together.

Okay, you've been warned...

The latest promo features Xander and Willow by Buffy's grave at night, and seems to be after the Urn of Osiris has been destroyed and Willow thinks she's failed in resurrecting Buffy. She's lying under a tree, Xander crouches beside her then leans over to kiss her. I got the impression is was a kind of a friendly, it's gonna be okay, kind of a kiss, however...

We know from the Hallowe'en episode summary (assuming it is accurate) that Willow and Tara have an argument over Willow's use of magic, and Willow uses magic again to make Tara forget the argument. This seems to be setting up a major conflict between the two women.

As well, we've heard several rumours about the wedding being postponed, possibly not coming off at all, and that Anyanka may make a return appearance sometime this season.

Add to that Willow's comment in The Gift when Xander says, "Smart chicks are so hot," and she wistfully asks, "You couldn't have figured that out in tenth grade?", and of course their previous lip-locking whilst locked up, and I wonder if we're seeing an emerging plotline?

It's not something that I think would happen very quickly, but if Xander/Anya and Willow/Tara both suffered major rifts, I think a Xander/Willow pairing might be a natural offshoot. Willow always had a crush on Xander. Willow is Xander's best friend. They've been through a lot together since the first season when Buffy turns down Xander's invitation to the Spring Fling and he thoughtlessly asks Willow to go instead. Most importantly, they've both been through a couple of major love relationships, and it would be as if they were starting afresh from a level playing field, with none of the teenage crushy angst to color their reactions to each other.

Obviously there are major hurdles to overcome both plot and character-wise, to get us to that place, but way stranger things have happened, and it might be kinda nice to have Willow and Xander end up together by the end of the 7th Season.

Oh, and just in case, I love both Anya and Tara, and I'm not suggesting that either or both of them should leave, just that it might end up happening. (However, they do both have four letter names...oh wait, we decided that spoiler referred to "love.")

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shippy Spoilery Speculation not involving Spike *SPOILERS* -- Liq, 20:17:36 09/30/01 Sun

Interesting theory which I could totally see happening. The LOVE theory could obviously also stand for X/A or W/T also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Shippy Spoilery Speculation not involving Spike *SPOILERS* -- Deeva, 21:50:34 09/30/01 Sun

The LOVE theory is all around us. Boy, that sounded very New Age-y. Care to join my ashram? ;o)

I can see your W/X theory happening. Hey, it's Joss. He'll give us what we need, like or not. The Halloween episode sounds fantabulous. Where did you find it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hi Deeva -- WW, 09:10:38 10/01/01 Mon

I think I got the Hallowe'en ep from the Kitten Board Spoiler Thread? If not, it's at www.slayerspoiler.com, with his link to the baps posting board.

I know that's kind of jumbled, let me know if you can't find it and I'll sort it out better.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Urk! It's in a thread below, by Non-creative Pseudonym... -- Wisewoman, 09:23:40 10/01/01 Mon

Not nearly as complicated as I thought!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shippy Spoilery Speculation not involving Spike *SPOILERS* -- Wiccagrrl, 21:46:27 09/30/01 Sun

Nah, don't see it. They more than flirted with W/X back in season 3. I really, really hope they don't go there.

W/T may have something of a strain on their ship, but I have a feeling that, in the end, they'll still be very much together. Not as sure about X/A, but I think they may survive, too. I don't know- I actually think that if there is any UST between any of the Scoobs, it'll be X/B. Not that I think it'd really come off, but I'm guessing there may be some unresolved issues that get dealt with between them (like Buffy dealing with some "my best friend's wedding-type issues). Willow and Xander will always be very, very special to each other, but their time is, IMO, of the past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shippy Spoilery Speculation not involving Spike *SPOILERS* -- Monique, 09:38:36 10/01/01 Mon

As someone who always thought that the Xander/Willow thing in season 3 was left unresolved for a reason, I have to agree with you. I was a huge X/W shipper once, but I learned to love Anya and Tara, so I thought my X/W days were over... guess they arent after all ;) I dont think it would be wise of Willow and Xander to have a relationship now, to tell you the truth, but yes, the possibility is there, and we can't say there hasn't been foreshadowing...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Been there, done that -- vampire hunter D, 12:01:47 10/01/01 Mon

Remember season 3? Will and Xander already tried that. And it didn't work out. In fact, I don't see either relationship (X/A ot W/T) breaking up any time soon. In fact, I hope they don't break up Willow and Tara, those two are too cute together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shippy Spoilery Speculation not involving Spike *SPOILERS* -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:50:37 10/01/01 Mon

I've read all the spoilers (tried so VERY hard not too, but I gave in eventually) and I definately do believe there will be a fight between Willow and Tara, and there will be a breakup. However, I don't think it'll be permanent... and even if it is, does that really mean Amber will leave the show? I mean... would the writers really expect us to believe Tara would hang up her white hat and walk away from the gang and the good fight just because she wasn't dating Willow anymore?
holiday appeal -- anom, 20:20:20 09/30/01 Sun

As things worked out, Angel's 2nd episode is on the 1st day of Sukkos (Sukkot, major Jewish holiday) & the Buffy premiere on the 2nd day. I won't be able to watch those nights, & my VCR is screwed up. I won't have a chance to take it to be fixed till at least Weds., & I don't know how long fixing it will take. I've asked friends to tape the shows, but their reception is iffy & their VCR is already booked for Mon.

Soooo...a request. Can someone in the NYC area tape the shows for me & lend me the tapes? I'll get 'em back to you once I've watched 'em (i.e., after my VCR is fixed). I hope I won't need to ask this again next week, when Shemini Atzeres is Mon. & Simchas Torah is Tues. Anyone able & willing, please post your ability & willingness here ('cause I couldn't figure out how to link to my email addr.- -is that in the FAQ? couldn't find it), w/logistics of getting the tapes back & forth. You'll have my eternal (OK, mortal) gratitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> email, taping episodes, etc -- Solitude1056, 05:25:19 10/01/01 Mon

I can pick up some extra tapes today, and tape tonight & tomorrow night as back-ups. I'm in the DC area, so we're not talking just a "send across town" thing. If no one else in the NY area jumps up, consider me backup. And btw, to put your email address in, just put your address in the 3rd line of the posting form, right under where it says "email address (optional)" - that does the trick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: email, taping episodes, etc -- anom, 05:59:35 10/01/01 Mon

"I can pick up some extra tapes today, and tape tonight & tomorrow night as back-ups. I'm in the DC area, so we're not talking just a "send across town" thing. If no one else in the NY area jumps up, consider me backup."

Fantastic. Thanks. I may not have time tonight to check in, or check my email, so anyone willing who doesn't hear from me, please go ahead & tape it (you were probably going to already, right?) & we'll work out getting it to me later.

"And btw, to put your email address in, just put your address in the 3rd line of the posting form, right under where it says "email address (optional)" - that does the trick."

Oy--duh. (ever see those 2 words together before?!) So obvious I didn't see it--I was looking for it as a formatting trick. Thanks again.

Enjoy, everybody--I'll catch up when I can.
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: A Big Thank You! -- rowan, 08:44:12 10/01/01 Mon

Although we still have a few essays to go, the eve of S6 seems like an appropriate time to thank everyone who participated in the 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party. These essays have been imaginative, illuminating, and informative. Who could ask for anything more? You all made the offseason fly by -- my hat is off to you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ditto from me! -- Masquerade, 08:49:46 10/01/01 Mon

Go to http://www.ivyweb.net/btvs/characters.html to see the posted character analyses. I'm still working on the latest ones, and all will be linked to their discussions in the archives.


Current board | October 2001