January 2002 posts
Does anyone agree with me on this? -- Wolfhowl3, 05:54:45 01/16/02 Wed
That the Phantom Denis is really Doyle?
True you saw Denis once before Doyle died, but after he died, "Denis"'s actions changed, he stopped being just there, and started helping Cordy out.
We know that Doyle loved Cordy with all his Half Demon Heart, so I would think after he gave up his life, the PTB might just let him hang around and keep an eye on Cordy.
I was a little disappointed that the Phantom Cordy didn't get a chance to see what Denis looked like, so that we could know for sure.
Questions/Comments?
Wolfhowl
[> no -- vampire hunter D, 18:14:46 01/16/02 Wed
[> [> Then Call me Crazy! Lol (no Text) -- Wolfhowl3, 23:06:45 01/16/02 Wed
[> Re: Does anyone agree with me on this? -- Lunarchickk, 11:07:19 01/17/02 Thu
Do I think so? Hmm, probably not, because we *did* see Dennis before Doyle died, so he existed on his own.
But I've thought that too, and wondered if Dennis isn't Doyle, that at least Doyle stops by periodically to check on her. *sniff* Even in death, he watches over her... (I'm a bit of a softy when it comes to things like Cordy and Doyle -- doomed romances, that sort of thing)
I was disappointed that Phantom Cordy didn't get to see Dennis either, but Fred's introduction was so cute that I didn't mind. :)
So, at least one of us out here has had the same thought. It's not impossible! (This is the Jossverse, nothing is impossible... Except maybe a happy ending...)
Angel News.. (is this new news?) -- neaux, 06:51:58 01/16/02 Wed
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?23145
Joss is directing an episode of Angel ^_^
[> And.... -- Vickie, 10:14:19 01/16/02 Wed
Joss also wrote the episode! Happy happy happy.
BTW "the cast was subjected to a musical episode"?????????
Interesting casting for "Dead Things" (Ep 13) *SPOILERS* -- SK, 08:44:27 01/16/02 Wed
Kali Rocha, who will play Halfrek, Anya's friend (who is a vengence demon) in 'Dead Things' and the wedding episode (ep 16), was the same actress that played Cecily in 'Fool For Love'.
Joss loves to re-use actors that he likes so her character will probably be completely different, but I think it would really throw a wrench into Spike's plot if she was Cecily turned vengence demon.
Worth discussing?
[> Spoiler-y reply -- voyageofbeagle, 10:17:07 01/16/02 Wed
AnGelX over at the Cross and Stake posted this about Halfrek/Cecily:
"There is a brief moment in "Older and Far Away" where Halfrek recognizes Spike as "William" and he recognizes her as well...although he doesn't identify her by name. The actress is the same one who played "Cecily," William's love interest in the S5 ep, "Fool for Love." I don't know if the recognition of the two knowing each other relates to Halfrek being Cecily or not... but it's there. I'm posting this to ES simply because the moment is short and sweet and easily dropped to the cutting room floor."
[> [> eek, i missed that -- Shul, 12:07:45 01/16/02 Wed
Darnit, i completely missed these things. I shall have to review some episodes.
thanks for the info
[> [> [> Oh, this could be so cool! -- Mari_Star_99, 15:11:55 01/16/02 Wed
I can see it now..
Cecily/Halfreck (sp?) realizes William/Spike is no longer beneth her. This sounds very much like a positive redemptive step for our Spikey!!
Morality and Vampires -- RichardX1, 14:16:43 01/16/02 Wed
As for morality and demons, it varies from species to species. However, the difference between a human and a (normal, soulless) vampire is that a vampire only regrets when its actions are counter-productive to its goals, whereas a human tends to (usually) find certain behaviors inherently right or wrong.
Take Spike's relationship with Dawn: I'm sure he finds her entertaining to be around at times, but he mainly views her in terms of "Buffy's sister". If you doubt me, look at the reason he didn't reveal her to Glory: "It'd break Buffy's heart." If the Key had been an inanimate object, or something/someone with no significance to Buffy other than being the Key, Spike probably would have sold out in the proverbial New York minute. Spike has feelings for Buffy (one could argue it's more the desire to be loved by her than actual love for her, but 99.999999999999999% of humans confuse those two emotions all the time), and any seemingly moral action that he may take, if examined, will be revealed to be entirely for the purpose of endearing himself to her, or making her more receptive to him.
Restless (Spec, Whats wrong with buffy *Restless spoilers*)) -- Methodica, 16:13:35 01/16/02 Wed
I was rewatching restless again and found the scene with Buffy talking to Riley and Adam to be interesting. Besides the 2 references to Buffy as Killer I found the lines below to be even more interesting with buffy comming back wrong.
Adam : She's uncomfortable with certain concepts, Its understandable aggression is a natural human tendency. Though you and me come by it in another way (referring to buffy, First slayer behind her).
Buffy : We are not demons.
Adam : Is that a fact
I wonder if restless will foreshadow yet another event. ;-)
[> Question -- Rufus, 16:45:36 01/16/02 Wed
I had a question about demons and humans. In Season one, Giles gave a history of earth being a hell of it's own. How are demons so different if they started out in the same place? Demons and humans are capable of co-existing,they have inter-married frequently(remembering again Bachelor Party on ATS, and Doyle). If we are similar enough to have children together, what makes man so different from demons, other than appearance?
[> [> Well, it USED to be.... -- AngelVSAngelus, 23:02:59 01/16/02 Wed
Moral capacity, and motivation, but Joss decided to change that tune mid song a long while ago, I guess. All good,well, and interesting? Yeah. Consistent? I'd say not, but others would probably kill me.
[> [> [> And a pain in the ass for those of us who have to explain the metaphysics and ethics of the show... -- Masq, 06:56:23 01/17/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> No, it's the perfectly consistent, viewpoint of the anti-demon Taliban -- darrenK, 12:42:51 01/17/02 Thu
I'm going to jump in as Devil's advocate on this one.
I think the explanations are perfectly accurate and consistent.
Now, hold your horses, I know what you're thinking.
The information isn't consistent. I know that. What it's consistent to is human nature, a much more temperamental beast.
Buffy is a very sophisticated show and I believe the explanation for the changing information is much deeper and more interesting than that old standard "it just suited the plot."
Doctors used to "bleed" patients to rid them of the ill "humors" that were causing the illness. Many patients, including George Washington, died of the blood loss.
Our scientists have not attempted to make current medical knowledge consistent with this idea of "humors."
Hitler motivated an entire nation by telling them they were part of a superior race and anything done for the glory of that race was, by definition, right.
I think everyone knows where this led.
I mean to make two points:
1. Much knowledge is often wrong. And just because something is stated as a fact today, doesn't mean that new information revealed tomorrow won't change our perspective.
Information is always evolving. And Gile's information about this dark age before human civilization is very spotty. In the intervening thousands of years since the Demon age, the guardians of this knowledge not only had reason to distort the knowledge (see point 2), they also had the responsibility of trying to pass it accurately, even while passing the infomation orally before the advent of written language, then having to translate these stories into many languages to accomodate the person who needs it. Giles tells us the story in English, a language that didn't really gel into a form we recognize until the early Middle Ages. What language did these stories start in? Babylonian? Aramaic? Bantu? A Click language? How many times were they translated? Who added what? What were their viewpoints?
We play the game Secret to make the very same point. Now, extend the game over thousands of years, include thousands of players and make sure that they speak many different languages, even as the languages themselves evolve around them.
Does your head hurt yet. Mine does. Complete accuracy is impossible.
Point #2: When fighting a war there is no benefit in having your soldiers think that the other side could have a legitimate point of view.
It makes them hesitant. And keeps them off their guard. And the Watchers and their Slayers are soldiers in an old war. Pardon the pun, but most countries at war try to dehumanize their enemy. In this case dehumanizing was unnecessary, so making them completely morally unambiguous had to suffice. This would be perfectly characteristic of the hyper-dogmatic Watcher's council.
There are two other examples of organizations with a similiarly limited viewpoint: The Initiative and The Knights of Byzantium.
That brings us back to Giles. He just tells us what he's been told. And what he's been told is the dogmatic view of the Watcher's Council.
While we haven't yet been given other explanations of what happened when the demons were originally vanquished, we have watched as the Scoobie's experience with demons evolves.
Through the next few seasons the Scoobs make allies of Demons, Vampires, and Werewolves. We find out that unsouled vampires are capable of genuine love and sacrifice.
And over and over again, Buffy and gang are put in situations where they win, not because they represent humankind, but because they represent the balance between the human and the supernatural.
Every organization on the show--the Knights of Byzantium, the Watcher's Council, the Initiative--gets it wrong. They're fighting for mankind, but they screw it up. Not because they don't have good intentions, but because they have a dogmatic and inflexible policy of hatred and extermination for demons.
What this leads me to believe is that the hell on Earth Giles originally describes is the Council's interpretation of that time period. Not the objective (if there is such a thing) truth.
The same way that the Inquisition saw the Golden Age of Spain when Spanish culture was a mixture of Muslim, Christian, African and Jewish influences as a time of sin and degradation.
Or the Taliban saw the US as a culture of sin because of our view of equality toward women and acceptance of people of other religions and nationalities. And not only did they see it as sinful. They saw it as weak.
We see it as our strength.
Gile's original opinion was taught to him by the Watcher's Council Taliban.
It's not the truth. We just don't know the truth yet.
dK
[> [> [> [> [> Very nice post darrenK! -- MayaPapaya9, 15:04:20 01/17/02 Thu
[> [> There not real demons -- Shul, 16:53:59 01/17/02 Thu
The "Demons" that are most often portrayed in the buffyverse are the corrupted ones. Meaning they are not true demons. Like the mayor was more like a pure demon...more.
Foreshadowing???? (possible spoilers) -- Mystery (newbie), 16:26:22 01/16/02 Wed
I'm watching "Bad Eggs" right now. Interesting that it foreshadowed the current episodes. Buffy was a single mother of her egg. Just like now she's a single mother of Dawn. Sorry just a funny thought in my head...
[> Noticed that to... -- Kerri, 15:20:10 01/17/02 Thu
She also asked when she would tell the egg it was adopted :) Probably not planned but funny in retrospect anyway.
Lie to Me/Crush -- abt, 06:01:50 01/17/02 Thu
What happens in 'Lie to Me'? Buffy kills vampFord without a moments hesitation (indicating he's clearly evil), but then, she asks Giles to tell her that good/evil are clearly defined, he does so, and she says 'Liar'. ?
What happens in 'Crush'? Drusilla kills a girl for Spike to feed on, seems to indicate that the chip really is all that's holding him back. But then, she describes Spike as 'lost', beyond any salvation she can offer. Where *is* Spike in this ep? I suppose the idea of Spike being lost to Dru connects with her statement that he tastes of ashes)
(I have read that some people think Spike had already formed his plan to kill Dru for Buffy, and that not feeding would have scuppered his plan, but still..)
My feeling is there may be a path to evil and a path to good, but Spike's not even on any path, he's in the wilderness. But that's just one of my feelings about this ep, and I'm not that sure of it.
I can't find the right words to ask the questions that are in my mind, this is the best I can do. What's the message in 'Lie to Me' re good/evil? What's the message about Spike's state of mind in 'Crush'?
[> Re: Lie to Me/Crush -- grace, 07:02:28 01/17/02 Thu
I can only speak to the Spike question--
First, Spike could feed off of something which was already dead. The chip keeps him from hurting LIVING things (this goes against some of the Ann Rice folklore which says that vampires can't feed off of dead things, but who knows.)
Spike not feeding on the dead girl shows that he is developing his own morality separate and apart from the chip. He could have fed, but he didn't because he felt that it was "wrong". (remember, "wrong" could be not- morally-correct or something which Buffy would dislike.) Either way, he kept himself from feeding. Resisting ones impulses is an important step toward "doing the right thing." I think it shows that Spike is acting "good" not ONLY because of the chip.
Remember when Spike thought the chip was not working properly and he tried to bit the girl on the street. He really had to talk himself into it and was doing it to spite Buffy more than out of true desire. Granted, this is pretty childish behavior but it does give us some indication that Spike is developing his own morality and ability to distinguish right and wrong.
[> [> A nit ... -- verdantheart, 06:07:38 01/18/02 Fri
You say "Spike is developing his own morality and ability to distinguish right and wrong." My nit is that he's always been able to distinguish right from wrong, it's just that a vampire's natural tendency is to do the wrong thing. Vampires see the need to do right as an unnecessary weakness that simply prevents humans from doing what they want. Spike has been slowly losing this tendency (to do the wrong thing) and coming around to do the right thing most of the time (albeit sometimes wistfully, as when he witnessed the chaos that the biker demons were causing). Looking back, it's interesting to see the progression of this change. Even in "Where the Wild Things Are" he had to talk himself out of helping Buffy. His first impulse was to help her, even if only for the fun of taking that risk.
[> My opinion -- Stranger, 09:37:02 01/17/02 Thu
Lie to me is one of my favortie episode, especially because of this anti-manicheism line.
Everything is said in the end, when Buffy says that se thinks Ford wanted her to hate him, wanted to play the villain part. What that's what it was : a part. Ford was only desperate. Evil is often done just by desperate people. And one you can feel this despair, when you can feel sorry for someone, then you can't anymore thinks only in term of black & white, of straight good & evil.
So she had to kill Ford, because he was a vampire, because he made action that implied the death of people, but she had to feel sad doing it.
Spike's case is just a little bit trickier and more open to interpretation, there's less things to guide us to analyse it.
I did saw some hesitation, and some disgust in Spike's eyes before feeding from the girl. And I do think that's when he made his decision not to go back with Dru. Does it mean it wasn't bad to feed from the girl ? Well I guess so, i don't care much about what you do to corpses but there's digner things to be than being meat for a vampire. But does it mean he's all bad ? Certainly not ! The mere fact there were an hesitation was something very new for Spike, at the time.
But then some will say it's only wishthinking to see the hesitation...
You speak about a path toward good and a path toward evil. That's funny i wrote an analysis of Crush comparing it with the Lovers tarot card and using those terms too.
But I don't really think Spike is on a path toward good or toward evil. I don't think it's wilderness either, I think it's a path toward humanity, whatever that may mean.
[> [> Re: My opinion -- grace, 11:16:45 01/17/02 Thu
I think this is a good explanation--humanity.
also, you are right--Spike did feed. What I meant to say was that he hesitated...
A question for all the Joseph Campbell fans out there... -- Me in DE, 06:18:40 01/17/02 Thu
Go ahead and call me weird, but one of the books I have been traveling with is "Hero with a Thousand Faces." Whenever I feel like the old knoggin' needs a kick, I whip it out until I get confused.
So last night I happened to open up the chapter on the hero's return, and decided to apply the whole hero's journey to our girl Buffy, but don't get it.
So let's review. Hero is called, accepts and enters the adventure, faces down lots of challenges and finds magical helpers along the way. I'm following so far. Then the hero crosses the threshhold, gets the boon, and then embarks on the return.
So end of S5 is clearly crossing the threshold, but what's the boon? Is the boon the key to the 'what's wrong with Bufy' question? Campbell lays out the four classic boons: sacred union, deification, the 'elixir' or doesn't get the boon, but he of course says that you can't find all the parts in all myths.
But what struck me most is how Campbell says that the return is the hardest part of the journey for the hero. Again, sounds familiar.
So since I'm stuck overseas midway through S5 and have only seen the S6 episodes my sister taped when I was back stateside for the holidays, I figure I'd let all of you figure this one out. Does Buffy really parallel the hero's journey? If so, what do you think the boon is?
-Meg
[> Re: A question for all the Joseph Campbell fans out there... -- Zebra, 08:06:36 01/17/02 Thu
Now this is a fun game!
Just for kicks, let's think of the Buffyverse as a sort of dark parallel to the normal mythic universe (for example, the "World Navel" of the Buffyverse as the Hellmouth, which consumes the world instead of producing it, or, in the first season, holds the Master instead of sending him forth). This model would be much like the Campbellian model, except that where there should be generation and catharsis, there is instead destuction and stagnation. Buffy in this case acts not only as the Hero who returns with the boon, but also in the spirit of community she left behind. Buffy contains the character of the "others," still sitting in the cave staring at shadows and unable to comprehend the boon. She has recieved the fire-water of the knowledge of Heaven, but she lacks the ability to integrate it into life, therefore rendering the boon worthless. Or, alternately, the boon itself is dark; in this case the wisdom she has gained can only destroy the world (her world), not rebuild it again. Of course, this is all assuming that the series ends with what we have seen thus far, and I do not believe that this is at all the case.
Now for my disclaimers: (1) I am in the office right now, and have left my faithful copy of Hero with a Thousand Faces at home, so I'm sort of making this up on the fly. (2) While I am doing everything in my power to catch up, I am reletively new to Buffy fandom and there are many things I have missed. (3) This is my first post, so please be kind to me!
--Zebra
Ah, Sophistry. The game the whole family can play!
[> Re: A question for all the Joseph Campbell fans out there... -- Kerri,
15:25:35 01/17/02 Thu
"but what's the boon? "
I took it to be something like deification or assending to a higher state of consciousness. Buffy didn't just reach heaven in death, she has some understanding at the end of her life too.
[> Campbell on The Hero -- Rufus, 16:04:43 01/17/02 Thu
Moyers: Why are there so many stories of the hero in mythology?
Campbell: Because that's what's worth writing about. Even in popular novels, the main character is a hero or heroine who has found or done something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience. A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.
Moyers: So in all of these cultures, whatever the local costumethe hero might be wearing, what is the deed?
Campbell: Well, there are two types of deed. One is the physical deed, in which the hero performs a courageous act in battle or saves a life. The other kind is the spiritual deed, in which the hero learns to experience the supernormal range of human spritual life and then comes back with a message.
The usual hero adventure begins with someone from whom something has been taken, or who feels there's something lacking in the normal experiences available or premitted to the members of his society. This person then takes off on a series of adventures beyond the ordinary, either to recover what has been lost or to discover some life-giving elixir. It's usually a cycle, a going and a returning.
But the stucture and something of the spiritual sense of the adventure can be seen already anticipated in the puberty or initiation rituals of early tribal societies, through which a child is compelled to give up its childhood and become an adult-to die, you might say, to its infantile personality and psyche and come back as a responsible adult. This is a fundamental psychological transformation that everyone has to undergo. We are in childhood in a condition of dependency under someone's protection and supervision for some fourteen to twenty-one years-and if you're going on for your Ph.D., this may continue to perhaps thirty-five. You are in no way a self-resonsible, freeagent, but an obedient dependent, expecting and receiveing punishments and rewards. To evolve out of this position of psychological immaturity to the courage of self-responsibility and assurance requires a death and a resurrection. That's the basic motif of the universal hero's journey-leaving one condition and finding the source of life to bring you forth into a richer or mature condition.
When Buffy the Vampire first aired, she was a young girl who wanted nothing but a normal life. Unfortunately for her, that wasn't to be. What makes Buffy a hero is the fact that she chose to do something more than cheerleading, give her life for something more. The show is a constant cycle of "a going and a returning", Buffys journey not a one time quest but a continual cycle of growth. Season six is about Buffy giving up her childhood gaining maturity That's the basic motif fo the universal hero's journey - leaving one condition and finding the source fo life to bring you forth into a richer or mature condition.. Buffy isn't at her ultimate destination her journey still in progress.
[> [> Re: Campbell on The Hero -- Rufus, 16:14:21 01/17/02 Thu
I forgot to put the source of the quotes above which is "Power of Myth" Joseph Campbell.
[> [> Re: Campbell on The Hero -- Gwyn, 02:54:25 01/18/02 Fri
We need to throw into the mix Campbell's idea that the hero can refuse the return after crossing the threshold from the moment of epiphany involved in meeting the supernatural challenge. Buffy has been doing this and only her relationship with Spike has been able to break down her emotional deadness. The next stage, as Campbell has put it, is reaching out and finding the "freedom to live". Buffy took a small step in that direction when she said in Gone that she did not want to die. But, it is a big step from that to a full acceptance of, and a reconnection with, life in its fullness. In his chapter on the Transformations of the Hero, Campbell talks of the Hero as Lover.In most ancient myths it is a woman who embodies the life energies with which the hero needs to unite:
"She is the 'other portion' of the hero himself-for each is both...she is the image of his destiny which he is to release from the prison of enveloping circumstance. But where he is ignorant of his destiny, or deluded by false considerations, no effort on his part will overcome the obstacles."
In BtVS Spike is the lover,the occasionally chaotic but vital life force, that Buffy as hero needs to unite with to merge with the life she has so far felt alienated from. But "false considerations", causing her to deny what she feels, are currently clouding her ability to know herself and what she feels. Her yearning for the "normal" in life,is 'ignorance of destiny' because she defines it so narrowly, trying to surround that destiny with a white picket fence, and social platitudes or emotional stereotypes. She is asking the wrong questions and is creating the obstacles to her own return.
Spike is still partly imprisoned in his own nature,despite the changes he has made,in the cirumstances of his vampirism. Without Buffy returning his love, even though he may find a higher purpose, he may never be totally free of that prison.
[> [> [> Like your post! -- verdantheart, 06:16:24 01/18/02 Fri
Especially the parallel between Buffy's alienation toward life and Spike. Because he is a "purely evil" vampire, she doesn't want to accept him, as she doesn't (or didn't, anyway) want to accept life after her time in heaven (or a heaven-like dimension).
"Buffy," "Angel" and conventional wisdoms. -- DEN, 08:11:47 01/17/02 Thu
abt's posting below encouraged me to fly this rerun-hell hypothesis for comment. Arguably the REAL challenge BtVS originally posed was the moral absolutism demonstrated in the show's first two years. There was a chosen one who fought evil, and her friends who made the same choice voluntarily. The lines between evil and good were clear. The cause both legitimated and required sacrifice. The fates of Jesse and Ford among many others, and above all the killing of Angel, highlighted the harsh demarcation, and its costs.
Beginning in S3, BtVS, and AtS to a far greater degree, has moved steadily in the direction of a moral/ behavioral model far more congenial to those raised, educated, and conditioned in a fin de siecle climate that emphasizes situational ethics, focuses on personal fulfilment, rejects the concept of "judging," and processes everything in shades of gray.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing that any of these approaches are "wrong. " I do, however, suggest that they are familiar. They are conventional wisdoms. They do not rock our world like the earlier stark dichotomies. In "Lie to Me" and "Becoming," Buffy is committed to the good of the whole, even when it hurts. In "The Gift," her focus is egocentric: on a personal relationship. Whatever discussions of the "sacrifice/ suicide" issue on posting boards, the show itself clearly affirms that decision. One of the more amusing ironies of BtVS is the exchange between Spike and Angel in "School Hard," when they joke about people still falling for the Anne Rice line. Four years later, Spike would fit nicely into any of her novels. Indeed, one set of threads on this board discussed, perceptively and intelligently, the possibility that Buffy's real calling was as a vampire redeemer. And would not a real challenge to the show's core followers have involved Willow choosing a straight relationship over a gay one!?
Again, all I'm suggesting is that the Jossverse has moved steadily closer to the conventional wisdoms of the West's intelligentsia, giving it the ambivalences and ambiguities it finds congenial. And that makes both series correspondingly less interesting. There's little long-run pleasure in debating the nuances of a shared value system.
[> Agreed about the "PC" angle....... -- AurraSing, 09:12:44 01/17/02 Thu
"Buffy" has become pretty politically correct over the years.
I think they began to put a toe in the water,so to speak,when Oz became a werewolf.Okay,so now Willow is in a situation where she could be in love with a potential murderer,but then they effectively 'neutered' him by ensuring that he was locked up during every full moon.Same goes for Spike,who was *really* neutered by his chip,thus making him PC by virtue of him being non-threatening in any realistic sort of way.
Willow falls in love with Tara and does so in a very PC way,with some confusion and trepidition on both sides.Why not have Willow fall instantly,madly in love with the Wicca?? Why not have it be lustful and sexually charged? Some people have complained on other boards that Joss has set a double standard by not ever really showing W/T making love,the same way they have shown X/A or now B/S....I think it's because in a PC world you can openly acknowlege your gay friends but heaven forbid that they give you all the details!!!
People rarely want things to be all black and white anymore.Why? Because then they would have to make choices,choose sides.And yes,the Buffyverse has been slowly leaning towards the greyness for some time now.Those of us who still have strong opinions about "black and white" can still however discuss the rational behind some of the options the characters are given.And thus the debating lives on.......
[> [> Black and White, or Gray? -- Earl Allison, 09:33:59 01/17/02 Thu
I agree in part, that there has definitely been a blurring of the lines, but that in and of itself isn't a bad thing, IMHO.
The problem comes from blurring ALL the lines.
Personally, I didn't consider Oz "neutered," because he WAS dangerous. Sure, they locked him up, but it's not like anyone ever denied that he WOULD kill given the opportunity -- look at "Wild at Heart," which I THINK was the one with Veruca -- Oz would have killed Willow in a heartbeat after he killed Veruca. Heck, who knows how many people Oz might have killed BEFORE the gang fount out what he was.
The biggest problem I have is Spike. He still hasn't acknowledged that KILLING IS WRONG -- and likely never will. To me, that's a big step in change, and it seems absent.
One of my favorite episodes from Angel S2 was "Disharmony," not just because I like Harmony, but because it TRIED to blur the lines on vampires, and basically said that there WAS no ambiguity -- a vampire is a soulless demon that WILL kill given the chance.
Not going to comment on Willow/Tara either way. I have no problem with the relationship, and personally, I could have done with a little less Xander/Anya or (definitely less) Buffy/Spike. I can hear the screams of "PRUDE!" now :)
What I think the real problem here is, seems to be that there are NO black-and-white issues anymore, that they are ALL shades of gray. By all means, blur the lines somewhat, but we need SOME moral absolutes and truths to cling to (and for Buffy, that should be things like vampires=evil) -- otherwise we all become moral relativists.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Killing humans is wrong, but killing vampires isn't? From a vampiric perspective ... -- bookworm, 12:53:56 01/17/02 Thu
Buffy's a boogeyman and murderer, as great an "evil" as vampires look to us from a human perspective. She staked Sandy, the vampire who fed off Riley in the brothel, while Sandy was running away. If all vamps are as individual, as capable of thought and choice and enjoyment of the world as Spike -- and we've seen some evidence that some of them are, although most of them are demonic and dangerous to humans -- then Buffy committed something akin to murder by killing a vampire who was too weak to be a threat. If Buffy had staked Spike while he was chained in Giles' bathtub in Season 4, it would have looked like murder to us even though Spike was still "evil" at that point. In that same episode, "Something Blue," he told Buffy, "Yes, I do have a problem with you killing my friends." He compares what the two of them have done, putting them on an equal level, in other episodes -- "How many of my kind do you reckon you've done?" Spike became a person to us in Season 4. We've also seen that vampires have families, feel affection for one another, even have something resembling a culture and religion. Humans are a taint on the earth to them. They're food. Sometimes they're interesting material to make new vampires from. For Spike, they're also entertainment. It's not a human value system, but it's still valid from their point of view. From our perspective, killing humans is wrong. Not from Spike's. Maybe that's a PC point of view, but it's the one I find most interesting. Why does Spike need to be redeemed? Why can't he be acknowledged as what he is now, a man/vamp who is both good and evil, caught between two worlds, for whom the love of Buffy and Dawn Summers makes the difference now?
[> [> [> [> Re: Killing humans is wrong, but killing vampires isn't? From a vampiric perspective ... -- dochawk, 13:31:42 01/17/02 Thu
if you take your analogy 1 step further. How do humans appear to animals that we raise to feed on. From a cow's perspective, wouldn't it be moral to kill humans to protect other cows?
With the exception of angelus via Acathla (and perhaps the Judge), in none of the threatened apocolypses is the goal the destruction of humanity, but the subjugation of humanity (or the damage is really a side effect of the intended goal, Glory doesn't want to destroy humanity, she wants to wreak havoc on her home world and the damage to earth is incidental to her mind). The Master wants to rule the world, the Mayor wants to achieve full demonhood and rule, Adam wants to create a superior breed. Even many of the minor demons want control rather than destruction (ie Ken in Anne)
[> [> [> [> [> I'm a vegetarian, but I probably wouldn't support the cow revolt. -- bookworm, 17:39:22 01/17/02 Thu
I rather like human beings. If I were a cow, I probably wouldn't. I hope cats scratch the hell out of the scientists that do experiments on them. How can anyone kill a poor pathetic kitty cat, even in the name of science? LOL. But it's all a matter of perspective. If they were telling Glory's story, the story might turn into her heroic journey to go back home. We eat the cows, so if the cows were sentient and capable of revolting, a story from their perspective would be "MOOOING About the Revolution." Since we're human and the story is about human Buffy the Vampire Slayer, vamps are evil and Buffy represents absolute good.
[> [> [> [> But that way lies relativism ... -- Earl Allison, 16:35:14 01/17/02 Thu
An interesting viewpoint, but being human, I naturally favor the view that my kind decides morality -- not the vampires that see me and mine as food.
Do we do the same to animals? Absolutely, but we don't consider them SENTIENT, which (correct or not) allows us to eat them and subjugate them without moral concern in most cases.
However, we ARE sentient, as are vampires. To counter your point, we've seen through Angel that vampires can live WITHOUT drinking human blood -- and apparently without any ill effects. Yet "Disharmony" showed us that, given a chance, vampires WILL kill -- and to date, with the sole exceptions of (chipped) Spike and (souled) Angel, they all have at least tried.
Does Buffy seem a murderess to vampires? Maybe, but again, the lack of soul and the apparent, inherent DESIRE to kill (it's not a biological imperative and need, or we'd see Spike going mad from the chip) -- but not the NEED to kill to live, detracts from that.
As for "most" being dangerous to humans, except for the two exceptions above, vampires DO kill. Sandy DID come along to kill Buffy -- just because she couldn't and ran makes her no less a threat.
If we put ourselves in the position of the demons and vampires, NOTHING is black and white -- and like I said before, I cannot accept that. It might be a personal shortcoming, but as far as I am concerned, there ARE absolutes in the world, vampires being evil is one of them.
Can they love? Certainly. Do they have their own culture and sects? Yes. But they also, to an individual, drink human blood and view human life, other sentient life, as food, whereas they themselves are mockeries of a human -- the lifeless shell, memories intact, but soul departed. They themselves are unliving reminders of the murder they suffered, and to me, that makes all the difference.
Just my opinion.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> I'm not sure that drinking pig blood does keep them in the pink of health. -- bookworm, 17:31:55 01/17/02 Thu
It might be akin to a human being surviving on nothing but potatoes or, grass patties or, to be more gross, on fried rats for a year. It's been done. In modern times, there's a woman in Lithuania who's eaten nothing but dirt for the past seven years. She looks quite healthy on the TV documentary. That kind of thing would probably keep us alive, but I bet there are a whole bunch of nutrient deficiencies. Pig's blood may be the equivalent of a solid potato diet for the vampires. So, assuming we could survive on dirt and also assuming that killing an animal is evil, should we sacrifice our health to principle? How long would we live? If you took Angel and Spike to the vampire doctor, they probably wouldn't be quite as healthy as Drusilla or Harmony, in spite of the fact that they function. From that perspective, they're not evil, just doing what they have to do to survive. Sure, they have an instinct to kill, often each other, and humans would be well advised to take as many of them out as they could. They are not a particularly attractive species -- in any sense -- from the human perspective, even though evil Spike and Drusilla and Harmony have their endearing moments. I don't want to see Spike go back to killing humans because the minute he does Buffy has to stake him. I like Spike. I don't necessarily want to see him completely redeemed and brooding over his great and innumerable sins. One of the things I've always enjoyed about science fiction is the chance to imagine the world from the perspective of another species. Relativism can be an interesting intellectual exercise, even if it's morally questionable in the real world.
[> [> [> Re: Black and White, or Gray? -- Rufus, 19:30:13 01/17/02 Thu
What I think the real problem here is, seems to be that there are NO black-and-white issues anymore, that they are ALL shades of gray. By all means, blur the lines somewhat, but we need SOME moral absolutes and truths to cling to (and for Buffy, that should be things like vampires=evil) -- otherwise we all become moral relativists.
I don't think that the world is only grey in the Buffyverse or Buffy would have to close shop and let the demons rule the world. What I do think better describes the situation is all issues are on a spectrum. Good and evil in the Buffyverse are stars on opposite ends of a spectrum, that means that at any given time actions can take place at either extreme end or star, or hover near or on a mid point, where both humans and demons start. It's the actions taken by either party that determine the end result. Buffy slays the demons that act on the extreme end of the evil spectrum....she does it and there is no grey about it as she is protecting humanity against destruction. It's when you get situations such as Spike that she is having more problems. He is hovering on just the good side of the mid point, so Buffys actions are not extreme to him. In the early seasons the demons were all lumped at the extreme end of evil, with blanket permission to kill them. Then there was proof that demons are capable of a wide range of behaviors just like people are, something Buffy seems to be instinctually aware of.
[> [> [> Adult developmental stages -- Darby, 10:58:39 01/18/02 Fri
2 Points - first, you can't completely evade black-and-white imagery in a system where the two choices for the heroine are 1) kill 'em; 2) send them on their way.
That said, we're seeing a bit of movement across the boundaries of what are considered cognitive stages in adolescents and adults (these are less sure than childhood stages, and apply differentially in different parts of people's lives - say work or family - but they're supposed to work).
Here are the 4 stages:
1. Dualism. Here's the black-and-white attitude we carry out of childhood. Things can be assessed by a simple system, and authority figures are always reliable unless obviously evil. Dawn, pretty much.
2. Multiplicity and personal truth. This is often seen in college students - the idea that there are lots of ways to look at every issue, and all are equally valid. I get some of this from the "shades of gray" posters. The current Buffyverse is mostly here.
3. Contextual relativism. At this stage, it becomes obvious that not every idea is equally valid. What is hard to shake are the concepts that a good idea is always a good idea and that your assessment rules are always reliable. Giles is probably in this stage.
4. Responsible knowing (obviously named by people who placed themselves in the group). At this stage you realize that every decision is a product of a particular set of circumstances and each must be considered on its own merits. From what we've been shown, Tara may be here. Sometimes it seems like Spike is here as well, but doesn't let his judgment get in the way of his self-interest.
Just thought I'd muddy the waters a bit more...
[> [> Re: Agreed about the "PC" angle....... -- Sophist, 09:34:41 01/17/02 Thu
I guess it depends on who you think the show's audience is. IMO most Americans live in a black/white world. The writers seem to believe this because they give that worldview to Xander, the show's Everyman. In that case, the show is challenging most viewers to move beyond the simplistic and recognize the nuances to moral dilemmas.
I'm not sure I follow the example of W/T. JW is clearly challenging the PC view of the political right (they are the only ones who are truly PC :)) that gays can't form loving relationships. To some degree, he is limited in what he can show by the PC which defines how gays can be portrayed on TV; viewers won't accept gay sex the same way they do heterosexual. At the same time, he has taken full advantage of these limits to portray a loving, committed relationship equal to conventional husband/wife. That is much more a challenge for most viewers than defeating an unambiguously evil Master.
[> [> [> The Grayness Has Been Far More of a Problem for me on Buffy than Angel -- AngelVSAngelus, 09:49:56 01/17/02 Thu
While I still vastly enjoy the show, the issue of the increasingly gray leanings has left me with a sense of hollowness, if only because often times reality itself seems so mundane and meaningless because of its many gray smokescreens. I also feel that often times people claim an issue to be gray for the purpose of smoke screening its apparently morally conflicting sides.
On Angel, for all of its balancing demons and humans that commit evil acts, there are constants. Someone gave the example of Disharmony, and I too really enjoyed that episode because it seemed to almost be David Fury's reply to the possibility of Spike changing his vampiric nature.
[> [> [> I think we try to say we are "PC" but most of us are not..... -- AurraSing, 09:50:24 01/17/02 Thu
We are not "supposed" to consider gay people perverse or threatening and yet by assuming most of the viewers won't be able to accept gay sex for what it is,we are saying that being gay is still somehow wrong.At least that was the gist of the last debate over the whole W/T portrayal I saw.
I think Joss portrayed them as a loving couple,it's just that the sex seemed so muted or behind closed doors in comparison to any other couple...I mean,if viewers could handle "Where the Wild Things Are",couldn't they handle some warm lesbian lovin'???
I do have some issues that are very black and white for me personally (mostly related to marriage and childraising issues) but I at least try to offer an open heart and mind when it comes to other people's issues.Which is why B/S does not annoy me but Buffy still getting upset at Spike for being around does-why keep lying to yourself about something like this??
I suppose I am getting too spoiled by being able to watch shows like "Six Feet Under" on my satellite system,where they had straight couples,gay couples,old couples and young but disturbed couples coming out of the woodwork.The show was funny yet compelling,dramatic yet could see the fun side of almost any situation.Kinda like Buffy in fact......
[> [> [> [> Re: I think we try to say we are "PC" but most of us are not..... -- Sophist, 12:21:27 01/17/02 Thu
I completely agree that we *should* be able to see gay sex with the same graphic intensity we accept for heterosexual couples. I don't think JW is trying to hide it; I don't think the lack of this with W/T is intended to convey any message of shame. I think he is making the best he can of a world where most people don't agree with me (and you, and, I am assuming, him).
There certainly are black and white issues in the world. Sometimes its a relief to face them -- we can proceed without any nagging doubts. Most issues, IMHO, are not that simple. To me, the "grayness" of Buffy is what makes it so fascinating. IF the show is exploring the question of redemption (as AtS clearly is) with the B/S relationship, then the ambiguities of that seem to me to open up possibilities as wide as, say, the New Testament. I'm excited to see what they do even if, in the end, I disagree.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we try to say we are "PC" but most of us are not..... -- LoriAnn, 08:30:44 01/19/02 Sat
Trying to be PC or wanting to be PC is a losing battle. What is PC today wasn't PC yesterday and won't be PC tomorrow. It is a person's own values, developed over time and, one would hope, with positive, constructive motives, that should lead a person, not some externally imposed and fadish idea of correctness. That doesn't mean that one person's values are necessarily better or worse than those of others, but at least they are not externally imposed and, since they're "owned" by the individual, can be developed. Outside presures and values can only be imposed even if we acquiesce to them. Of course, everything we know ultimately comes from outside through our senses, but at least we can take sense knowledge and reach our own conclusions rather than having them imposed on us in one way or another.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we try to say we are "PC" but most of us are not..... -- Sophist, 10:32:49 01/19/02 Sat
Groups in society certainly try to impose their values on others. No one should be PC for the sake of PC, whether the social pressure comes from the right or the left.
The trick is being strong enough to evaluate moral conduct on your own. There is nothing wrong with abiding by certain social values, as long as you do so because you have made an informed decision that they are correct. In other cases, you may follow your own path. The key is that YOU make the decision, and that you can give a thoughtful defense of it.
I think this was a long-winded way of agreeing with you.
[> [> charcoal, slate, light black..... :-) -- Sebastian, 10:14:32 01/17/02 Thu
this is long folks…..
>>abt's posting below encouraged me to fly this rerun-hell hypothesis for comment. Arguably the REAL challenge BtVS originally posed was the moral absolutism demonstrated in the show's first two years. There was a chosen one who fought evil, and her friends who made the same choice voluntarily. The lines between evil and good were clear. The cause both legitimated and required sacrifice. The fates of Jesse and Ford among many others, and above all the killing of Angel, highlighted the harsh demarcation, and its costs. >>
i always thought the transformation of angel in S2 was the gateway into the 'shades of gray' theme. even though as angelus, angel was unredeemable, the circumstances leading to that was what made it a very gray subject. jenny calendar knew about the curse. but she had a job to do - which was to ensure that angel/angelus was punished for his crimes.
wrongheaded? perhaps. depends on your point of view. it was wrong from buffy's and the scoobies' perspective. but it wasn't wrong from her tribe's. angel/angelus killed a revered member of their tribe. they were dispensing justice/revenge.
another gray area. buffy should have killed angelus without question as soon as he reverted. but she didn't. why? she loved him. is that an excuse? once again, a gray answer. From anyone who has had a great love they way buffy did with angel - it is easy to sympathize. but what about his victims? theresa, jenny calander, countless others during his months as ReAngelus.
i think with jesse and ford it was more clear-cut. we didn't know jesse the way we do xander or willow. so it was easier to make him a black hat'. the same with ford. almost from the beginning he is shown with dark motives. To betray buffy. its not till later his reasons are revealed - he is dying, but that's introduced in the last act of the story. by that time we are too revolted by his betrayal to care. jesse and ford were 'bad'. angel/angelus however was different. he was a hero, a helper, a lover to buffy. that's a harder reconciliation to make, that someone you love has gone bad. hence why I think “surprise” marks the period of 'gray'.
>>Beginning in S3, BtVS, and AtS to a far greater degree, has moved steadily in the direction of a moral/ behavioral model far more congenial to those raised, educated, and conditioned in a fin de siecle climate that emphasizes situational ethics, focuses on personal fulfilment, rejects the concept of "judging," and processes everything in shades of gray.>>
I absolutely agree. faith, lindsey, darla, ben and spike are characters that spring to mind when it comes to the moral/behavioral model. and why is that? Because each one of these characters were not simply 'bad' or 'evil' they did very terrible things - but at one point or another for whatever reason they have questioned whether it was something they should be doing. They have been placed in a 'gray' area where they ask if is what they should be doing. contrast that to the master, drusilla, the mayor, glory and lilah who do not question acts/behavior. they act on it. without question.
Again, all I'm suggesting is that the Jossverse has moved steadily closer to the conventional wisdoms of the West's intelligentsia, giving it the ambivalences and ambiguities it finds congenial. And that makes both series correspondingly less interesting. There's little long-run pleasure in debating the nuances of a shared value system.
>>People rarely want things to be all black and white anymore.Why? Because then they would have to make choices,choose sides.And yes,the Buffyverse has been slowly leaning towards the greyness for some time now.>>
I agree with this statement, but doesn't this better show the characters transition into adulthood? I'm not quite sure about everyone else, but as I grow older, I find my belief system, thoughts and emotions constantly challenged by the fact that questions or not easily answered.
When you are a teen - it is quite easy to see things in black/ white or wrong/write scenarios. As teens a person lacks the emotional and intellectual capacity to really fathom the different circumstances that comprise a situation. I fee; that is the case with the characters on buffy. the past three seasons show the moral conundrums they all have to face as they get older. They can't always pick a certain side because its not always that easy anymore.
things just aren't that simple anymore. Things have become grey on the show because the scoobies are entering a period where things are very uncertain. from willow's addiction to magic, to buffy's sexual attraction to spike - things cant easily be explained.
[> [> [> Yes... -- Nevermore, 12:05:18 01/17/02 Thu
Btvs may be celebrating all things grey, but that is what distinguishes it from cartoons. I agree with the fact that kids only understand good/evil as opposites - only to learn the shades in between as they grow up. I don't think there is anything wrong with the grey - except for the fact that it is less comforting. It was nice to watch the clearly defined cartoon goodies and baddies when I was little, but now it seems foolish to pretend life is as simple. without the tones in the middle btvs would be just another cheesy movie or kids program. I say, wahay for the grey!
[> [> [> gag! pardon my spelling and grammar error folks....... -- Sebastian, 12:45:32 01/17/02 Thu
as well as not using '<<>>' marks in paragraph 8 for proper attribution.
my apologies.
- S
[> [> [> Re: charcoal, slate, light black..... :-) -- Nevermore, 13:20:14 01/17/02 Thu
Stating the obvious - here comes the philosophical bit. (Yikes) All the main characters have all been shaped to be equally balanced - capable of good or evil. As in life - the world would not function without dark and light, yin and yang, and all in between, etc. Nobody can be wholly good or wholly evil - and if they are they cannot survive for long in the series without getting boring - (The Master was amusing - but so one dimensional! Hence his demise) Spike was rescued from The Master's fate to become a far more interesting character - as was Faith. I'll argue that while its interesting to see a good guy slip and do one bad thing - its far more intriguing to wonder why a occupational bad guy would want to do good. Now if that doesn't make btvs watchable, what does? (And by the way - (As a heterosexual) if a gay male relationship was featured on btvs instead of female - would the idea of a bedroom scene be deemed any more accepible to viewers? If so - then there's something very sexist going on somewhere!)
[> [> [> Re: charcoal, slate, light black..... :-) -- Nevermore, 13:20:52 01/17/02 Thu
Stating the obvious - here comes the philosophical bit. (Yikes) All the main characters have all been shaped to be equally balanced - capable of good or evil. As in life - the world would not function without dark and light, yin and yang, and all in between, etc. Nobody can be wholly good or wholly evil - and if they are they cannot survive for long in the series without getting boring - (The Master was amusing - but so one dimensional! Hence his demise) Spike was rescued from The Master's fate to become a far more interesting character - as was Faith. I'll argue that while its interesting to see a good guy slip and do one bad thing - its far more intriguing to wonder why a occupational bad guy would want to do good. Now if that doesn't make btvs watchable, what does? (And by the way - (As a heterosexual) if a gay male relationship was featured on btvs instead of female - would the idea of a bedroom scene be deemed any more accepible to viewers? If so - then there's something very sexist going on somewhere!)
[> [> Oh, I don't know. I find Batman reruns far less interesting than Buffy. -- bookworm, 12:30:39 01/17/02 Thu
For a show that's about black and white and no shades of gray, look to 1960s reruns of Batman, Superman and Spiderman. The villains are straightup evil and amusing, the heroes are good and always prevail. The world is exactly the way Giles lied to Buffy that it was in "Lie to Me." Adulthood is filled with situational ethics and bad and even worse choices. I think the show is actually better and certainly more entertaining because it turned Buffy's old, simplistic view of demons, good and evil on its ear. The one thing that hasn't changed for her is that she saves innocent people from vamps who are about to gnaw on them. But some demons are good, sometimes good people can be as bad as the worst vampire; Spike is as bad as they come but still capable of sacrificing himself to save Dawn; Willow falls in love with the person instead of with a particular gender (I'd argue that she's bisexual, not lesbian or heterosexual) and enjoying slam, bam, up against the wall sex with a vampire may be a good and soul-healing thing. Sex with Spike isn't particularly politically correct. They enjoy hitting each other. They get off on violence. Those are both very feminist no-nos. It's all much more interesting than Batman.
[> [> [> Black, White, Grey, PC, storytelling, etc. -- Eric, 15:38:04 01/17/02 Thu
I agree with the poster above that the show loses a little by becoming progressively PC concerning vamps and demons. But really its been heading there for a while. Part of this is by necessity, since "Pure Evil" villains ARE one dimensional and get dull real quick. BtVS writers are a cut above this, so most of these villains are one week wonders. So while this progression was made, the over all result is superior storytelling. And there's no particular reason the show can't shift back if a plot line demands it.
I do have difficulty with "everything is a shade of grey" world view. For one thing, it seems to be illogical. If everything depends on the situation, then some situations require black and white judgements, so how can everything be a shade of grey?
My favorite theory about Good and Evil is an old Christian one from St. Augustine of Hippo. Basically he argued that there is no such thing as Evil as a sovereign entity. Evil is Good that is warped through misunderstanding, sorrow, anger, etc. This is why Faith as Vampire Slayer is so much more dangerous than Faith as ordinary person. And why Nazi Germany was so much scarier than Papa Doc's Haiti.
In defense of the old Superman and Batman serials, they were made immediately after WW II, when America could seriously entertain a Black and White world view. And no, its ridiculous to say that Americans largely adhere to that view now. I'm rambling now....
Unnecessary opinion follows:
As for PC, I consider people that adhere to it too much to be the most modern versions of the Black/White world view.
This doesn't mean they're wrong for what they believe. But try to argue a point other than their divine wisdom and they'll quickly extrapolate that every other value you have stands opposite to theirs. (Try it)
[> [> [> [> There are some lines that should never be crossed, even in Buffy. -- bookworm, 17:52:25 01/17/02 Thu
Buffy is the moral compass of the show. If Buffy killed an innocent human being, that would be evil. Failing to protect a human from Spike's pointy teeth would evil. It's lucky for Spike that Buffy wasn't around when he tried to eat the innocent human woman. He might have met the business end of Mr. Pointy right fast if he'd succeeded. I hope Spike avoids future kills -- or, at least, is wise enough not to do it in range of Buffy. I'd hate to see him off the show. If Buffy demanded a credit card number before she protected innocent people would be evil, too ... Warren is evil and boring with it. As Nazi Germany proved, evil can be as utterly plebian and banal as it is deadly.
[> [> [> I'll Put It This Way... -- AngelVSAngelus, 00:01:41 01/18/02 Fri
Some have said to me that I have a very idealistic, black and white view of things in the world, and perhaps I do. My nature is that of the idealist. This might influence my opinion of how the show should go, I'm not certain if it does or doesn't.
I simply fear that one day, with things leaning more and more in the gray every passing episode, we'll have a series about a vampire slayer with no one to slay, no adversaries because there are no more lines of hero/villain, light/darkness. Without the black and white of the things they seem to lose all meaning, at least to me. Maybe its different for other viewers.
[> [> Re: Agreed about the "PC" angle....... -- robert, 16:43:28 01/17/02 Thu
This is very interesting. How do you define "PC", which I am assuming to mean politically correct?
"People rarely want things to be all black and white anymore."
Who are the people you are referring to, when you use the term "people"? Some people prefer a world which is black-and-white and some people might prefer a world with no defining rules and boundaries. However, I would argue that most know that neither of these conditions exist.
"Why? Because then they would have to make choices,choose sides."
I would argue the opposite. If the world is black-and-white, then you only need to make one set of choices -- whether you will obey the rules or not. If you're going to obey the rules, then the rules make all the subsequent choices for you. If not, then you will have easy choices to make, based upon your own egocentric needs and desires.
If you acknowledge that the world is not black-and-white, then you must wrestle with each issue that should arise. You cannot blindly apply a set of rules. You must make an individual judgement, guided by the particular situation and the set of morals, ethics and rules that you have accepted into your life.
[> [> Re: Agreed about the "PC" angle....... -- Simone, 18:11:54 01/17/02 Thu
>>People rarely want things to be all black and white anymore.Why? Because then they would have to make choices,choose sides.And yes,the Buffyverse has been slowly leaning towards the greyness for some time now.>>
I'm not sure I understand how lack of belief in moral absolutes removes the necessity of making choices. As long as one is alive, one HAS to make choices.
Nor can I understand how recognition of the fact that these choices are merely contextually/relatively/subjectively justifiable can be A Bad Thing. I'm well aware of which side I'm on at all times and have no problem making value judgments based on that. I'm just not convinced that my side is the Right Side (or, indeed, that there is such a thing). Partly because such convictions, IMHO, can too easily lead to intolerance, intellectual inflexibility and other icky stuff.
[> [> Joss sure has shown a Willow/Tara sex scene -- darrenK, 19:56:28 01/17/02 Thu
Just thought I'd point out that Joss did indeed show Willow and Tara making love.
In Once More With Feeling, Willow goes down on Tara as Tara sings that she's "spread beneath her Willow Tree." Tara then proceeds to levitate above the bed in the only depiction of a female orgasm--literal or metaphorical--that I've ever seen on network television.
Sure they weren't network-tv-nekkid (bare shoulders, sheet around body), but the orgasm and baudy lyrics made the proceedings pretty clear.
The scene was groundbreaking in one more way. Tara directs Willow, um, downward, with her eyes. In television, or even film, sex always seems to happen mechanically, by instinct. But, just like in real life, Tara is actually communicating with her partner about a sex act.
For those who don't remember the scene, or the song, and are of the opinion, like President Clinton, that sex involves penetration, let me also add that while Willow was, um, out of frame, Tara sings "I can feel you inside."
[> [> Buffyverse Morality & Ethical Debate (Long) -- Shul, 21:00:42 01/17/02 Thu
Some have critized buffy for refusing on many occasions to kill evil creatures who where not a clear and present danger to her, the public, or the world in general. The following is an attempt to justify buffys refusal to kill blatently evil creatures who where not a clear and present danger.
There are *3 essential paths that can be taken when dealing with the otherworldy menace, who to kill and who not to.
I have listed them below.
1. Path of the Tyrant: Decide how the world should be and enforce your will over all. Kill everyone whom you truly believe deserves it.
2. Path of the Guardian: Do only what is necassary to eliminate those threats that are a clear and present danger to physical life and freedom. 3. Path of Freedom: Form a government, create a system of laws to bring order but still maintains freedom for all. The law governs what action are right and wich actions are not.
1. Tyrant. Tyrany is not a great choice. You can certainly end the chaos through strength and power, but usually at the price of freedom. Maggie Walsh is a very good example of a true tyrant.
2. Guardian. This is clearly the path buffy** has chosen in her dealings with the hellmouth. This path concentrates only on defending Life/The World from real and current physical threats. A good example would be killing vampires as they are a clear and present danger to life, they must kill to surive. Spike is not a threat to life because of the chip in his head so she doesnt kill him. In a world devoid of laws or a system of law and order the only moral choice is to not base your descion to kill something on morality or ethics, but on the Threat to life and freedom.
3. Freedom. Most people would probably choose this option. The problem is that this option doesnt actually exist in the buffyverse. There is no government or laws that govern the the buffyverse other then the physical laws like gravity and interia. Most reading this post might assume that the buffyverse does have laws and a government, but they would be wrong. They might cite one of the following 3 organizations, The US Government, the Watchers, or the Powers that Be. Let me take each one in turn.
The United States Government: The US government as represented in the buffyverse is not dealt with by joss except in the most minimalist and dismissive manner. The America represented in the buffyverse has nothing to do with our America except in form and name. It is essentially a plot device. Having said that i must say that i do no regard this as a bad thing. I think having the America I know and love in the buffyverse would make absolutely no sense. Being almost exclusively a plot device would rather exclude the USgov from qualifing as a legitament govermental authority. America as represented in the buffyverse represents a state of anarchy, they arent a tyrant or guardian. They represent the chaos that other more legitament entities will spring forth from.
To Sum Up> America is a necessary plot device representing the Natural state of Anarchy and Chaos. The Begining.
The Watchers Council:
The Watchers represented Law, Order, & Freedom for at least the first two seasons, but by the 3rd season we began to see that they increasingly seemed to be, tyrants. In the first 2 seasons they represented a benevolent Monarchy giving orders for the benefit of all, existing by divine right (buffy). But by the 3rd season they take on the guise of a corrupt King who has lost the support of the people, and is ruling by force instead of justice. By the end of season 3 the council is rendered irrelevant.
To Sum Up> The council brought order from the chaos but became corrupt and were thrown down in the end.
The Powers that Be:
The PTB have the power to bring Law, Order, & Freedom to the buffyverse. The problem is that they are a plot device. A plot device can be distinguished from a real character by examining there motivations, there core beliefs. Meaning the PTB dont appear to have any. Spike has desires, we may debate about what they are (can he be redeemed?), but we agree that he has em. Glory wanted to go home, Adam wanted to kill, kill, then do some killing. What the hell do the PTB want? There only desire is to help move the plot along. They can't be considered as a legitament government because they are just too damn abstract. In the buffyverse the PTB aren't representative of god (in any meaningful way except mystery and perhaps faith), god has not shown his face yet. Thats not a bad thing, as god usually doesnt show himself until the heroes journey is over, and buffy's got a few more miles to go before she can take a nap.
To Sum Up> The PTB want to help the writer(s).
*NOTE: I have left out the paths of pacifism, avoidance, submission, and the path of chaos.
**NOTE: Buffy and the scoobies have all tried to setup laws for themselves, unfortunately they just dont have the power to impose them on the chaos. Not to mention the fact that buffy doing battle with beurocrats and lawyers would be pretty silly in the buffyverse context.
Xander: "Buffy! Why did you stab him with the stake?"
Buffy: "You said he was bloodsucking fiend!"
Xander: "I meant he was a lawyer!"
Buffy: "Oops."
Giles: "Dont worry about it, i cant tell the difference either."
P.S. I have posted this in this thread and i am going to post it as a new message.
[> Imagination, the Third Way, and Growing Up -- matching mole, 17:43:15 01/17/02 Thu
This thread has been about a dichotomy between the black and white world of absolute good and evil and the 'PC' world of shades of grey. I'm going to take things in a slightly different direction for anyone who wants to come along.
Two major ideologies competed for much of the twentieth century. They could be called socialism and capitalism or the left and the right. Loosely they could be described as advocating one of two strategies for a successful modern society: collective action for the common good or the freedom of individuals to pursue their own interests. By around 1990 socialism was perceived to have lost the competition. (I'm not weighing in with my personal opinion here - just my perception of what common opinion is). This has given rise to a very unfortunate (OK now I'm giving you my personal opinion) trend - the lack of belief in the ability of government institutions to really accomplish much of anything (perhaps changing now?). One attempt to oppose this trend was/is the so-called 'third way' of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair which is an attempt to step away from the right-left struggle and do something different. My purpose is not to discuss whether this has been successful or not but to use it as an example of using imagination to 'step outside of the box', to look at a problem or any aspect of life in a new way.
The germ of this idea was suggested to me indirectly by Rahael in her book recommendation post last week. She said (paraphrasing here) that while adults read for escapism and entertainment, children read to stimulate their imaginations. That stimulated my imagination to start thinking about what it means to grow up and how the imagination relates to the stated theme of season 6 BtVS and the changes in the show over the years.
A common view seems to be that childhood is a time of moral absolutes. Children are inherently self centered, the world revolves around them. Therefore what is good to them is good, period. With adult hood comes an awareness of the complexity of the world and the lack of simple right and wrong answers to many problems. An awareness of others and of how you affect them and they affect you. The simple joys and sorrows of youth seem apocalyptic at the time but they pass by like clouds. In adulthood they are replaced by introspection and angst, the long struggle to undo the knots in the soul and view the world with unflinching eyes.
To which I say fair enough but not complete. Childhood is also a time of wonder at the world, a time of imagination. And that is I think the quality that most endeared the early to middle BtVS to me. A quality of imagination. I don't mean the imagination of the writers but of the characters. How they responded to the demonic world that was thrust upon them. It was terrifying and often tragic but they lived it. I loved Oz's comment when learning of the existence of vampires that now a lot of things suddenly made sense. That is a response of someone who's been using their imagination.
The sad truth is that adulthood means the end of the imagination for many people. They decide they're going to vote Liberal/PC/NDP/Alliance/Rhinoceros/Republican/Democratic Green/Labour/Conservative/Liberal-Democrat or whatever, and steer the straight course through life. At some point they decide what life is all about and that's the way it stays. It's often called having a realistic view of life. Strangely enough there are an awful lot of realistic views of life. The simple joys of life become only entertainment and escapism and the problems become distractions. The realistic view of life becomes a trap, limiting your vision.
I have fought against this throughout my adult life. I'm always going to deal with bills and my job and weeding the garden. I attempt to have grown up, adult relationships. I think about the environment and globalization and other issues of the day. But I'm never going to let those things get in the way of the joy of looking at the world with a fresh eye. At least I hope not. The happiest and most inspiring people I know retain this quality throughout their lives.
My feeling is that my decline in enjoyment with BtVS seasons 5 and 6 is that the characters are, at least temporarily, not really using their imaginations. They seem trapped within the prisons of the selves they've become. 'Tabula Rasa' was great because, freed of memory, they were free to imaginatively recreate themselves. In 'Gone' Willow and Buffy are returning to an imaginative view of life. They were doing things in new ways. Here's hoping that they find their own third ways and that the show does as well. Moral absolutism is too simplistic for sustained interest and complete moral relativism leads to introspective paralysis. What lies outside the box? I'm trying to imagine it.
[> [> Theory is grey ....green is the tree of life.. -- Rahael, 03:42:05 01/18/02 Fri
Ahh…thank you for that Matching Mole…that was splendid.
This debate has puzzled me. I gain so much inspiration from Buffy. It makes me think about my life, and the choices we make; it makes me think about 'narrative', and try and connect it with other narratives I'm familiar with; it gives me companionship with other likeminded fans, both in my 'real life' and on this board; it makes me think about society, and, ahem, clothes and hairstyles (brand new Angel started in Britain last night, and I spent most of the episode going “oh my god! Look at Cordy's outfit! I MUST have it!, rather than saying “oh, James has made himself invulnerable, used his love as an excuse to lock himself from change and growth - and what a weak, short-lived strength he derived!).
I don't usually sit down and think “If the world were full of vampires, and I was the Slayer, what moral choices would I make?” As Matching Mole says, imagination is the key to my viewing of Buffy. ME translate real life into a dangerous world populated by Vampires, werewolves, magic, prophecies and demons. I retranslate that into my life. Buffy herself has been a constant source of inspiration to me. Her honesty, her moral courage, her independence - it was her attitude that was important. The way she held her heart out to the world. I loved the fact that finally, here was a TV series that showed a young woman having to make difficult choices week in, week out. Sometimes she made the right choices, sometimes the wrong ones; sometimes, there were no right or wrong choices - as Buffy said to Giles before Dawn's sacrifice, she didn't know how to go on existing in the world if these were the choices she was presented with; if everything kept being stripped away. What did Buffy do? She reached into her heart, her imagination, and came up with that 'Third Way'.
In 'The Wish', alternate Giles destroys Anyanka's amulet, despite not knowing what the other world was like - he said he had to believe it was better. It's people like that, who have the courage, and the imagination to be able to see something different from their current situation, and to go out and achieve it, who help to change society (for better or worse). There are those with the clear sight to be able to see what the messy, difficult world is really like, but also the courage not to accept injustice, or cruelty, or intolerance. A little side comment on black/white/grey. Surely this is a pretty limited view of life, and of Buffy? The world is full of colour. We have laughter, and joy, and love to give heart to those difficult moral choices. Sometimes, we are left only with something as simple as Thomas Hardy's 'loving-kindness'. To feel a genuine compassion, pity and empathy for our fellow human beings.
Another thing that puzzles me. I rarely approach works of the imagination looking for a didactic guide to live my life. First of all, works of the imagination are not didactic (or they shouldn't be). Secondly, they usually gain their power from presenting many, often equally compelling viewpoints. And many of the books I read, written as they are by dead, (and for a couple of centuries too!) white men, are not filled with situations a 23 year old Asian woman would often encounter. I do not read them for utilitarian purposes. But if they were to perform any practical purpose in my life, apart from giving me great joy, it would be to allow me to see a thousand different viewpoints, enter into other human beings' shoes, act out a thousand different decisions and moral choices.
I totally agree with your comments about looking at life with a fresh eye, and trying not to fall into the trap of saying “but this is the way the world is” or “why bother trying? I know I'll fail”. Imagination gives you more choices, and then you have to have the courage to take them. I don't know what this has to do with moral philosophy - but it's the way I approach Buffy, and that's the way it inspires me
[> [> [> Re: Theory is grey ....green is the tree of life.. -- Dyna, 08:51:21 01/18/02 Fri
"A little side comment on black/white/grey. Surely this is a pretty limited view of life, and of Buffy? The world is full of colour. We have laughter, and joy, and love to give heart to those difficult moral choices. Sometimes, we are left only with something as simple as Thomas Hardy's 'loving-kindness'. To feel a genuine compassion, pity and empathy for our fellow human beings."
Rahael, you've expressed why I love "Buffy" more eloquently and beautifully than I could. For me the show has never been about black, white, or shades of grey, nor really about morality at all. The richness of "Buffy" for me comes from its emotional content--the compassion, pity, empathy, and love the characters feel, and we feel for them. Where early villains failed to inspire complex feeling in us, they remained abstract. Their moral "blackness" was a foil, not for the "whiteness" of our heroes, but for the vividness and complexity of real life. That's what I love, and the more the writers expand the circle of "real life" to encompass different kinds of characters and different points of view, the more the show speaks to me, and the happier I am.
[> [> [> Re: Theory is grey ....green is the tree of life.. -- Sophist, 09:03:25 01/18/02 Fri
That was excellent!!!
[> [> [> Wonderful post - thank you -- Raccoon, 12:31:54 01/18/02 Fri
[> [> Re: Imagination, the Third Way, and Growing Up -- Rattletrap, 05:24:10 01/18/02 Fri
Good point, mole.
On this subject, C. S. Lewis once commented that "To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
An article about the "Buffy" animated series -- Laurie, 09:31:23 01/17/02 Thu
Here's an article that a friend found about the animated series. Just thought I'd pass it along.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-01/16/13.00.tv
[> Did you read the one on "Angel?" -- pocky, 17:49:39 01/17/02 Thu
it's quite amusing! lol but there's a minor spoiler for an upcoming episode.
~nathan~
F/X scheduling change gripe (O/T) -- Sebastian, 12:43:42 01/17/02 Thu
okay. i'm a little miffed right now. has anyone notice that f/x will change their 'buffy' airings around at the last minute?
'bewitched, bothered and bewildered' was *supposed* to show tomorrow night (along w/'phases') - but now it won't. which leaves me highly agitated since i have yet to see that ep.
i have been waiting like a good little addict for it to show so i could tape it.
argh!
sorry. had to vent.
- S
[> I feel your pain... -- VampRiley, 13:22:31 01/17/02 Thu
When they first aired Buffy, one ep was shown and repeated the next day. And thinking the repeat of Innocense would be on, it turned out to be Phases, then BBB and so on. Now, I have to wait for the "RECUT" showing of Phases to run to tape it. Soddin' FX schedule.
VR
[> Re: F/X scheduling change gripe (O/T) -- thali, 14:26:15 01/17/02 Thu
i hadn't noticed...i just watch them...
i'm still trying to figure out some of the minor details, like where oz went after werewolf messed everything up...
God bless all
thali
[> [> Re: F/X scheduling change gripe (O/T) -- Valhalla, 16:18:40 01/18/02 Fri
I'm in worse pain - my blankety-blank AT&T cable doesn't even get FX! My only outlet is Fox reruns and now, S1 DVD.
Ok, I know that doesn't make anyone else's pain less, but just had to get it out ...
[> Re: F/X scheduling change gripe (O/T) -- Eric, 14:39:54 01/17/02 Thu
Thats why God provided VCRs. My big complaint is the cutting job F/X does. But that's why God provided the DVDs.
Sky petition. Where is it please? -- Lovesbitch, 13:07:26 01/17/02 Thu
Does anyone know how to sign the petition about sky cutting Buffy? If so can they please post a link as I can't find it anywhere
The soul? -- JCC, 14:12:12 01/17/02 Thu
I recently realised something about Angel.
In the episode "5x5" we see that Angel got his soul in 1898 after killing the Gypsy girl.
In "Fool for Love" we see that Spike killed his first slayer in 1900,yet Angel was present and he had no soul.
Whats up with that?
Yeah,Yeah,I know I need a life.
[> Re: The soul? -- Chris, 15:05:39 01/17/02 Thu
I think the clue is to look at Angel's face when Dru and Spike tell Angel & Darla about Spike killing the slayer. Angel looks decidedly unhappy. He doesn't say anything but his congratulations to Spike are fainthearted. I think most viewers see this as Angel having his soul, but not talking to any of the other vamps about it. I have never understood, though, why he is still hanging around with them. Perhaps he is just in that early phase where he doesn't know where else to go. He has no one else.
[> The answer is in the Angel episode Darla -- change, 15:12:39 01/17/02 Thu
In Darla we find out that Angel rejoined the gang for a brief time in 1900 to try to win back Darla. During this time he fed on humans (criminals and such), but his heart wasn't really in it. He leaves the gang again at the end of the Boxer Rebellion.
[> [> Right -- verdantheart, 06:35:48 01/18/02 Fri
Remember, Darla tries to get Angel to kill a baby and he won't?
The soul? -- JCC, 14:13:35 01/17/02 Thu
I recently realised something about Angel.
In the episode "5x5" we see that Angel got his soul in 1898 after killing the Gypsy girl.
In "Fool for Love" we see that Spike killed his first slayer in 1900,yet Angel was present and he had no soul.
Whats up with that?
Yeah,Yeah,I know I need a life.
[> Actually,he *did* have his soul........ -- AurraSing, 15:19:57 01/17/02 Thu
If you watched the companion crossover episode of "Angel",you would see that Angel did have his soul at the time Spike killed his first slayer and was about to head into a major confrontation with Darla over it.
Oddly enough,the episode's name is "Darla"....
[> [> Re: Actually,he *did* have his soul........ -- grace, 20:34:45 01/17/02 Thu
in the same episodes you see that Angel is annoyed with Spike for being careless etc. You get the idea that Angel is more in control. I assume this is because of his soul...
[> [> [> Re: Actually,he *did* have his soul........ -- Rufus, 21:22:15 01/17/02 Thu
No, in the mine shaft with Darla, Dru, and Spike, Angelus was soulless. It didn't mean he was stupid. He had a good point....where Spike was all about glory and being seen, Angelus knew the value of a low profile. If they did enough to be found out it wasn't long before they were driven out of the area they were in.
Buffy and Spike: The Xander and Cordy of the adult world? -- Kerri, 15:44:06 01/17/02 Thu
While I was watching the fx repeats it occured to me that Cordy and Xander's relationship is a bit like the current Buffy and Spike relationship. Cordy/Buffy is embarassed to be atracted to Xander/Spike. While Xander/Spike originally denied their atraction they later accept it and enjoy it.
Buffy/Cordy aren't willing to accept their attraction and what it means about themselves. Of course, Xander and Cordy's relationship is less serious, Cordy doesn't accept Xander b/c of popularity, and all they do is make out in the closet. Buffy and Spike are a bit of this same situation in a far more adult (and far less petty)context. Buffy's unwillingness to accept her attraction to Spike is about her fear of her inner darkness not losing her popularity.
The comparisions b/w these 2 relationships reflect the change in the nature of BtVS. The small issues of high school popularity have given way to bigger issues. In GD we see the whole school unite, a large scale of the union between Xander and Cordy. Now the black and white is slowly melting to gray and it remains to be seen whether they can ever unite. If the answer to this is yes, then Buffy and Spike will definately play a large role in this. If the dark and light can't be united on a large scale it certainly seems that this relationship will be the key to their integration within Buffy.
[> I saw the parallels too -- Talia, 09:28:18 01/19/02 Sat
Buffy's relationship with Spike is certainly akin to Xander's early lust/hate relationship with Cordy. However, Xander and Cordy's relationship grew. By the time of their breakup in Lover's Walk, it was certainly more than groping in the closet. One might even venture to use a certain four-letter word starting with L (not lust). B/S shippers like myself can hope that this unlikely duo will do the same, hopefully without the painful breakup and impalement at the end ;)
That chat thing is happening now...... -- Rahael, 16:31:41 01/17/02 Thu
B/Ser feelings (hmmm) -- Shul, 17:07:55 01/17/02 Thu
If you were to take all the lonelyness and pent up emotions from all the B/Ser's out there, I think you would get 3 ideas and a profound sense of accomplishment.
Ok you Smarty pants out there ..... -- nay, 21:07:10 01/17/02 Thu
I need help tracking down a sound clip. I've spent the better part of the evening trying to find the one from 'The Yoko Factor' of Giles singing when he gets interupted by Spike. Since Pysche is down it's been quite difficult looking for this thing. Any links or suggestions of where I could find this would be much appreciate.
Thanx in advance as I'm going to bed now and will check back in the morning.
TTFN
~nay
[> I think I found it ... -- Wolfhowl3, 22:48:23 01/17/02 Thu
On Morphous tonight. if you e-mail me your e-mail address, I'll send you the URL of my web space, where I will post it for you. it is a fairly small file.
[> [> *sigh* My hero! -- nay batting eyelids shamelessly. :), 07:34:43 01/18/02 Fri
yeah!!!! Thank you soo much! *big bear hug*
this is soo great. Thanx.
~nay
Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- Shul, 21:08:44 01/17/02 Thu
Who to kill, and what not too:
Some have critized buffy for refusing on many occasions to kill evil creatures who where not a clear and present danger to her, the public, or the world in general. The following is an attempt to justify buffys refusal to kill blatently evil creatures who where not a clear and present danger.
There are *3 essential paths that can be taken when dealing with the otherworldy menace, who to kill and who not to.
I have listed them below.
1. Path of the Tyrant: Decide how the world should be and enforce your will over all. Kill everyone whom you truly believe deserves it.
2. Path of the Guardian: Do only what is necassary to eliminate those threats that are a clear and present danger to physical life and freedom. 3. Path of Freedom: Form a government, create a system of laws to bring order but still maintains freedom for all. The law governs what action are right and wich actions are not.
1. Tyrant. Tyrany is not a great choice. You can certainly end the chaos through strength and power, but usually at the price of freedom. Maggie Walsh is a very good example of a true tyrant.
2. Guardian. This is clearly the path buffy** has chosen in her dealings with the hellmouth. This path concentrates only on defending Life/The World from real and current physical threats. A good example would be killing vampires as they are a clear and present danger to life, they must kill to surive. Spike is not a threat to life because of the chip in his head so she doesnt kill him. In a world devoid of laws or a system of law and order the only moral choice is to not base your descion to kill something on morality or ethics, but on the Threat to life and freedom.
3. Freedom. Most people would probably choose this option. The problem is that this option doesnt actually exist in the buffyverse. There is no government or laws that govern the the buffyverse other then the physical laws like gravity and interia. Most reading this post might assume that the buffyverse does have laws and a government, but they would be wrong. They might cite one of the following 3 organizations, The US Government, the Watchers, or the Powers that Be. Let me take each one in turn.
The United States Government: The US government as represented in the buffyverse is not dealt with by joss except in the most minimalist and dismissive manner. The America represented in the buffyverse has nothing to do with our America except in form and name. It is essentially a plot device. Having said that i must say that i do no regard this as a bad thing. I think having the America I know and love in the buffyverse would make absolutely no sense. Being almost exclusively a plot device would rather exclude the USgov from qualifing as a legitament govermental authority. America as represented in the buffyverse represents a state of anarchy, they arent a tyrant or guardian. They represent the chaos that other more legitament entities will spring forth from.
To Sum Up> America is a necessary plot device representing the Natural state of Anarchy and Chaos. The Begining.
The Watchers Council:
The Watchers represented Law, Order, & Freedom for at least the first two seasons, but by the 3rd season we began to see that they increasingly seemed to be, tyrants. In the first 2 seasons they represented a benevolent Monarchy giving orders for the benefit of all, existing by divine right (buffy). But by the 3rd season they take on the guise of a corrupt King who has lost the support of the people, and is ruling by force instead of justice. By the end of season 3 the council is rendered irrelevant.
To Sum Up> The council brought order from the chaos but became corrupt and were thrown down in the end.
The Powers that Be:
The PTB have the power to bring Law, Order, & Freedom to the buffyverse. The problem is that they are a plot device. A plot device can be distinguished from a real character by examining there motivations, there core beliefs. Meaning the PTB dont appear to have any. Spike has desires, we may debate about what they are (can he be redeemed?), but we agree that he has em. Glory wanted to go home, Adam wanted to kill, kill, then do some killing. What the hell do the PTB want? There only desire is to help move the plot along. They can't be considered as a legitament government because they are just too damn abstract. In the buffyverse the PTB aren't representative of god (in any meaningful way except mystery and perhaps faith), god has not shown his face yet. Thats not a bad thing, as god usually doesnt show himself until the heroes journey is over, and buffy's got a few more miles to go before she can take a nap.
To Sum Up> The PTB want to help the writer(s).
*NOTE: I have left out the paths of pacifism, avoidance, submission, and the path of chaos.
**NOTE: Buffy and the scoobies have all tried to setup laws for themselves, unfortunately they just dont have the power to impose them on the chaos. Not to mention the fact that buffy doing battle with beurocrats and lawyers would be pretty silly in the buffyverse context.
Xander: "Buffy! Why did you stab him with the stake?"
Buffy: "You said he was bloodsucking fiend!"
Xander: "I meant he was a lawyer!"
Buffy: "Oops."
Giles: "Dont worry about it, i cant tell the difference either."
RESPONSE IS VERY WELCOME
[> All I can Say is ROFL! -- Wolfhowl3, 22:30:53 01/17/02 Thu
Xander: "Buffy! Why did you stab him with the stake?"
Buffy: "You said he was bloodsucking fiend!"
Xander: "I meant he was a lawyer!"
Buffy: "Oops."
Giles: "Dont worry about it, i cant tell the difference either."
That Lawyer must have been from Wolfram & Hart!
Lol!
Wolfie
[> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- Gwyn, 02:05:34 01/18/02 Fri
Very funny! But tell me, how do you fit Spike's feeding in Crush, despite having the chip in, to Buffy's decision as a Guardian to leave Spike alive because he is not a threat or danger to life. Clearly the parent's of the girl fed on by Spike in the Bronze in that episode have good grounds for a civil case claiming negligence on the part of the Slayer as Guardian of the public good. I mean accountability is necessary on the part of someone who, while a hero, is essentially delivering a public
service!":-)
[> [> *He* didn't actualy kill the girl. -- ~nay, 08:22:13 01/18/02 Fri
Dru snapped her throat and handed her dead corps over to The parents would have a better case if they used Dur not Spike to show 'negligence on the part of the Slayer as Guardian of the public good'. He could be held as an acomplance to the crime because he didn't try to stop it. Then again he did drain the girl after she was dead. Not a great thing to do, but I'm sure he was hungry and figured it'd been a while since he'd had real human blood and 'hey here's some right in my lap. No hard in drinking from a freshly killed human. Coz I didn't kill them.' .....you know you can almost see the inner conflict of whether to drink or not.
ok I think i'm done here. *slpping hands together as if to dust something off them*
~nay
[> Re: Who would the Buddha kill? -- manwitch, 07:14:48 01/18/02 Fri
I couldn't help thinking, "which of these three options would the Buddha choose?"
And my inability to come up with a choice makes me wonder if there isn't a fourth option: Infinite Compassion, the way of the Bodhisattva.
For example: Buffy tends not to kill suffering beings. And when she does, she does so with compassion. She doesn't kill Spike because Spike suffers. And suffering makes us all human together.
Which makes me wonder, what would the Buddha do? If all thing are a manifestation of the divine presence, are not vampires and demons also manifestations of the divine presence?
And as an aside, I don't think the PTB are simply a plot device. While they might not be all that smoothly integrated, they are necessitated by Angel's quest for what in Kantian Ethics is called the Ultimate End, namely virtue, or the "worthiness of being happy." According to Kant, such a pursuit necessarily implies both "an immortal soul" capable of making the moral decisions that lead to virtue, and also a "GOD" or the Powers that Be, a force with the authority and ability to bestow happiness on those who are worthy. They are the ones that, in the last episode before the show is cancelled, will restore his humanity and mortality and release him from his current bondage. Without them, Angel's quest is meaningless.
[> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- robert, 08:53:03 01/18/02 Fri
"The PTB have the power to bring Law, Order, & Freedom to the buffyverse. The problem is that they are a plot device. A plot device can be distinguished from a real character by examining there motivations, there core beliefs."
I'm not sure I understand you here. Which episodes of BtVS are the PTB mentioned and described?
[> [> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- maddog, 09:42:05 01/18/02 Fri
They aren't mentioned much when it comes to Buffy, more along the lines of anything to do with Angel. I mean, how did he get back in the beginning of season 3? TPTB had to have something to do with that. And besides, if we say that Buffyverse also includes all that goes on in LA(remember, even when they aren't in Sunnydale Buffyverse still exists) then TPTB, who show up a lot more in Angel, would exist in her world too...seeing as they are one in the same.
[> [> [> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- robert, 13:24:31 01/18/02 Fri
"I mean, how did he get back in the beginning of season 3? TPTB had to have something to do with that."
In the episode "Faith, Hope & Trick", a ring which Angel previously gave to Buffy was apparently involved in bringing Angel back. We're not told anything more than that. No mention of the-powers-that-be was made. You can only speculate that TPB were involved.
"And besides, if we say that Buffyverse also includes all that goes on in LA(remember, even when they aren't in Sunnydale Buffyverse still exists) then TPTB, who show up a lot more in Angel, would exist in her world too...seeing as they are one in the same."
While there is certainly are large overlap between the Buffyverse and the Anglelverse, they are not the same. As time marches on, the overlap becomes smaller and smaller. I don't believe that the-powers- that-be have yet been mentioned in BtVS, whereas there have been opportunities where the writers could reasonably have introduced us to them -- such as Buffy's 4 month vacation in heaven (or where ever she was).
I am speculating that Joss Whedon specifically does not want to have the concept of a higher power in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- maddog, 14:21:51 01/18/02 Fri
I remember the episode and because there was no explaination I came to TPTB reasoning. When things tend to happen for no reason(and none is eventually given) it makes sense that they're the ones in control. Wouldn't it make sense that they sent Angel back to be the champion...to save the world. Which is the reasoning behind Angel(according to those ancient texts if I remember correctly). I'm not saying we have conclusive evidence but all signs seem to point that way.
Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Remember, we are talking the same creator and some of the same writers.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- robert, 15:25:58 01/18/02 Fri
"Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Remember, we are talking the same creator and some of the same writers."
Yes, but I still feel that they are creating subtly different universes. The nature of the vampires and demons and magic and heros are different. Now that the two shows are on different networks (mutually antipathetic networks no less), I am expecting that the directions of the shows will diverge even more.
[> [> [> TPTB in the Buffyverse -- Talia, 10:14:20 01/19/02 Sat
This kinda goes on a tangent. Be warned.
"They aren't mentioned much when it comes to Buffy, more along the lines of anything to do with Angel."
I don't remember TPTB ever being explicitly mentioned in Buffy. But the evidence indicates that they exist in Sunnydale as well. I can think of two miracles on BtvS, both related to Angel: Angel's return from hell and the snow in Amends that stopped his suicide attempt. While never directly attributed to the Powers, these two incidents seem in keeping with the Powers' mission of steering Angel toward his role as a champion for the helpless and the world.
Why are the Powers more directly involved in Angel's life than Buffy's? First, Angel needs more guidance than Buffy. Many times he has stood on a knife's edge between evil and unproductive, brooding guilt. Buffy has faced and continues to battle internal as well as external demons, but she is not burdened with centuries of evil in her past. Second, Buffy has had friends to help her along since the show began. The Powers may be acting in Buffy's life through other people. It seems to me that TPTB have disentwined themselves from Angel's life as time has gone on and he has accumulated friends. When he was in third-season Sunnydale among the largely unsympathetic Scoobies, they were forced to directly manipulate the weather to save his life. On the first season of Angel they communicated through the visions and the Oracles. Compared to more recent manifestations of TPTB (see Birthday), the Oracles were fairly accessible. The visions have continued, but the Oracles are gone. Instead, Angel has Cordelia, Gunn, Wesley, Fred, and Lorne to help him along. Lastly, one could argue that TPTB did their work for Buffy many years ago when the line of slayers was created and given special powers to fight vampires and demons.
Oh! I just thought of one other incident on Buffy that could be seen as a work of the Powers. The Key was made into Dawn by monks. We don't know specifically what kind of monks they were, but I think it's fair to say that monks are servants of the Powers, whatever name they are going by.
Thoughts? Criticism? Praise and awards?
[> [> [> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- Sophist, 10:17:42 01/19/02 Sat
In Amends, they say that The First brought Angel back. The episode leaves some doubt whether this is true, or whether the evil is just taking advantage of his return.
[> [> [> [> Re: Amends -- Brian, 11:38:26 01/19/02 Sat
As far as I'm concerned, the power of Buffy's love is what brought Angel back. That Slayer energy has the power to tear down dimensional walls. The First Evil was just an opportunist.
[> Re: Who to kill, and what not too: (Long) -- maddog, 09:32:32 01/18/02 Fri
Could TPTB act more as a "God-like" figure...one who has an overall controling factor but also lets people act with free will? It would explain Spike's chip. Maybe it's their way to give Spike a chance at some sort of redemption. And by making them that way they are a great plot device, especially on Angel(as proven in Birthday).
I'd also like to pose the prospect that The Watcher's Council as a whole isn't tyranical...that only the leaders are. I mean, I wouldn't call Giles a bad guy, and while rather wimpy at the time I wouldn't call Wesley bad either.
Please read. Very important. -- Naomi, 08:16:33 01/18/02 Fri
Sky explicity said that the cuts made to Barginning were a one-off as all other episodes were no darker than normal for Buffy. Well they lied. After Life was severely cut so bits of conversations were cut in half making no sense. Also I phoned Sky viewer relations to ask if After Life would be cut. I was told certainly not as Sky doesn't make cuts. They show episodes as recieved by their distributers. I said Barginning was cut and she said she didn't have that information on her screen.
I know US viewers probably don't care that much but the more signatures we get the better. It only takes a minute to sign. http://www.petitiononline.com/btvssky1/petition.html
Sky has recently raise their subscriptions and yet we are not being given the service we paid for! There should be an explanation before the episode that it's cut as they really are cutting it to shreds and may put off new viwers who don't realise we are not seeing the proper version. C4 cut Angel so badly (up to 15 minutes missing fron some episodes) that over 60% of viewers were lost following the screening of the first 3 episodes. Don't let that happen to Buffy. Joss deserves more respect than that.
UK viwers should threaten to cancel their subscriptions as money is the only thing these people understand. A lot of people only pay for sky to get Buffy and Angel anyway. Sky needs to take note of that. I'm getting the impression that the extra adverts they squeese in replaying important scenes mean more to them than Buffy. We need more signatures!
[> Re: FX is also cutting the eps -- manwitch, 08:34:52 01/18/02 Fri
Good to know.
I agree there should at least be a disclaimer that you aren't watching what was actually intended by the creator of the show.
In the US, FX is cutting dialogue quite freely to make room for more advertising. Its disappointing. But I guess that's how they ensure a market for the tapes and DVDs.
Plus, there are a lot of places in the US that never saw the 68 minute musical. It was already cut to fit a 60 minute time-slot before even certain UPN stations aired it. (the way it was in the "rebroadcast")
Mutant Enemy needs its own network.
[> [> Re: FX is also cutting the eps -- maddog, 09:02:37 01/18/02 Fri
Either that or they need to start releasing the DVD sets faster.
[> [> [> Please can people please make the effort and sign! -- Naomi, 11:35:03 01/18/02 Fri
No US viwers have bothered signing so far as nearly all the votes registered claim to have Sky. You only have to enter your e-mail and any name you want and it's totally private. Think how US viwers felt when Earshot and Graduation Day were cancelled. Well that's how UK viwers are feeling now. We are going to miss major stories including Buffy sleeping with Spike. We have already missed Willow killing the deer which was a major plot point. And Buffy's resserection was cut. And all the scary bits were cut fron After Life. And loads more besides. Joss's masterpiece should not be cut like this as it's disresptful. Its like cutting important chapters from a book. Please show support for fellow Buffy fans. We desperately need it.
[> [> [> [> I signed it. -- VampRiley, 13:37:35 01/18/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- Naomi, 13:48:37 01/18/02 Fri
Now if some more people on the board take 30 seconds to sign then sky might actually listen to the fans. They are basically lying at the moment by claiming they have not cut After Life. Fans are being treated as morans as the cuts are obvious even for those who don't have internet access. Please can more people sign. I don't know how to create links so the time it takes to type the address is longer than it will take to type your e-mail address and name or alis. If a few more people make the effort the petition would be more noticeable. There are 1600 signatures approximately so far. We need 2000 at least. Buffy fans need to raise their voices and make sure Sky hears! Remember every signature counts and British fans are desperate for uncut episodes after the long wwait.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Links are simple... -- VampRiley, 14:00:03 01/18/02 Fri
Go to the top of the Discussion board and click on the link: ATPoBtVS Posting Board FAQ. And where it says: "HTML is permitted in the body of a post, but will not work in the subject lines. A quickie html primer.", go down a bit and it will show you how. And with the Message approval addition, you can go back if something is wrong and you'll get it right eventually.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Me, too, Censorship be damned! -- Brian, 14:07:16 01/18/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Me, too, Censorship be damned! -- grace, 17:58:04 01/18/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Might want to leave the message on other boards. -- Leeann, 02:08:41 01/19/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Might want to leave the message on other boards. -- Naomi, 07:38:51 01/19/02 Sat
What other Buffy boards do you recommend leaving the message on? The only other one I know is the stake and spoiler board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Might want to leave the message on other boards. -- VampRiley, 08:02:59 01/19/02 Sat
You could try:
Crumbling Walls
VR
[> [> [> [> I signed! Sodding, blimey, shagging, knickers, bollocks! -- cynesthesia, 22:06:03 01/18/02 Fri
[> PLEASE SIGN!!HELP UK BUFFY FANS(NT) -- JCC, 07:43:59 01/19/02 Sat
[> Re: Please read. Very important. -- Nova, 11:09:14 01/19/02 Sat
I'm curious -- what did they cut from AfterLife? Was there something vaguely offensive (by their standards) or was it just for time?
How much and how frequently does a vampire need to feed? -- Earl Allison, 03:42:56 01/18/02 Fri
What made me think of this was Dru and Darla slaughtering the Wolfram and Hart lawyers (with two exceptions).
They were all drained, and even Lindsey and Lilah had suffered some blood loss -- without putting too fine a point on it, WHERE did our two lovely vamps put it all? I know they didn't just take SOME from each, because there would have been more survivors ... they drained them, IIRC.
We've seen than vampires generally drain their prey to the point of death, or near death, when they feed. Look at "Lie to Me," where Buffy interrupted the all-you-can-eat buffet -- most of the victims had been bitten, but were able to stagger out (no one was killed), so none of the vampires had finished feeding off of anyone.
Even "Graduation Day" showed Angel draining Buffy ALMOST to death, but getting her to a hospital before she expired -- so even if a feeding leaves a victim ABOUT to die, that implies a lot of blood. So again, since we didn't see Dru and Darla with bulgy bellies after the slaughter -- where did all the blood they drank go?
That's the how much, but what about the how frequently? Is it assumed that a vampire kills one person a night to survive? I know it's never been spelled out, but I'm curious what others think -- did Angelus kill at least one person a night after losing his soul?
Take it and run.
[> I think it depends on which writer is writing and what they need for the plot. -- bookworm, 07:58:03 01/18/02 Fri
The proper vampire diet probably consists of a few pints of human blood each day. They probably don't have to drain the victim dry to survive. My guess is that most vamp victims die of shock or because the vamp has snapped his or her neck. Killing probably adds to the kick of the feed. Any feeding beyond that is possibly recreational. Humans don't need to gorge themselves on cartons of ice cream, but some of us do because it's fun. Darla and Drusilla overate. Something in vampire physiology probably explains why their stomachs don't bulge. Angel drained Buffy nearly dry because he was ill and her blood was the cure. He also hadn't had a real meal for years, so he was probably overeager. After pigs and rats, the blood of the slayer must have been better than gourmet chocolate. Human blood probably contains all the right nutrients for vampires, and they've implied that some people taste better than others. Spike says in School Hard, "You're too old to eat. I'm a veal kind of guy." He likes his victims young. Maybe some vamps have a preference for a certain blood type. Whatever the victim ate as their last meal have something to do with how they taste. To answer your original question, though, I don't think vampires have to kill every night to survive. Spike managed to live for at least a few days after getting chipped, though he was hungry. He told Giles that vamps who don't get fed properly waste away and look like concentration camp victims. He didn't say they die or how long it would take them to starve.
[> [> also -- PJ, 16:09:29 01/18/02 Fri
It's possible that at the W&H party, they just flat out killed some of them. Ripped out their throats (ewwwwwww) and let them bleed to death. I doubt they fed on all of them.
[> Warning for grossness. -- Leeann, 09:04:25 01/19/02 Sat
Most mammalian predators kill their prey because dead prey doesn't struggle, can be consumed at leisure and can't injure the predator. On the other hand, once the heart stops beating the blood stops flowing and an animal cannot be effectively bled. That is why animals being slaughtered are only stunned, not outright killed, before their throats are cut. So their beating hearts will force blood out of their severed veins. Vampires would want their prey alive, with the heart pumping, or they could not effectively extract blood. The blood would pool and it would be like trying to suck something out of a closed container.
The stomachs of vampire bats become very distended as they feed. About 80% of blood is water which vampire bats absorb and excrete very quickly, often while still feeding. Vampire bats have been reported to consume from 26-132% of their body weight in blood everyday. A person has between 8 to 12 pints of blood in his/her body. There are 8 pints in a gallon. So if Dru and Darla drained 80% of 30 people, we're talking about 12 gallons each. Very unlikely. Darla and Dru should have had swollen stomachs unless they were there long enough to absorb and excrete the water fraction of the blood they consumed. Maybe they just broke their necks.
Blood alone is not a very nutritious food source. Living on it would be like trying to live on thin soup. There apparently is something in blood that vampires must have, but it would be very difficult for them to survive if that was their only food.
How many cows, pigs, chicken, fish, etc. do you think you eat in a year? If a vampire like Spike, who fed on other things in addition to human blood, killed an average of two people a week, in 120 years he would have killed 12,480 people. If he fed on humans six days a week, in 120 years he would have killed 37,440 individuals. Wow! If, on the other hand, vampires are like very large mosquitoes who feed and leave, then that number would be much smaller.
Still a small town like Sunnyville would not have the carrying capacity to support many vampires. They would just eat too much and there would be a population crash. Even ten vampires, killing two people a week, in a year that's 1040 people. If they killed daily that's 7280 kills a year. No wonder a vampire slayer is necessary.
I tend to think of vampires not as serial killers but as man-eating tigers and Buffy as their hunter. They must be killed, even hated, but a creature has to eat.
the missing relationship of Buffy and Tara (possible spoilers) -- manwitch, 09:33:56 01/18/02 Fri
A couple of times in the past there have been tiny scenes with Buffy and Tara, and those scenes have been really nice, both in terms of chemistry and content.
I don't mean Buffy and Tara should have an "alternative lifestyle" relationship, but they seem to connect on a substantive level. I remember a scene of them leaving class together in season five, and of course the scene where they discuss the loss of their respective mums.
But where is Tara now? I know she's good and all, but I've been thinking I have a problem with her. So she had a fight with Willow and they broke up. Is her role in Buffy's resurection thereby negated? Is she absolved of her responsibility to "make things better for Buffy" just because she and her significant broke up? Would she walk away from that responsibility simply because moments with willow would be akward?
Buffy says of the crystals Tara left behind, "I'll see that she gets them." IS there a continuing relationship between Tara and Buffy taking place off-screen? If so, I for one, would like to see it.
[> Re: the missing relationship of Buffy and Tara (possible spoilers) -- maddog, 09:46:58 01/18/02 Fri
I don't think that the non original Scoobies(that being Tara and Anya) feel they're responsible for what happened to Buffy. They feel bad, I'm sure, but I don't think they feel responsible. Tara's main functions seems to be the sounding board for many...whether it be Buffy, Dawn, or Willow. I think when Buffy made that comment she meant she could probably find her. I'm sure Tara didn't leave them without saying where she was going. Her tight bond with Dawn would seem to back me up there.
[> [> Re: Buffy and Tara--I think she's responsible -- manwitch, 10:17:29 01/18/02 Fri
I think Tara is resposnible. And I think she does too. She says, "we have to stop kicking ourselves over what we did and start trying to make things better for Buffy."
She knows she was party to that ritual.
(But, for that matter, what have any of them done, other than willows wacky spell, to make things better for Buffy. I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that making things better is NOT the same as "making things the way they were before she died.")
Plus, Tara is, apart from that "hide my inner demon" episode, an honest, compassionate person of substance. While Willow may be her passion, she is aware that the world, Willow's world, revolves around Buffy. She criticizes Willow's selfish use of magic, but she is surely aware that magic in the support of Buffy's (general) cause is worthwhile. (I am aware that Buffy has occasionally wanted to use magic selfishly, and Tara has opposed).
I just think that Tara and Buffy would get closer, rather than farther apart, now that they have Willow in common. And I don't mean just that they both know her, but that they are sort of Willow's bookends, each with a deep understanding of the love, frustration, disappointment, and responsibility that is a relationship with Willow. No one else, not even Xander, has that. Tara was to Willow what Willow once was to Buffy. The unnoticed, meak outcast who suddenly finds themselves noticed by the most powerful, beautiful and dynamic person they'd ever seen/known. What's sad is that while Willow may have rapidly surpassed Tara in terms of Magic, Tara has rapidly passed Willow in terms of emotional maturity. Willow is still looking to Buffy, in a way. Tara has moved on to independence.
I think Buffy and Tara would have a lot to talk about.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Tara--I think she's responsible -- maddog, 12:54:36 01/18/02 Fri
Ok, I can see your point. However I now disagree that the Scoobies haven't been trying to make things right for Buffy. The only way they know to "help" Buffy is to make this as normal as possible...so they weren't treating her differently for the simple fact that she'd call them on it.
[> Re: the missing relationship of Buffy and Tara (possible spoilers) -- nay, 10:01:51 01/18/02 Fri
I too would like to see more of Tara. It took some time, but that character has grown on me and I've noticed her absence.
I really think she as a character has alot to offer that we the audiance and the SG has yet to see.