September 2001 posts
Worse Than They Seem: The
Watchers, Treachery, and Buffy as Target -- Fred, the obvious
pseudonym, 15:24:06 09/01/01 Sat
BtVS portrays the Council of Watchers, in general, as a problematic,
occasionally inept but occasionally needful organization, about
a sclerotic as a 5000 year old bureaucracy could be. (I should
point out that you may consider any old, certainly millennia-old,
bureaucracy as a vampire- analogue.) I suggest that, while they
may be benevolent from the standpoint of the average citizen in
the Buffy-verse, they may be malevolent to the individual Slayer.
Lets take a look at the general process. A Slayer is Chosen --
possessed by the powers thereby. She has a Watcher, a man (in
a very-much patriarchal role,) who will exploit his adolescent
"daughter" and ultimately lead her in an uneasy life
and to an early death. But let's say the Slayer beats the odds
(as Buffy has) and does NOT die. Should the Slayer live for perhaps
some years, she will by definition grow in maturity, confidence,
ability to deal with the world. As such she will be less amenable
to her Watcher's dictates, and, through him, those of the Council.
But if she dies young, there is little lost to the Council; they
have several young girls "on deck," so to speak, who
can become the next Slayer. In this way the Watchers can continue
to fulfill their function of fighting evil.
Buffy stated in "Checkpoint" that the Council were,
in actuality, more dependent on the Slayer than she on them. She
is only half-right. They need a Slayer; they DO NOT NEED any individual
Slayer. For the purposes of fighting Evil a sixteen- or seventeen-
year old Buffy- replacement will do almost as well. In addition,
she will not be a threat to Council authority.
This may be the real function of the cruciamentum test. Most Slayers
will probably NOT survive -- and they are NOT intended to. I don't
think that it is any coincidence that this may happen as the Slayer
reaches her early adulthood at 18 and may, therefore, become more
assertive and independent. A steady turnover of Slayers would
have, in the Council's eyes, minimal negative impact on the main
mission of fighting evil and be a major support for the Council's
second mission -- perpetuating its own authority and power. Remember
Giles referring to the threat of a rogue Slayer? Is this a threat
to the world -- or to the Council specifically?
In brief, the Council may have wanted Buffy dead since her 18th
birthday. The resurrected Buffy of the sixth season had better
watch her back; not all her mortal enemies may be undead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers, Treachery, and Buffy
as Target -- Drizit, 15:47:17 09/01/01 Sat
The Watchers Council does not watch the show, being part of the
show.
They might get Giles reports on disasters that Buffy has averted...apocolypse
six times now plus run of the mill nasties that are the norm near
the Hellmouth. The thing is it is a lot different to be at a fight
that determins the fate of the world than reading a report in
a library in England while drinking tea. My point is that we the
veiwers know how much Buffy has done, but to the Council she is
just another Slayer.
Similar to how we the veiwers saw Spike changing and the gradual
changes that the chip/love of Buffy did to him, but the Scoobies
had no awareness of this process and the genuine love until Intervention.
Checkpoint was a cool episode, but the Council does have much
more power than Buffy in the mundain world and I think they backed
down from thier demands too easily. Maby they wanted to wait for
the Glory situation to resolve before making a real move for power(key
in music from Jaws as the Stuffy Englishmen plot evily...he he)
Fred, all this rambling was to say I agree with you:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not your ordinary Slayer... -- Wisewoman, 19:57:11
09/01/01 Sat
Gotta say this quick, 'cuz BtVS is on in 3 minutes...Buffy's success
in facing down the CoW in Checkpoint is, in part, because she
is not just another slayer. I think the Council recognizes that.
They were concerned enough when they found out she was battling
a god to come over en masse. And as far as we know, no other slayer
has been entrusted with something as potentially dangerous as
The Key...okay gotta go..
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers, Treachery, and Buffy
as Target -- gds, 20:23:26 09/01/01 Sat
I agree with Wisewoman. Furthermore I believe the WC knew Buffy
would defeat Glory. As I pointed out when the show aired, the
camera deliberately cut away from Buffy after Buffy told the WC
that Glory had told Buffy that she could squash her like a bug
- but she didn't. For about 2 seconds the camera cut to 2 watchers
giving a look at each other. The director went out of the way
to indicate something was going on at that point.
Also don't forget that some of the WC - including some watchers
- are women. They probably are in the minority, but they are there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers, Treachery,
and Buffy as Target -- voxpopuli, 21:20:49 09/01/01 Sat
Or maybe,they actually wanted Glory to terminate Buffy, and if
no other slayer was called they could terminate Faith and get
their new brand new Slayer, Maybe, they actually could defeat
Glory using other resources, maybe they were affraid (in their
higher levels) that if they killed Faith first, no other slayer
would be called forth, adn they'd have to deal with Buffy, who
has proven impossible to control... I know it is a little paranoid
but... organizations that are more than 2000 years old, just do
not remain functional by being nice and totally dependant on one
element of the chain, regardless of the importance of such element.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers, Treachery,
and Buffy as Target -- Drizit, 21:25:38 09/01/01 Sat
Valid points, however the Council is a paradox or a joke then.
They brag about thier knowladge and power, but when push comes
to shove they back down. If the Council really does know how efficiant/profficiant
Buffy is they might choose to tolerate her independance for the
practical reason that her style works, but if a new menace comes
and Buffy could not solve it they might kill her so they could
have another Slayer who would do the job.
Ahhhhh I just read my own paragraph above and thought to myself
"If Buffy cannot solve a problem how would a new inexperienced
Slayer be better?" Feelling wishy washy and confused now...
I am curious if Giles notified the Council of her Death. Regardless,
unless the Buffybot is reactivated to take her place they would
find out anyway as I am sure they have one or two informants or
Watchers in Sunnydayle to give them reports that lack Giles bias.(Giles
is probably justifiably beleived to be loyal to Buffy not the
Council)
Second issue is if the Council knows about the death of Buffy
will they try to get Faith out of jail, kill Faith to get the
next Slayer? Ah Faith....wish Elishka(sp?) had remained available
for Buffy and Angel instead of going for the higher paychecks
of corny movies. Faith would have been written into more episodes
if the actress were available.
Sigh...I miss Faith!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers, Treachery,
and Buffy as Target -- John Burwood, 00:55:33 09/02/01 Sun
Just a quick post to add a couple of small twists to this thread.
Buffy is no ordinary slayer because the line now runs through
Faith. To get a new Slayer the WC would have to kill Faith - currently
out of easy reach in prison. They have no final sanction against
a rebellious Buffy, which is what gave her the whip hand over
them. The WC would surely have an independent Slayer slaying than
no Slayer. She is a bonus to the fight, & IMHO the WC are too
coldly logical not to see that. But the WC are still sclerotically
tied to ancient Laws & traditions such as the Cruciamentum. The
reason for this ancient test may well have a lot to do with controlling
slayers, but knowing the darkness of the Slayer & the potential
of them doing a 'Faith' this may well have evolved for a rational
purpose - albeit arrogantly and self-righteously rational.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers,
Treachery, and Buffy as Target -- John Burwood, 03:51:38 09/02/01
Sun
Another point also occurs. If the WC had been completely ruthless
about killing Slayers, why did they not have Faith killed while
she was in a coma? They had an agent as her nurse monitoring her,
after all, and professional killers in their pay. Yet they waited
until she awoke, & then tried to bring her in for trial first.
Only when she went berserk again & started attacking Buffy & others,
& their soldiers warned them smuggling a prisoner backwould be
too dangerous did they authorise summary execution. Following
their ancient rules all the way along, is my bet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers,
Treachery, and Buffy as Target -- Malandanza, 14:30:45 09/02/01
Sun
"Another point also occurs. If the WC had been completely
ruthless about killing Slayers, why did they not have Faith killed
while she was in a coma? They had an agent as her nurse monitoring
her, after all, and professional killers in their pay. Yet they
waited until she awoke, & then tried to bring her in for trial
first. Only when she went berserk again & started attacking Buffy
& others, & their soldiers warned them smuggling a prisoner back
would be too dangerous did they authorize summary execution. Following
their ancient rules all the way along, is my bet."
Giles did say that the Watcher's excel at bureaucracy -- behind
the scenes manipulation. But bureaucracy has its downside as well
-- consider a division in the council where one faction wants
Faith dead and another wants her rehabilitated. How would they
resolve the issue? My guess was a timid third group that were
hoping Faith would die in her coma so they wouldn't have to make
a decision. When Faith awakened and went on a rampage, these watchers
could have switched to the first group. I think the provision
for bringing Faith back to England was mere lip service to the
"good" members of the council -- a promise to try to
bring her back to England if possible -- but they sure didn't
try very hard. In other words, I don't think the council met to
decide Faith's fate while the "wet works" team was waiting
on the phone -- whoever they were reporting to had already had
the authority to make this decision delegated to him -- he just
needed an excuse to implement it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bureaucracy, or how Faith
got lost in the papershuffling -- Rufus, 15:58:35 09/02/01 Sun
"Slayers change, the council remains the same."
When the slayer was first created, the Watchers were people with
a mission to save this sorry world. A sacrifice to civilization.
One girl that shoulders the ultimate weight of the world while
everyone else goes on about life. It was simple in primative times,
there would have been a strong tie between the Watcher and the
Slayer, it was more personal. Then humanity evolved and became
less humane. The Council of Watchers became a bureaucracy more
interested in its own inner workings than the instrument, or slayer.
It was inhuman enough to expect one person to shoulder the majority
of the battle between good and evil, but the CoW went a step further,
they became benign looking academics more interested in their
continued involvement in the Big picture than the health or welfare
of the Slayer. They cut themselves off from their reason for being
with paperwork, meetings, and other trappings of self importance.
Faith didn't get killed because it wasn't part of the plan. The
Watchers so convinced of their ultimate power that they failed
to comprehend that the slayer is more than a chess piece. The
larger the bureaucracy, the more chance there is for mistakes
and miscommunication. The downside is that the Slayer has in the
form of Buffy been able to evolve past the need for the Council,
something I don't think they ever considered possible. The CoW's
mistake was to get to removed from the Slayer, and too arrogant
about their place in the Big Picture. If they have information
that would further cement their place at the top of the pecking
order I suggest they do a little research and find which slip
of paper that gem was put on. Til then they shoud eagerly await
their first issue of Insaneo's Home Journal, just don't hope it
gets lost in the mail room.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Origins? -- Malandanza,
16:19:08 09/02/01 Sun
When the slayer was first created, the Watchers were people with
a mission to save this sorry world.
Is it possible that the council began as a sort of Scooby Gang?
Imagine if Buffy were to remain dead - - wouldn't Xander & Willow
be interested in who the next slayer might be (assuming Faith
is out of the picture)? Think about Willow and Xander searching
for the next Chosen One to help her out (or save her from the
council)-- then imagine the first slayer to have a group of friends
and what they might do after her death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Origins? --
Rufus, 16:40:45 09/02/01 Sun
Sorry, I'm kinda referencing the comic book Fray where it says
that the Watchers created the slayer. I don't ever see them as
a Scooby Gang as much as an patriarchal figure that is there to
guide the slayer, not be her friend. Giles proves that not all
of the watchers have ice water in their veins as he was close
enough to Buffy to develop fatherly feelings for her. The council
seemed to want to test both Slayer and Watcher to make sure that
the Watcher didn't get too close to the instrument. Giles is just
not a good "company" man as he was able to ignore Council
teachings in hope of creating not just a better slayer but a better
person. I think that once the CoW lost that personal link to the
Slayer their days were numbered as the ultimate control figures
on the side of humanity. They lost out because they forgot the
human in humanity. They became aloof from all banishing themselves
to their research. I just don't see any evidence that the slayer
ever had a Scooby Gang in the same way that Buffy created. I think
they did get close to the individual Watchers as they fulfilled
a parental role in a solitary, short, life. Buffy in that she
wasn't found early enough to mould her into a proper slayer, was
able to think outside, way outside of the box.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers,
Treachery, and Buffy as Target -- cjc36, 06:49:27 09/02/01 Sun
I've wondered: The writers have said, and now we know, that Buffy,
while still being a Slayer and all, isn't the torch bearer of
Slayerdom: Faith is.
Does the Council know this? Does Giles? I'm guessing they will
after no new girl is called, but this begs the Q: Why not kill
Fatih and get a new warrior?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Worse Than They Seem: The Watchers, Treachery, and Buffy
as Target -- cjc36, 06:45:06 09/02/01 Sun
Good piece, Fred. But do remember--at least now, in the modern
world--there are women watchers.
But you're points are valid. The Council can (and has, I'm guessing)
treat Slayers like disposable tools. Nothing more.
Giles grew parental feelings for Buffy--love--and it broke the
rules and Quentin fired him. Cold bastards!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Watchers must be crying about the recent slayers --
Kerri, 08:16:27 09/02/01 Sun
The WC must be very upset. Ok-so there's Faith. She goes all rouge
slayer-and what happens-they can't kill her-a vampire helps to
save her.
Worse yet for the council-Buffy. She continues to fight evil but
shows she doesn't need the watchers to do that. Then when they
come to Sunnydale to try to regain control she addresses them
as her equals, if not inferiors, and takes control away from them.
Then Buffy goes and lives longer than most, if not all, previous
slayers. Buffy is without a doubt an unusual slayerin many ways,
her relationship with humanity especially-and while this is an
excellent thing for Buffy Sumnmers, everyone that is close to
her, and the world-the WC must be very upset.
Really Kendra seems like the kind of slayer they wanted. Obedient,
willing to cut all ties with humanity, short lived, completely
in their control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Watchers must be crying about the recent slayers
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 13:24:23 09/02/01 Sun
Wow.
I'm very gratified by the substantial and well-thought out replies
to my jottings. Even a brief look at the postings shows that the
contributors to this list have much more in-depth considerations
than most "fan" discussion boards.
A couple of thoughts: First, I would not think that having women
on the Watchers' Council would change their behavior much. From
my study of history I would suggest that women in positions of
power could be quite as ruthless as the XY-chromosome bearers
if their interests are threatened. Cases in point: Margaret Thatcher.
Indira Gandhi. Catherine the Great of Russia. The Dowager Empress
of China. Elizabeth I of England. The Isabellas, of both Spain
and France (latter affectionately nicknamed the "She-Wolf."
I think, however, she got shortchanged by the chroniclers of the
fourteenth century, usually monks who did not then like assertive
women in positions of power.) Blanche of Castile . . . [Too long
a list as it stands.]
So, despite sharing a gender with Buffy, the women of the Watchers'
Council might well sign off on her "termination with extreme
prejudice," albeit with a bit more regret.
Second: I'm not sure Faith is out of the picture (although, in
reality, Eliza Dushku's other commitments might preclude.) Remember
that her crimes were committed in California. We never knew exactly
what she was charged with or how severe her sentence is. If she
could scrounge up a good lawyer and get a decent plea bargain
(plus good behavior in the joint) she might well be out on parole
in eighteen months or so. I think Amy Fisher was in for about
2 and 1/2 years in New York, a much harsher jurisdiction. This
doesn't even assume that the Council could use behind the scenes
influence.
Hmm. . . . this could work out wonderfully well. It would give
the Council an effective Slayer with superb control -- "do
what we say or you go back to San Quentin." Would work for
me.
Third: While Buffy is, almost certainly, the longest lived and
most experienced Slayer of recent centuries, the Council may well
decide that her special qualifications are disposable if their
command authority is in jeopardy. Remember that in the course
of some millennia they've probably faced numerous severe challenges
and dealt with them in due course and with other Slayers. So Buffy
is not indispensable. "The graveyards are full of indispensable
men." -- Georges Clemenceau.
Fourth: The Scooby Gang, as motley as it is, is, I would suggest,
Buffy's great asset. As one writer observed about Holmes and Watson,
the secret is that Holmes needs Watson more than the good doctor
needs the great detective. Watson kept his partner emotionally-grounded
and connected with humanity, something that may well have vanished
if Holmes had been a solitary.
Note that of the three slayers we've seen, only Buffy has had
what pop psychology would call a "support group." The
others have not. While Kendra didn't last long enough for us to
tell, it's apparent that Faith was going over the edge like a
turbo-powered lemming (note the pressures I had in the other post,
"Buffy as Burnt Offering.") I think that their isolation,
save only for their Watcher (each of which has an agenda beyond
the well-being of his charge) plays a major part in their early
demise. As Spike noted, perhaps the "average" Slayer
develops a death wish -- just to end this pressure, isolation,
suffering, and to get it over with.
Another point -- you notice that none of these Slayers, save possibly
the first, has a father present? That may be a prerequisite for
this isolation and Council control.
Thanks for hearing me out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Watchers must be crying about the recent
slayers -- Voxpopuli, 05:14:39 09/03/01 Mon
The CoW did not expect Buffy to return, let alone with her Slayer
power still intact. That added a data on unpredictability that
would keep then from killing Faith before Buffy died. As I said
before, what if Faith dies, and there is not new Slayer, as if
the Poers that Be saw no need for this. You know, the "there
can be only one" highlander motto that served very well on
the beggining of the series? If Buffy dies, another slayer could
be called or not (They're not Joss, they're Joss' characters).
If not, then they could safely erradicate Faith and then track
and train the new Slayer, if another slayer was called after Buffy's
death, they could terminate Faith, take the chances of having
two slayers without the risk of ending up with none. That would
be like playing to eliminate the undesirable odds. My ideal of
Watcher and Slayers and Vamps are in another thread. Women Watchers...
a woman in such position does not need to be any different from
men. Too bad it is so. To succeed in a men's world, most women
act like men deprived of penis, intead of trying to make their
own rules, to set up their own standards and thus making this
world less solidly masculine, and more tolerant of difference.
So the women of the Council should be as harsh as men, and as
ruthless. Besides that, we must all bear in mind that the council
is a depositary of knowledge gathered since immemorial times,
they have their trainers, probably their witches, and Magus, their
spies, and strategists, they could probably make their own war
against the forces of darkness (!) without the slayer. It is not
bad for them that the slayers change while the Council gets ever
more powerful. So Buffy, definitely is a pain in the butt. They
can't even control her Watcher. I think that Quentin is a small
fish in a big pond. Would you really send someone important to
care for a situation that could endanger the life of the emmissarie?
Nope! Would you give the whole pack of information to a small
fish, or would you just use it as a tool of manipulation? Guess
what? I believe the show has not explored the whole potential
of the Council. What if Wolfram and Hart is an unwanted offspring
of the Council, sharing its manipulation methods and stuff? What
is the Council did not say the whole truth about vampires and
demons, so that they can exhert better control over the lowest
ranks and over the slayer? The Council could be a big Good that
turned so Bad because it got lost in its own lust for Power.
I wrote this, and I hope it clarifies my ideas: " The lineage
stays unbroken, and that's how the knowledge is passed on. It
is blood, always about blood. Any Ancient One is aware of it.
Nobody knows how the Slayers are actually found. Some watchers
claim it is magic, and in a sense it is. The magic of essence
calling to essence, blood to blood. The secret of the Council's
Inner Circle is kept unbroken, like the male lineage, and it is
exactly what has kept the Council together despite the numerous
rebellions within its ranks. The knowledge has grown into an intricate
web, and as the world grew, so did the tentacles of the Council.
'Cause the slayer had to be found, and trained, and buried, and
then found again. And the portal of Dimensions, HellMouth as we
call it, moves around the planet, and it may stay for centuries
on a certain place, just to show up somewhere else, all new and
unguarded! The Watchers must never rest: they do not have the
right to rest. The Archives are not entirely secret, only part
of them can not be disclosed to anybody outside the family. How
many watchers know that they are nothing but pawns in a family
play? Perhaps none of them. How many watchers are aware of the
wealth controlled by the organisation? Their wildest dreams fall
infinitely short of the power of the Council. For watchers know
only the tentacle they are linked to, not the source of those
limbs. And if a limb is defective or becomes useless or dangerous,
it is immediately cut off, so that a new and healthier one, can
grow in its place.
There came a time when the Council became more feared than the
Slayers, and the ones outside the Family started not to care much
about the Slayer. And it is such their despise, that the Slayers
started to die younger. But not the watchers. We have the finest
minds, the most skilled warriors from all over the world. They
who have seen the face of evil, turn to us for allegiance. For
many watchers the Slayer is nothing but a legend. And the ones
who actually meet a Slayer, most do not see the beauty they are
blessed to behold. The Inner Circle is not loosing strength: it
is being suffocated in its own power.
My older brothers are all above me, youngest among them. The Elder
is about to die and his older son will take his place. My nephew,
a few years younger than me. He was trained and groomed to this
task, and I do not envy him at all, for I see that the burden
which will be placed on his shoulders will bend him and dry him
up, as it did not my brother, so old despite not so advanced in
years. Me, I can not escape my destiny, the lineage lives in me
as it lives in each one of them. But I shall retire as soon as
my beloved brother is set to rest on the earth. Weak I shall be
called, but I do not mind." P. 1850
"He is dead. It took him almost one year of excruciating
pain, but he has finally rested. My nephew did not shed a tear,
he was not supposed to, but I... shame on me for having wept over
the loss of a man I admired for his wisdom and loved as brother!
"Weakling", my brothers called me. Now it is time to
negotiate my departure". P. 1851
" So I set my eyes on new horizons, for a small business
across the channel. New man, new name, new life, new hopes. Will
I find a good woman of my own choice to marry? Will I be able
to have a perfectly normal life? As the boat crosses these dark
waters I feel like I am leaving the fields of Hades behind. A
short note for today: may all my grief be gone!". P. June
1851
"She was not the most beautiful girl in the room, but there
was something in her stare that made me fall for her. Pretty indeed,
yet there is more to her than just grace. She is inquisitive,
witty and so young! Her father is a physician, one of those leeches,
not better or worse than any of his fellows. He teaches at Medical
School. No noble title, a fair dowry. I do not need her dowry.
Do I need her?" P. 1852
" I am a family man! We've married a couple of weeks ago,
and due to business pressures, we were not able to have a decent
honeymoon. Next Summer we will travel to some place warm and sunny.
Oh, happiness! I thought You were not for me!" P. Dec. 1852
" She bore me two children! A boy and a girl, twins! I feared
for her life, and I did my best to help her. She bled too much.
I thought I'd loose her. My lovely wife... so brave, so strong!
She still does not know that she will not be able to have any
more children. But, lo! Right now I have more than I can handle!
Two beautiful babies, beautiful... the girl cries a lot, I see
her small face twist as she seems to make the whole world spin
around her. The boy, on the other hand, is pretty quiet, and sleeps
for hours on end. Their hair is brown like mine, and they have
their mother's blue eyes. I love them. My family, my own blood."
P. 1854
" Mary has got married today. A fine man her husband is.
He will have to muster all his patience for my girl. She has a
wild heart and a fierce nature. She is not one to take orders
from anybody. My love says I spoiled her. Maybe I did. My son
is who really worries me. Quiet, of mild manners and a kind heart.
How many times other children neat him up at school? Not one tear,
not one complaint. If I could I would send him to my family's
school, but would it do him any good? Sometimes he scares me.
I can see some traits of my family in his behaviour. Keen observer,
responds very quickly to people's feelings rather than words.
I wonder if he has the resilience and coldness that we all have
been bred with. He'd be a good watcher. If only he was not so...
tender. He has started to talk about girls, and I do not think
he knows his ways around females. My brother-in- law says I should
take care of this part of the boy's education, but... he does
not seem ready... yet. I met a watcher at the wedding. He did
not seem to know me. And I am glad he did not approach us. Pretty
harmless the old man seemed. But you never know". P. 1870
" My son is in College and Mary is living abroad with her
husband. I fear for my wife's welfare. How will she cope with
all this? All she'll have is this diary. I hope she understands
how much I love her, how much I love my children! I have to guarantee
their safety. Happiness: so short and so dear. Tonight I'll meet
him. He's got a message from the Circle. I could not say no."
P. Dec. 1872 Journal's last note.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> minor note -- Solitude1056, 11:37:56 09/03/01
Mon
father-figure made me think of the slayer during the Boxer Rebellion:
her last words were translated as "tell my mother I'm sorry."
An odd choice, if you go on the assumption that the Chinese patriarchial
culture would've meant her father would've been the one to whom
she owed an apology for the dishonor of failing. But she mentioned
her mother, instead... so perhaps there is something to "not
having a complete set of parental figures" in each Slayer's
personal history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Or she had a "Bad Dad," in the
Jossian tradition -- mundusmundi, 12:52:09 09/03/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: minor note -- Kerri, 12:59:36 09/03/01
Mon
It seems that the slayer has a strong connection with the mother.
The nature of the slayer is to love and nurture, which Buffy finally
understands in The Gift, and while the slayer in China may not
have realised this on a conscious level, as Buffy does, she could
have felt it.
Also we can think of the slayer's mother as being the first slayer
or the power which possesses the slayer-the one who brings life
in the form of the slayer, and the slayer's father as being the
watcher- who contributed to the bringing of life(as in the shamons
who created the slayer) and also the traditional disciplinarian
role of the father.
Make any sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> several points -- anom, 21:24:19 09/05/01 Wed
"Second: I'm not sure Faith is out of the picture....We never
knew exactly what she was charged with or how severe her sentence
is....she might well be out on parole in eighteen months or so."
Do we know how old Faith is? If she was a juvenile at the time
she committed the crime(s) she was sentenced for, she might be
out in a few years.
"It would give the Council an effective Slayer with superb
control -- 'do what we say or you go back to San Quentin.'"
If she's out early after serving juvie time, the CoW couldn't
send her back.
"I think that their isolation, save only for their Watcher
(each of which has an agenda beyond the well-being of his charge)
plays a major part in their early demise."
Well, Faith apparently had a good Watcher the 1st time, possibly
the first positive relationship she'd had in her life. But that
probably made seeing her killed before her eyes even more traumatic.
If she hadn't run into the SG, she might not be alive today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> several points -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym,
11:36:56 09/06/01 Thu
IIRC Faith is Buffy's age; so she would have been 18-19 at the
time of her confession. The last shot in the "Angel"
where she went to jail (I forget the title) was her in a barred
cell -- I don't think standard issue for first-term California
juvenile centers. I think she is in an adult facility.
But, again, being California, she well might have received a short
sentence and be released early -- permitting my scenario -- re
Watcher hold of parole violation threat as control -- to hold.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: several points -- Drizzt, 13:58:03
09/07/01 Fri
Scenerio Watchers Council using the big stick of "obay or
you go back to jail"? Ever seen La Femme Nikita?
A threat will not control Faith, it is having a purpose and a
sense of belonging that could win her over. Faith is alone. Not
much of a threat. A parolee with a family and life to go to after
prison will want to be with thier family. Parolee with no freinds
or family has no reason to care where they are. Faith has noone
except Angel who cares about her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Watchers, the Slayer, and the subordinate role of women
-- vampire hunter D, 12:58:33 09/02/01 Sun
I get the feeling that the Watchers have a very old world and
out-dated mind set. Until recently, all women and girlds wre told
not to think for themselves. Told to do what others (specifically
the men of the family) told them (kind of like Tara's family).
They were to be subordinate and totally dependant on others. However,
over the last couple of decades, women and society in general
have begun rejecting this demeaning standard. Women have begun
to think for themselves and have lives and careers away from the
home. This change has really taken off in the last decade where
now not only are they allowed to be independant, but are encouraged
to do so.
The Watchers (and the MacLay Family) have not gotten this yet.
Notice, most of the watchers we've seen were a bunch of stuffy
old coots. They are still trying to hold the Slayer to the old
"girls should do as they're told" attitude.
The fact that the Slayers are called in their teen years doesn't
help. They suddenly go from a comfortable world view (where all
that matters is clothes, and boy bands, and who-likes-who) and
are suddenly thrust into a very harsh and dangerous reality. They
are probably confused and scared. Then the watchers come along
with their antiquated attitude with offers of aid. Of course,
this aid comes at the price of the girls free will and comlete
isolation from family and friends (ala Kendra). But as scared
as the girl is, it probably makes sense (Am I making sense here.
My thoughts don't translate into words well). The Slayer becomes
a puppet of her Watcher, and after a while, taking orders becomes
so routine that even if she did survive into maturity, she is
so used to taking orders that she can't stop even when she is
old enough to realize she doesn't have to.
Buffy, however, is different. She was brought up in a world where
girls are encouraged to think for themselves. She had friends
to help her through the difficult parts of Slaying and kept her
from being totally dependant on her watcher. Also, Giles gave
up trying to order her around. He helped her, gave her advice
and suggestions, but never gave orders. All this led her to be
more independant and able to make her own decisions. In fact,
when Wesley came along and immediately began issuing oders, she
just ignored him.
Faith also benefited from Buffy. She got to be exposed to a strong
and independant Slayer, so she saw that she did not need a watcher
to fight. I also think that Faith's past also predisposed her
to be untrusting of authority. This gave her the ability to be
independant too.
But what of the next Slayer. She might not have Buffy (and probably
won't have Faith) to guide her and show her how to be independant.
And the Watchers still have this cheauvanistic attiude. In fact,
they would rpobably be more intent on totally controling the SLayer.
I fear for this girl.
The Watchers need to be stopped. Or at least have some sense knocked
into them. Hmm, I think I feel a fanfic coming on (anyone want
to help?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Watchers, the Slayer, and the subordinate
role of women -- Voxpopuli, 09:42:51 09/03/01 Mon
I'm not a native speaker of English, but I'd like to help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No. They're all just nice, sweet, Giles's. -- change, 18:20:49
09/04/01 Tue
Sorry, but I just love playing devils advocate, and the CoW make
such wonderful devils....
> BtVS portrays the Council of Watchers, in general, as a problematic,
> occasionally inept but occasionally needful organization,
about a > sclerotic as a 5000 year old bureaucracy could be.
(I should point > out that you may consider any old, certainly
millennia-old, bureaucracy > as a vampire-analogue.) I suggest
that, while they may be benevolent > from the standpoint of
the average citizen in the Buffy-verse, they may > be malevolent
to the individual Slayer.
> Lets take a look at the general process. A Slayer is Chosen
-- possessed > by the powers thereby. She has a Watcher, a
man (in a very-much > patriarchal role,) who will exploit his
adolescent "daughter" and > ultimately lead her in
an uneasy life and to an early death.
Giles hasn't exploited her, and neither did Wesley. I don't think
you can say that the CoW leads the slayers to an early death either.
In WttHM, Giles mentions that Joyce's decision to move to Sunnydale
was not pure chance. It is strongly implied that the PTB somehow
manipulated Joyce into deciding to move to Sunnydale because that's
where they wanted Buffy to be. So it's the PTB that are leading
the slayers to an early death. The CoW simply tries to help the
slayers by providing them with training and advice.
It also seems odd that when Buffy ran away from Sunnydale at the
end of season 2, that she should just happen to pick another town
with its own Hellmouth and demons to fight. Probably the influence
of the PTB again.
As far as Giles being patriarchical, I think it would be hard
for a 40'ish man not to be patriarchical towards a 16 year old
girl he was assigned to train and advise.
> But let's > say the Slayer beats the odds (as Buffy has)
and does NOT die. Should > the Slayer live for perhaps some
years, she will by definition grow in > maturity, confidence,
ability to deal with the world. As such she will > be less
amenable to her Watcher's dictates, and, through him, those of
> the Council.
> But if she dies young, there is little lost to the Council;
they have > several young girls "on deck," so to
speak, who can become the next Slayer. > In this way the Watchers
can continue to fulfill their function of fighting > evil.
You're assuming that the CoW does not need experienced slayers.
Given that there have been 6 near apocolypses in the past 5 years,
the CoW would want to have the most experienced slayer around
possible just for self preservation.
> Buffy stated in "Checkpoint" that the Council were,
in actuality, more > dependent on the Slayer than she on them.
She is only half-right. > They need a Slayer; they DO NOT NEED
any individual Slayer. For the purposes > of fighting Evil
a sixteen- or seventeen- year old Buffy- replacement will do >
almost as well. In addition, she will not be a threat to Council
authority.
Again, you're assuming that the CoW does not need an experienced
slayer, and that the only thing the CoW does is to train and advise
slayers. The CoW may do other things too. If not, they why has
it developed the ability to manipulate bureacracies in foreign
countries. Why does it have a wet works team. It seems like overkill
to manage one slayer.
> This may be the real function of the cruciamentum test. Most
Slayers will > probably NOT survive -- and they are NOT intended
to.
I don't remember any reference in the BtVS to whether or not most
slayers survive the Cruciamentum. However, I would expect that
most of them would survive. Xander does not have any special training,
and yet he has killed vampires on occasion. Before Willow became
a witch, Xander and Willow patrolled while Buffy was on vacation
between seasons 1 and 2, and when she ran away between seasons
2 and 3. Although they may not have been too effective at slaying
vampires, they did survive. Even Cordelia has beaten vampires
(Harmony in Disharmony for example). Slayers, on the other hand,
are given years of combat training in various martial arts. They
are also specifically trained in how to kill vampires. Buffy became
a slayer when she was 15. If that's the norm, then most slayers
would have had 2-3 years of training before the Cruciamentum,
and lots of field experience in actually fighting them. Most slayers
would also have had at least some experience in fighting various
demons which are stronger than slayers (for example, the Lagos
demon from Revelations who tosses Faith around like a rag doll).
So, by their eighteeth birthday, a slayer will have been thoroughly
trained in the martial arts, have years of experience fighting
vampires, and may had to fight demons stronger than they are.
So, the Cruciamentum might not be so hard a test for a good slayer
to pass. I'm not saying that it's a nice thing for the CoW to
do to a slayer, just that it might not be an automatic death sentence.
> I don't think that it > is any coincidence that this may
happen as the Slayer reaches her early > adulthood at 18 and
may, therefore, become more assertive and independent.
> A steady turnover of Slayers would have, in the Council's
eyes, minimal > negative impact on the main mission of fighting
evil and be a major support > for the Council's second mission
-- perpetuating its own authority and power. > Remember Giles
referring to the threat of a rogue Slayer? Is this a threat
> to the world -- or to the Council specifically?
Faith was certainly a rogue slayer, but she was never a threat
to the CoW. From what I can tell, she would have gladly left them
alone.
Speaking of Faith, if the CoW values individual slayers so little,
then they should have killed Faith off while she was in a coma.
They apparently had an operative working in the hospital watching
her for months. Instead, they waited until she came out of the
coma and then tried to bring her to the CoW for trial (and maybe
rehabilitation). They didn't try to kill her until after she tried
to kill Joyce and one of their operatives (at least they thought
it was Faith at the time).
Another point to consider is that the CoW can usually predict
who the next slayer can be. This is what happenned with Kendra.
In these cases, they are able to intervene and train the girls
from birth. Slayers like Kendra will be easy for the CoW to control
since the CoW will have had them under their thumb from birth.
So, if the CoW really didn't care about individual slayers, then
they should simply kill slayers like Buffy who were not detected
early on. That way, the birth right will pass onto another slayer
like Kendra who the CoW have had from birth and can therefore
control. How's that for sinister.
> In brief, the Council may have wanted Buffy dead since her
18th birthday. The > resurrected Buffy of the sixth season
had better watch her back; not all her > mortal enemies may
be undead.
Well, I know that guns are not used much on BtVS, but if the CoW
wanted Buffy dead, they could have hired a sniper with a high
powered rifle and killed her off long ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Plot Holes RE Watchers Council -- Drizzt, 19:50:45
09/04/01 Tue
Checkpoint they came on very strong and backed down too easily.
The Faith/Buffy soul transfer eps; they had an opperative monitoring
Faith. She called the Council after Faith woke up. Wetworks team
sent to Sunnydayle to kidnap Faith to be "programed"(maby
brainwashing) or otherwise brought back under the control/authority
of the Watchers.
Major problem; the Watchers know how powerfull and dangerous Slayers
are, so it would have been much much easier to transport her to
a prison type hospital while she was in a coma and waited for
her to wake up. Of course if this had happened we would not have
seen Faith in Sarahs body talking very dirty to Spike(loved that
scene!), so I am not unhappy with this plot hole:-)
Any other plot weaknesses RE the WC? Any episodes...
Regardless of other issues, I love Faith. I have faith that Faith
will be back on one of the shows:- )
Drizzt hopes Elishka Dushku(sp?) is willing to do a few more episodes
because the story of Faith is not complete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Watchers Council as a necessary evil --
John Burwood, 12:22:49 09/05/01 Wed
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil;
in its worst state, an intolerable one." So said Thomas Paine,
in 1776, in a pamphlet said to have influenced the move towards
American independence. It is as valid for the WC as for any form
of government. The concept of government as an entity which can
create a just & fair world for all is purely a delusion of totalitarian
minds. But the fact that good government may be an oxymoron does
not mean government is not a necessary evil in the sense of being
a lesser evil than the alternative. Try thinking what it would
be like for Slayers if there were no Watchers to find, train,
& supply info.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Watchers Council as a necessary evil
-- Drizzt, 14:34:31 09/05/01 Wed
Without the Watchers Council girls would suddenly have superpowers
and an urge/instinct to seek out supernatural evil...but they
would have no idea why! Plus the mortality rate would be much
higher without the Council giving info on proper vamp-fighting
techniques and the Achilies Heel of the unique or more dangerous
demons...
Think of Buffy if she had moved to Sunnydayle and there was no
Watcher to explain, of course this assumes no Merrick from the
movie also. Buffy had a hard time adjusting with an explanation;
with no explanation and noone who knew about the supernatural
she would have had a breakdown RE Anne or Spiral in season one.
Photos -- Marie, 08:03:49 09/04/01 Tue
The watchers web have some new publicity photos up. Go check out
Willow's new hair!
Is SMG anorexic? I thought she looked very thin in this photo.
Not healthy. (But maybe that's 'cos I'm...er..bigger!)
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> what's the URL? -- Solitude1056, 08:28:46 09/04/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: what's the URL? -- Marie, 13:49:57 09/04/01 Tue
Sorry - http://www.watchers.web.com/
Then click on 'picture this' and then click on the link in the
para on the right hand side of the page.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: what's the URL? -- Shaglio, 05:37:19 09/05/01
Wed
Thanks for the clarification. I went to a site called Watchersweb
and it must have been a XXX site because my company's protective
software kicked in and wouldn't let me enter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Photos -- Humanitas, 13:38:30 09/04/01 Tue
I had the same thought, but then I figured that they probably
did it with makeup, since Buffy has been underground for a summer.
Not a lot to eat down there, y'know!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Heh-heh! You have a wicked streak, Humanitas! -- Marie,
13:52:16 09/04/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Who, me? 8-) -- Humanitas, 14:59:01 09/04/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> you don't know the half of it, Marie! ;-) but
never fear, I'm still wickeder, dammit. -- Solitude1056, 23:11:34
09/05/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I can vouch for that. I bow before the
Second Evil's superior wickedness! ;) -- Humanitas, 13:24:09 09/06/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Photos -- Shiver, 04:59:59 09/05/01 Wed
Buffy's hair's darker, not as bleachy blonde ... probably lack
of sun as well :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What about earthworms? Mmmmm mmmm good and high in
protein.;-) -- A8, 19:59:23 09/05/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Photos -- vampire hunter D, 12:43:48 09/05/01 Wed
You're not the first to think that SMG is anorexic. Back during
Seson 2, I was working in a convienience store and read the tabloids
when they came in (instead of helping customers). The article
on page 2 of the Enquirer one week was "Sara Michelle Geller's
Friends fear she may be anorexic. This was the only Enquirer story
I have ever believed (I should point out that he cover stroy I
think was Monica BLewinsky tried to get pregnant by Bill). And
a few days later, Howard Stern (aka GOD)was talking about the
WB running Buffy season one on Monday and new episodes on Tuesday.
He then made the point that SMG did lose weight between the two.
And you know, she was already thin during season one. Sounds like
anorexia to me
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Anorexia or working too much... -- Solitude1056, 14:14:24
09/05/01 Wed
She was interviewed about season 2, and mentioned that between
doing BtVS and I Know What You Did Last Summer, she'd not really
been eating. She realized one day that her jeans - usually nicely
fitting - were getting baggy, and it wasn't long after that, that
her costar & friend (Prinze) noticed. He showed up at her house
with several friends and cooked her dinner, and continued to do
it while making sure she gained weight enough so her jeans weren't
falling off her!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Photos -- Wisewoman, 19:26:08 09/05/01 Wed
Sure, she's thin, maybe too thin, but it's the complete lack of
any apparent muscle tone in those upper arms that worries me...just
doesn't look healthy at all. We've seen her working a punching
bag when it was obvious that it wasn't a stunt double, and I'm
amazed she could even fake it, unless the photo is deceiving...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Muscles & Photography -- Solitude1056, 20:09:39
09/05/01 Wed
Camera angles can be equally deceiving. Remember that TV puts
about 15 pounds on a person, and that's not just in the waist.
(It's got something to do with the wide-angle aspect of the TV
Camera, but OnM would probably know more of that than I do.) I
can pretty much bet you pizza money that the publicity shots done
by UPN are *not* done by a telephoto, but probably a 110 to 200
mm lens with a really low depth of field.
What does that mean? Less distortion (pulling-outwards) of the
body/face, and very little detail in the background. The WB promo
shots (which I always hated) seemed to have the background in
just as clear focus as the foreground, and the UPN photog isn't
doing that. It's easier to get that narrow depth of field (IOW,
fuzzy background) when you've got a larger milimeter lens, like
an 80-300 or something (or are using a medium-format, which is
possible but not necessary).
So yeah, in these shots, SMG is going to look skinnier, due to
the technology being used. Hell, all the actors will look skinnier.
Then again, it also has to do with the camera angle, as well.
The position she's in is a very slenderizing one that I use for
some portraits, but they did a major iffy one with the bare arms.
It's excruciatingly difficult to photograph arms in a relaxed
position without icking up the picture. It can be done, but it
makes the lighting complex (because unless you're putting makeup
on all exposed skin, the arms *will* have a different tonality
than the rest of the skin... or don't mind several hours in Photoshop
selectively color balancing) and the posture is more important
because the arms aren't just fading in like they would if the
sleeve were the same color as the shirt.
On top of all that, raise your arm and flex. Gee, notice it getting
even a tiny bit larger? This is why some model shots show the
model leaning against something so her arms are braced - it makes
the muscles tense, which makes the arm muscles appear toned. SMG's
arm is relaxed in this picture, which removes that toned aspect
from a tense arm muscle - just like a model's legs/hips will appear
smoother/toner if the model's on her toes, since that tenses the
leg/butt muscles. Sometimes that's an attractive thing (and then
again, sometimes it isn't).
Regardless, I'm not sure I would've voted for a sleeveless top
in the image - it's that arm closest to the camera which really
distracts from the rest of the image, regardless of whether it's
too thin or too heavy or whatever.
Gee. Okay... Mini-rant off now. ;-P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Marie, 01:26:43 09/06/01 Thu
After reading your post I went back in to have another look, and,
really, it wasn't so much her arms I noticed first, but her jaw-line!
Emma C. is pretty much in the same sort of pose, and her arms
are healthy enough, but she looks a little cross-eyed.
ASH looks rather yummy, in my opinion, and so does NB. And whoever
said Amber B. was fat needs his or her head examined!
On the other hand, Michelle T's pose is a little too adult for
my taste, and she is another one who needs to put some weight
back on (thin arms, thin waist, gaunt neck), but she's a teenager,
and weight can go up and down for lots of reasons at her age).
Allyson H looks beautiful, freckly arms 'n all. Love the hair,
and doesn't she have a lovely smile?
As for my Spike....well, mmmmm-hmmmmmm! Gotta go cool down now!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- Helen, 01:40:07 09/06/01
Thu
Talking of Emma Cauldfield, who is easily the most attractive
of the girls, I have alays thought in the past that she was a
little too thin, and SMG looks thinner than her in this shot so
...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- Solitude1056, 05:42:17
09/06/01 Thu
Yeah, MT's pose grates on me - it's just too much like what they
make second-rate fashion models use. Then again, at age 15/16,
it's not like too many people are comfy standing in front of the
camera, especially if it's a new photographer they've just now
met. Sometimes you see that awkwardness or stiffness in the person,
and it's not apparent right away that it was because they had
their guard up with a camera in their face and someone unfamiliar
on the other side of it. In that case, though, IMO, the photographer's
not doing his/her job, since it should include making the person
comfy. But whatever... I'm figuring the publicity shots will get
better as the crew gets used to the UPN people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- Rufus, 18:14:18
09/06/01 Thu
Some people never get comfortable around cameras.....last picture
I had taken was years ago cause I've become proffessional at ducking
them. I don't mind taking pictures though. I agree with your words
on MT's picture...she is still a lovely girl thought.
Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers
-- rowan, 18:29:51 09/04/01 Tue
Hi! For those of you who are interested, Joseph Campbell and the
Power of Myth with Bill Moyers airs on NJN (New Jersey's public
TV station) on Sunday, 9/9 at 1:00p and Sunday, 9/16 at 4:00p.
I presume (given the way public TV stations work) it may also
air soon in your local area (at least for those United Statesians
among us).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh tease me with your Campbell......... -- Rufus, 19:09:34
09/04/01 Tue
I missed it when it was on the Chicago station and it hasn't shown
in Seattle that I know of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ATLTC -- M., 21:03:55 09/04/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh tease me with your Campbell......... -- Dedalus,
08:36:33 09/05/01 Wed
As for Atlanta, it's already ran at least twice down here. I almost
got the entire thing on one tape, but I missed the last half of
the final segment.
And yes, ATLTC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> thanks for the heads-up, rowan -- mundusmundi, 14:39:35
09/05/01 Wed
Coincidentally, for the past 2 weeks I've been checking out videos
of the series from the library. I've seen all but the first two
(which I've got on reserve). Anybody have a personal favorite?
Mine might be part 5, "Love and the Goddess," which
delves into some fascinating stuff about medieval courtly love
and the concept of female deities. On the other hand, the last,
"Masks of Eternity," has what might be the liveliest
exchange between Campbell and Moyers. I think this is the ep that
Wisewoman suggested that on some level Moyers may not really get
what Campbell's saying. Samples:
Moyers: You're a man of faith. Campbell: I don't have faith. I
have experience.
And...
Campbell: I'm not sure life has a purpose. I think we're all just
a bunch of protoplasm striving to reproduce...
Moyers: That's not true! That's not true!
And finally:
Moyers: I like the idea that, Eden never was, Eden will be.
Campbell: (sly smile) Eden is.
Bisexuality and Witchcraft -- Lucifer_Sponge,
09:39:15 09/05/01 Wed
Ok, I've been wondering about this for a while, but have only
recently decided to post something about it due to a severe lack
of things to do. Anyways...
Tara's always been billed as the reason for Willow's advancements
in witchcraft. First, she can barely float pencils... then she
meets Tara and BAM, insta-superwitch. Most people say this is
due to the depth and power of Willow and Tara's intense relationship.
I, however, have recently decided that it's probably something
a little less specific than Tara.
I think it definately has more to do with Willow's acceptance
of her bisexuality. For years and years this aspect of herself
lay dormant, hidden. Now that it's risen to the surface she -truly-
understands herself as a person.
Modern witchcraft (outside the BTVS universe) is about grounding
and centering yourself... becoming the best that you can be. It's
about really loving yourself. Now, it's no secret that BTVS writers
like to mix a little bit of reality into their fantasy. It sort
of makes sense that Willow's studies and experiments produced
only meager results up until she met Tara. She hadn't entered
the state of being that most real witches have - a profound understanding
of herself and the world around her. Meeting Tara merely opened
up the door for all these feelings and emotions that Willow wasn't
even sure she had. Now that she understands and accepts those
feelings, she can truly understand how she works, and how the
world around her works.
Willow's whole now. I think that her witchcraft was so off the
mark before because - aside from her being a novice - she had
pieces of the puzzle missing. How could she accurately gage how
her energy would effect the mystical and supernatural energies
she was tapping in to if she wasn't even completely aware of what
was going on in her own psyche?
Also, it may be nothing more than a sense of growth and maturity.
Accepting this part of herself shows a sense of adulthood. She's
not just a little kid playing with a chemistry set anymore...
she a full-fledged, world reknown scientist and chemist. A brilliant
mind in her field.
This could also further explain the two witches' arguement in
Tough Love. Tara's fear is that Willow - having fully realized
who she is and having thusly obtained access to some pretty primal,
powerful forces - just doesn't need her anymore. And she's right.
To an extent. Willow doesn't need her... not for witchcraft anyway.
Tara fans needn't cry for blood. I love Tara... profusely and
obscenely. I just think there's some merit to the thought that
Willow's growing powers are more of a result of her realization
of her sexual orientation in general, rather than her specifically
her relationship with Tara.
Anyway. This turned out to be murderously longer and rambly than
I'd planned. I hope I didn't bore anyone to death. For those of
you who did actually read this, and stayed awake, and survived,
I'd love to here any thoughts or opinions you have on it.
Thanks, ~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> what, you thought that was *long*?? amatuer! (no, seriously,
great post) -- Solitude1056, 09:52:23 09/05/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Willow's independence -- Voxpopuli, 12:00:10 09/05/01 Wed
I've seen many lesbians and bisexuals in witchcraft groups (not
exactly covens, as these are pretty non existent in my country),
but most of the people I know in this field have deep grounding
in Thelema, I mean they are "fluffy bunnies" with a
foot in high voltage sexual magick. (with the k). For them, the
premise you used for Willow would definitely be decisive in every
sense.
In my religion homosexuality and bisexuality are common place.
As some lukumis, our very distant cousins, say "you can't
swing a dead chicken in this religion without hitting a gay".
But sexuality does not play such key role on the unleashing of
your spiritual faculties. It is part of a whole, it is accepted
as something individual, and I guess that for us, the respect
for privacy is such a golden rule that everyone avoids being judgmental
about such matters. It is between you, your Ori and Orixá.
But indeed it has a lot to do with happiness.
I am not a Tara's fan, actually I think she is pretty expendable,
but her role for Willow in terms of the use of magick is that
through her, Willow could exercise her power, she had somebody
to lean on, somebody to help her during her earliest stages, and
she eventually grew more than she expected, because she had the
talent. Her relationship with Oz did not give her this support;
she was not leading the relationship, she kind of felt he'd leave
her, so insecure. Now she's a damaged person, she knows she can
survive and learn to love again. It makes a hell of a difference.
Besides that, there is something we should notice: she is not
living with her parents anymore, she is on her own, she has to
care for herself, and this has forced her to grow a lot. She may
still depend financially on her folks, but she is pretty much
on her own now, she can exercise her magick without family restraints,
she is feeling like she is making her own way.
She has not accepted herself as bisexual though. So far, she has
turned from hetero to homo, at least she has stated so on Tough
Love. So, if she is bisexual, and I suspect she is, she still
has to understand her option a little bit better. She is still
mimicking Tara's option.
Willow is also much less ethic than Tara. Willow is more like
a scientist, she likes to experiment, to feel, to explore, to
make it happen regardless of the price she has to pay. Tara is
more wiccan in the sense of ethics, and near Christian morals.
I also believe that Willow's openness to new experiences regardless
of nature has made her outgrow Tara. She's not thirsty for powerplays
only, but for knowledge, for the pleasure or experiencing new
things and herself in the middle.
I can see that in my religion when people get so orthodox that
they do not make knowledge grow, they merely keep it and pass
it along, but they never really enhance it with their own experiences.
Like when they say you can get the right to sacrifice only on
their seventh year anniversary (of initiation), and I know that
there are circumstances when you can get it real sooner and with
a lot less ritual. And the sacrifice is accepted exactly the same
way (sometimes I get better results than many orthodoxically made
ashoguns!). And I had that in me because my elder is open to new
things and taught me to go with the flow, to learn tradition so
well to the point of learning the roots of it and thus, change
it when I deem possible.
Tara, would stick to the tradition, Willow would learn it, and
use it her way. She does not complain when a spell backfires,
she learns from it, and it makes her stronger, she tests her limits,
and it is making her a lot more self confident.
I'd say that Willow's sexuality is still something to be explored
in her character in the next seasons, and yes, it did play a role
in her development, I put a lot more emphasis on her being on
her own, on her growing independence, on her innate powers and
on her lack of restraints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's Confidence -- Drizzt, 16:56:01 09/05/01
Wed
Willow in the first few seasons was a novice witch, and several
of her more powerfull spells were done by consulting Giles books
without his consent. Even that ausome scene in Tough love was
because she "boroughed" the book of Darkest Magic, this
scene was different as she was working on vengance and pure selfishness/independance.
Now she has her own magic book collection RE Forever, so she is
not dependant on Giles for knowladge; she could go to LA anytime
and surely find another magic shop with a good selection of the
"real magic books".
I do not see her sexual orientation as a factor of her power,
maby being confidant and not embarrassed to be called "lesbian"
does increase her overall confidence. She still has repressed
sexuallity RE Dopolgangland what VampWillow was like was Willow
without inhibitions or conciance(Willow in a semi-bondage outfit...shocking!)
One other point is that if her signifigant other were a male witch
she would get the same acceptance and support from him as Tara.
Another is that Willow started as the wallflower of the Scoobies
and Tara was even worse; Tara's lowself-image is part of why she
was impressed with Willows power. I consider them to be equal
in potential power, however Willow has more confidence because
of Tara praising her and becuase she is less constrained by Wiccan
morals.
Last point is both are natural witches, but Willow is the logical
scientific of the two RE magic and Tara is the intuative emotional
RE magic. Both are completely feminine, it is their attitude/perspective
on magic theory that is opposite.
Two opposites make a stronger whole...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow's Confidence -- Wisewoman, 19:16:11
09/05/01 Wed
I agree with you that Willow and Tara together are more than the
sum of their parts, but there's a big difference in their attitude
toward Wicca and magick that, as a Wiccan, has always bothered
me.
There's no point in trying to draw exact parallels between witches
in the Buffyverse and witches in the Realverse; there's just very
little about them that overlaps. The area that does seem as if
it should overlap is in their personal code of ethics, as Tara
has made statements about the necessity for Wiccan ethical behaviour
in the Buffyverse. This is exactly where Willow is lacking.
In my tradition, craft ethics are the first things taught to an
aspiring witch; the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law are taken
very seriously. In the Realverse, we're dealing with things like
candle magick for healing and luck, space clearing/blessing, and
protection spells, and it's often not clear whether your efforts
have had any effect or not, but we still strive always to "harm
none." Willow and Tara, on the other hand, are doing things
from floating roses to moving soft drink machines to thickening
air, and so it's even more crucial that they be guided by some
form of ethical structure or tradition, simply because they are
so powerful.
I don't think Willow has ever been thoroughly trained as an ethical,
traditional Wiccan--I think she had a great natural talent and
worked herself, or with Tara, to learn and develop it outside
the structure of a teaching coven. This is a perfect set-up to
have her misuse of power come back on her threefold and hit her
upside the head!
As an extreme example, Willow's idea for creating a ball of artificial
sunlight that would kill every vampire within it's radius could
be seen as violating the prohibition against harming anyone or
anything. The preferred path would be to create a spell that protected
the vampires' victims, rather than killing the vampires. That
would clearly be defensive, rather than offensive, magick. Of
course, it could be argued that the vampires are intrinsically
on the attack, so that any action against them is defensive, but
I hope you see what I mean...it's again a question of having to
think outside the box and come up with a solution so that no one
suffers...granted, not an easy thing to do.
Remembering that the CoW interviewer asked Willow and Tara if
they were "registered as witches" under their own names,
I'm led to believe that there is a structure to Wicca in the Buffyverse,
which probably means there are Elders who might try to take a
hand in reigning in the power of these two young women, before
they do themselves some real damage.
(...getting down off cauldron "soapbox" and stepping
back into the broom closet...)
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Confidence -- Drizzt, 20:23:35
09/05/01 Wed
Wisewoman you have mentioned several issues that I am sure have
been discussed multiple times on this board. It is rerun time,
so why not rediscussion time? :-)
Parallels between Buffyverse wiccans and Realverse wiccans? In
my post I said only that Tara seems to be governed by wiccan morals;
nothing about the spiritual or philisophical aspects of Realverse
wiccans wich is actually a religion of sorts, not just a formularic
method of "manipulating reality with the mind" like
a mage or wizard would be doing.
Witch; a practitioner of subjective personal magic. More of course,
but I am only making a distinction between Witch=spellcaster type
vs wiccan=spellcaster governed by a religious spirituality and
ethic.
Wiccan; spellcaster using prayer to the older gods(gods here can
include the mere concept of what the god represents, an aspect
of nature/existance, or a pure "essance of ?????)
Mage & Wizard; spellcaster that follows formulas without worrying
about the hidden costs and existance of the specific entities/forces
they use. The closest to a hardline scientists that a spellcaster
can be considering magic is not precice and predictable like "mundain
reality" But see quantum physics/relativity to counter my
last statement:0
Sorcerer; someone who controls and summons supernatural phenomena
vs merely being aided by it, IE a wiccan will do most of the concentration
and work and call on a force for that extra oomph.
Enough speculations since I am not a spellcaster of any type...he
he.
Tara was given guidence by her mother in self-restraint & morals,
however I would say it was more of a practical precautionary way
to avoid the nasty aspects of the Three Fold Law as it applies
to harmfull magic. Willow? Yep, she never got that lecture, only
Giles stuffy "That is dangerous for a witch with your skill,
so don't do it!" or whatever...perfect way to get a teenager
to ignore you is to forbid something instead of explaining relavent
dangers!
Ball of Sunlight? Willow was too ambitious with that; she should
have tried to make a spell of light/flame first. Of course that
would be kinda useless when you can just use a flashlight or rags
& gasoline. Anyway she should have researched and figured out
several much less powerfull spells to do with light/fire before
even thinking about the Ball of Sunshine. Willow is very smart,
but she needs Tara for the wisdom... Morals of the spell? Willow
is not wiccan in the realverse sence(in fact I would call her
a mage myself, she calls herself a witch as a convenient label
without understanding the full meaning of the term) I think that
the spell is the magical equivilent of a grenade or bomb that
only destroys vampires, and it would change the nature of vampire
countermeasures; the demons fight up close and personal...really
do not want them to start using modern warfare techniques! The
force barrier spell she used in Spiral would be a good defensive
spell to study; Willow could try to modify it so she could create
personal movable force bariers... It is too powerfull and impersonal
a weapon of destruction for my taste, so I agree the Ball of Sunshine
is immoral, but for different reasons;-)
OOH I was rambling and speaking as an interested, but truly ignorant
nonwiccan!
Want to step back on your cauldren soapbox....Please?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ball of Sunshine? -- Drizzt,
20:47:30 09/05/01 Wed
After my post I felt like clarifying RE this spell Willow wanted
to make.
My point and veiw about the morality of the spell has nothing
to do with wiccan values; it is with the raw impersonal destruction
that is similar to a bomb. I disaprove of bombs of any type as
immoral and dishonorable weapons. I am with the demons on my veiw
that combat should be up close and personal; if you take a life
you should actually know what life you took weather that is a
burdan or not for your conciance. I think Solitude started an
excallent thread on this subject of personal combat and why(theoreticaly)
demons prefer it even though they are smart enough to understand
machine guns and such.
BTW I have never been in a fight myself, I just disaprove of bombs
because they let you think "I didn't see them blown into
small peices" and discount the horror that is death.
Progression; Ball of Sunshine...the whatever spell that killed
Doyle was what is a logical step after the Ball of Sunshine. They
are equivilant except one targets vampires and another targets
humans...
Progression; bullets...grenades...cannons...bombs... nukes...planetbuster
antimatter bombs(Feasible, although not with current technology.
Freaky, but not much worse than full scale WW111 with three thousand
nukes flying everywhere)...any further progression in the weapon
type "bomb" is not describable using current technological
knowladge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Confidence -- Wisewoman,
20:55:47 09/05/01 Wed
Basically I agree with you, Drizzt--Willow is behaving more like
a mage than a Wiccan, or a witch. It may be that Joss and/or the
writers chose to call her a witch because of the recent resurgence
in the popularity of Wicca. It would make much more sense that
she'd find a group of students involved in Wicca at school, than
a bunch of mage-wannabes.
In my experience, the terms Wiccan and Witch are completely interchangeable.
I know that not all Wiccans feel that way--it depends on your
perspective and which tradition you follow. It's much easier nowadays
to use the term Wiccan because it is truly a modern (and fairly
recent) neo-pagan religion. It may have it's roots in ancient
pagan practices, but most of it was developed in the last (20th)
century. The word Witch seems to make people think of wicked old
witches in fairy tales, or possibly the poor women (and men) who
were tortured and burned by religious zealots in earlier times.
In fact, those people were far more likely to have been village
wise women and wise men, or "charmers."
It's debatable whether there's any "tradition" of actual
witchcraft that extends back farther than 1900, but the impression
I get from the Buffyverse is that's exactly the kind of witchcraft
they're talking about--a practice that has been handed down through
generations, requiring some inborn natural talent, and apparently
also requiring registration procedures and "levels"
of proficiency. Tara may have been more fully assimilated into
this tradition if her mother had lived longer. As it is, she doesn't
seem to know enough about it to be able to guide Willow. Tara
was just as confused by the CoW's questions as Willow was.
I think I need to go back to some of my books and papers and see
if I can find an authoritative reference to exactly when the Rede
and the Threefold Law first appear. If they are recent, and therefore
a part of Wicca, then I guess there's no reason why an "ancient"
witchcraft tradition would need to abide by them. The bottom line
though, is it's arguing apples and oranges...there are Wiccan
Witches in the Realverse and Mage-Witches in the Buffyverse, and
never the twain shall meet (unless they get on the wong twack...sorry,
I'll stop now...)
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Confidence --
Drizzt, 22:53:09 09/05/01 Wed
Gandalf; mage/druid Fizban; senile archmage as the discuise of
a god when he is among mortals. Wraistlin; mage who destroyed
a world, killed a goddess, and became a god...until his brother
went back in time and changed history.
Mage and wizard bring to mind powerfull individuals using magic
to mold reality, plus they are fantasy staples; do not hear anyone
calling themselves a mage in the realverse. Sorcerer, magician,
conjurer, druid, cleric, preist....yes, but all pale compared
to the might of a (fictional) mage who dares to become a near
demigod.
There is no fiction that I know of where a witch is this powerfull.
Wicca/witchcraft is a known and popular subject of discussion.
Weather they aprove or not, people know that there are thousands
of witches/wiccans so the concept of "witch" is easier
to relate to for that reason also. As the Scoobies are a team
that helps Buffy a mage would be too powerfull as a sidekick of
the central character. Above I said a mage "molds reality"...in
this context a wiccan is less disruptive by adjusting reality
while staying "in touch or part of what is adjusted"
Okay I could not describe the very subtle distinction so analogy;
Native americans with there cultural and religious values of being
part of nature vs European and thus US majority value of controlling
nature...mass farming, paving thousands of miles of roads, controlled
forest burning etc.
Suspension of disbeleif is easier the less a story deviates from
the realverse, or when it deviates it must have a logic that is
consistant and at least partially discernable. We veiwers of Buffy
& Angel forgive flaws in the details of the show because we watch
for the story more than the special effects and supernatural.
Another reason that Joss would not go into wiccan religious issues
is he avoids direct reference to any religious value, except as
a sidenote. Willow is Jewish? Oh. Good demon gaurdian of the holy
child(Angel) was a Budist? Oh. The religion thing is a whole other
issue than technicalities of magic theory.
The Council interviewer asking about their "level of profficency"
could have been doing the sneaky thing of a good interver...fluster
them with a question that is meaningless or irrelivent. Maby witches
have a rating system and maby not. There would have to be more
than five hundred individual witches in some form of comunication
for any complex rating system to be worthwile. Hmmmmm does the
Watchers Council watch witches too?
Love Tweetie Bird!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Threefold Law -- Solitude1056,
22:59:26 09/05/01 Wed
Earliest I know of the Rede & the 3fold Law showing up is in Gardner's
work, which was published... uh, lemme think. 1954, three years
after Britain repealed its Anti-Witchcraft law. Gardner was working
on the books as early as 1946 or 1947, however.
It's a moot point, to me, though I suppose such a statement is
a highly personal kind of judgement call. The system works for
those who use it, so whether it goes back to 1947 and some guy's
brain, or goes back to 1900, or all the way back to who-knows-when...
it stands on its own, by virtue of fulfilling its members. Saying
something has to be old seems hypocritical to me, I guess, since
by that account we should all be anti-technology. Or, as my housemate
frequently says, "old does not mean right."
(Unless, of course, he's talking to his daughter, in which case
it's an entirely different story...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Threefold Law (Deviates
into OT babble) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 06:53:17 09/06/01 Thu
"Earliest I know of the Rede & the 3fold Law showing up is
in Gardner's work, which was published... uh, lemme think. 1954,
three years after Britain repealed its Anti-Witchcraft law. Gardner
was working on the books as early as 1946 or 1947, however."
Actually, the late Doreen Valiente (one of Gerald Gardner's original
High Priestesses) once said in an interview that she didn't know
where the whole "Threefold" thing came from. She said
that she suspected someone read it in one of "Old Gerald's"
rituals and took it a tad bit too literally. She -went on- to
say that she thought the whole idea of threefold karma was ridiculous,
and that she prefered the idea of the whole "eye for an eye"
karma... you get back what you put out... no -more-, no -less.
I severely doubt that Wicca extends much further back than Gardner.
I do think he may have had contact with an actual coven, but I
think what he brought into the world was his own vision of witchcraft,
pulled from a lot of different sources. I really do believe that
there may have been witches throughout time... Not in an organized,
cult-like fashion that alot of Wiccans like to claim, but in small
numbers, probably scattered around the world. I think if you look
Italy and their strehge, and Mexico and their brujas you'll get
a better idea of what I'm talking about.
But anyway, back to the point I was going to make... Wicca may
very well contain some aspects of authentic, old witch practices.
Then again, it may not. It doesn't matter. What -does- matter
is that it works for people. Most of Wicca is definately new...
but what it does is take some age-old concepts (gods and mythologies)
and try to make them relative to modern-day life. That's what
Wicca should be billing itself as... not a direct continuation
of a prehistoric religion, but a new faith that takes up all these
old things that have been lost to the world for so long and brings
them back for people in this day and age to understand and work
with (albiet, mixing it with a lot of new-age bunk in the meanwhile...
we really have to stop that, guys. Seriously.)
Ok... I'm going to stop myself before this generates into a 35
page essay on why I think Wicca is falling apart from the inside
(which is something I can think, and say, being a Wiccan myself
and actively taking part in the community... I can actually see
it happening and make credible references to prove my point)......
Errr. I'm stopping now.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Realworld Witches vs. Buffyverse Witches
-- Lucifer_Sponge, 20:45:45 09/05/01 Wed
"There's no point in trying to draw exact parallels between
witches in the Buffyverse and witches in the Realverse;"
Hey, why not? That actually strikes me as a really good idea...
An actual in-depth look into the correllation between real-life
witchcraft and Buffyverse witchcraft... Hmmm...
"there's just very little about them that overlaps"
Well, that's definately a whole other arguement, isn't it? On
the surface, yes, they're very different. Show me a witch in the
real world who can make his or her eyes go black, shoot lightingbolts
and read minds, and I'll show you my new messiah... but that's
all surface stuff. Pull back a few layers and I think you might
find some striking similarities in ideology, theology, mythology,
and yes, even ethics and morality.
Personally, I think this would be a great topic for discussion
for all the Wiccans (or other magicians or pagans) on the board...
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Realworld Witches vs. Buffyverse
Witches -- Wisewoman, 21:04:13 09/05/01 Wed
I'm just off to beddy-bye, but I thought I'd let you know I'm
certainly willing to discuss this further if anyone's interested.
I've only been posting here since about April, and I know there
are other Wiccans and Neo-pagans on the Board so it could be that
some of them have already done this subject to death, but *I*
haven't, so until the new eps start, hey, I'm game. Talk to ya
all tomorra.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Confidence -- rowan, 18:55:06
09/06/01 Thu
I totally agree with everything that you've said. The positive
in BtVS is that the witchcraft is accepted in a positive way by
the main characters and Willow & Tara are not stigmatized because
of it. But Willow seems to have no ethical center to her craft
and Tara's attempts to introduce Wiccan concepts seem to sound
a little hollow to me.
I place BtVS above Charmed in its depiction, but I still have
many quibbles with it if we try to equate it to the RealVerse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's independence -- Lucifer_Sponge, 20:32:51
09/05/01 Wed
"But sexuality does not play such key role on the unleashing
of your spiritual faculties."
I wholeheartedly agree with you. My intention was not to suggested
that it was Willow's bisexuality which fueled her growth and increased
her powers. What I meant was that the exploration of such hidden
and secret desires showed a great amount of maturity on her part.
What I attempted to get at was that Willow's acceptance of her
sexual orientation (which, as you pointed out, is still a work
in progress) was a sign of her personal growth and independance.
The newfound sense of awareness of who she is would be the reason
behind her increased powers.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> *cough* warning: nerve just got hit. -- Solitude1056,
22:47:57 09/05/01 Wed
I've seen many lesbians and bisexuals in witchcraft groups (not
exactly covens, as these are pretty non existent in my country),
but most of the people I know in this field have deep grounding
in Thelema, I mean they are "fluffy bunnies" with a
foot in high voltage sexual magick. (with the k).
Ahem. As a Thelemite, I'd have to say that this is a bad representation
of Thelema. Without going into the philosophy too much here (and
it's a complex one, if simple on the surface), it's hardly a breeding
ground or attractant for any fluffy bunnies. For starters, most
of them run like hell in the opposite direction as soon as they
find out Aleister Crowley has even the remotest thing to do with
Thelema (and he's the best-known in the tradition). Fer cryin'
out loud, the guy's been dead for nearly 50 years and his name
still makes people freak. But I digress...
Thelema itself, for those of you not familiar, is the Greek word
for Will (with a few connotations I won't get into here). The
main law of Thelema (which may sound oddly familiar to anyone
who's heard the Wiccan Rede) is Do what thou Wilt shall be the
whole of the Law. Yeah, I know, if you're like I am, that "thou"
and the "shall" probably bug you, too, but whatever.
Essentially, Will (with a capital double-u) is not want, or desire,
or passion, or wishing. It's Will, and is frequently used to imply
a True Will, as opposed to a temporary or passing will/want/wish.
One's Will is the muscle behind one's ability to fulfill a person's
intention in this lifetime. So doing one's Will is not to be interpreted
as "hey, do whatever!" but as "you've got to know
yourself, and go BE yourself."
The idea that this is the primary Law means that in not-knowing
yourself, or worse - knowing your Self and still pretending to
be something else - is the worst crime you can commit. "The
word of Sin is Restriction," is another oft-repeated statement
of Thelemic philosophy, and there's a variety of interpretations
but the one I go with is that to restrict yourself from following
your (True) Will is the greatest crime one can commit, because
you're locking yourself away from everything you could be in your
fullest potential. It's like a form of self-murder, so to speak.
As for high voltage sex magick, this is hardly the proprietory
aspect of any particular school of magick, philosophy, or religion.
Hell, we could easily argue that the Tantric schools are high
voltage sex magick - since that's the basis of all of A.C.'s pendantic
lectures on the subject, as well as 75% of his actual magickal
operations.
And if someone were to ask me, "hey, what's someone that
dabbles (read: fluffy bunny) and likes sex magick?" I'd say,
gee. Satanists, for starters. (They're the CPAs of the occult
world. Talk about no creativity, no offense to anyone here in
that school, but I wonder about someone whose whole spirituality
is based on the negation of someone else's spirituality. I mean,
come on...) And then I might think of some of the cults in the
60's, with free love and plenty o' nice catch phrases. And even
a few from these days, in Church of All Worlds and several other
polyamoury schools of thought that seek to use sexual energy to
achieve specific purposes.
Thelema, though, tends to attract scholarly types who aren't bothered
by the sometimes intensive study required to understand a lot
of its multiplicities and layers. I mean, hell, to really understand
why a Thelemite signs their emails 93 93/93, you're going to be
doing a bit o' Qabalah for several weeks just for that one phrase.
We won't even go into the cross-referencing between Hindu, Buddhist,
Egyptian, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian mythologies and symbols
littering The Book of the Law, the foremost holy book of Thelema.
The Charge of the Goddess is pretty straightforward; The Book
of the Law gives some folks migraines. Dabblers don't stick around
for long.
Given all that, I really don't think it's appropriate to use a
heavy-duty scholarly philosophy/religion to describe a fluffy
bunny style of 'dabbling'. It's just misleading, both as to the
nature of fluffy bunnies and to the nature of Thelema itself...
Especially if by "fluffy bunnies" you mean the folks
who score low on the scholarship ranking but high on enthusiasm.
In that case, I'd rather go with Willow's own term, of "Blessed-Wanna-Be."
Okay, now I'm settling back down again... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: *cough* warning: nerve just got hit. --
Drizzt, 23:11:45 09/05/01 Wed
I have read the phrase "Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole
of the Law"
I thought it was stupid as I thought it meant "Do what you
want to do" when translated into 21st century english.
My bad! I was ignorant and thank you for clarifying what that
phrase means:)
I just read whatever interests me and I am basically a backseat
driver when it comes to technicalities of magic theory. Backseat
driver who has never ever "driven a car"
;-0 My grumpy ignorant backseat-driver face.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bwaha, you're not the only one. -- Solitude1056,
23:21:54 09/05/01 Wed
I've met more than my share of newbies to Thelema who are all
excited about the idea of "do what you want" without
even that "harm none" ... not realizing that the "harm
none" is part & parcel of the idea of Will, and should also
include yourself. Duh.
And btw, as trivial aside: some guy in New Orleans, several years
back, used Crowley's line as his defense in a serial murder defense,
saying Thelema is his religion... and therefore, he couldn't be
restricted (from doing what he wanted). I have yet to meet a Thelemite
who agrees with this position, as almost all consider murder of
another person to be tantamount to preventing them from discovering/cultivating
their true will, and thus restricting them... and in essence,
self-murder, and other-murder, are equally noxious ideas.
Incidentally, the FBI did call in several higher-ups in the Ordo
Templi Orientis, one of the larger organizations based on Crowley's
system, as well as the org selected by Crowley to be the vanguard
of his writings & ideas. The cops made it clear that they weren't
fooled for a second by the guy's defense, nor did they ever consider
the O.T.O. (or Thelema) to be party to the crimes or even encouraging
its members to commit such crimes. Apparently the cops did their
homework, and figured out pretty quickly that Thelema and serial
murder aren't bedmates. Another duh, but I suppose to some who
haven't had access to the explanations, it could sound quite incriminating...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> A little rant... -- Voxpopuli, 09:00:27
09/06/01 Thu
Sol, a Thelemite yourself or a person who likes the phylosphy
of Thelema? I am on the second group. I like it, I love it, always
did, I really like good ole Aleister. However I'd never qualify
as a Thelemite. Actually some of our dogma do have a great deal
of Thelemite spirit.
I know folks who used to be "Thelemites" belonged to
Thelema societies and after they turned forty, became "fluffy
bunnies". With a great deal of hormones. You can feel the
love I have for these folks, can't you?
Actually I hate dabblers in general. I give too much time to learn
something in depth and then someone comes along, gets one or two
concepts and go around sporting a self styled title. It makes
me really mad. And although I am not Oyá's child, I can
get really pissed off.
I do not discuss Wicca anymore. I live a tradition that is alien
to almost every fundament of Wicca, from the Rede to the Threefold
Law, a tradition that is very old and structured, and suspicious
of inclusivism, and therefore very protective of its own tenants,
otherwise we'd not have survived so well for so long. This has
caused me countless problems on line. I remember when a group
was discussing blood rituals, and I was lurking around, and I
heard so many things, I could not help but to ask: has any of
you actually performed such rituals? - Sol, you can imagine how
this simple question was welcome! And how I was kicked out when
I tried to explain to them how it is done, how to sacrifice, I
sampled rituals, I explained in detail the reasons, metaphysical
and ethical within my tradition. Of course instead of trying to
share, to understand how things work in other fields, etc, they
were grossed out. Gosh, if you do not have a strong stomach, do
not get involved in magick, part of the lore is to face things
that are not pleasant at all!!!!!
Then when I tried to discuss the reasons why all gods are one
without being one, people got mad. Specially some fluffy bunnies
who love to fashion themselves as rainbow warriors. Go try to
tell them what exactly Oxumar? feels like in his own environment,
and the havoc he/she can cause outside his environment, like an
insect loose on an environment where it has no natural predator
and has good climate for growth. It can get out of control, and
it certainly does. If I went deeper on this I'd write pages and
pages on such risks and how to work with it. Girl, I am candomblé,
of bantu origin, and I dare not make a prenda de palo because
I know how both systems work, and despite the general feeling,
they just can't be mixed without a price I do not want to pay!
Lukumis with their habit of collecting assentamentos go around
shopping for deities, and I tell you the results are seldom safe.
Gosh! And when I decided to bring up a discussion of hallucinogenic
beverages for religious purposes (Santo Daime's communities)?
Me, with my usual "let's experience it without prejudice",
got more roasted than a pork barbecue!!!!
Use of deities, herb lore, all so fine, so pretty, and such a
hard work to get results!
I've met a few nice Wiccans, but it became so fashionable in the
past twenty years that it has attracted a crowd of instant priests
and priestesses that do nothing do build a scholar basis. Just
fluffy-bunnies. Really, if I were a serious wiccan I'd hate these
folks.
Man, I've been to quite a few strange places, from Santo Daime,
to Satya Sai baba's temples, Hare Krishna, Thelema groups, and
other places, and I took the time to experience those places,
and I found reasons to respect the majority of them. Unfortunately
I've never been to a coven around here, and the reason is that
in Brazil wicca is not popular at all, I guess our traditions
are so deeply rooted that wicca has no fertile ground to grow.
"Witchcraft" is daily life in popular tradition.
It may sound biased, but it is not. See, in many ways, wicca fill
the gap left by Christianism after it destroyed European indigenous
religions and magical practices. The cultural mixture around here,
with the Natives and African Slaves brought a multitude of deities,
religious practices, herb lore to the average Brazilian on a subconscious
level. And the ethics of wicca clash with this other, more "naturalized"
fok ethics.
Sorry for the rant, I hope the wiccans on this forum realise that
there is nothing personal against wicca or wiccans but against
the attitude I had the chance to witness on line and with some
groups, and that the criticism is not on the ethics or dogmas,
but on the "new age" spirit that lacks depth that many,
but many self styled wiccans seem to adopt.
Voxpopuli
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, see, that's the problem
- we're OT now.... kind of. -- Solitude1056, 10:06:23 09/06/01
Thu
Wicca and Thelema, despite some similarities, are not the same
thing. The transistion I'm used to seeing is much more of a movement
from the emotional-based/physical-based spirituality of Wicca
to the more intellectual workings in ceremonial magick (including
Thelema). IOW, folks start in Wicca and at some point, move on,
or don't. I've yet to meet anyone who went in the opposite direction,
and I've been dealing with Thelemites of all stripes from both
the U.S. and internationally for about 10 years now. (That's not
to say there aren't folks who've "calmed down" in their
scholarly studies, but most just, well, calm down. Enough time
in Thelema, and it's hard to not develop a certain distrust of
the Wiccan tradition, given the Crowleyian perspective on Gardner's
wholesale plagairism of much of Crowley's writings.)
Sol, a Thelemite yourself or a person who likes the phylosphy
of Thelema? I am on the second group. I like it, I love it, always
did, I really like good ole Aleister. However I'd never qualify
as a Thelemite. Actually some of our dogma do have a great deal
of Thelemite spirit.
Depends on how you define such things. To some it's a philosophy,
to some it's a religion. If you consider it a philosophy - a way
of living as opposed to a way of believing - then you can be Christian
and Thelemic (I know a few) as well as Jewish and Thelemic or
even Existentialist and Thelemic or whatever. If it's a religion
for you, then there's more stickiness.
I know folks who used to be "Thelemites" belonged to
Thelema societies and after they turned forty, became "fluffy
bunnies". With a great deal of hormones. You can feel the
love I have for these folks, can't you?
I'm not convinced you've been meeting the average Thelemite, if
your predominant experience has been in Brazil. Note to folks
who've just tuned in: Brazil is, uh, how shall I put this politely.
Ahem. It's chock-full o' Thelemites who, uh, well... they're whackos.
Yes, completely bonkers whackos. Oh, and I say that in the most
affectionate sense. Yeah. Really.
There was a division & lawsuit many years ago, and an off-shoot
of the O.T.O. headed down to Brazil. (I think in part because
of Brazil's refusal at the time to honor the Berne Convention,
and therefore the guy could republish & translate Crowley's works
without paying royalties or being charged with copyright violation
or some such.) Anyway, the S.O.T.O. (as opposed to the Caliphate
O.T.O., Crowley's main line) is full of folks running around claiming
they're all the Outer Head of the Order or maybe it's hte Inner
Head of the Order and calling each other black magicians and throwing
curses and whatever other nonsense.
I suppose some of them might hit middle age and say, "y'know,
I am so tired of this magicko- egotistical warfare crap!"
And move on to something else, having gotten past the spitfire
ego of youth. But, I assure you, the majority of Thelemites associated
with formal groups are outside of Brazil, and the majority of
those formal groups don't encourage anyone to waste their time
or energy on such nonsense. But Motta's group likes that sort
of thing & they're headquartered in Brazil... so I'm not surprised
you've run into a lot of wonky Thelemites in your neck of the
woods.
[Just an FYI.]
As for the rest of your post: there are a lot of Wiccans and Pagans
on this board, as well as a few Buddhists, Agnostics, Christians,
Jews, Taoists, Atheists and who knows what else 'cause I'm sure
I'm forgetting someone. And the important element of this board
is that we get to check our "chips" at the door. Chips
from our shoulders, that is. This board has dealt with some rather
sticky things at times, but does so in the spirit of mutual education
and debate, with the knowledge that personal attacks don't do
jack, and that it's possible to disagree with someone and still
enjoying talking to them, without anything coming to blows. So
far, I've seen a few trolls (maybe 5 since joining this winter)
and none have really managed to get anyone to even raise their
voice. This board's full of people who are - rare but true - thinkers,
regardless of religion. (Even discussions about various religions
don't raise anyone's blood pressure, since folks around here are
able to maturely discuss things without taking someone else's
religion as a personal attack on their own.) As long as you have
a clear and concise argument or explanation, and you provide examples,
additional information, and are willing to answer questions patiently
and fully... then I would have to say that there's pretty much
nothing you couldn't bring up that couldn't or wouldn't be discussed
politely.
I mean, fer cryin' out loud, we had two folks misunderstand each
other a month or so ago, and that was the closest I've seen anyone
come to getting fussed about something. But as soon as one of
them said, "sorry, I was being sarcastic and that might not
have been clear," boom! All fussing evaporated like the proverbial
dew, and we ended up with another invigorating and challenging
discussion on both the nature of satire and the original topic
itself.
[That was another FYI, btw.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT: so I got the zoo
of O.T.O. around here? :-))) -- Voxpopuli, 11:02:44 09/06/01 Thu
Ok, that explains why I thought those guys were weird... I remember
on a meeting a guy coming and telling me: what beautiful Oxaguiã
you have! You should do (a list). I said: really? (and did not
mention that I was already initiated). You see how folks mix things?
And his prescription had every ingredient to make Ogyan go mad!
The truth is, that people come with different backgrounds and
most just take what they want and discharge the rest. It really
pisses me off. I saw such thirst for power and status within that
particular group in Rio, that I was simply disgusted.
I read Crowley in English, never heard of any lawsuit regarding
copyrights, although I heard that his works have been the subject
of more than one law suit for royalties.
I take Thelema not as a religion, but rather as a phylosophy.
Something that makes you think, that challenges you to goe further
and further on yourself, to experience. In practical terms, when
you are within a roncó and is undergoing initiation, the
whole process can be described as a search for your Will, in its
highest and more difficult sense. I say difficult because it is
difficult to explain. Do you remember the post about Ori, and
the complexity of the concept? It is also hard to live it, because
it implies a high level of self acceptance. Talking about sexuality,
it is not uncommon for people to get out of the closet after an
ibori, not because the spirits interfered, but because in the
process you are faced with yourself, you have this enacted in
ritual drama, and some deeper understanding of yourself must arise
from it, otherwise the ritual is empty. And this is not an initiatic
level. The actual making takes this to extreme, when you are shunned
from reality, and taken through several rituals, for days and
nights, and special diets, and ... You are "destroyed"
and built anew, or as a spirit says, your walls are demolished
so that you can really see yourself, you feel like you are born,
like you see this world for the first time, and indeed, this is
what happens, specially if you have a good elder.
My experience with Crowley helped me to make the best of my initiation,
and I thank the old man for having opened up a door for other
people to explore.
Great, you can understand my distrust in wiccans!!
I just had bad experiences on line. What can do? I'm traumatized.
Vox
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh. Something
like that. -- Solitude1056, 12:12:16 09/06/01 Thu
Great, you can understand my distrust in wiccans!!
Uh, no.
Okay, one more time: Thelemites and Wiccans ARE NOT THE SAME THING...
and being a member of either does not necessarily indicate a lack
of depth.
I can groove on your distrust of dabblers, of wanna-be's, and
of folks who'd rather skim the surface than spend the time & energy
to learn a craft inside and out. However, dabblers and wannabes
exist in all forms, from "holiday Xtians" to "blessed-wanna-bes"
right on down the line to "I read the intro chapter to an
unauthorized biography of Sartre and now I'm an expert on Existentialism."
I don't go for generalizing all of the above into one lump group,
especially when this type of folk are being labeled with the name
of a serious and usually diligent religious belief system. The
fact that Wicca requires less scholarly background means it does
attract a higher rate of spiritual slackers. On the upside, dabblers
don't stick around for long - here or in Wicca or wherever some
level of (self)knowledge is required - in my experience, because
some effort is required even if it's not the books 'n libraries
kind. *shrug*
And more importantly, since this discussion is taking place within
the confines of a particular group of people, I'll freely reiterate
that I doubt you'll find many non-scholarly or non-thinking types
in this bunch - regardless of their personal views, religions,
or philosophy. You're not alone in being gunshy due to earlier
Internet experiences. My advice remains the same, as I posted
in my earlier commentary: explain, elucidate, and always be open
to asking and answering questions.
Long live the TTMQ! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh.
Something like that. -- Voxpopuli, 13:26:50 09/06/01 Thu
Ok, so I'll rephrase my earlier statement: Great you can understand
my distrust of dabblers.
And yes, Sol, I noticed that many people around here do have a
scholarly interest on many of the subjects I like, and that's
precisely why I feel free to rant of such bad experiences, because
many of you probably have been through it in other places, and
would not feel offended by a statement that does not depict any
of you.
Btw, have you ever been to rituals of drug related cults? No,
no candomblé, Santo Daime. My cousin is na initiate in
this sect, na adept and has shown me some real nice "churches".
Voxpopuli
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> religions as ways of
living -- anom, 12:39:19 09/06/01 Thu
"If you consider it a philosophy - a way of living as opposed
to a way of believing - then you can be Christian and Thelemic
(I know a few) as well as Jewish and Thelemic or even Existentialist
and Thelemic or whatever."
Is a philosophy a way of living or a basis of a way of living?
I'm questioning whether someone can be Jewish & Thelemic because
many Jews consider Judaism more a matter of practice than of belief.
If practice = way of living, then Jewish & Thelemic ways of living
may not be compatible. (I can't speak on coexistence of Thelema
w/other religions because I don't know enough about--well, either
of them.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: religions
as ways of living -- Solitude1056, 13:28:32 09/06/01 Thu
Is a philosophy a way of living or a basis of a way of living?
How would you categorize/demonstrate the difference between these
two? And wouldn't something that's a matter of "practice"
also possibly be a matter of "belief" - sort of like
the religio-philosophical version of "all squares are rectangles
but not all rectangles are squares"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: religions
as ways of living -- anom, 20:41:29 09/06/01 Thu
"Is a philosophy a way of living or a basis of a way of living?
How would you categorize/demonstrate the difference between these
two?"
The way of living is what you do in your life, the philosophy
is why--what you believe that causes you to act the way you do.
That's what I mean when I refer to the "basis" of a
way of living. The latter may be an expression of the former,
but they're not the same.
"And wouldn't something that's a matter of 'practice' also
possibly be a matter of 'belief'...?"
This one's harder to define. "Possibly," yes, but not
always. For example, there are some Jews who, when they get technical
about it, call themselves "orthoprax" rather than "orthodox"--referring
to practice rather than doctrine. They consider following the
commandments (not just the famous 10), of which the overwhelming
majority address behavior, not belief, more important than believing
the doctrines, many of which were developed later (OK, so were
some of the practices--this ain't simple). They may have different
reasons for doing the same things, e.g., to be part of their community,
or because they find value in following the rules even if they
don't believe the standard reasons for doing so.
So similar practices may be based on different beliefs. (Many
of Theodore Sturgeon's stories are about people doing things for
reasons different from what society might expect.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, see, that's
the problem - we're OT now.... kind of. -- mundusmundi, 13:32:40
09/06/01 Thu
As for the rest of your post: there are a lot of Wiccans and Pagans
on this board, as well as a few Buddhists, Agnostics, Christians,
Jews, Taoists, Atheists and who knows what else 'cause I'm sure
I'm forgetting someone. And the important element of this board
is that we get to check our "chips" at the door. Chips
from our shoulders, that is. This board has dealt with some rather
sticky things at times, but does so in the spirit of mutual education
and debate, with the knowledge that personal attacks don't do
jack, and that it's possible to disagree with someone and still
enjoying talking to them, without anything coming to blows.
Once again, you've defined why I like this board so much. At most
forums, even the most trivial comment can cause an uproar. This
is inevitably followed by more arguing over the definitions of
the misunderstanding, then the definitions of the definitions,
on and on ad nauseam. Here, as you mentioned, things take a different
course. (Many thanks also to Masq for never being a control freak,
but letting disagreements and debates play themselves out.) I
think what finally prompted me to delurk here back in May was
somebody's negative assessment of The Gift. There was no vitriolic
retaliation, no potshots, just carefully considered responses,
wonderful insights on both sides of the issue, and some flashes
of wit too. Afterwards I thought, "I'm home."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, see,
that's the problem - we're OT now.... kind of. -- Wisewoman, 19:43:56
09/06/01 Thu
I'm with ya, mm. When I first started lurking here I would read
a post and think, "Oh-oh, somebody just set themselves up
for a flame war!" and then it just would never happen. It
was intriguing, and a real eye-opener after some of the other
boards I'd read. After a while, I learned to trust these guys,
and now when I see an intriguing or controversial post, I think,
"Hm, can't wait to see what (pick erudite poster of choice)
has to say about that!" And I'm never disappointed.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, you
made a new set of initials to put on the list PEPOC...... -- Rufus,
21:20:35 09/06/01 Thu
Prick erudite poster of choice..........LOL......is that the same
as calling someone a worm???...:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Um,
rufus, that was "pick," not "prick!" LOL!!
Don't even wanna go there...;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:29:34 09/07/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Um, rufus, that was "pick," not "prick!"
LOL!! Don't even wanna go there...;o) -- Rufus, 13:02:25 09/07/01
Fri
*smiles innocently* and so I can't spell at all. I liked it the
way I translated it to be. I did warn you I'm twisted.....:):):):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> PEPOM -- Prick Erudite Poster of the Month. We could have
games and prizes. -- mundusmundi, 16:01:06 09/08/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> So, like, just the guys would be eligible, or what?
;o) -- Wisewoman, 16:47:22 09/08/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> "Prick" can be a state of mentality,
as well as physicality -- d'Herblay, 22:21:09 09/08/01 Sat
Plus, this being the internet, how would we ever be sure?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What? My post did not
post...this is a check. -- John Doe, 14:43:30 09/06/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> American Gods -- fresne, 13:46:21
09/06/01 Thu
"Gosh! And when I decided to bring up a discussion of hallucinogenic
beverages for religious purposes..."
All which makes me think of a scene in American Gods by Neil Gaiman.
Spoiler Space For those who want it
So, Odin, Oestre, and our protagonist Shadow go into a coffee
bar in San Francisco. For various plot reasons, Odin bets Oestre
that their Goth chick waitress won't know the origin of Easter
(the word, the day choice, etc.)
And indeed, she does not know because as a Wiccan, she doesn't
know much about Christian stuff.
Odin, to rub it in, asks her some leading questions about how
she practices her religion (although seriously she'd have to be
suicidal to frolic naked in the ocean, I mean come on, the water's
darn cold here. Then again, he's Norse, so whatever.). To which
she gets increasingly agitated, because she doesn't do those sorts
of things. (i.e. eww, gross).
It was one of those funny, "Oh, I know her/people like her."
sort of moments. Sorry, you've had so many of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Blessed Wannabe
humour, love it! -- Wisewoman, 19:34:18 09/06/01 Thu
Well, now you've really piqued my interest...I've been wanting
to read American Gods, 'cuz I liked an earlier Gaiman novel (Neverwhere?
was that it?), but I've never read the comic books, so I wasn't
sure what to expect. I'll definitely look for it now. Thanks!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just plugging
Good Omens -- d'Herblay, 20:34:14
09/06/01 Thu
Funniest eschatological satire of its time. And considering Donald
E. Westlake issued Humans at about the same moment, that's saying
a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I second
that! -- Solitude1056, 20:46:59 09/06/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I third
that! -- Shaglio, 05:40:55 09/07/01 Fri
And I was extremely pleased that Bohemian Rhapsody made an apperance.
What was the full title? "Good Omens: The Nice And Accurate
Prophecies Of Agnus Potter, Witch" I think that was it, but
I haven't read it in many moons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agnes
Nutter, I think... -- Wisewoman, 08:35:35 09/07/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
urm, fourth that! -- fresne, 09:31:19 09/07/01 Fri
Seriously, I'd pretty much recommend anything either Neil Gaiman
or Terry Pratchett has written. Both overly educated with lots
of wry humor. I want their reference libraries.
Although, I should mention, that while Good Omens is "Really"
funny and a good mix of their two styles, American Gods is, while
occasionally humorous, not a comedy. Well, okay part of the premise
is that while other countries build temples on sacred spots, Americans
put up the world's largest ball of string, but well, its a lot
more serious. Okay, the bit about Horus who spends all of his
time as a Hawk eating road kill is also pretty funny. But no really,
not a "cheer me up" book. It has a much more serious
take on the whole death, destruction, cosmological wars, a journey
into the underworld thing.
Gosh this is really getting me in the mood for Buffy. Although,
sigh, I will miss the season opener, as I shall be out of the
country on vacation. Ah, VCRs!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and
I'll fifth it (but that's not a subtitle) -- anom, 11:34:52 09/07/01
Fri
It actually doesn't have a subtitle, but after the 1st prologue
(depending how you count) is a page (2, really) saying the following:
"GOOD OMENS
A Narrative of Certain Events occurring in the last eleven years
of human history, in strict accordance as shall be shewn with:
The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter
Compiled and Edited, with Footnotes of an Educational Nature and
Precepts for the Wise, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett."
and then a list of Dramatis Personae, which is too long to copy
out, but these are the categories:
Supernatural Beings Apocalyptic Horsepersons Humans Them Full
Chorus of Tibetans, Aliens, Americans, Atlantisans and other rare
and strange Creatures of the Last Days. And: Dog (Satanical hellhound
and cat-worrier)
There's also a CAVEAT on the copyright page, which I noticed for
the 1st time just now: "Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can
be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home."
If anyone is not yet persuaded to find this book & read it, I
don't think I'll spoil anything by summing up the premise (not
the plot) as follows: Antichrist Switched at Birth.
Now find it & read it. @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, heck, let's just put up an amazon link -- d'Herblay, 12:06:13
09/07/01 Fri
You can buy it here.
The movie is in preproduction. Somehow I've always seen Derek
Jacobi as Aziraphale. For Crowley? I'd say Ben Affleck if he hadn't
done something similar in Dogma. Maybe JM as Crowley?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh, heck, let's just put up an amazon link -- Shaglio,
12:33:05 09/07/01 Fri
Interesting! My father's copy has a diferent looking cover. I'll
have to check it out when I get home tonight, but I don't have
a scanner and I don't usually check the message board on the weekends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh, heck, let's just put up an amazon link -- fresne,
13:43:06 09/07/01 Fri
Not only is Good Omen's going into production, but from comments
that Neil Gaiman made at the American Gods Q&A, Terry Gilliam
really "gets" the flavor of the book.
So, here's hoping for a good translation to screen.
As to casting, I always see ASH as Aziraphale. Since in my mental
casting, I'm saving JM for the Corinthian from the Sandman (the
second Corinthian, not the first one) and since someone mentioned
Bond, I want Pierce Brosnan for Crowley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Thank's d'Herblay--that was enough of a push to get me to
order it! -- Wisewoman, 10:47:54 09/08/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> No problem! -- d'Herblay, 11:14:20 09/08/01 Sat
Glad to have been of service. Though, maybe we should keep this
on the QT. I'm feeling a little sheepish railing against sugarbomb
marketing down below and linking to commercial sites up here.
I guess I'm just another capitalist tool. :)
-------------------------------------------------