July 2002 Archives

July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002
More July 2002

Spike's Modus Operandi -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:14:31 07/28/02 Sun

Spike has developed quite a modus operandi when it comes to relationships. Whenever he pursues a woman, he seems to use the same method of seduction. He claims that the people around her are nothing, that they are dirt. That she is glorious, above everything, and that only he can truly appreciate her for what she is.

Cecily - Spike says that the aristocrats are barbarians, or something close to that. He acts as though Cecily and himself are deeper, more intellectual and emotionally in tune.

Buffy - He tells her (in Dead Things) that she doesn't belong with her friends, that they are too mortal and human for her. Spike claims that vampires get her hot and she "needs a monster in her man". Again, setting himself and his love on a plane above all others.

Anya - In the episodes Entropy and Where the Wild Things Are, he acts as a fellow demon. He encourages the feeling that the Scooby Gang is too righteous and can't comprehend either her or him. Spike tells her that, as a vampire and ex-ex-vengeance demon, they are better than the human Scoobies.

Harmony - We did not see the beginning of their relationship, but she mentions that Spike promised to take her to Paris, which sounds like the actions of someone using this manner of seduction.

Drusilla - In this case, Spike's love used the same method on him. She said that the people he knew couldn't understand his greatness, but that she could. I also find it likely that Spike used his modus operandi after he was turned, saying that he was the only one who could understand Dru. Given her insane ramblings, this is literally true. No one else seems able to make heads or tails of what she says.

Dawn - Spike unintentionally seduced Dawn like this. The rest of the Scooby Gang treated her like a child who couldn't understand the important things going on. But Spike treated her like she was an adult, someone to be respected. I'm not saying that Spike tried to get the Nibblet to get a crush on him, but it happened subconsciously.

Any thoughts on this aspect of Spike and relationships (I know that Spike is talked about to death (err, more death) but I've never heard of this point before, and felt like I should bring it up)?

[> Re: Spike's Modus Operandi -- Cactus Watcher, 06:22:36 07/29/02 Mon

I don't know if psychologists have a name for this type of personality, but its certainly not abnormal. Spike and William before him have always had trouble relating to a large groups. As Spike he can command others, but he isn't a 'team member' even among vampires. As William he doesn't relate well to the average person in his circle especially when they are together as a group. He always comes closer to understanding others on a one-to-one basis. He knew Cecily was a snob. He just didn't realize he was one of those things she looked down on. He knew that Dru needed understanding. But, he didn't notice that most of all Dru needed attention. That's why she created him in the first place, to be her constant companion. When his mind started drifting to Buffy, long before he even loved Buffy, he lost Dru. He understands Buffy's need for passion and gives it to her. He doesn't understand she also needs honesty and decency to go with it. He's always trying to please those he's interested in, and as FMC says he's always trying to tell them that only he understand's them. What he always fails to realize is that the rest of his behavior matters, not just his moments of 'understanding.'

[> Re: Spike's Modus Operandi -- Purple Tulip, 06:32:55 07/29/02 Mon

You've brought up some really good points here. Spike is my faveorite character on the show, and I never get tired of talking about him! ;) I've always kind of thought that Spike behaves this way with women kind of out of desperation. I think that deep down he is just really lonely and he thinks that if he has a woman by his side then he won't be alone--- it's kind of like William peeking out from behind the Spike bravado. To him, the way that he seduces women is kind of romantic- to make them feel like they are the greatest and most beautiful thing in the whole world, whether it's just for companionship (Harmony), love (Buffy, Drusilla), protection (Dawn), lust/comfort (Anya), or infatutaion (Cecily). This is one method of conquering that Spike has never given up on- make the woman feel special and important and they will reward you with whatever you are seeking (love, lust, companionship, etc.) The mantra for the way that Spike does things should be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Tara's Return - How many ways - Spoilers!? -- Brian, 04:56:01 07/29/02 Mon

Tara could return as a:

Ghost
Spiritual guide
(an)entity in Willow's mind (projection, interior landscape, etc.)
Long lost twin, cousin, etc.
Alternate dimension person
Time warp shifter
Flashback.
Or a completely new character.

Any others?

However, Joss has said that Amber will be back but not Tara
Hmmm?

[> Tara's Love and Death - How Much Her Choice? -- Banana Hammock, 05:54:12 07/29/02 Mon

'I would rather have had one touch of her hair...than have lived an eternity without it.' - 'Seth', City Of Angels

'All you need is love.' - The Beatles

'Oh, my love! For the first time in my life, I can see.' - John Lennon

'Whoever said it is better to have loved and lost, has obviously never tried it.' - Anon

'If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.' - Sting

'Despite the desire to enjoy the small time we had together, a small voice in the back of mind still whispered, 'Why torture yourself with love today, knowing it will have vanished by tomorrow?'' - Elizabeth Astonfield, 'The Cold Summer'

It has been established through episodes such as 'Family' (Btvs, S5) that Tara's life before she met Willow, fell in love and became friends with the Scoobies was pretty miserable. She had no friends, was too nervous to socialise, and has to live with an overbearing family that wanted her to stay this way for their own purposes. The assumption is that, had Tara never met Willow, she would never have discovered the inner strangth she had to break away from this life, and would have remained miserable. Therefore, the assumption is that had Tara known that to live she would have to stay away from the Scoobies, that when she had first met Willow that their relationship would have ended in her murder and Willow's destruction (and almost the end of the world - bet Tara didn't know she possessed THAT much inner strength!), she still would have been with Willow while she could, because she loved her. Also the fact that Tara and Willow had a same sex relationship supports this theory, because they were willing to go through the hardship of prejudices against homosexuality, therefore would be willing to go through these hardships. But is that really the case?

I'm not good at putting my point across in paragraphs, so instead I'm going to split the arguments into pros and cons.

PROS AND CONS OF TARA STAYING WITH WILLOW, EVEN IF SHE KNEW WHERE IT WOULD LEAD

PROS

1. Tara would have been happy, even if it had been for a short time. She would have had between two and a half to three years to enjoy with Willow before she would have been killed. With no guarantees that she would have any kind of happiness without Willow or her friends, no matter how long she lived, she would have chosen three years of happiness over it.

2. She would have been able to help the group substantially before her death. Tara was the kind of selfless person would have seriously considered giving up her life for those of others, when others might have ran screaming at this option! When you think about it, Tara was the reason the gang found out Faith had taken over Buffy's body, and almost definitely wouldn't have otherwise, not until Faith was long gone with Buffy's body. She also saved Willow and Anya's lives in Bargaining (Parts 2 and 1 respectively). Without Tara, the gang woudln't have found Glory's tower in time to save Dawn in The Gift, either. So she's saved practically everyone in the gang's lives at one point or another.

CONS

1. Obviously, Tara would die. She would have to sacrifice any kind of future for happiness right now.

2. Again, Tara was a very selfless person. And she may not find her own present happiness reason enough to put Willow through the pain of losing her, and also almost ending the world. I saw a very classic poster displaying this point just before Grave was screened here in the UK, which had a picture of Tara in the top left corner, and Willow in the bottom right. Beside Tara it said, 'Her life is over.' Beside Willow, it said, 'If she gets her way, so is ours.' If Tara had known that her death would send Willow over the edge this way, I think she would have walked away.

3. Any happiness Tara had was oblivious to her imminent death. If she had known she was going to be murdered for being part of the Scooby Gang and still chose to stay, any happiness she might have had would be marred by the thought of what was coming hanging over her head.

If you go deeper into it, there would be hundreds more reasons for either side, but in the end, I believe there would still be more reasons for Tara to walk away than stay if she had known the future. There is also the slightly unromantic idea that she could have found someone else. After all, Tara was Willow's someone else. She was devestated when Oz left her, certain there would be no one else. But there was. If we were to look at the show realistically (and just to clarify, I'm not sitting here going, that show is so unrealistic! I know it's supposed to be, I'm just saying, how might it have went if?) then Tara and Willow could have moved on from each other to better, more fruitful things. And maybe not. What do others think?

[> [> *cough* ...correction -- Solitude1056, 12:43:30 07/29/02 Mon

'If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.' - Sting

Sting may have covered it, but he sure didn't write it. (Perhaps he wrote something similar, probably on the Dream of the Blue Turtles Album. Knowing Sting, he was quoting.) The song is Love the One You're With by Stephen Stills of Crosby, Stills and Nash fame; Stills wrote both the music and lyrics. The full song is:

If you're down, and confused
And you don't remember, who you're talkin' to
Concentration slips away
'Cause your baby is so far away

[Chorus]
And there's a rose, in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies, with the dove
And if you can't be, with the one you love
Love the one you're with

Don't be angry, don't be sad
Don't sit cryin' over good times you had
There's a girl, right next to you
And she's just waitin', for something to do

Turn your heartache right into joy
She's a girl, and you're a boy
So get it together, make it nice
You ain't gonna need, any more advice

[> Re: Amber's Return - How many ways - Spoilers!? -- Darby, 09:47:37 07/29/02 Mon

It has been suggested by others that Amber may be back but not on camera - she may be a writer or director.

Has the show had any female directors?

[> [> Re: Amber's Return - How many ways - Spoilers!? -- Purple Tulip, 10:33:07 07/29/02 Mon

Haven't Marti Noxon and Jane Espensen directed?

[> [> [> Yes, but... -- GreatRewards, 13:28:15 07/29/02 Mon

They must've had a man helping them. You know, showing them the ropes, making sure they don't screw things up, etc.

just kidding! tee hee!

/me ducks to avoid various thrown objects!

The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- Darby, 07:38:42 07/29/02 Mon

In the recent Angel - v - BtVS thread, many people mentioned the Pylean trilogy as a low point, which got me thinking about it.

First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed the trip to Lorne's home dimension. I like to see what can be done when you move characters into a drastically different setting, and I thought the blend of humor and action was better than through most of S2. But that's not what I'm here to talk about.

I think that the closing trilogy of S2 AtS, and the closing trilogy of S5 BtVS, were directly intended to set up the next season's switch in attitudes. For now, I'm going to focus on Angel and Pylea.

Lorne is a demon from a demon dimension, some minor ring of Hell not bad enough for the AtS characters to call it a legitimate hell, but this is the first version of demon demension that we actually get to see.

And what is it? It's a cross between Earth's Dark Ages and Planet of the Apes. Torment for humans, true, but more of the socio-political type than burn-in-the-pit variety. There is evil, but it is cultural and institutional, not heaven-and-hell evil.

How are demons from Pylea different from humans? Well, they use humans as domestic beasts, including use as food, and offer them no more rights than beasts are accorded on Earth. An interesting commentary on vampire demons, whose main evil is to eat humans and discount their rights (yeah, yeah, more biological imperative and less cultural, but still...).

Pylea is not shown so much evil as backward, with the potential to change (although it seems that Groo couldn't bring it about). After two seasons of being shown a spectrum of demons, from bad through innocuous to actually good, we are being primed for the next stage of the reveal: demons may be largely a product of their environment! Sure, Lorne is an anomaly (anom, that's not trademarked here, is it?), but the other Pyleans seem to be as capable of good or evil as humans in a similar culture.

Through Season Three, with the increased graying of the good- vs-evil in terms of demons (thank goodness we still have lawyers to represent absolute Darkness!), we have been given a basis to question all of the dogma. Angel is becoming the story of an interdimensional war, with Earth as a battlefield and the other, "demon" participants just refugees from places that are more like alien planets than Biblical Hells. Places with governments, and cultures, with families and traditions.

Even Quortoth was a place where a man could raise an infant to adolescence, and it's supposed to be one of the worst Hell dimensions there is. Makes me wonder what Angel's hell dimension was like - his persona on his return was a slightly less socialized version of Connor, sort of. Maybe it wasn't so horrible, maybe running around for years with no wardrobe and no hair product was just too much for him.

I'm starting to understand why Joss is doing Firefly without intelligent aliens - he's already been doing that on his current shows. And I think that the previous accepted parameters of what's good, what's evil, what deserves death and what deserves understanding, are going to keep getting murkier. If you start hearing "alien" when people say "demon," you'll see that it has to.

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- yabyumpan, 08:49:09 07/29/02 Mon

I too enjoyed the Pylea arc and see loads of foreshadowing and insights into the characters. Not going to comment too much on what you've written as I'm on my way out, but I'll put forward some points re: the characters.

Angel: We got to see just what his demon looks like. The demon must have had some memories/remnants of Angel/his soul. There was enough awareness there to bring him back when he saw his reflection and when he was fighting Groo. Not sure what that means and haven't really got time to explore it right now, but I do think it's interesting. We also saw how far he was willing to go to save Cordelia.

Cordelia: Very much a foreshadowing of 'Birthday'. She chose, for the first time to keep the mission over her fantasy of what she thought she wanted, and over love. Interesting forshadowing of 'Tommorrow'

Wesley: Stepped up to take the leadership role in a big way, prepared to sacrifice others for the 'greater good'

Gunn: Made a clear decision about where he belonged i.e. with AI

Fred: Obviously, being rescued from said 'hell dimension' but also the first inclination of her possible role in A.I. It was because of Fred that they were able to get home

Lorne: Dealing with unfinished business, saying 'goodbye' to home, making a diffinate choice about where he wanted to be. The first time he came to earth was by accident.

"Even Quortoth was a place where a man could raise an infant to adolescence, and it's supposed to be one of the worst Hell dimensions there is. Makes me wonder what Angel's hell dimension was like - his persona on his return was a slightly less socialized version of Connor, sort of. Maybe it wasn't so horrible, maybe running around for years with no wardrobe and no hair product was just too much for him."

Just a quick comment about this. I think his return from hell was underplayed but I think that's because the show's about Buffy and his role in that was to be Buffy's 'love interest'. To focus to much on his hell experience and the aftermath wouldn't have been appropriate. He was there mainly as a foil for Buffy's emotions etc IMO. I'm hoping that his return from spending 3 months locked in a box at the bottem of the ocean will be handled better.

[> Pylea Power activate -- neaux, 08:54:11 07/29/02 Mon

to be honest, it was the Pylea storyline that got me actually Watching Angel Again.

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- matching mole, 09:16:46 07/29/02 Mon

The dislike of the Pylea episodes has been puzzling to me mostly because most people haven't really expressed what they didn't like about them.

My theory (which is mine and possibly no more insightful than some theories about the Brontosaurus (now renamed Apatosaurus)) is that it contrasted unflatteringly with the angsty, noiry period leading up to it. Angel is in full tilt brood mode, locking lawyers to be eaten, sitting former girlfriends on fire, snubbing his friends, and then trying to lose his soul. Then he has to try to make things right again. Gripping stuff and I loved it. As did a lot of other people.

Then all of a sudden we're off to 'Planet of the Apes' as Darby says. Maybe this setting just didn't fit into some peoples' idea of AtS. But this is what I love about Pylea (and AtS overall) - it sucks you in and then it dumps you out someplace you didn't expect to be. But the same themes are still being played out as Darby points out. And simultaneously on the two shows we had hell on earth (with Glory tearing down the dimensional barriers) and earth (more or less) in hell on AtS. Sunnydale is the scene of an epic climax while a pseudo-medieval fortress is the scene of a relatively anti-climactic ending. A nice contrast and a nice balance.

Now I probably wouldn't be so happy if they had hung around Pylea for all of the next season. But they didn't.

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- Rob, 09:56:28 07/29/02 Mon

I'm not a regular "Angel" watcher, but I LOVED the Pylea episodes. They're among the few I've seen. I love pure fantasy, with magical lands, wizards, sorcerers, etc, and those eps were very much in that vein.

Rob

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:44:57 07/29/02 Mon

Pylea is the second demon dimension we've seen, actually.

The first was Ken's demonic factory from the first episode of BtVS season 3, "Anne".

[> [> Very true... -- Darby, 11:11:39 07/29/02 Mon

Forgot about the Soviet propaganda poster / Morlock dimension.

But we could have just been seeing a single sweatshop; at least we got a regional perspective if not broader on Pylea.

Who knew Kathie Lee Gifford had connections to the demon realm?

Oh...you all did...

Awarness of the "Clich�" (added here to avoid archive death) -- cjc36, 09:59:15 07/29/02 Mon

Part of the problem with the W/T clich� debate I think comes down to the fact that a clich� isn�t one if one isn�t particularly aware of it. I�m not gay, so I�m rather deaf and blind to it. Is this my fault? I don�t know. But fault or no, the result is two groups of fans, one attuned, whether gay or not, to seeing a hackneyed plot device in the final three of S6, and other group who simply see another example of things getting tragic and dark in Sunnydale. And with no clich� alarms blaring in the second group�s heads, they have a somewhat better chance at seeing the things Joss intended to show: Senselessness of male violence and, ultimately, the love of friendship triumphing over an individual�s descent into darkness. Ones who are all too aware of the clich� can�t get past it to notice anything else.

This is perhaps the reason why no real conclusion or summit meeting is possible. Either you are on the side of the �Clich�ists,� or you�re not. I don't think there's really a right or wrong here, just differing viewpoints brought about by divergent experiences.

[> Re: Awarness of the "Clich�" (added here to avoid archive death) -- Masq, 10:08:43 07/29/02 Mon

"Ones who are all too aware of the clich� can�t get past it to notice anything else. "

I don't think you meant to make such an over-arching statement about a group of people. There are many of us who were aware of the cliche' and believe it is old and tiresome, and we are sick and tired of seeing it.

But we are also Joss fans who understand why he did what he did.

The truth is, Joss inadvertently stepped into a big pile of doo-doo without intending to. He wrote Tara's death for his own story-telling reasons, ones we are familiar with as fans of Joss. He's done the same dark thing to other characters for 6 seasons.

I do not judge him for not being aware of the cliche' before hand. But I think he, and Steven deKnight, can be judged well or poorly for how they react to the news of the cliche' afterwards. Are they sympathetic at all? Are they defensive? Do they make jokes that show a lack of concern for the feelings of a group of fans and alienate them?

They don't necessarily have to apologize for taking the story where they did, but being considerate of fan's feelings is simple courtesy that doesn't hurt anyone.

[> [> Re: Awarness of the "Clich�" (added here to avoid archive death) -- cjc36, 10:39:07 07/29/02 Mon

Blanket statement alert. And you are right. I should have qualified that. "Probably more than half...Some�"

DeKnight was acting like an insensitive arse if what I've read were really his responses, and I believe they were.

Courtesy of fans feelings is necessary, but there were more than a handful of fans declaring Jihad on ME for killing Tara. Again, I wish Tara were alive, was not aware of the "LC", and didn't take Tara's dying, Willow's decent, or Xander saving her as Dead Lesbian Clich�, Evil Lesbian Clich�, or some repudiation of Willow's sexual preference (being saved by a MAN!).

I saw Willow losing her mind due to immeasurable grief and reaching for the only weapon she had handy - Dark Magick. And I saw love - the kind only attainable by long-term friendship - saving the day. Worked for me.

[> [> [> Oh, I don't disagree with you about the Jossian interpretation -- Masq, 10:44:41 07/29/02 Mon

I know what Joss intended and I saw it that way myself the first time I watched it.

But the Kitten's response reminded me of another lens to view it through, and I stand by their right to be irked.

The truth is, both points of view are correct here. Joss told his story his way, and he inadvertently fed the cliche'. It's not either-or. It's both.

[> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I don't disagree with you about the Jossian interpretation -- Rufus, 14:11:25 07/29/02 Mon

The truth is, both points of view are correct here. Joss told his story his way, and he inadvertently fed the cliche'. It's not either-or. It's both.

Absolutely...Joss did inadvertently feed the cliche, and if you listen to comments by David Fury and Jane Espenson they are aware of that and have said that it was unintentional, and were respectful in what they said. I don't know what else they can do but reflect what they learned in season seven. Steve DeKnight was the one who may have been less than compassionate when he appeared on the Succubus Club, but he was also presented with some insulting e-mails and e- mails insulting to the ladies that run The Succubus Club. If people want to get something constructive done profanity, and writing that could be taken as threatening isn't the way to go. Steve DeKnight was acting in character for what I've seen him post on the Bronze. He joked like writers do joke about killing characters (Tim Minear has a t-shirt reflecting that). To make the writers understand the depth of the hurt fans of Tara feel profanity and calls to destroy the show aren't the way to go. It makes the writers understandably defensive, in a year that there was more than the Tara storyline that had fans upset.

Jane Espenson and David Fury were very compassionate in how they spoke of Tara and her death. They say they never intended for the death to spark cries of Lesbian Cliche. I didn't see the Lesbian Cliche til it was pointed out to me. I don't think the writers wanted to hurt anyone as deeply as fans of Tara are hurting. The constant insults are only going to get the writers to act in a defensive way. And frankly, I am offended at the way real people have been treated because of a fictional one. I suggest instead of investing so much time in hateful activities, the people do something posative, they may find the writers more willing to talk in a honest compassionate way, right now it's a standoff with both sides feeling on the hostile side. Insults and hate are only going to make matters worse, I'm not saying that opinions can't be vented but insults only perpetuate more insults.

[> [> [> [> [> Kind of reminds you of... -- Masq, 14:21:34 07/29/02 Mon

That whole hub-bub when the stunt director Jeff Pruitt/Buffy stunt double Sophia left the show at the end of season 4. Except this time the hostility was within the ranks of those who produce the show.

What made it worse in that case was Jeff airing his personal feelings on a fan forum, because he'd visited there many times and knew he had the fan's ears (or is it eyes?).

I'm one of those people who doesn't pay much attention to producers/writers/actors because I am much more caught up in the fictional world of the story. Unfortunately, you can't completely separate the two, and in the age of the internet, fans not only witness what happens to their show when things behind the scenes sour, they can now interact with the producers of the show and influence, for better or worse, the production of the show.

It's a strange age we're in!

[> [> [> [> [> Rufus, completely agree! -- Caroline, 12:36:32 08/02/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Awarness of the "Clich�" (added here to avoid archive death) -- Miss Edith, 11:57:15 07/29/02 Mon

I really do think ME should consider hiring a media spokesperson to advise them. They have shown no compassion towards the Kittens which has unfortunately caused a feeling of "well we'll make them care. They've hurt our feelings and should pay". If you have been hurt badly it is irksome if the individuals who have inadvetently caused you pain seem to have no human feeling for you.
Some acknowledgement of the promises broken and the way the story had gone being offensive to a minority group (although not intended as such) would have done a lot to prevent the situation from becoming as bitter as it has. Unfortunately an apology at this point is probably too late. I can see the Kittens reacting with "screw his apology, he is backsliding and trying to save face" etc. The writers comments just make me groan sometimes. Saying things like we can't make Willow bisexual at this point as it would offend the Kittens only encourages fans divisions. The Kittens are rightly responding that Joss choose to make Willow gay etc and the writers stirring up such feelings really isn't helpful.
Of course the Kittens aren't blameless either and some people are taking things too far and threatening the writers, which is completely inappropriate obviously, but ME really have made a rod for their own back in their insenstive responses.

[> [> [> [> World of Pain -- darrenK, 13:36:42 07/29/02 Mon

I've read so many types of responses to Tara's death that I'm starting to have trouble remembering where the different arguments being and end.

I understand both sides and I think that Joss's answer on May 22 might not have addressed the whole world of hurt caused by Tara's death, but it was an austere, dignified defense of his right to do what he wants with his characters, whether he steps in clich� or not.

And I have to say that, as a writer, there's no worse fate than inadvertantly ending up with a clich�d plot device. That in itself is a hell I would wish on no writer. So, in that regard, I imagine that Joss and DeKnight are suffering.

The other thing that's important to note is that the show isn't over yet . And that no story on Buffy really ends. Joss is a genius at circling back around to it and adding layers. So I'm waiting to see what happens with Willow to find out the real meaning, subtext and outcome of Tara's death.

Until then, clich� or no, I have to be glad that Tara and Willow got one last night together.

There are many people, fictional or no, hetero or no, who never find that type of love. And there are way too many people in this very unfair world who never get that one last night.

I have to be happy for them. Maybe even envy them.

[> [> [> [> [> Joss and cliche's -- Masq, 14:43:36 07/29/02 Mon

Well, Joss has inadvertently created his own cliche'd plot device, IMO, "kill a character", and this is only peripherally related to the lesbian cliche.

Joss wants to give the viewers a jolt with things like Tara's death, but perhaps the collective response from the viewers should have been, "*Yawn*, not again..."

I mean, Joss has killed major characters before, he's killed on-going characters before. The sudden death of a character in what seems like the middle of his/her story line is nothing new:

Season 1:

- Joss wanted to put Jesse in the "WttH/TH" main credits along side Buffy, Willow, and Xander so people would think he was one of the main characters before Joss offed him.
- Principle Flutie was the established principal by the 6th episode--crunch.
- And of course Buffy the title character has died twice. Third time we really *will* be yawning.

Season 2:

- Jenny, of course, just as the romance with Giles was rekindling
- Kendra, and rather an dishonorable death at that (and by the time Forrrest was killed in season 4, black viewers I know were complaining about the 'dead black person' cliche)

Season 3:

- Trick really was built up as part of the season's big bad posse and then suddenly *poof* for no apparent reason he was offed.

Season 4/Season 1:

-ditto with Dr. Walsh, although we knew something about the actress's need to leave the show despite the fact her story was supposed to continue
-Doyle--the debate still lives, problems witht the actor or killed for story line purposes? His death really changed the tone of Season 1 of Angel, and ultimately what the whole show could have been like later.

Season 5/Season 2:

-The death of Joyce was a shocker mainly because she'd been around for 4 1/2 seasons
- In the Pylea arc, we really had reason to fear that Lorne was dead after he was beheaded because hey, that's what Joss does
-see above re: comments on Buffy's 2nd death

Season 6/Season 3

-Darla's second death could be seen as necessary to the story line, or a convenient way to get Momma out of the way so Angel get tangled up in an intense relationship with his son.
-Tara's death can be seen as Joss getting kind of old and predictable. To move his character's stories forward (lke Buffy's in season 5), kill somebody important to them.

Wonder who will die next year??

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss and cliche's -- Wizardman, 15:29:00 07/29/02 Mon

I hope that no one on either shows in this upcoming season- it's too soon from this season. I don't have a problem with character deaths, as long as they are done intelligently and respectfully- which is why the only problem I've had is with Kendra's death. But that's not a rant for this thread. Anyway... Buffy will be lighter-hearted this season. Angel now... I'm predicting more darkness and angst. We'll just have to wait and see- and hope for the best. And as for the clich� issue- I didn't know about the clich�. I was upset because one of my favourite characters died senselessly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The cliche worst than death -- yabyumpan, 06:10:53 07/30/02 Tue

I'm not actually to bothered about the character death cliche, heck, the show's about death/dying/killing in some ways, it's even in the title (slayer). Two of the show's main characters are actually dead (Angel and Spike). Death is a major reality of life, happens all the time to all sorts of people under the strangest of circumstances.

The cliche that really bugs me is 'no one is allowed to have a happy relationship for to long'. Now that one is truely getting old and tired. It is also unrealistic. In RL, people do have happy, long term relationships. I'm not saying it should be all 'white picket fences no angst' stuff, that would also be unrealistic, but it might actually be interesting to see two characters dealing with what they have to deal with on both show's and actually managing to maintain a relatively healthy relationship.

It's got to the point now that even before two characters get together (say Angel and Cordelia)I'm reading posts on forums which discuss when the break up will happen and how. Do Joss and co really want to be that predictable?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Both shows (before the apostrophe police get me) -- yabyumpan, 06:52:40 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We all make apostrophe mistakes from time to time.. -- Masq, 09:10:13 07/30/02 Tue

It's how you go on after the error that determines the content of your character.

Oh, and I agree that Joss has a real THING about "No relationship is going to work! Not on my show!"

Didn't mean I wasn't overjoyed! when Buffy called quits whatever that thing with Spike was.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'rite for yourself -- skeeve, 10:59:33 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I just did. : ) -- Masq, 11:13:45 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apostrophe mistakes. Board Pet Peeve #1! Collect them all! -- Darby, 13:00:33 07/30/02 Tue

To me, as I have been proofreading student work for a (sigh) long time, it's weird how apostrophe usage has changed. Fifteen years ago, you'd almost never see an apostrophe applied to any but the oddest plurals - now they're all over the place.

Weirdest examples - posted flyer on campus for "Professional resume's"; just when I'd settled in to asking students, "You wouldn't spell more-than-one-dog D-O-G-apostrophe-S, right?" I pass a sign: "DOG'S FOR SALE."

And the one that drives me crazy, and is the most common grammatical error on the board: possessive pronouns do NOT get apostrophes. People are generally fine on hers and theirs, but it's "its" that gets them every time. I'm often seeing student papers that ONLY use an apostrophe for a possessive on "its," never on the times when it's appropriate. Reading an online history of microscopes (much more interesting than you'd expect) the other day, and the little buggers were all over the place...

Okay, I'm done and I don't feel better...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Board (& other places) pet peeve #1! - "discrete" instead of "discreet" -- Dead Soul, 13:13:26 07/30/02 Tue

Oh, and the peeked/peaked/piqued problem (more prevalent, and egregious, in fanfics than here).

Dead Soul - who knows that havoc is wreaked, not wrecked

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Your Welcome" and "Here! Here!" -- d'Herblay, 17:33:30 07/30/02 Tue

My two big pet peeves. Of course it's my welcome! Whose else would it be?

I do wish people would agree to a spelling of Drusilla as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pet Peeve - centered around -- Brian, 18:31:36 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> what, brian, you don't like oxymorons? -- anom, 22:35:26 07/30/02 Tue

I've also seen "focussed around."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shouldn't that be "Oxymora"? -- Rahael, 11:06:23 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> if you're speaking greek, definitely. otherwise... -- anom, 20:39:26 08/01/02 Thu

...well, I've only heard "oxymora" once before, used by Richard Lederer on a public radio call-in show (which I'd say puts you in good company). It surprised me, but then I realized, "Oh--like 'phenomena!'" But I've never heard or read it anywhere else till now--everyone I know of says "oxymorons," & I was never taught that the plural was anything different. Is "oxymora" more common in England?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That reminds me... -- dubdub, 20:43:46 08/01/02 Thu

My mother was recently informed by someone in her writers' group that oxymoron is pronounced OX-simmer- on.

Am I the only one who thinks that's insane?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> never heard that, but... -- anom, 22:55:52 08/01/02 Thu

...I have heard "ok-SIM-o-ron," which also follows the pattern of "phe-NOM-e-non." Haven't heard it often, though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It seems that it should... -- aliera, making haste slowly, 05:15:00 08/02/02 Fri

at least according to my dictionary...and

http://www.wordexplorations.com/oxymora-1.html

Although I've haven't 'heard' the word either; actually, aside from here, can't recall hearing anyone say oxymoron recently. :-)

a favorite: jumbo shrimp...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 05:24:55 08/02/02 Fri

Saves me looking it up.

I understood, like 'criterion'/'criteria', the plural form of Oxymoron was Oxymora.

And as for it's pronounciation - I'm pretty sure it's:

Oxy-moron.

I also think it applies really to conflicting words that are put together for the sake of effect/wit/rhetoric, rather than words used incorrectly together, or mistakenly opposed words used together.

For example, this Sonnet by Shakespeare is full of subtle oxymora:

"When most I wink, then do mine eyes best see,
For all the day they view things unrespected;
But when I sleep, in dreams they look on thee,
And darkly bright are bright in dark directed.
Then thou, whose shadow shadows doth make bright,
How would thy shadow's form form happy show
To the clear day with thy much clearer light,
When to unseeing eyes thy shade shines so!
How would, I say, mine eyes be blessed made
By looking on thee in the living day,
When in dead night thy fair imperfect shade
Through heavy sleep on sightless eyes doth stay!
All days are nights to see till I see thee,
And nights bright days when dreams do show thee me."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! -- aliera, in brief, 07:18:54 08/02/02 Fri

I also like idiot savant....thanks for the morning dose of Shakespeare, I feel much better now ;-)

Do you have email up now? I had something I wanted to send you...my work email is.angela.gustafsson@nysna.org(just the nurses assoc!)....home is (after 3pm your time.aliera9916@aol.com.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You should have mail! -- Rahael, 07:28:15 08/02/02 Fri

At your aol private address. Let me know if doesn't arrive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whoops...time warp -- aliera, 07:29:15 08/02/02 Fri

should have been home after 9pm your time!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pet Peeve - 'conversating' -- Marie, 02:04:20 08/02/02 Fri

I first heard that on a Rikki Lake show a couple of years ago, and have heard it (and others like it!) a LOT, since then, mostly on US chat shows - is that really how people talk, these days? I've never heard it here (Wales).

Marie

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes! & other your/you're confusions -- anom, 22:49:13 07/30/02 Tue

The mnemonic (remember that one?) is that none of the possessive pronouns uses an apostrophe: my (mine), your(s), her(s), his, its, our(s), their(s).

So "your" means "belonging to you," & "you're" means "you are."

OK, now we'll see if that takes....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess you need family in the South to get it . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:09:00 07/31/02 Wed

But I've been known to joke that the only possessive pronoun with an apostrophe is y'alls.

However, there are a few possessive pronouns that use apostrophes: whoever's, someone's, etc.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking as someone in the South... -- Arethusa, 16:01:55 07/31/02 Wed

Actually, you mean "ya'll"-you all, which is plural, and therefore would not need an additional "s." To make it plural possessive, add an apostrophe plus an "s"-ya'll's. As in "Put that there dog of ya'll's in the back yard." You'd only use "ya'lls" if you wanted to indicate more than one pronoun-as in "Your ya'lls are driving me crazy."

When I first moved to Texas from San Diego, everyone told me I spoke with an accent!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You and Dedalus . . . misplacing those apostrophes -- d'Herblay, 16:54:14 07/31/02 Wed

I'll forgive you because you're really a Californian. Anyway, there is no way you can contract you all and end up with ya'll for the simple reason that the a is in all and not you. Spelling the word ya'll makes about as much sense as contracting do not into do'nt. And, had you read closely, you would already know that I was using the possessive form (thus my phrasing "the only possessive pronoun") and that, according to anom and others, no possessive specific pronoun has an apostrophe in it.

Except for y'alls.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So is the possessive plural y'alls' ? -- redcat, who has relatives in TX towns named Wink & Muleshoe, 17:03:53 07/31/02 Wed

As in "You boys get y'alls' filthy dawgs outta my kitchen this instant or the baby Jesus will send you to H-E-Double- Toothpicks and that ain't no country song I'se a- singin'!!!"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How do you pluralize a plural? -- d'Herblay, 17:14:13 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'cause in Southern-Speak, "y'all" ain't necessarily always a plural -- redcat, 17:26:02 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, if you're Australian 'you' becomes 'yous' -- Caroline, 07:03:15 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and in new york, we spell it "youse"! -- anom, 21:11:07 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Defending my honor! -- Arethusa, 09:05:01 08/01/02 Thu

The possessive form of the indefinite pronoun "everybody" is "everybody's." "Ya'll" is commonly used to mean "everybody I am talking too." Therefore, if I use "ya'll's," it would be correct. I double-checked myself at:

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/cases.htm

As for the spelling of "ya'll": if you do a google search of the word, you'lll see *almost* everyone uses "ya'll." I've never seen it spelled any other way until now. Not logical, but true. ;o)

Let me know if I goofed again.

Arethusa, praying to the Grammar Gods she's right.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, heck. "everybody I am talking to," not "too" -- Arethusa, ungrammatically, 09:07:50 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or "Everybody to whom I am talking". A dangling preposition being -- Sophist, 09:27:02 08/01/02 Thu

something up with which we should not put. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah ha! -- Arethusa, 09:50:14 08/01/02 Thu

One of my university grammar professors said that the laws of English grammar are based on the laws created for Latin grammar-which of course means we have some English grammar laws that make little sense. The dangling participle rule is one of them, he said-evidently in Latin one can't dangle a participle. But in English we can, and often do. I don't see a problem with saying, "Where are you going to? instead of "To where are you going?" Others disagree, but *if my professor is right*, I don't see a problem with modifying language rules to match how English is spoken. (Another grammar error, we're told, is a split infinitive. Splitting infinitives evidently also can't be done in Latin, but is often done in spoken English.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Winston Churchill -- Sophist, 18:41:04 08/01/02 Thu

Was once corrected for dangling a participle, and famously responded, "That is arrant pedantry, up with which I will not put." He agreed with your professor; as I intended to do in my own obscure way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- Arethusa, 19:15:16 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> possessive pronouns, southern &...othern -- anom, 20:37:20 07/31/02 Wed

"But I've been known to joke that the only possessive pronoun with an apostrophe is y'alls."

Actually, I'd spell it w/2: "y'all's." Despite what I said above about no apostrophes (as in "your" & "its"), this particular possessive pronoun just doesn't look right without one--I agree w/redcat that it looks like more than 1 "y'all." However, I agree w/d'Herblay that the apostrophe goes after the "y" (I've only seen it migrating recently).

"However, there are a few possessive pronouns that use apostrophes: whoever's, someone's, etc."

Yeah, but you know what I meant....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Board (& other places) pet peeve #1! - "discrete" instead of "discreet" -- yabyumpan, 22:29:29 07/30/02 Tue

I have problems reading anything with bad grammar (even though my spelling's pretty crappy). I even have problem with graffiti. There's one I walk past every day on my way to work - 'your a whore', I always have to resist the urge to add the apostrophe and the 'e' at the end.

ok, that's my sad confession for today, night night :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Apostrophe mistakes. Board Pet Peeve #1! Collect them all! -- Arethusa, 13:38:15 07/30/02 Tue

Yeah! Just what the frilly heck happened in the last five years or so? I learned from my grammar courses in college that since English grammar is based on Latin grammar, it doesn't always make perfect sense, but the punctuation and spelling rules are pretty clear. Now I see flagrant mistakes and misuses everywhere. Quit teaching for a few years to raise your kids, and the whole world goes to heck! It makes me want to get back into the classroom just to teach the entire world how to pluralize and use possessives.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Apostrophe mistakes. Board Pet Peeve #1! Collect them all! -- skeeve, 07:49:34 07/31/02 Wed

'Tisn't all that bad. At least all those errant apostrophes aren't on your resume.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The cliche worst than death -- Wizardman, 15:35:57 07/30/02 Tue

Yes! One thing that I am sick of on the show is the destruction of all the relationships. I for one hope that Gunn and Fred stay together. They have a sheer cuteness that no couple has had since Willow and Oz. And as for people wondering how C&A will be broken up, I don't know how much of that's from Joss' track record, and how much is from hope. We have seen over and over again on the shows that friends and lovers are two different things, and that mixing the two is dangerous. Not that it can't happen successfully, but it is unlikely. Just my two cents.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The cliche worst than death -- yabyumpan, 22:13:35 07/30/02 Tue

"We have seen over and over again on the shows that friends and lovers are two different things, and that mixing the two is dangerous."

Maybe it's just that I'm brain dead after my night shift but I can't think of another long term friendship that has become a romantic relationship on the shows.

"And as for people wondering how C&A will be broken up, I don't know how much of that's from Joss' track record, and how much is from hope"

Not from hope from the boards I've been to, which are C/A boards (me being a worried C/Aer), it's definatly from Joss's track record.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss and cliches (apostrophe police;) -- mundusmundi, 15:51:00 07/29/02 Mon

Wonder who will die next year??

Ummm, I dunno....Anya?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I want dead people!! lol -- Rahael, 15:56:02 07/29/02 Mon

Like the last scene in Hamlet. Everyone dies!!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahem -- Rahael, 16:18:19 07/29/02 Mon

I forgot to say that I was referring to the final finale!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Jeez. Joss has a real homicidal streak. -- Masq, 16:29:32 07/29/02 Mon

Please don't end "Buffy" like they ended "Forever Knight"! It kind of ruined re-watching the earlier episodes because you no longer saw any point in rooting for Nick or any other character in Season 3.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Joss has a real homicidal streak. - so do some of the Fanged fic writers! -- Rahael, 16:35:05 07/29/02 Mon

Don't know what Forever Knight is, but my suggestion was tongue in cheek

Rah
Who likes looking after all her characters!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, speak up in e-mail... *big future spoilers for Fanged fic! For fff writers only! * -- Masq, 16:44:07 07/29/02 Mon

If you don't want to see Inez die a sudden, embarassing and hideous death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, speak up in e-mail... *big future spoilers for Fanged fic! For fff writers only! * -- VampRiley, 17:37:50 07/29/02 Mon

Oooooo. She does?

Cool.

The thing about killing characters is that you have to create others to replace them to help keep the story fresh, though a sudden death of one character after another does help in keeping things from getting boring. I could give you an example, but it seems Solitude calc is keeping her very busy. Glad I don't have to have calc. [shakes visibly]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just realized I'm not a FFF writer. I'll forget it. -- VR - the forgetful, 17:39:48 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> VR, you might not be a fff writer but... -- Deeva, 22:48:28 07/31/02 Wed

We were glad to get you feedback from maybe a few days ago. But the only thing is that it got cut off. So we only got maybe the first 3-4 sentences. You mention an inconsistency somewhere between Angelus & Spike, I think? I would love to know what the rest of your message was. That is if you see this post in this wildly weaving thread!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Damn you, you bloody web site!!!! Spoilers for Fanged Four fic. -- VampRiley, 18:16:23 08/01/02 Thu

[Pulls out his Rolf 9 semi-auto, which he had converted to a full auto himself, with his right hand. He placed his left hand near the front of the weapon and pulled the trigger back. After 30 seconds, he aimed it off to his left and saw the smoke churn and float away from his monitor. Sparks of electricity shot out every which way as he looked at the destroyed circuits and glass and got a first hand glimps of what some of the things inside a monitor are. Realization hit him at what he'd done. Back he went to go to the computer store to get another monitor.]

Oh, crap. I may not be able to remember word for word, but here goes.

I like the story. I really do. I finished chapter 6 today. I like where it's headed and I have forgotten the spoiler. Truely.

But, there are one or two things.

First is, there are some descriptions I feel could be added.

Like, what is in the rooms? Are there windows? Furniture? Is there any light? If so, where is it coming from and how much is there? What does the amount of light in the room make the whole scene look like? Are there a lot people there or are there only a few in there? Are they far away from whoever entered or from the door?

How are the people dressed? When any of the characters enter a room, does the room make them have a visible, physical reaction that someone watching them could see and/or hear?

Another spot is when Spike got tied up by Angelus. He pours holy water on the younger vamp's shoulder. We are told that Darla touched his shoulder and Dru's head was lying on his shoulder after they woke up outside of town. Did they both interact with the same shoulder or did they both come in contact with separate shoulders?

At the card game, what is the seating arrangements?

Here's one passage.

Looking over their shoulders and between their swaying bodies, Spike saw Mayor Wilkins, holding the Glaive in his heavily gauntleted hands. Gesturing with the Glaive as a priest would with a communion chalice, the Mayor, in liturgical sounding Latin, addressed an ugly female idol.

When I first read it, I was unfamiliar with how a priest gestures with a communion chalice. I was later told that it was like bringing it above ones head or something. When you say someone is making some movement that are like the movements of certain ones, like a priest and a communion chalice, you may lose some those that are familiar with the movement.

For me, I would have written it more like this:

Spike looked over the shoulders of those in front of him and between their bodies and saw Mayor Wilkins. The Mayor wore gauntlets on his hands as he held the Glaive. He moved it up above his head with his hands, like a priest would gesture with a communion chalice. He spoke a litrugy, which sounded like it was in Latin, as he addressed an ugly female idol.

or something like it.

The scene Dru gets rescued in, what are some of the moves they do? One of the hardest things to do when you have a fight scene where there are people you know and a bunch of others that you don't know the name of is keeping the no namers straight. You can do it by number, but if some of them have any distinguishing features (race, scar, hair color or length, gender, etc.) or dress, all the better. Saying vamp #1 or 2 or whatever can get boring very fast. Mixing up how you describe them helps to keep things fresh in your mind and for the reader.

I could give you a perfectly good, 308 pages example of what I'm talking about, but it seems Solitude's clac is keeping her busy to put my fic up for the last week or so. I worte it as a combination of transcript and novelization of a Buffy/Angel ep. If I couldn't visualize it in my mind or hear it or see it, it wasn't aloud in. There was one part where someone was thinking, but if it was on TV, the audience would here it. I added it only because I felt it was important for the story and the character. The thoughts and emotions of the others were described in how they acted. And I did do a couple Flashes where we see and hear what the character is thinking.

Descriptions like this help me make a better visualization of the scene in my mind. For me, if things like a room are described at least partly, it won't jar my reading too much if like a small thing is added in telling me what is in the room. I don't mean I think you should describe things down to very exact detail, like the number of grains of salt on a pretzel, just at least general descriptions.

Okay, bare with me just two small things. Real quick.

Seond, in the chapters, one paragraph will be describing one scene and then, the next will be talking about something in another scene some. It seems rather abrupt and makes me stop to readjust to a new scene without there being some kind of separation between the scenes to tell the reader the scene is changing before they read the text. Maybe a line, like there is between the chapters or a string of some other character(s).

And just one spot of dialogue:

"A chill. It signifies nothing." -- Angelus

Signifies? That word made me stop. Doesn't seem very Angelus, even soulless Angelus in 1896. It'd make sense if it was "It means nothing" or "It's nothing." But, that's just me.

VR -- who's still crossing his fingers on both of his hands, waiting very patiently for Sol.

PS -- Just noticed the "ATPoBtVS&AtS" addition. Very nice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Jeez. Joss has a real homicidal streak. -- Rufus, 16:43:28 07/29/02 Mon

Yes, I followed faithfully Forever Knight because it was a story within a story every week. The end left me cold but I still watch the reruns, avoiding the series ender choosing to watch the more posative episodes....but I still watch the show. And it's on Space starting in September...I think the vampires are taking over the Space Channel...;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gotta watch out for those Canadian vampires, they're the sneakiest! -- Masq, 16:45:18 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forever Knight -- Brian, 20:23:49 07/29/02 Mon

I always thought that the last episode of Forever Knight was either the best cliffhanger or finale for an adventure series. Even knowing how the characters end, I still enjoyed watching the earlier seasons to see how they got to that point in their life.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forever Knight -- Masq, 09:11:58 07/30/02 Tue

It didn't strike me as anything the writers were building to. It struck me as a cheap way to end the show when they found out they weren't being renewed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forever Knight (Spoilers) -- Brian, 11:28:29 07/30/02 Tue

It's interesting that we have such a different view of the ending. I thought it demonstrated that no matter how much more "human" Nick became, no matter how much good he did, he couldn't defy or defeat the "evil" that was in him by his being a vampire. When Jeanette became human because she could truly love ( a nice irony since she continually told him that vampires couldn't change their basic nature), Nick was shown the path that he had to take, but he couldn't do it. He couldn't trust himself to take just enough blood; he couldn't control the vampire within. And he was right. He killed Natalie trying to bring her across.

I see all sorts of comparisons between Jeanette and Darla, Nick, Angel, and Spike (all tormented vampires). When I've rewatched FK enough times, I hope to put together an essay comparing and contrasting them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Guess I was a Nick Redemptionista : ) -- Masq, 11:40:02 07/30/02 Tue

Of course, he'd be turned human in the very last episode and walk off into the sunset (or rise) hand-in-hand with Natalie, and that would be the end of the show because the "happily ever after" stuff is boring in fiction.

PS I'd love to see a comparison essay of FK characters and Buffyverse characters!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Who Will Die? Sort of Spoilers for Season 7, but hopefully Masq will read anyway -- Dochawk, 17:54:23 07/29/02 Mon

I am speculating (somewhat based on spoilery knowledge but not really) that Joss is going to try to answer some of these cliched messages this year. I am hopeful we will see more color characters (lets see this is Southern California, Hispanic? Asian? as well as black). And I don't think Joss will kill them off. And I think Willow will now get a new relationship (too soon after tara's death? will there be complaints that Willow didn't mourn long enough?).

As for Who will die, is Oz the only character who has left the show on two feet (well I guess Faith did) and not in a box? We know some things based on contracts, all but two of the prinicpal players are signed until season 9. They obviously aren't going to die. Sarah is one of the unsigned players. That leaves one other, will s/he die? Will they join the army or go off to school in Europe? I hope that if this character dies it will be for a truly important story reason and not because s/he is leaving the show (this person has made it clear they are leaving at the end of the season).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Characters who lived. (Spoilers to Season 6 only) - - shadowkat, 18:46:22 07/29/02 Mon

Well:

Riley lived. So did Sam.

Angel and Cordy and Wes moved to Ats intact.

Jonathan is alive.

Parker lived. (unfortunately)

Dru is still undead as is Harmony.

Tucker survived.

So Joss doesn't kill everyone. Heck he's nicer than me, just ask my fanged four fellow writers. I'm homicidal when it comes to fictional characters.
I would have killed everyone except Wes, Angel and Cordy
without remorse.

Also we don't know if Sarah will sign or not for Season 8.
This is still an open issue according to the articles on slayage. SMG is keeping mum until the end of Season 7 and her contract comes up. Smart girl.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Characters who lived. (Spoilers to Season 6 only) -- Dochawk, 18:58:19 07/29/02 Mon

Well Riley certainly qualifies as a major character (and I didn't count the trio who left for Angel, because its still the Buffyverse). So thats good, I goofed.

As for SMG I pointedly ignored her in my comments because I am disabused of the notion that they will kill Buffy yet again (if they do it will be for good). I was just commenting on the mysterious Scoobie who will definitely be leaving and whether or not s/he will be killed. You came up with better examples than I did.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Characters who lived. (Spoilers to Season 6 only) -- Miss Edith, 10:12:51 07/30/02 Tue

I don't think that many characters have died that it can be called a cliche. Obviously villians such as Maggie Walsh or Mr Trick are killed off for plot purposes. But people die all the time in Sunnydale anyway at the hands of vampires etc. Whilst the villians are a bit more than extras I would personally say only the death of regular recurring characters could be used as an example of too much death. Buffy is based around the idea of Buffy preventing death and carnage after all.
My examples of people dying for shock factor would simply be Doyle on Angel, and Jenny, Joyce and Tara on Buffy. Of course the rumours are that Doyle was fired for being impossible to work with as turned up drunk etc. It is hard to know how much trust can be placed in those rumours but Joss has publicly stated he will not work with the actor playing Doyle again I believe. The actress playing Joyce moved to Italy and was planning to leave, hence her not being available much in season 4. She agreed to return in season 5 in order to give Joyce a good send-off. The actress playing Jenny was a born-again Christain and I believe objected to the shows content and wished to leave. Again I am not sure how much truth there is in those rumours.
It is only Tara who was killed off for the purposes of story, against the actresses wishes. The other actors wanted to leave, although it could certainly be argued that Jenny and Doyle did not have to be killed off. I think Buffy's mother would have needed to die in order for her absence to make sense. If many of the scoobies other halfs had died it would be an unoriginal cliche. But all of Buffy's boyfriends are still around (Angel, Parker, Riley and Spike). Xander's exes Cordy, Willow, Faith and Anya are still alive. As is Willow's boyfriend Oz. The only partners of the scoobies to die is Willow's girlfriend Tara and Giles girlfriend Jenny. Surely Doyle's death in Angel was so shocking precicely because he was a regular and prior to his death the only recurring charatcer to die was Jenny who appeared in every 2- 4 episodes. Even Joyce did not appear in the series as a regular scooby, although her role as Buffy's mother was important.
I would agree that the misery with relationships in Sunnydale is bordering on a cliche but I don't think killing people off is at quite the level people imagine. It was in season 5 Joyce died and in season 6 there were rumours another character would die and people took the attitude off "oh no, not again, why does someone have to die every season" etc. But personally I don't feel that death of regular, beloved characters is that commonplace. hence the outcry when Doyle and Tara were disposed off. I don't think there was such a fuss over Joyce and Jenny since they were not important members of the scoobies or fang gang. Anyway the misery in relationships and the despair is what needs addressing, more than the number of deaths, although I would say that resorting to death for shock tactics is not good writing. But someone did need to die at Angelouses hands to make the pain more real for Buffy and Jenny's death was understandable in that context. Again Joyce's death was part of Buffy's growing up and played an important part of the season particulaarly in The Body and Forever when the way we deal with death was studied. Doyle's death had an impact but wasn't particulary necessery for the story being told. Tara's death did trigger Willow's rage but the story could have been played very differently. Willow could been mistaken in believing Tara dead, Tara could have recovered from serious injuries, being in a coma unknown to Willow and taken part in the intervention to save Willow rather than just Xander. Willow could have been seduced by power gradually as hinted at in Flooded when she threatened Giles or in TR when she used spells on those she loved.
The X-Files is a series that did seem to have an obsession with killing off characters every seaosn, otherwise the season can't be considered worthwhile? I would say Buffy is not quite in that league yet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss and cliche's -- cjc36, 01:47:09 07/30/02 Tue

I guess for myself it's important to remember that Joss is...a Hollywood writer/producer. He's not [insert revered figure here]. He's a man who wants to tell stories that is, partly, on some level, melodramatic cheese. With the proverbial 'twist.' Things matter, emotional depths are mined. But cheese is still there. Ever had a non-fan friend roll their eyes at an SMG crying jag that just sends you into an emotional crisis? It ain�t music unless you�re used to the melody, I guess.

Let's watch the show, enjoy the show, but never fall for the 'cult of the creator.' Which is, I suppose, trite in it's own right.

Tara was a motivational agent (for lack of a better term at 4 in the morning) on Willow. It was Willow's story all along, Tara being a very large and necessary component of that story. But to boil Tara down to 'plot device' doesn't really do her service, either-- the relationship was show with humanity and compassion, and there was never a 'sweeps stunt lesbian promo' in the 2.5-year run.

[> Re: Awareness of the "Clich�" (added here to avoid archive death) -- Darby, 11:05:35 07/29/02 Mon

Having grown up in the rural North with a single black family in my entire school district, I was unaware of what I know now are many cliches about African-Americans. Did that make the inclusion of them in popular images less objectionable? To me, sure. Does individual personal awareness really matter if the cliche exists? Does it matter if you only insult one group if the other groups don't consciously know? Isn't that how stereotypes get reinforced? And much of the problem from the lesbian community has been their perception of the cliche's message - that lesbianism leads to an early death (punishment by God?) or is a sign of mental illness, which are two stereotypes I don't blame them for reacting to.

Now if years ago I had used a black stereotype out of ignorance, that's a mitigating circumstance. I don't think that ME's claims of ignorance of the stereotypes they were reinforcing are valid. They knew what they were doing but didn't foresee the backlash.

Incidentally, for those who've noticed that I said I'd drop this when the thread got archived, I'm invoking the "continuation of lower thread" clause as an excuse to continue responding...

[> [> Re: Awareness of the "Clich�" (added here to avoid archive death) -- cjc36, 01:53:24 07/30/02 Tue

I don't mean any disrespect here, but to place the "DLC" against Amos and Andy is just...I don't know. People don't have to eat watermelons or whatever. Everybody dies. And sometimes they die after having sex. And sometimes that sex is lesbian. Killing a character is a valid dramatic choice. To imprison it in some PC 'do not touch' box is limiting to the dramatist, IMHO.

[> Joss quote from Wanda today -- Rufus, 16:30:53 07/29/02 Mon

"Tara�s death was unique. That made a lot of people angry. And unlike Tara�s introduction, it made poeple that I actually LIKE angry. Not people that I know personally, but you know, it didn�t anger a bunch of morons. But it did anger a lot of people who I think maybe missed the point. I never court controversy. I don�t really care about issues. I didn�t care about the one I introduced with Tara, and I didn�t care about the one when I killed her. I cared about narrative and what I needed to do to Willow.�

[> [> Re: Joss quote from Wanda today - ie he still doesn't get it -- Dochawk, 18:06:04 07/29/02 Mon

Joss still doesn't get it. Much of the antagosnism would have been avoided if 1) the writers hadn't lied about it so forcefully when the rumor of Tara's death started (No comment means no backtracking, especially when you say No comment to both true and false rumors) 2) the death hadn't occured in such a way as to seem it was directly connected to sex (both Fury and Espenson have acknowledged this)not in the bedroom etc. 3 they had acknowledged the feelings of their fans rather than try to defend their decision (which really doesn't need a defense, a writer has a right to their own story, but they have to understand that once they set it out there, other people have a right to interpet it).

[> [> Re: Joss quote from Wanda today -- Miss Edith, 18:24:55 07/29/02 Mon

I do sympathise with Joss and his clear bewilderment over the bad feeling towards ME. I really do feel at this point from the people critisicing Joss it is more a case of feeling personally betrayed, rather than the lesbian cliche being invoked. Obviously both are factors but the anger has gone on for so long precicely because ME were not prepered for it and didn't know how to handle fans challenging their work who had previously seen them as infallible Gods (often the way with cult shows such as Buffy).
Joss did develop close links with the gay community and make promises to them. To hear him say he had no idea what the impact to the community would be and he had no knowledge of a lesbian cliche is being seen as the final insult as other writers (Doug Petrie for one) have acknowledged the cliche, assured fans ME are aware of it and plan to avoid it. This was of course prior to Tara's death.
Jane Espenson and David Fury have avoided the harsh criticisim experienced by other writers precisely because they were tactful in their interviews and Jane in particular expressed sorrow for the pain some viewers were experiencing. The writer of the episode Steven DeKnight was not personally attacked or seen as a villian until he took a callous attitude towards the fans who had become emotionally invested in his work. Again Joss and Marti have made some very tactless remarks which really aren't helping their cause. The fans feelings should have been taken into account more.
At this point both sides of the debate need to take a deep breath and ignore all the bad feeling that has been generated and concentrate on the reak issue, whether or not the cliche was used. Unfortunately human beings will not be willing to put aside the mocking they felt they recieved from writers and the fans who were encouraged by the writers to treat them and their issue as a joke.
I really don't see either side winning back the trust or putting aside the bad feeling at this point. Fair enough to Joss trying to win back fans, but they are fans he has already lost. He just needs to try and forget the whole mess at this point and move on with the show. Certain individuals will never put aside their pain and anger with him for killing Tara. He is not going to win them over at this point, he had a chance in his handling of fans directly after the airing of SR and he blew it basically.

[> [> Re: Joss quote from Wanda today -- Miss Edith, 18:27:01 07/29/02 Mon

I do sympathise with Joss and his clear bewilderment over the bad feeling towards ME. I really do feel at this point from the people critisicing Joss it is more a case of feeling personally betrayed, rather than the lesbian cliche being invoked. Obviously both are factors but the anger has gone on for so long precicely because ME were not prepered for it and didn't know how to handle fans challenging their work who had previously seen them as infallible Gods (often the way with cult shows such as Buffy).
Joss did develop close links with the gay community and make promises to them. To hear him say he had no idea what the impact to the community would be and he had no knowledge of a lesbian cliche is being seen as the final insult as other writers (Doug Petrie for one) have acknowledged the cliche, assured fans ME are aware of it and plan to avoid it. This was of course prior to Tara's death.
Jane Espenson and David Fury have avoided the harsh criticisim experienced by other writers precisely because they were tactful in their interviews and Jane in particular expressed sorrow for the pain some viewers were experiencing. The writer of the episode Steven DeKnight was not personally attacked or seen as a villian until he took a callous attitude towards the fans who had become emotionally invested in his work. Again Joss and Marti have made some very tactless remarks which really aren't helping their cause. The fans feelings should have been taken into account more.
At this point both sides of the debate need to take a deep breath and ignore all the bad feeling that has been generated and concentrate on the real issue, whether or not the cliche was used. Unfortunately human beings will not be willing to put aside the mocking they felt they recieved from writers and the fans who were encouraged by the writers to treat them and their issue as a joke.
I really don't see either side winning back the trust or putting aside the bad feeling at this point. Fair enough to Joss trying to win back fans, but they are fans he has already lost. He just needs to try and forget the whole mess at this point and move on with the show. Certain individuals will never put aside their pain and anger with him for killing Tara. He is not going to win them over at this point, he had a chance in his handling of fans directly after the airing of SR and he blew it basically.

[> [> OT Rufus PLEASE email me, thanks -- EMCEE, 18:51:05 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> If you were Joss what would you have done... -- shadowkat, 09:24:49 07/30/02 Tue

I wasn't going to go here because I think this topic truly has been thrashed to death and nothing appears to be resolved.

But into the fray I go with a question no one seems to have answered:

Imagine you have a created a television fantasy series.
Or Joss Whedon if you will. You have created a character in which you want to explore the dark side of rejection, pain, addiction, vengeance, etc through. At the end The second season of your show, you decided to explore this character, Willow's insecurities and how these insecurities can become really really dark. You decided that this story could be a four season arc - coming to fruitation in the final part of the 6 season, assuming you go that far. It's a risky story, highly challenging, but you have an amazing actress and the perfect venue to do it. What you are most interested in as a writer is the characters internal insecurities. Willow has had problems in love department. Struggles with how people view her. You're interested in those struggles. And you want to take the character to the darkest place you know.

The best way to do that is to rip from her - her true love. Someone who makes her feel wonderful. Someone she met through magic. Someone who makes her feel accepted. You intended on this "true love" being OZ - even set it up that way. But oops, the actor wanted out way too early for the storyline to work. You need at least another year to build it up. And you can't do it in Season 5 - you have other plans for that year. It has to be Season 6. So you decide, okay, I'll create another character, less central to the show, not contracted like OZ was, but lovable and go from there. A character that can die like Jenny Calendar died.
You know you have to kill this character, you planned on killing them the moment OZ left - this is inevitable in your mind.

What do you do? How do you avoid offending people you like?
Should you worry about offending those people? Should you let their opinions and concerns affect how you tell your story, affect your art?

Would it have been better for Joss Whedon to never have created the character of Tara? Would it have been better if the character who was killed was Xander? Or OZ? (Would have screwed up the male dominance theme he discovered with the Tara character...maybe another theme would have surfaced?) How should ME have gotten around it?

And most important - what should they do now to make up for it? What would resolve this issue? Bring Tara back?

Would it have been better if they never had a W/T romance to begin with? OR should they have done the romance after Willow lost her one true love? Maybe kept Tara as just Willow's magically inclined friend as they originally intended before OZ left. Maybe if OZ stayed - Tara could have been the romance after OZ died - would that have been better? Would it have been better if Whedon ignored the awards and honors and fanfare and said - I can't accept any of this? Could he have done that without giving away his story?

I ask these questions because as a writer - I'm wondering if we should avoid certain situations. Should we avoid offending people? It's a handicap to writing.

Mark Twain offended tons of people with his stories. Huckleberry Finn has the distinction of being banned by
the upstanding white citizens of certain communities in the early 50's and 60's and years later - being banned by upstanding black citzens. Both claiming how it furthers certain rephrensible images of african americans.

James Joyce's Ulysess was banned in US for it's language and sexual explicitness. I think Molly Bloom's menstruation at the end of the book and Leopold's discussion of clap got to people.

The Last Temptation of Christ - was protested against and banned because of how it portrayed the Story of Christ in a negative light. No theatre would show it in Colorado Springs at the time of it's release. I ended up seeing it in a Unitarian Church with protesters out front. Should Martin Scorscese have directed it?

What is the resolution to the cliche? Is it to avoid writing about it all together if you can't do it justice?
Is it to cater to it, and not go a certain route, even if they destroys your pre-planned arc? Or could they have just changed a few things?

And if you do misstep, accidently portray something in a way that offends a minority or group of people in a horrible way? What do you do about it?

[> [> [> Oops didn't read Doc's comments before wrote this - - shadowkat, 09:31:58 07/30/02 Tue

Do agree with Doc...they could have lessened the impact:
if they 1. Didn't do it in the bedroom
2. Didn't lie when asked up front about it
3. Didn't toss it aside after the fact.

They would have been much better off if they didn't do interviews with reporters. I think they learned their lesson, haven't seen any interviews except Joss's since it all blew up.

[> [> [> Re: If you were Joss what would you have done... -- Miss Edith, 11:44:33 07/30/02 Tue

If Willow's story had been developed over season 6 as she struggled with power and Tara had died during that story I honestly don't think the protests would have been as great.
What is insulting people is that all season we were sat watching Willow dry out from her magic addiction. Tara was killed off for a 3 episode plot arc. The true Willow was gone after absorbing the black magic. The writer David Fury has said in an interview when questioned over Willow's culpability that it was the black magic, and Willow was possessed so we cannot say it was the true Willow. I would argue this was reflected on-screen. We saw a drastically different Willow with black hair and veins on her face. She was almost a disney cartoon villian with her appearance showing she was evil.
With no prior suggestion she was trying to kill Dawn because Dawn's whining was irritating. She challenged Buffy to a duel and attempted to kill Giles. She used language like "I am so juiced", "Buckle up Ripper cause I've turned pro", "Get off me superbitch". All of this was suggested that we were not waching subtle character development. We were watching Willow entertain the audience for 3 episodes by behaving as outrageously as possible.
People are angry because they don't think seeing evil Willow falling off the wagon for 3 episodes was worth the destruction of W/T a beautiful relationship in which so much could have been done. A common critisicsm of the plot arc is "what a waste" or "they killed Tara for that?".
Joss does have a right to tell his story any way he wants. But if people think that social progression was happening on his show they will not be thrilled at the only lesbian couple on US tv being destroyed for a 3 episode plot. JMHO.

[> [> [> [> Re: If you were Joss what would you have done... -- Miss Edith, 13:19:37 07/30/02 Tue

Just wanted to add it is not just Tara being killed so we could have dark phoneix Willow. It's the fact that her death as treated so lightly. We all remember the episodes dealing with Joyce's death and the impact it had. Tara's death was not mourned appropriately in many viewers eyes. Giles off- handedly telling Willow he is sorry about Tara 5 minutes after discussing haircuts and laughing shortly after this is considered insulting by many. Tara being dragged out in a bodybag and scarcely mourned is considered insulting. The words "treated like yesterdays trash" are often heard. Tara's death being treated as an after-thought and Amber's character being called a plot device in interviews with the writers is not appreciated. There really is a lot of anger unrelated to the fact that Joss wanted to kill off a lesbian character. It was the way he did it. I can imagine the fuss that Spike fans (of which I am one) would make if when Riley had staked him in ITW he had died in such a casual way. People want more than that. They want deaths to have meaning. Tara did not necesserily need to die heroicly as Joyce's death was still poignant without that. But viewers weren't able to grieve for Tara. Her death was barely mentioned in the final and her importance was not played up enough in many viewers eyes. They see it as a waste regardless of Joss talking about needing to kill Tara in order to produce a good story. A lot of people weren't happy with the fanboy catfights that resulted with Willow. They wanted a worthy example of Tara's legacy.
And Joss's recent comments such as the following are very offensive to viewers who believe W/T were soulmates: "Marti and I...debated about whether or not Willow was bisexual, experimenting, going back and forth". He goes on to say "we would have played a grey area in terms of sexuality had their not been such an outcry over Tara"(not exact quote there, just summorising). The repeated declaration of Willow's sexuality by the writers, not the fans, the death of Tara driving her lover to death and insanity and the word experimenting is now being used by Joss. He really needs to stop with the insensitive remarks as his recent interview with Wanda that I quoted from has got the Kittens even more riled up as he is blaming them for Willow being gay because of their "knee-jerk reaction" and he used the word "experimenting" which the Kittens have been arguing against when other viewers want to see Willow and Xander together. Joss made Willow gay and real life people are accused of experimenting when defining themselves as gay. Therefore Joss is causing outrage in that area as well. It was his choice not to make Willow bisexual and he should not blame the fans for him feeling pressured to stand by that decision. On the cross and stake board more than one person has accused the pc brigade of forcing Joss to keep Willow gay and unavailable to Xander.
Joss made promises. He said W/T were the most important thing he had ever done and he valued the letters thanking him from gay youth saying just one letter from them was worth 600 hate letters. He is now saying he never gave two hoots about issues one way or the other. Seriously he really needs to stop putting his foot in his mouth. He mocked fans anger by saying "being gay is so passe, we're over that". He saw it as a cute, flippant comment but people have taken it badly and it is constantly being reposted by outraged fans. Joss going on to deny knowledge of how unique and important W/T is also angering the people who gave him awards and wrote him letters based on W/Ts relationshiop.
Steven DeKnight responded to upset fans by jokingly accusing "the lesbians" of causing technical faults on the radio that was intervewing him and made remarks about Joss killing Tara because he was a christian. Even the interviewers were begging him to not add fuel to the fire.
There is a lot more anger unrelated to Joss killing the lesbian. It is also the way it was handled that did offend a lot of people. Keeping fans hope up and securing their loyalty by blatently lying to them and then treating their requests for answers as a joke has all contributed to the general mood. It would be a lot easier if the issue was just about if Joss had used the lesbian cliche. But the fact is certain fans are outraged about a whole lot more than that.

[> [> [> [> [> Mourning and Buffy -- Dochawk, 14:22:28 07/30/02 Tue

I am still bewildered at the final scene (spike notwithstanding). for the past 36 hours Buffy has been running on high emotion, she didn't have time to mourn. But the last scene? "I want to see my friends happy"? Smiles and giggles with Dawn? After her epiphany Buffy ought to be devestated. Her best friend is nowhere near "happy", she has crossed a devestating line, killing a human. Her next closest female friend has just been killed in a murder attempt aimed at her. Yes Giles and Dawn provide some positive reinforcement, but Buffy ought to at least be concerned that one of her best friends was just killed. It is this poorly done scene that makes me rank Grave as the worst season ender in Buffy's history (up until this scene I loved the episode). And it is this scene that hurts so many other people because it ignores an awful lot of pain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Miss Edith, 16:29:11 07/30/02 Tue

It is not just the final either. Buffy barely reacted when being told of Tara's death. She didn't have time to break down fair enough. But she didn't spare one tear for Tara despite of the friendship between the two being given emphasis this season. Buffy was more concerned about lecturing others on giving in to vengence. Fans wanted to see some sign of grief or mourning at losing such a major character. Joss said the most important part of the final was Giles laughing at recent events. The fans of W/T are not loving that.
And I agree the final scene with Buffy telling Dawn "I want to show you the world, god there's so much I want to show you" and then taking her on a tour of Sunnydale was beyond cheezy. Along with many other fans I laughed at the spoiler that the season would end with Buffy emerging from a hole in the ground into a world full fo flowers as lacking the touch of irony I have always enjoyed in Bts. Not to mention subtlty. Can't say I was too impressed with how the season ended.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- MaeveRigan, 06:37:29 07/31/02 Wed

Fans whined all season that Buffy was "mourning" too much. "When is Buffy going to get her stuff together?" Apparently, in TtG/Grave, but nooooo--now we're going to whine that Buffy *should* be mourning. It's a 1-2 hour show; they can't show everything Buffy feels in the allotted time, along with the rest of the plotlines. To say "Buffy doesn't mourn Tara's death" is the same kind of childish reaction Dawn had when she saw Buffy working, organizing things, rather than crying, in the aftermath of their mother's death.

Also, yes, Tara was dead, but also, Willow was trying to kill several other people that Buffy loved *and* destroy the entire world. Is Buffy supposed to just let that happen while she sits down and mourns for Tara? Isn't it more fitting to try to stop Willow? Are we so sure that "lecturing others on giving in to vengeance]" isn't a way of mourning? And afterwards, isn't she allowed even a moment of relief, to acknowledge some "dawning"? (sorry about the pun).

As one who's experienced a death in my family recently, I can say that just because someone you loves dies, you don't immediately cease feeling every emotion except sorrow, loss and pain. Even while you're aware of the beloved's absence and the feelings of sadness, you can still laugh and feel joy about other things.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Miss Edith, 09:42:50 07/31/02 Wed

I never said Buffy should have sat down and mourned for Tara whilst Willow was destroying the world. I said that instead of giving speeches it would have been nice for Buffy to take a moment and look sad. If you read my post you will see I said Buffy didn't have time to express grief as so much was going on at the time. But she didn't even look on the verge of crying when Willow told her what had happened. Of course Buffy can still laugh and feel joy. But she and Tara had grown really close in season 6 after Buffy confesed she was sleeping with Spike. So I found her utter lack of reaction a bit cold. And it was just an opinion, there is no need to be rude and accuse others of "whining" and being "childish". I think that was uncalled for.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:35:15 07/31/02 Wed

When Buffy did look happy near the end, she was running on "the world's still here, we didn't die relief". I think that reaction was perfectly acceptable.

I think Buffy would have mourned Tara, except that Willow was not only on a destructive rampage, but a self- destructive one. Buffy's concern that Willow would end up emotionally and maybe physically destroying herself took dominance in her actions.

However, all of this is just my opinion. Really it comes down to whether the writing and direction for the end of season arc was up to par, which is a point that cannot really be argued or agreed upon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Newbie post -- HonorH, 22:01:14 07/31/02 Wed

Hope this post isn't a repeat. This board (and my 'Net provider) is being difficult.

I have to disagree, which is probably a bad thing to do in one's newbie post, but here goes (deep breath):

Re-watch the scene in "Villains" when Willow tells Buffy and Xander that Tara's dead. Buffy looks shocked and grieved. She says something to the effect of, "Oh, my God--Tara." Then she turns her attention straight back to Willow, who, after all, is the one going off her nut. Buffy's voice cracks as she says that they love Willow *and* Tara, and, "I don't understand . . . anything."

Later, at the house, Buffy looks sad and troubled when she sees Tara's body, and again, her voice cracks as she talks to Dawn. Downstairs, as Tara's body is being taken away, Buffy is slumped over, tired and defeated. That's not "My friend's on a rampage" posture; that's "My friend just got taken out of here in a body bag because of a bullet that was meant for me" posture. She has to talk Xander and Dawn down and then chase down Willow afterward, which doesn't leave much time for mourning, but I think the "looking sad" requirement is definitely there. Buffy's not one to burst into tears, but that doesn't mean she reacted "coldly" to Tara's death. Besides, that's not the Buffy we know.

Furthermore, the story's not over yet. My guess is the fallout from Tara's death will be all over next season. If I'm wrong, you can say, "I told you so!" But I think we're both hoping I'm not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome!! And, good post! -- Rahael, 02:15:33 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> welcome, honor h -- aliera, 04:33:46 08/01/02 Thu

Thank you, a good post, newbie or not. I especially like your take on Buffy's body languange.

May I ask about your name? Mine comes from a favorite character in the Steven Brust Dragaera series; is yours based on Honor Harrington?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: welcome, honor h -- HonorH, 07:12:55 08/01/02 Thu

'Tis indeed! Love that woman. I wanna be her when I grow up.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post agree -- shadowkat, 06:09:53 08/01/02 Thu

And will add to your eloquently put comments above:

In the shooting script - Buffy is mentioned as being on the point of tears twice. First when Willow tells her Tara was killed. And the second time when she discovers Spike's gone.

Have to remember something about Buffy - the two people she confided in regarding her pain and the fact she came back wrong were Spike and Tara. As unhealthy as it may have seemed - Spike was her sole support for a while. When that got out of control - she turned to Tara who not only comforted her, but also was the only one who did not judge her. Tara in some ways played the role of Joyce in Dawn and Buffy's life. (Actually Spike and Tara felt like psuedo replacements for Hank and Joyce this year...as did Xander and Willow at times...but perhaps I'm feeling something that isn't there.)

I felt Buffy containing her grief. You are right - how do you handle a friend going off the rails? They lost Tara but Buffy was terrified of losing Willow as well. Then she's worried about the world ending because of her best friend.
Way too much trauma to handle.

And you're also right about it being far from over. I think we'll see fallout from Seeing Red - Grave in the first five episodes of next season. Just as we saw the fallout being handled from Season 2's Becoming in Season 3's Ann - Revelations, and the fallout from Prophecy Girl handled in When She was Bad - School Hard. The story is far from over.

Great post. Thanks and welcome.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- MaeveRigan, 06:37:34 08/01/02 Thu

You said what I wanted to say more eloquently and with more textual evidence. I'm sorry anyone took my comments personally. I confess that I sometimes over-identify with Buffy's self-containment too much and tend to get defensive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't know -- Sang, 15:24:40 07/31/02 Wed

I don't know that Buffy ever can mourn for a death. If I am in Buffy's position, it may would takes several decades. For one who was dead and in heaven, and one who torn out of there and was longing for going back there, death is not an ending of life, it is actually a return to home. Buffy mourned all season, not because she was dead but because she was not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting point, well stated. But.. -- redcat, 15:53:55 07/31/02 Wed

I think of mourning as being more about the person who survives than the one who has passed. Buffy could have a very "enlightened" (pun intended) view of consciousness after physical death and still mourn the loss of Tara in her own life, as a friend, as a confidante and as the partner of her best friend. I also think this fits in quite well with the idea that Willow's own grief over Tara's death was so personally-oriented. She left Tara's body but went out to commit her own vengence. Mourning and grief, even rage over death, often have a component of being afraid for the fate of the one who has died, particularly in cultures that have distinct ideas about heaven and hell, but I suspect that in most cultures, and in most humans, the main function of mourning, either as an emotional state or in terms of culturally-codified behavior, is as an aid for the living.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: well said, cultral behavior about death. -- Sang, 20:37:23 07/31/02 Wed

That is quite interesting point. The attitude to the death depends on cultural background. In Japan, people taught to refrain sorrow from loved one's death in public. Some one may remember that when the great earthquake took away lots of life in Hansin sometimes ago, western reporters are shocked that no survivors crying for their lost families. I asked a Japanese professor about that and the answer was. "You cannot cry in front of others, especially in front of the camera. It is too embarrassing."

On the ohter hand, in Korea, you must cry on that kind of tragedy. Otherwise, people think you didn't love the late one. Also interesting thing about Korean furneral is that, traditionally, people had a big village party at the house of deceased. In some area, they brought comedians and musicians and singing and dancing all night. Even grave workers singing and dancing over the new grave when they finish their job. We are told that this is to solace the dead soul. Actually all these are for survivors.

One thing I noticed about Buffy is (and I think someone already pointed out before) that she never express her emotion. Only times she broke out her emotion were, when she heard her own voice called Joyce "body" and Dawn accused her that she didn't mourn for her own mother. I would think it strange if she showed quite a emotion on Tara's death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> disagree on Buffy's lack of emotion -- shadowkat, 06:46:57 08/01/02 Thu

"One thing I noticed about Buffy is (and I think someone already pointed out before) that she never express her emotion. Only times she broke out her emotion were, when she heard her own voice called Joyce "body" and Dawn accused her that she didn't mourn for her own mother. I would think it strange if she showed quite a emotion on Tara's death."

Not sure this is true. She's not a venter - that is true.
She doesn't emote to her friends. And does hide it. PArtly due to the fact that she's had to hide her slaying duties and other secrets all her life.

But I've actually seen Buffy show more out and out emotion than any of the other characters on both shows.

Examples: Amends - sEason 3 - on the Cliff above Sunnydale while Angel is about to commit suicide, Buffy is wracked with tears. She's so upset, she is crying on her knees in front of him

When She Was Bad - she is furious, rude to her friends,
and pounds the vampires. HEr rage is quite apparent.

Surprise - breaks down with tears again when Angel is about to leave town

Innocence - is so overwhelmed with emotion after seeing Angel almost bite Willow, she is sitting on the ground next to the wall. It's almost redundant when her friends ask if she is okay. Obviously not.

When Spike finds her on the back porch in FFL - she is sobbing.

In I Will Always Remember You - again sobbing when Angel says he's going to turn back time.

In Dead Things - she's in tears as she's beating up Spike and horrified by her actions.

Actually I saw more emotion on Buffy's face in Villains than Xanders. Her emotion in Normal Again when she was in the hospital was very visible.

When I rewatch the epsiodes...and actually count the emoting of each character - Buffy seems to break down and cry more than the others do. She tries to hold it together, but I felt her grief. She's crying in Grave. And she is on the point of tears in Villains. And is certainly crying when Xander finds her in Seeing Red.

So...I've changed my mind on this one. I know in past essays and posts I said she was more stoic and unemotional. Nope the episodes prove me wrong. She is very emotional.
HEr emotions prove to be her strength and her flaw. IT's her emotions that lead her into dangerous relationships with two vampires. If she was less emotional...that probably wouldn't have happened. Who knows?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed! Her emotions are her rocket launcher! -- Rahael, 06:54:24 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree that she is emotional -- Sang, 16:34:20 08/01/02 Thu

I should change my statment. Yes, she is very emotional. I guess she just doesn't want show her grief to others. I think that is her charactor. Since she has explosive emotion, it would require greater strength to hide her sorrow to others.

It reminds me S3 'Beauty and Beast'. She was so calm when she told to her friends about killing angel in previous ep, but when she visited the counselor (she didn't know he was dead) she burst into tears. She couldn't show her weakness to family or friends.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Akita, 05:45:41 08/02/02 Fri

Dochawk wrote: "I am still bewildered at the final scene (spike notwithstanding). for the past 36 hours Buffy has been running on high emotion,she didn't have time to mourn. But the last scene? "I want to see my friends happy"? Smiles and giggles with Dawn? After her epiphany Buffy ought to be devestated."

Moreover, at that point she has no way of knowing if any of those friends she wants to see happy are even still alive. She only knows that Willow stopped or was stopped. She doesn't know if she is still alive. She has no idea where Xander is, or what happened to him. The last she heard from Anya, Giles was dying. And Tara is most definitely dead. So, yes, in that context her little "epiphany" rings a bit false.

"It is this poorly done scene that makes me rank Grave as the worst season ender in Buffy's history (up until this scene I loved the episode). And it is this scene that hurts so many other people because it ignores an awful lot of pain."

Well, I had other problems with the episode as well (and, of course, much of the season). My concern with this scene is its implication that next season much of that pain and many of the deep character flaws exposed in the human characters this season will be glossed over.

[> [> Re: But Wanda got it right. -- Sang, 22:04:08 07/30/02 Tue

After Joss's comment, Wanda made a great point.

"As far as the larger issue, I'd just like to say this: Tara's death was a tragedy. And Joss should take responsibility. But the greater tragedy is that she and Willow were the only positive lesbian role models for young women on television. And that's not Joss' fault."

I understand that many people upset and express their feeling about Tara's death. But I cannot understand why people try so hard to make a logic out of their angry comments.

[> [> [> Artistic Integrity -- Rahael, 05:59:34 07/31/02 Wed

Thanks for quoting that comment Sang - I agree too, that Wanda got it right.

We have had two divergent opinions here - one side arguing about the responsibility the artist owes to his audience, and the other side talking of the need to privilege the story, the narrative.

I think in my view, both opinions can be reconciled by this very important consideration - the duty the artist owes to his own artistic integrity. To follow the narrative, but also, to ensure that his ingerity as a human being, a member of society and and as an artist are not conflicting, but intimately linked. An artist does not speak in a vacuum. The narrative does not exist by itself. It exists as a dynamic dialogue with its audience. The needs of the narrative, and the true needs of the society it arises in should match up. Because the narrative is not free standing - it gains its power from the dialogue.

Thus, artists have a duty to not sell themselves out, and this includes not being irresponsible, as well as telling the story they want to tell.

[> [> [> [> yep - agree what I tried to say above -- shadowkat, 08:11:34 07/31/02 Wed

"artists have a duty to not sell themselves out, and this includes not being irresponsible, as well as telling the story they want to tell."

Something that is becoming increasingly difficult in our information obsessed mass media world.

When you pitch a story for a tv show or movie - it's a bit different than a book. You need network approval. Advertisers have to agree to it. It has to be marketable.
It's not quite like writing a book or a fanfic in the safety of your own home and praying it gets published.
In the wonderful world of television - or from what I've heard via interviews, books and documentaries on the topic - the approval process is not immediate.

Example: Buffy won't be working at DMP next year not b/c ME doesn't like the idea. But because their advertisers hate it. Don't make fun of our products - or we will won't place ads near your show.

Did Shakespeare have these problems? Probably. He certainly was careful to avoid the Elizabethan era when he did his plays.

It's very thin line we artists walk. I know when I was writing my novel (which may never see light of day ;-) )
I wondered if i was crossing that line when I did a homerotic relationship. Would I offend? I hope not. Was it important to the characters and book? Yes. Truth is you can't write a line if you worry about offending people, it's inevitable. When I wrote my essays - I think about it as well, I avoided certain topics such as "love themes" due to fears of offending people, of crossing a line. My essay on Willow and Spike and Heart of Darkness got all sorts of angry responses from people who could not believe I'd compare Willow to Kurtz. Or when I mentioned that Spike might be a sociopath - boy the responses I got. Or the Tara and Spike comparison - about Domestic Violence. Even now, writing this post...I find myself wondering if I chose my words carefully enough.

HAving read all the posts on this board regarding the topic - I think Rah is right about what the two opposing views really are.

"We have had two divergent opinions here - one side arguing about the responsibility the artist owes to his audience, and the other side talking of the need to privilege the story, the narrative."

"I" don't think (don't mean to be putting words in your mouth Rah) its about whether or not there was a lesbian cliche, whether or not homosexuals/lesbians are accurately portrayed on television or whether we all miss Tara - I think everyone on this board is in agreement on these points. We all miss Tara. Homosexuals/lesbians are portrayed horribly in media. Yes there is a horrible cliche.

What we disagree on - is ME's role in all of this and if they were true to their story, their characters, and themes. Did they successfully communicate these themes to their audience? (And I'd argue we've had this same exact debate over Spike. Over Xander. And others.) Did they live up to their responsibility to their audience?

I'm on the fence on this one. My initial reaction? YEs they were true to their story and themes. It totally worked for me. I loved DarkWillow. Everything fell into place. After reading the posts on the board? Not so sure. I keep changing my mind. People have brought up things that never occurred to me. IS The fact that they didn't occur to me make them invalid? Of course not. Make me ignorant? I hope not.

I believe ME sucessfully communicated the message they wished to convey. (We all agree they communicated it, we disagree on whether it was sucessful and on the manner they chose to do it.) I also believe they successfully conveyed several complex themes in a controversial manner. (The most controversial manner I've ever seen portrayed on TV.) Without hitting me over the head with them. These themes were about sexual addiction and how it can lead to violence and be self-destructive, addiction itself, insecurity, responsibility, random acts of violence, male dominance and male violence, vengeance, depression...and rejection. How we handle it. How it effects us. And I've seen numerous posts showing how well ME conveyed these themes on this board - so I think everyone agrees that ME conveyed these themes, we disagree on the manner they chose to do it.

Again on the fence here. I agree with Rah's statement -

"the duty the artist owes to his own artistic integrity. To follow the narrative, but also, to ensure that his ingerity as a human being, a member of society and and as an artist are not conflicting, but intimately linked. An artist does not speak in a vacuum. The narrative does not exist by itself. It exists as a dynamic dialogue with its audience. The needs of the narrative, and the true needs of the society it arises in should match up. Because the narrative is not free standing - it gains its power from the dialogue."

What I'm not sure about is if it is possible for any artist to truly accomplish this without pissing someone off or letting some group or group of people down? Whedon pissed numerous fans off, including the network just by doing Willow/Tara. Should he have backed off? Whedon pissed people
off when he killed off Trick and Forrest and his portrayle of Forrest. Should he not have done this? Would ME have been better off if they had Tara die in say Tabula Rasa? OR
had Glory kill her off last year? OR just have her leave town like OZ did? Would the scene have held more artistic integrity if they did it in the coffee house? Or if we saw Buffy mourning Tara and had a funeral before we got the whole vengeance storyline going? I don't know the answers to these questions...sort of playing Socrates at the moment.

The best literature and best tv in my opinion is often the ones that make me the angriest or saddest or most thrilled.
I like to be challenged.

Did ME live up to my expectations for challenge, yes.
Do I think they could have handled Tara and Willow differently or in a better way? I don't know. Maybe having more W/T sex scenes earlier in the year would have helped.
Maybe having Tara shot somewhere besides their bedroom after sex would have helped.

What I hope and pray is that the up-roar over this does not scare networks and mass media people from doing any other lesbian storylines in the future.

[> [> [> [> [> Needs, wants and Shakespeare -- Rahael, 08:43:21 07/31/02 Wed

I think Shakespeare had quite a different view of the place of artists in society than we do. Yes, it is true, that in the Renaissance, leading artists like Leonardo da Vinci saw themselves as a visionary, their role as a 'creator' as being animated by a kind of divine gift/power/fire. Hence that iconic image of God and Adam's hands touching in the act of creation. Like the artist's brush touching canvas, creates new life.

But this is a novel view. Most painters and sculptors of that time just did the job they were given. They did not see themselves in the mold of 'artist-genius'. Nor did they set out a special place in society for the artist. Shakespeare saw himself as a jobbing actor/playwright. He wrote plays to entertain, and to make money. What's the evidence that he didn't conceive of himself as some kind of culturally significant figure? Well, that view was not widespread at that time. And, most importantly, Shakespeare did not keep a master copy of his plays. Everything we have know are transcripts taken down by spectators.

And yes, Shakespeare did get into trouble with the Government. There is the famous incident of 'Richard II', which was acted in front of the Earl of Essex directly before he went off to perform his feeble little rebellion against Queen Elizabeth (I've no great patience for the incompetent!). Elizabeth was alarmed. She is said to have remarked, referring to 'Richard II' - "that's me!" Okay, perhaps not quite those words.

At some point in the 1590s, the Monarchy decided to forbid any discussion in public of matters of state. This affected English history plays. This is probably why Shakespeare stopped his cycle of English history plays and moved on to the Roman ones. But to correct you, Shakespeare did co-write Henry VIII - that's pretty close to the bone for Elizabeth.

But yes, history plays were dangerous, and Shakespeare sailed very close to the wind. Let's not forget that other playwrights ended up in prison (my mind is going blank on me - I can't remember whether it was Marlowe or Jonson).

(Elizabeth's successor, James I & VI was far more tolerant of critical plays. Ironic, considering his adherence to divine right theories)

But by the middle of the next century, we see Milton conceiving of himself as a Seer to the nation, guided by God, which is probably the confluence of the dramatic political events he lived through, and the drip drip effect of the Renaissance conception of the Artist percolating through.

You paraphrased my thoughts correctly. I'd say that maintaining your artistic integrity means both that you give the audience 'what they need' as well as guarding against being exploitative, crude, lazy and unthinking. No one, I think is saying that ME shouldn't pursue storylines they think are important. What people are complaining about is that due care was not given to make sure that they put that message across sensitively, or properly. For what artistic message is ever damaged by too much nuance, sensitivity and thought?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Needs, wants and Shakespeare -- shadowkat, 09:31:41 07/31/02 Wed

"What people are complaining about is that due care was not given to make sure that they put that message across sensitively, or properly. For what artistic message is ever damaged by too much nuance, sensitivity and thought?"

Very good point. And so hard to do. Harder than one might think. I'm not sure, but I think we all, including ME, agree that they probably should have dealt with this topic more sensitively.

Just finished reading Wanda's chat on www.slayage.com and
discovered that Joss and Marti had discussed making Willow bi-sexual and flipping her the other way, but nixed it and decided they had to keep her gay. That to do otherwise after Tara's death would be too insensitive. If Tara had left like Riley had, it wouldn't be an issue. This shows that they may have learned something.

Joss is actually quite a bit like Shakespeare - not an issue guy. More interested in telling the story or narrative. Agree on Shakespeare. Of his contempories - he really saw himself as just a hack - the modern day equivalent of Stephen King or John Grisham. He didn't want to educate so much as to entertain. And picked whatever topic he thought would do it. Some happened to be historical. I think he, like most writers, was interested in entertaining himself. Though it is hard to know this for sure - since everything we have on him is through another source. In fact for a while people insisted Shakespear didn't write his plays, Marlow did. LOL!

I think it was Johnson who got thrown in prison over it. Can't remember...so long ago that I studied all this. MArlow may have gotten thrown into debtors prison. HE had financial problems I think. Marlow wrote some brillant plays
Jew of Malta was one. I think it was a little more controversial than MErchant of Venice, but having never read MErchant of Venice not sure. Did get to see Jew of Malta at Stratford on Avon...back in the 1980s. Still remember the image of the lead character on stage mooning over a slave/servant girl. Downtrodden. But for the life of me can't remember anything else. Odd the images that stay with us.

Okay I had a point - what was it? Ah yes...being sensitive in how we portray something as artists. I think pretty much everyone on the board agrees that ME should have handled this situation with a greater amount of sensitivity. Actually I can think of at least one other situation I wish they'd handled with more sensitivity, but we've already thrashed that horse to death.

Its hard to do and still be true to material. Sometimes I actually like it when they aren't - seems more risky and surprising. But shocking just to shock - can get old fast. Howard Stern, what's his name - the guy who did all the horrible jokes and had his own series and was hated?, etc - have made livings doing this and become grating after a while. So would ME's story have been as strong if they'd been more sensitive, yes, I think so. And it didn't really require much. But then I don't know what the network was willing to allow in terms of sexual situations. Television is a weird world. We can show violent sex scenes, torture, rape, but not show two women making love repeatedly? Now that I find shocking and tragic. I do think if they'd shown more of Tara and Willow loving one another prior to SR, this may have lessened some of offending pain yet kept intact the impact and message of Tara's death. IF anything the resulting story would have been much stronger. I also think if they had shot Tara on the street or in the coffee shop as originally intended the episode would have been just as strong.
Small choices. It's amazing how a small detail in a script like location or wardrobe or what the action was prior to the scene can affect everything.

Okay..I think I'm rambling away from my point again. ;-)
In this case - I think ME could have done the Willow story with a great deal more sensitivity to the topic than they chose. They could have done this and still been true to their narrative arc. All that was needed was a few more sex scenes between W/T earlier in the year. Killing Tara somewhere other than the bedroom and certainly not right after sex. If they wanted the bedroom? Fine. They could have done it while they were studying or something. The coffee house probably was a better choice. And maybe actually have a funeral somewhere in there. I agree on those points as presented by other posters..

But what's done is done. Can't change it. Can't revoke it.
So I guess all we can do is see where they lead us next and if they do it with a little more sensitivity than before.
My guess is they will from all the i