AOQ Review 5-20: "Spiral"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
(or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
Writer: Steven DeKnight
Director: James A. Contner
Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
it), things start out great. Willow kicks things into high gear on the
magic front, looking simultaneously lovable and badass while throwing
gods around. But it turns out her powers only work for making barriers
in specific fixed situations. Then despite Buffy's speed and quick
reactions, she can't outrun a god forever. But she's defiant, if
fearful, to the end when staring down Glory, and her delivery on
"just one. Truck" is a good vintage gag (they're classics for a
reason). Even the transformation into Ben makes for a good surreal
moment. Strong teaser all around.
That being said, though, I may have to roll my eyes and frown
disapprovingly if everyone at UC[Sun]D, and particularly the driver,
remains blissfully unaware (or unwilling to accept) that there's a
big supernatural world out there.
After that, our hero decides that it's time to take everyone on a
road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
people. It's strange to see from the hero of the show, and, unlike
during the aforementioned episode, I can't quite get it to work for
me. I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
like Buffy.
I will say that I can understand from a dramatic shape-of-the-season
perspective why Joyce's death happens when it does. The
circumstances have to be just wrong if the show is going to do this to
the character, so it's more likely to work now than it would have at
any other point in the series.
It's not just Buffy who doesn't feel like herself - it's BTVS
as a whole. Quite simply, I'm not engaged. The last couple episodes
haven't felt like the series I fell in love with, they've felt
like, well, some action show. It was surprising to see myself close to
Dorothy Heydt's Eight Deadly Words. Part of it is that Glory and her
man-nurse don't much interest me, but this program's always been
about the heroes anyway. I don't know where the life is - it's
not like there's no effort being made, as the characters go through
the motions of emotion and Buffyverse banter (a few successful attempts
too, like about half of the Anya gags, and the stuff below in the
TIRSBILA sections). For the most part, though, they look like the
group I liked so much, but they're so colorless and serious in a
bland way about everything, getting scared by the crises and nodding at
the mystical exposition. Buffy's "we are not your enemy!" speech
in particular is the kind of cheesily impassioned platitude that
could've easily come out of a much more generic heroes-n'-villains
show.
I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
pace with a motor vehicle. I still think the Knights are way too goofy
to be taken seriously, especially since they don't have any special
powers other than the ability of a Renaissance fair cult to draw so
many members. The anachronistic enemies shouldn't be used for more
than one episode at a time, I think. Mrs. Quality cites them as the
main thing dragging down this episode - I'd be more likely to call
them a symptom rather than a cause. Oh, and the fight in act two is
all right, but goes on too long.
Rupert's near death is okay, decent enough to get its own paragraph.
I think both the timing of the injury and the way in which he opens up
with his praise for Buffy are pretty good. Here maybe the Knights are
a cause of a problem, since I was never worried about him, and had he
died, I wouldn't have been heartbroken, I'd have been annoyed at
the show for giving him such a lame send-off.
Spike is one of the gang again, thanks to Buffy articulating her
rediscovered trust also seen last week; they don't all like him, but
that's nothing new. I kinda liked Xander lighting the cigarette for
him.
The captured Knight's speech to Buffy is one of the high points of
the episode. And at the same time, it just goes on and on. So talky,
and it has that lame Buffy monologue that I mentioned earlier. Still,
at least it provides the impression of moving the plot along, even if
it's as an infodump. We learn not only more about how our evil god
works and what she's up to, but learn about two people who could
serve as weaknesses. One of them is Dawn, whom her sister makes clear
is off limits, as an innocent and as family. {On an unrelated note, I
just watched episode 2-12 of _24_, which also has to do with when it is
or isn't okay to kill a couple innocents in hopes of saving millions.
Just seemed like a fun coincidence.}
I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
was in the same place as the Key? If he wants the Key so badly for
himself, why has he never moved against Dawn directly rather than
hanging around in her general vicinity until he transformed into Glory?
Having Buffy call him in seems pretty contrived. And while I'm at
it, I'd also kill the high-pitched sycophant explaining things to him
near the beginning, just because.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "We should drop a piano on her. Well, it always works for that
creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
- "You know this is your fault for saying that."
- The order to aim for the horsies.
So...
One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
AOQ rating: Weak
[Season Five so far:
1) "Buffy Vs. Dracula" - Good
2) "Real Me" - Decent
3) "The Replacement" - Good
4) "Out Of My Mind" - Weak
5) "No Place Like Home" - Decent
6) "Family" - Excellent
7) "Fool For Love" - Excellent
8) "Shadow" - Good
9) "Listening To Fear" - Decent
10) "Into The Woods" - Good
11) "Triangle" - Decent
12) "Checkpoint" - Decent
13) "Blood Ties" - Good
14) "Crush" - Excellent
15) "I Was Made To Love You" - Weak
16) "The Body" - Good
17) "Forever" - Decent
18) "Intervention" - Decent
19) "Tough Love" - Decent
20) "Spiral" - Weak]
Elisi
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "We should drop a piano on her. Well, it always works for that
> creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
> speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
> convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
> - "You know this is your fault for saying that."
> - The order to aim for the horsies.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
Trying to think of something to say here, but episodes 19 and 20 (and
to some extent 21) of S5 are always an indistinguishable blur to me.
Although there are bits and pieces that I utterly love in between all
the 'boring' stuff). I guess I'd say decent, but not much more.
Although I hope it's not spoilery to say that I, personally, think the
payoff is great. If you think it's worth it, is of course an entirely
different matter. (I just re-watched B, B & B the other day and still
adore it. Since you dislike it so much, you might be in trouble re. the
season finale since Xander performs a lovespell on Glory and ends up
with her and Ben in an odd sort of threesome!)
anmc...@hotmail.com
version of FULL METAL ALCHEMIST:
A blond sibling who can kick ass has an unnatural younger sibling who
had brown hair and has issues about having a past existence (also tried
to resurrect their dead mother, though the consequences was light on
the Sisters Summers; nowhere near the disaster that befell the Brothers
Elric...). Anyway, the elder sibling has to protect younger sibling
from both a militant force and a villain with a thing for
body-changing.
Yes, I know BUFFY predates FMA. I actually noted the same comparisons
on the FMA episode discussions over at rec.arts.anime.misc.
A.Gerard
EGK
I think the increase in serialization is probably what makes the episodes a
blur. All seasons had main story arc but by season 5 I think they turned it
up a few notches. That means much of how you view the season depends on how
you view the payoff.
V gubhtug frnfba 5 jnf zhpu orggre guna 6 be 7 ohg V jnfa'g ernyyl unccl
jvgu gur qrhf rk znpuvan svanyr bs frnfba 5. V'z fher n ybg bs gur fnzr
nethzragf jvyy cbc hc ntnva jura NBD trgf gb vg. Zl ivrj vf Ohssl fubhyqa'g
unir orra noyr gb znxr gur qvir gb pybfr gur cbegny nf fur jnf arire gur
Xrl. V nyfb oryvrir vg jbhyq unir vzcebirq gur ynfg gjb lrnef vs Qnja unq
fnpevsvrq urefrys.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
Shuggie
> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
> was in the same place as the Key?
Wait, are you suggesting there's some connection between Ben and Glory?
--
Shuggie
my blog - http://shuggie.livejournal.com/
(Harmony) Watcher
news:1153077832....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> > This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> > - "We should drop a piano on her. Well, it always works for that
> > creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
> > speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
> > convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
> > - "You know this is your fault for saying that."
> > - The order to aim for the horsies.
> >
> >
> > So...
> >
> > One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
> >
> > AOQ rating: Weak
>
> Trying to think of something to say here, but episodes 19 and 20 (and
> to some extent 21) of S5 are always an indistinguishable blur to me.
> Although there are bits and pieces that I utterly love in between all
> the 'boring' stuff). I guess I'd say decent, but not much more.
> Although I hope it's not spoilery to say that I, personally, think the
> payoff is great. If you think it's worth it, is of course an entirely
> different matter. (I just re-watched B, B & B the other day and still
> adore it.
MAJOR SPOILER ROT13'ed:
<rot13>
Fvapr lbh qvfyvxr vg fb zhpu, lbh zvtug or va gebhoyr er. gur
frnfba svanyr fvapr Knaqre cresbezf n ybirfcryy ba Tybel naq raqf hc
jvgu ure naq Ora va na bqq fbeg bs guerrfbzr!
</rot13>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
>(or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
>Writer: Steven DeKnight
>Director: James A. Contner
>
>Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
>it), things start out great. Willow kicks things into high gear on the
>magic front, looking simultaneously lovable and badass while throwing
>gods around. But it turns out her powers only work for making barriers
>in specific fixed situations.
You did notice that Glory broke through her barrier at the fort, errr, gas
station, too.
>Then despite Buffy's speed and quick
>reactions, she can't outrun a god forever. But she's defiant, if
>fearful, to the end when staring down Glory, and her delivery on
>"just one. Truck" is a good vintage gag (they're classics for a
>reason). Even the transformation into Ben makes for a good surreal
>moment. Strong teaser all around.
The big change here (and on Angel, for that matter) is, as Blake
Richardson (BTR) mentions, the ramp-up in serialization. Previously,
we've had background arcs that might run through a season and even across
seasons, and we've had some 2-part stories (the premiere, WML,
Surprise/Innocence, Becoming, and so on), but here we have, not in effect
but straight out, a 4-part story, with Spiral just being part 2.
>That being said, though, I may have to roll my eyes and frown
>disapprovingly if everyone at UC[Sun]D, and particularly the driver,
>remains blissfully unaware (or unwilling to accept) that there's a
>big supernatural world out there.
This is actually addressed in the show.
>After that, our hero decides that it's time to take everyone on a
>road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
> This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
>her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
>to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
>people. It's strange to see from the hero of the show, and, unlike
>during the aforementioned episode, I can't quite get it to work for
>me. I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
>dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
>like Buffy.
This, of course, is Whedon's homage to John Ford westerns, particularly
Stagecoach. The fight on top of the Winney with the Knights Who Slay Key
is pretty much a mirror John Wayne's fight with the indians on top of the
stage.
>I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
>funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
>pace with a motor vehicle. I still think the Knights are way too goofy
>to be taken seriously, especially since they don't have any special
>powers other than the ability of a Renaissance fair cult to draw so
>many members. The anachronistic enemies shouldn't be used for more
>than one episode at a time, I think. Mrs. Quality cites them as the
>main thing dragging down this episode - I'd be more likely to call
>them a symptom rather than a cause. Oh, and the fight in act two is
>all right, but goes on too long.
Whole bunches of people had problems with that. How on earth did all
those knights on horseback get there? If they brought the horses in in
trailers, why not just chase the Winney down with the trucks?
>Rupert's near death is okay, decent enough to get its own paragraph.
>I think both the timing of the injury and the way in which he opens up
>with his praise for Buffy are pretty good. Here maybe the Knights are
>a cause of a problem, since I was never worried about him, and had he
>died, I wouldn't have been heartbroken, I'd have been annoyed at
>the show for giving him such a lame send-off.
So, having seen Serenity, you knew he might be killed, but you just
somehow couldn't bring yourself to care?
>The captured Knight's speech to Buffy is one of the high points of
>the episode. And at the same time, it just goes on and on. So talky,
>and it has that lame Buffy monologue that I mentioned earlier. Still,
>at least it provides the impression of moving the plot along, even if
>it's as an infodump. We learn not only more about how our evil god
>works and what she's up to, but learn about two people who could
>serve as weaknesses. One of them is Dawn, whom her sister makes clear
>is off limits, as an innocent and as family. {On an unrelated note, I
>just watched episode 2-12 of _24_, which also has to do with when it is
>or isn't okay to kill a couple innocents in hopes of saving millions.
> Just seemed like a fun coincidence.}
>I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
>fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
>all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
>was in the same place as the Key? If he wants the Key so badly for
>himself, why has he never moved against Dawn directly rather than
>hanging around in her general vicinity until he transformed into Glory?
> Having Buffy call him in seems pretty contrived. And while I'm at
>it, I'd also kill the high-pitched sycophant explaining things to him
>near the beginning, just because.
You're just not feeling the love for leprous hobbits, are you? As for
Buffy calling Ben, she needs a doctor for Giles, what other doctors does
she know? (and she doesn't have any reason to suspect that Ben and Glory
are somehow related).
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
>- "We should drop a piano on her. Well, it always works for that
>creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
>speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
>convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
>- "You know this is your fault for saying that."
>- The order to aim for the horsies.
Also, you have now seen the number one example used when the "Buffy
doesn't kill humans" argument comes up. A battle axe buried far enough
into the chest that it sticks is pretty uniformly fatal.
This is a little off, but you are closing in on episode 100 (the season
finale). If you haven't watched the episode yet, and if you have a
computer that can open a dvd disc without playing it, get out disc six of
season 7, open it without playing it, and launch the video file
"vts_05_1.vob" first. This (an easter egg on the disc) is the original
"Previously on Buffy" tease from episode 100.
I wouldn't advise opening the disc to play, because even the splash page
on disc six is a pretty significant spoiler (although you might not know
what it is spoiling, specificially).
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Apteryx
news:1153075837.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
> (or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
> Writer: Steven DeKnight
> Director: James A. Contner
>
>
> road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
I don't find that so odd. In fact I wonder why it didn't occur much earlier.
Especially for Dawn, whether or not Buffy goes with her. The monks wanted
the Slayer to protect the Key, but once Glory knows that, the safest place
for Dawn is as far from Buffy as possible. If the monks did too good a job
on Buffy, driving her to "protect" Dawn even when logically Dawn would be
safer if she didn't, then she and Dawn should have just got out of town.
We've seen that Glory has no magical Key tracking (or Buffy tracking)
abiltities, so as far as Glory is concerned, once Buffy and Dawn have left
their Sunnydale address, they could be anywhere in the world. Let the
Scoobies discreetly track Glory until they have enough info to attempt an
attack.
> It's not just Buffy who doesn't feel like herself - it's BTVS
> as a whole. Quite simply, I'm not engaged. The last couple episodes
> haven't felt like the series I fell in love with, they've felt
> like, well, some action show.
It took the series 97 episodes to produce one that I rated as low as Tough
Love, but only one more to produce one I rate even lower. On many fans
Bottom Ten list, it's silly episodes that dominate. I can stand silly. At
least those episodes usually provide one or two laughs. It's dull and
tedious that gets episodes onto my Bottom Ten list. This episode has some
essential plot developments. But they are so boringly delivered, that I
would prefer to skip the episode and just learn about those essential
developments in the "Previously on Buffy" segment of the next good episode -
if it weren't for the fact that the R1 DVD sets that I have seasons 2-5 on
don't have those "Previously on Buffy" segments.
> I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
> funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
> pace with a motor vehicle. I still think the Knights are way too goofy
> to be taken seriously, especially since they don't have any special
> powers other than the ability of a Renaissance fair cult to draw so
> many members.
First time I saw this episode, I got a laugh at the spoof "Injun" attack on
the Stagecoach. But a moments reflection was enough to show that they humour
I found in it couldn't have been intended at this point in the season. WGF
has described it as homage to John Ford - lucky John Ford. If you can bring
yourself to pretend that the humour is deliberate, then Monty Python is the
better comparison. But since that's too hard for me, the director that this
scene brings to my mind is Ed Wood. But for a series that started so hip,
the fact that an episode's most memorable scene is in the "So Bad it's Good"
category is not good. How did the horses keep up (or get there in the first
place)? Maybe they're magic horses.
> Spike is one of the gang again, thanks to Buffy articulating her
> rediscovered trust also seen last week; they don't all like him, but
> that's nothing new. I kinda liked Xander lighting the cigarette for
> him.
A pretty good moment. And this episode really needs good moments to keep
from being the worst ever BtVS episode.
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
> was in the same place as the Key? If he wants the Key so badly for
> himself, why has he never moved against Dawn directly rather than
> hanging around in her general vicinity until he transformed into Glory?
It's pretty bizarre. The only logical explanation of his coming, despite
knowing that risk, is that he has converted to the viewpoint of the Knights
Who Slay Key, and wants to kill Dawn to destroy the Key. The shot of him
behind Dawn with the hypodermic seems sinister enough for that. But, if he
wanted to do that, that was his moment. Why didn't he take it?
>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "We should drop a piano on her. Well, it always works for that
> creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
> speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
> convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
> - "You know this is your fault for saying that."
> - The order to aim for the horsies.
They were all good - I especially liked Anya's take on "that creepy rabbit".
And this episode needs every scrap of goodness it can get.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
To me, its the first episode of BtVS that I'd call Bad (and the only one
outside of season 7). It's my 142nd favourite BtVS episode (of 144), 22nd
best in season 5.
--
Apteryx
Rowan Hawthorn
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
> (or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
> Writer: Steven DeKnight
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
> This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
> her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
> to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
> people. It's strange to see from the hero of the show, and, unlike
> during the aforementioned episode, I can't quite get it to work for
> me. I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
> dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
> like Buffy.
It's the accumulation of all the hits she's been taking.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
>
I was trying to think of some other high points, but for the life of me,
I can't think of anything other than a general, "Well, it's interesting
that Willow's spells are going consistently *right* for a change - but
it's also interesting - and a little disquieting - that she's doing
things by herself now (and fairly easily) that she would previously have
needed to be working with Tara to accomplish. And so much of her work
now brings on the black-eyed look.
But, weak, yeah. I sometimes re-watch this episode when going through
the series, but there's a lot of fast-forwarding going on. *Not*
something I can say about more than a couple episodes throughout the
entire series.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Mike Zeares
> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
I understand and even agree with the various criticisms of this episode
that people have had over the years. And yet I've always liked it. I
think the tone of the episode is effective. The Winnebago scenes are
uncomfortable and claustrophobic, and the whole episode has a feeling
of impending doom to it. I liked the chase scene. As an action
sequence. Without irony. It's no chase scene from "Road Warrior" (on
my mind because I just watched it yesterday), but it'll do.
Forget the horsies. My big question: if a knight and the General were
able to get in through a back door before Willow put up her Wall of
Force, why the frak didn't the rest of the silly knnnn-niggets follow
them in? I fart in their general direction.
-- Mike Zeares
lili...@gmail.com
Gehr, xvaqn yvxr ubj vg jbhyq unir vzcebirq f6 naq f7 vs Knaqre unq
orra gur bar gb qvr va Tenir. V yvxr Knaqre, qba'g trg zr jebat. Ohg
pbafvqrevat ubj yvggyr ur unq gb bssre gb gur fgbel, pbzcnerq gb Gnen
(naq fvapr vg jbhyq unir fnirq hf sebz Xraarql) gur fgbel naq Knaqre'f
fgbel va cnegvphyne, jbhyq unir orra orggre vs vg unq tbar bhg jvgu uvz
qlvat, naq Jvyybj niratvat uvf qrngu.
Lore
Rowan Hawthorn
Yrg zr whfg fnl gung V'z tynq gur npghny jevgref jrer jevgvat gur fubj,
orpnhfr V'ir frra zbfg bs guvf qbar va snasvp. Fhpxrq cerggl onq, gbb...
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> After that, our hero decides that it's time to take everyone on a
> road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
Remember a few episodes back this was mentioned. Buffy said she had to
know if Glory knew about Dawn because, if so, the two of them needed to
get out of town fast. I'm thinking in this case, they would have made
much better time if they hadn't taken everyone else along, but that
would have just left them as fodder for Glory.
> This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
> her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
> to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
> people. It's strange to see from the hero of the show, and, unlike
> during the aforementioned episode, I can't quite get it to work for
> me. I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
> dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
> like Buffy.
But look at what's happened: Glory is a hellgod she's barely been able
to hurt; Riley left her; Joyce died; Tara is brain-sucked. As Buffy
says, it never stops.
Given all that, it's not surprising at the end, when Dawn is taken by
Glory (_after_ Buffy explicitly promised Dawn that she wouldn't let
anything happen to her) that Buffy is shocked to the point of catatonia.
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality
Elisi wrote:
>
> (I just re-watched B, B & B the other day and still
> adore it. Since you dislike it so much, you might be in trouble re. the
> season finale since Xander performs a lovespell on Glory and ends up
> with her and Ben in an odd sort of threesome!)
Yeah, that was already spoiled for me. I don't like the idea, which is
*wrong*, and... and it would be very confusing.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
the knights have been searching for ben
and will kill him the instant they find him
ben knows the knights and knew theyre looking for him
and he knows the danger he is in
> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
> was in the same place as the Key? If he wants the Key so badly for
glory emerges sporadically
and giles was in serious trouble
it could just as well worked out that he saved giles and left in time
> himself, why has he never moved against Dawn directly rather than
> hanging around in her general vicinity until he transformed into Glory?
the only thing ben can do with the key is kill dawn and trap glory in earth
do you think lesser or more of ben
because he could kill an innocent girl to save himself
> Having Buffy call him in seems pretty contrived. And while I'm at
> it, I'd also kill the high-pitched sycophant explaining things to him
> near the beginning, just because.
everybody is supposed to hate the hobbits
including glory
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
One Bit Shy
news:1153075837.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
> Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
> it),
It's the second weakest episode of the year for me - avoiding the cellar
more for its significant plot advancement than for its viewing experience.
It's a shame really because it fills a rather important place in Buffy's
personal part of the story this year, getting it across rather weakly.
But it's hard to overcome half of the show being stuck in one static not
very interesting location, and the big action sequence being absurd and
appearing to violate for no good reason Buffy's record of not killing a
human. (And then, for even less good reason, having the knights of whatever
claim to have had ten soldiers die.)
Oh, well. In spite of that, the story is advanced in a few important ways.
> After that, our hero decides that it's time to take everyone on a
> road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
> This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
> her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
> to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
> people. It's strange to see from the hero of the show, and, unlike
> during the aforementioned episode, I can't quite get it to work for
> me. I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
> dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
> like Buffy.
Well, you do note don't you that Giles and Xander especially are also
unprepared for the decision to flee. The unnatural quality of her decision
would seem to be part of the story.
Dawn, on the other hand, sees it entirely differently. To her it proves
Buffy's dedication to her - the totality of it. To just drop everything -
abandon Sunnydale entirely and everything in Buffy's life - solely to
protect Dawn, is awesome to her. Maybe that's not the *way* we're
accustomed to seeing Buffy act, which genuinely is something to be concerned
about, but Dawn does have a point about the magnitude of her decision. And
the heart of it. That part *is* what we expect of Buffy.
The contrast in perception is part of the story. Nobody realizes how deep
in trouble Buffy is. Giles in particular hasn't listened. He's been
responding to the wrong message. And while everybody understands in their
own way that Dawn is important, only Dawn herself and Willow - both only as
of last episode - understand how totally Buffy's focus is on Dawn alone.
How she's invested all of herself in the one task of caring for Dawn. That
alone should explain a hell of a lot about Buffy's state at the end of the
episode. Among recent big time clues (clues that seem to slip past so
easily without fully registering) of the depth of her commitment to Dawn
were dropping out of college and even questioning whether she can afford to
be The Slayer while raising Dawn. Looming above all is her oath to Joyce.
That supersedes everything.
Giles finally shows signs of catching on as he lies wounded and praises
Buffy for placing her heart above all else. Which also brings to mind the
spirit guide's words that Buffy is filled with love, but love is pain.
Back to the decision to flee. This is nothing at all like Anne despair.
It's the despair of narrowed options. What exactly are her choices? Giles
suggests further research - of course. But Buffy is right. There's no time
for that. Glory is after them right now. The Magic Box is a death trap.
As are all of their homes. Glory's minions have already mapped all of this
out. The only thing protecting Buffy at that moment is that Ben's
inhabiting the body. But Buffy doesn't know anything about that.
Ah, yes, the not knowing part. She still knows very little about Glory.
Little about the key. Next to nothing about what Glory's after. And has no
known weapon or skill or anything at all that can defeat her. Everybody is
standing there in Xander's apartment looking to her for the solution, but
she's got nothing to pull out of the hat or even a hat to pull it from.
(In mythic tales of heroes, this is the set up for a very particular kind of
test. But we'll save the rest of that for the end.)
Running away, as contrary to her nature as that seems, right then was the
most rational solution available to her. It can buy both space and time.
Alas, it didn't work. The moron knights - who thought of themselves as
enemies of "The Beast" - got in the way and ended up handing The Key to
Glory. So, with Buffy's last idea lying in shambles amidst a sea of dead
bodies, and Dawn in Glory's hands, Buffy believes she's failed at the one
thing she's invested all of herself in. And she collapses.
Again, it's a real shame that the power of that is largely lost in the
tedium of that gas station scene. But the idea is there and worth carrying
forward.
> I will say that I can understand from a dramatic shape-of-the-season
> perspective why Joyce's death happens when it does. The
> circumstances have to be just wrong if the show is going to do this to
> the character, so it's more likely to work now than it would have at
> any other point in the series.
There are other broader reasons for Joyce's death too. It may take more of
a full series perspective on Buffy's story to place it.
But you're right that Joyce's death is critical to Buffy's state of mind
right now. There are other influences too. We hear that from Buffy when
she speaks of it never stopping. Joyce is certainly the biggest. But
Riley's loss matters a lot now. Boy, could she have used his help and
support since Joyce died. And his insight and skills in dealing with Glory.
Hell, just in the running away department he probably would have come up
with something better than that run down RV. But mainly he would have
lowered the overall pressure. Allowed Buffy to perform at a higher level.
And one shouldn't underestimate the impact of Tara's condition either. That
doesn't have the same emotional significance to Buffy that it does to
Willow. But Tara is a constant graphic reminder of Buffy's inability - her
already proven failure - to deal with Glory.
Oh, and the school threatening to take Dawn away from her. Probably some
other stuff I'm not thinking of right now. It's all been piling up in a way
that's breaking Buffy. And then to have those stupid knights that Buffy had
probably forgotten about by then be her final doom is mocking insult piled
onto the injury. (I think the one good thing about the knights being so
ridiculous is that the very absurdity of them accents how much has been
piled onto Buffy.)
There is one interesting thing lurking in the background though. The
Scoobies themselves. They haven't been much help thus far. Hell, they
haven't even truly grasped the problem. But they are intact - other than
Tara. More than that, they've done a remarkable job this season of
repairing the problems of last year. They are arguably stronger as a group
now than they've ever been. And this time they even have Spike working with
them instead of against them.
> It's not just Buffy who doesn't feel like herself - it's BTVS
> as a whole. Quite simply, I'm not engaged. The last couple episodes
> haven't felt like the series I fell in love with, they've felt
> like, well, some action show. It was surprising to see myself close to
> Dorothy Heydt's Eight Deadly Words. Part of it is that Glory and her
> man-nurse don't much interest me, but this program's always been
> about the heroes anyway. I don't know where the life is - it's
> not like there's no effort being made, as the characters go through
> the motions of emotion and Buffyverse banter (a few successful attempts
> too, like about half of the Anya gags, and the stuff below in the
> TIRSBILA sections). For the most part, though, they look like the
> group I liked so much, but they're so colorless and serious in a
> bland way about everything, getting scared by the crises and nodding at
> the mystical exposition. Buffy's "we are not your enemy!" speech
> in particular is the kind of cheesily impassioned platitude that
> could've easily come out of a much more generic heroes-n'-villains
> show.
Well, that particular speech doesn't bother me that much. It's part of
Buffy's frustrated desperation of the moment. The sentiment is largely true
too. But I'm not going to go far in defending the play of the gas station
scenes. If that doesn't bother, there's always something else. Besides,
the better play by Buffy, if she was going to go that direction, would be to
more directly point out that the knights were only making it easier for
Glory to catch them.
In any case, this episode surely is not the place to look for caring about
the characters. Though, alas, you didn't seem to find the opportunities in
the prior episode. I think about the scene then with Buffy folding the
laundry while she talked to Dawn. How hopelessly inexperienced Buffy was to
try an early grade school technique (gold stars?) on a 14 year old Dawn, yet
so sincere and determined at the same time. And then the focus on Dawn's
face when she finds out that the school is threatening to take her away, and
how young she really looks. And how young she must look to Buffy. All the
time folding the laundry because now the responsibilities of her life are
relentless... But no, I've already given up going there. It's there
though.
> I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
> funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
> pace with a motor vehicle. I still think the Knights are way too goofy
> to be taken seriously, especially since they don't have any special
> powers other than the ability of a Renaissance fair cult to draw so
> many members. The anachronistic enemies shouldn't be used for more
> than one episode at a time, I think. Mrs. Quality cites them as the
> main thing dragging down this episode - I'd be more likely to call
> them a symptom rather than a cause. Oh, and the fight in act two is
> all right, but goes on too long.
There is a certain degree of entertainment in that fight. And I guess it's
part of Joss's school of thinking where you've gotta have a rocket launcher
or you gotta have flaming arrows. This time it's you gotta have Indians
chasing the stagecoach.
But mostly I find it dumb, illogical on many levels, and as I mentioned
earlier, I think they made a real problem for themselves suggesting that
Buffy killed a human in this battle. I don't care what movie tribute they
were making - it could have been Citizen Fucking Kane and that still
shouldn't have been allowed in this episode.
> The captured Knight's speech to Buffy is one of the high points of
> the episode. And at the same time, it just goes on and on. So talky,
> and it has that lame Buffy monologue that I mentioned earlier. Still,
> at least it provides the impression of moving the plot along, even if
> it's as an infodump. We learn not only more about how our evil god
> works and what she's up to, but learn about two people who could
> serve as weaknesses. One of them is Dawn, whom her sister makes clear
> is off limits, as an innocent and as family. {On an unrelated note, I
> just watched episode 2-12 of _24_, which also has to do with when it is
> or isn't okay to kill a couple innocents in hopes of saving millions.
> Just seemed like a fun coincidence.}
A lot of exposition, but yes, it's easily the most useful information about
Glory and the Key that we've gotten yet. At least something good came out
of this exercise.
> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
> was in the same place as the Key? If he wants the Key so badly for
> himself, why has he never moved against Dawn directly rather than
> hanging around in her general vicinity until he transformed into Glory?
> Having Buffy call him in seems pretty contrived. And while I'm at
> it, I'd also kill the high-pitched sycophant explaining things to him
> near the beginning, just because.
Gee, I thought she was one of the more interesting minions. Though the
scene did go on a bit. In any case, yes it occurred to Ben that Glory might
take over. But he went in anyway, thinking that this might be his
opportunity to destroy The Key. Why not before? Because he wasn't
desperate like this before. He was still trying to be the good guy helping
people. living the life *he* wanted. Why didn't he kill her now? Because
in the end he didn't have the heart for it - just like that high-pitched
sycophant said. The one that did a nice job of manipulating Ben into this
state of mind, very likely figuring that it would be an excellent way to get
Glory to The Key. That minion knows that Ben is exerting less and less
control over the body. And she knows that Ben has been in contact with The
Key. The stress of Ben confronting The Key would likely draw Glory out.
Hey, *some* thought went into the construction of this episode.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
I don't like the play of this episode. But Buffy's situation still carries
a lot of power for me. This is a devastating moment for her irrespective of
the less appealing things around it. So the episode hangs in with a Decent
for me.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1153103057.8...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>
> I understand and even agree with the various criticisms of this episode
> that people have had over the years. And yet I've always liked it. I
> think the tone of the episode is effective. The Winnebago scenes are
> uncomfortable and claustrophobic
Thanks for reminding me of something else I did like about the episode. The
Winnebago scenes before the attack I think are very good. I really liked
Anya pulling out her frying pan. The goofy sunglasses on Spike. The
sharpness of Buffy's declaration that Spike stays. And so on. Just the
uncomfortable wrongness of the place underscores their dire straights.
OBS
Rowan Hawthorn
> There is a certain degree of entertainment in that fight. And I guess it's
> part of Joss's school of thinking where you've gotta have a rocket launcher
> or you gotta have flaming arrows. This time it's you gotta have Indians
> chasing the stagecoach.
>
> But mostly I find it dumb, illogical on many levels, and as I mentioned
> earlier, I think they made a real problem for themselves suggesting that
> Buffy killed a human in this battle. I don't care what movie tribute they
> were making - it could have been Citizen Fucking Kane and that still
> shouldn't have been allowed in this episode.
I disagree with this - I think, actually, there couldn't be a better
place for it, because 1) this is something - protecting Dawn - that
could unquestionably push Buffy into using deadly force against humans
without hesitation, especially 2) now with everything that has been
piled on her; Buffy is stressed to the point where it would be totally
illogical for her *not* to use whatever means necessary to repel the
Knights rather than risk Dawn's life further, and 3) it's one more
thing, one last burden, to weigh on Buffy's mind. Yes, the Knights
brought it on themselves, and yes, it was necessary to protect her
charges, but it's the line that she's always tried not to cross.
One Bit Shy
news:woqdndBmJfnziibZ...@giganews.com...
As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn and stress are
amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge part
of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
Gur qrngu vf lbhe neg, qrngu vf lbhe tvsg nfcrpgf bs gur fgbel *pbhyq* or n
tbbq engvbanyr. Ohg vg'f abg bssrerq. Vafgrnq, jung jr npghnyyl trg vf
guvf:
TVYRF: Pna lbh zbir?
ORA: Arrq n ... n zvahgr. Fur pbhyq'ir xvyyrq zr.
TVYRF: Ab fur pbhyqa'g. Arire. Naq fbbare be yngre Tybel jvyy er-rzretr, naq
... znxr Ohssl cnl sbe gung zrepl. Naq gur jbeyq jvgu ure. Ohssl rira xabjf
gung... naq fgvyy fur pbhyqa'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
Gung'f n ceboyrz. Naq vg fgvyy ybbxf gb zr yvxr n eblny fperjhc sbe gur
fnxr bs n zbivr ubzntr.
OBS
Paul Hyett
>Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
>> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
>> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
>> was in the same place as the Key?
>
>Wait, are you suggesting there's some connection between Ben and Glory?
>
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Rowan Hawthorn
Abg ng nyy - Ora jnf *qbja*, naq jvgubhg Tybel er-rzretvat, jnf ab
ybatre na vzzrqvngr guerng. Gur Xavtugf jrer npgviryl zbhagvat
<nurz...> na nggnpx. Xvyyvat fbzrbar jub'f snpvat lbh jvgu n qenja
jrncba vf n qvssrerag znggre sebz xvyyvat n qbjarq bccbarag. Vg jbhyq
unir orra fznegre gb svavfu Ora bss, ohg gung gnxrf n yriry bs
centzngvfz gung Ohssl'f abg lrg pncnoyr bs. Tbbq guvat Tvyrf *vf*.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
unless this is another -is xander bi or straight- discussion
i think you meant dire straits
Elisi
> As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn and stress are
> amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge part
> of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
She threw the zoo keeper into the hyena pit in 'The Pack'. He was
human.
Elisi
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> It took the series 97 episodes to produce one that I rated as low as Tough
> Love, but only one more to produce one I rate even lower. On many fans
> Bottom Ten list, it's silly episodes that dominate. I can stand silly. At
> least those episodes usually provide one or two laughs. It's dull and
> tedious that gets episodes onto my Bottom Ten list.
BX V'z whfg gbb phevbhf abj... juvpu barf ner ng gur obggbz?
One Bit Shy
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-BFE33...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <12bm5r1...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153103057.8...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> >
>> >> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>> >
>> > I understand and even agree with the various criticisms of this episode
>> > that people have had over the years. And yet I've always liked it. I
>> > think the tone of the episode is effective. The Winnebago scenes are
>> > uncomfortable and claustrophobic
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me of something else I did like about the episode.
>> The
>> Winnebago scenes before the attack I think are very good. I really liked
>> Anya pulling out her frying pan. The goofy sunglasses on Spike. The
>> sharpness of Buffy's declaration that Spike stays. And so on. Just the
>> uncomfortable wrongness of the place underscores their dire straights.
>
> unless this is another -is xander bi or straight- discussion
> i think you meant dire straits
LOL Well, I've done worse. And it's good for the old humility.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mair_fheal-BFE33...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <12bm5r1...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1153103057.8...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
> >> >
> >> > I understand and even agree with the various criticisms of this episode
> >> > that people have had over the years. And yet I've always liked it. I
> >> > think the tone of the episode is effective. The Winnebago scenes are
> >> > uncomfortable and claustrophobic
> >>
> >> Thanks for reminding me of something else I did like about the episode.
> >> The
> >> Winnebago scenes before the attack I think are very good. I really liked
> >> Anya pulling out her frying pan. The goofy sunglasses on Spike. The
> >> sharpness of Buffy's declaration that Spike stays. And so on. Just the
> >> uncomfortable wrongness of the place underscores their dire straights.
> >
> > unless this is another -is xander bi or straight- discussion
> > i think you meant dire straits
>
> LOL Well, I've done worse. And it's good for the old humility.
dunno
xander
larry
maybe it couldve been something
lili...@gmail.com
V qba'g xabj, whfg guvaxvat, fvapr Wbff jnf gverq bs Knaqre ol nobhg f5
(uryy gurl tnir AO gur bcgvba bs univat Knaqre qvr fvapr gurl unq ab
fgbel yrsg nobhg Knaqre), vs ur'q qvrq ng gur raq bs f6, ng gur yrnfg
vg jbhyq unir zrnag gung gurl unq gb znxr uvz nf tbbq nf cbffvoyr
orsber xvyvat uvz bss. Vg jbhyq unir zrnag Knaqre tbvat bhg ba n
uvtuyvtug, jvgu fbzr erghea ivfvgf sebz AO nf gur Svefg.
Naq AO'f cerggl tbbq ng cynlvat rivy.
Guvf vf abg zr ungvat Knaqre naq jnagvat uvz qrnq, vg'f ybivat Knaqre
naq jnagvat gb frr uvz trg n tbbq rkvg, vafgrnq bs frrvat uvz jnfgrq nf
ur raqrq hc qbvat yvggyr zber guna svk gur jvaqbjf naq orvat ercynprq
ol Naqerj jvgubhg rire yrnivat gur fubj.
--
Lore
lili...@gmail.com
Thlf, jr'er abg ng jrvtug bs gur jbeyq lrg, cyrnfr xrrc gur wbxr va sbe
bar zber erivrj. Cerggl cyrnfr
Lore
lili...@gmail.com
Elisi schreef:
She also killed that evil watcher lady in Revelations.
Lore
(Harmony) Watcher
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:12bm5r1...@news.supernews.com...
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Elisi
Well she cut off her hand with the glove. Did she know that would kill
her?
Apteryx
news:1153116574.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Jryy, vg pna or qnatrebhf gb tvir enaxvat guvf sne va nqinapr bs trggvat gb
gubfr rcvfbqrf. Ol angheny fryrpgvba, gur ybjrfg enaxrq rcvfbqrf graq gb or
gubfr V jngpu yrnfg, naq gur rcvfbqrf V jngpu yrnfg ner gur barf fhowrpg gb
gur ynetrfg punatrf (hc be qbja) jura V erjngpu gurz. V xabj gung ng yrnfg
bar rcvfbqr gung jnf bapr qrnq ynfg (Gur Xvyyre va Zr) unf abj ernpurq gur
qvmmlvat urvtugf bs 128gu cynpr. Naq bar rcvfbqr (Sberire) unf rfpncrq sebz
gur Obggbz Gra va whfg guvf ynfg erjngpuvat (nygubhtu vg jnf arire nf ybj nf
gur irel jbefg, naq fgvyy vfa'g nf uvtu nf Gur Xvyyre va Zr).
Ohg ng gur zbzrag, gur 2 rcvfbqrf V enax orybj Fcveny ner Raq bs Qnlf naq
Gbhpurq, jvgu Gbhpurq va ynfg cynpr.
Gurer qbrf frrz gb zr gb n pbzzba gurzr va gur yngr frnfba rcvfbqrf frggvat
hc gur frnfba svanyr va gur yngre frnfbaf (fgnegvat jvgu Gur Lbxb Snpgbe).
Gurl frrz gb or gbgnyyl cybg qevira, jvgu jung ybbxf yvxr evqvat
vafgehpgvbaf sebz Jurqba gb trg gur punenpgref gb gurve fgnegvat cynprf sbe
gur frnfba svanyr ur jvyy jevgr, rira vs gurl unir gb or qenttrq xvpxvat naq
fpernzvat. Gur punenpgref qba'g frrz gb or erny gb zr va gubfr rcvfbqrf.
Sbeghangryl gur arkg OgIF rcvfbqr, Jrvtug bs gur Jbeyq, vf ng yrnfg n
cnegvny rkprcgvba gb gung (abg terng, ohg ybbxf tbbq va pbzcnevfba gb zbfg
yngr frnfba rcvfbqrf va gur yngre frnfbaf).
--
Apteryx
Elisi
That was quite some answer! Well here's a reply:
V rkcrpgrq 'Raq bs gur Jbeyq' fvpar zbfg crbcyr svaq vg engure qhyy gb
fnl gur yrnfg. Crefbanyyl V qba'g zvaq vg - V jbhyqa'g fnl V vg'f bar V
jngpu ba n erthyne onfvf ohg vg unf n ybg bs tbbq zbzragf. Ohssl/Snvgu,
Naln/Naqerj, Ohssl/Fcvxr... (jba'g tb vagb zber qrgnvy evtug abj).
'Gbhpurq' V nqber uhtryl! :)
Onfpvnyyl V qba'g zvaq rcvfbqrf gung ner qhyy be fvyyl. Nf n znggre bs
snpg gurer'f bayl bar rcvfbqr gung V bhgevtug qvfyvxr, naq gung'f 'Nf
Lbh Jrer'. Juvpu vf fnq, orpnhfr vg'f fng evtug va gur zvqqyr bs gur
bgurejvfr rkpryyrag frnfba 6.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> >
> > > One Bit Shy wrote:
> > >
> > > > As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn and
> > > > stress are
> > > > amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge
> > > > part
> > > > of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
> > >
> > > She threw the zoo keeper into the hyena pit in 'The Pack'. He was
> > > human.
attempted to kill faith
and fully expected to feed faith to angel till she was dead
lili...@gmail.com
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges schreef:
Uhm we have no real reason to believe that she was planning to let
Angel feed from Faith till she was dead. Chances are high, she was
planning to let Angel have just enough and then get Faith to a doctor.
Buffy is stronger than Angel, so if he got her to the doctor in time,
I'm sure that a Buffy who isn't just recovering from a serious illness,
would have gotten Faith there in time as well.
Lore
maxims
Apteryx wrote:
> First time I saw this episode, I got a laugh at the spoof "Injun" attack on
> the Stagecoach. But a moments reflection was enough to show that they humour
> I found in it couldn't have been intended at this point in the season. WGF
> has described it as homage to John Ford - lucky John Ford. If you can bring
> yourself to pretend that the humour is deliberate, then Monty Python is the
> better comparison.
I don't have to pretend that the humour is deliberate, I'm convinced it
is. The whole situation is so wonderfully absurd, with that beaten-up
old caravan with the windows blacked out, and those ridiculous knights
galloping after it. And it's definitely a Stagecoach reference - one of
the main criticisms levelled at Stagecoach was that the Indians should
have shot the horses pulling the wagon (to which JF responded that then
the film would have been over), and here we have Buffy telling Giles to
"Aim for the horsies". It's a good fight sequence between Buffy and the
Knights, and I don't have a problem with her killing them, because
while they may be human (although do we know this?) they're definitely
Mystic and on board with the magic using. I really enjoy almost all of
this episode, apart from the atrocious acting from the Captain of the
Knights - granted his lines weren't all that great, but if he'd managed
to sound halfway convincing, or even just desperate, it would have
improved my enjoyment enormously. Oh, and it bugs me that Spike can
apparently walk a considerable distance through a desert in blazing sun
with just a blanket for protection. But it's worth it for the Winnebago
migration-and-then-chase sequence.
I'm surprised no-one's yet mentioned how nice Spike is when Tara
accidentally gets him burnt, but perhaps we're all just waiting for 3D
Master to pop up and explain it?
maxims
BTR1701
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
> funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
> pace with a motor vehicle.
Well, that and the fact that no one seems to notice or care that this
gang of armored horse riders with swords is galloping down a California
state highway. Everyone always says "Well, it was out in the desert and
there were no other cars around" but that begs the question as to how
they *got* out into the desert from Sunnydale without the CHP making a
few not-so-polite inquiries.
Also, wearing a suit of armor out in the desert? Can we say pressure
cooker?
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153075837.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
>
> > Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
> > it),
>
> It's the second weakest episode of the year for me - avoiding the cellar
> more for its significant plot advancement than for its viewing experience.
> It's a shame really because it fills a rather important place in Buffy's
> personal part of the story this year, getting it across rather weakly.
>
> But it's hard to overcome half of the show being stuck in one static not
> very interesting location, and the big action sequence being absurd and
> appearing to violate for no good reason Buffy's record of not killing a
> human.
Everyone always acts like this is some kind of transgression and for the
life of me, I don't see why.
They were trying to kill her. They were trying to kill her family.
Violently. With swords.
Deadly force is allowed, both morally and legally, when used in the
defense of oneself or others. If you or I would be justified in killing
a rampaging knight trying to lop off our heads, why wouldn't Buffy be
justified as well?
> Running away, as contrary to her nature as that seems, right then was the
> most rational solution available to her.
Yeah, it was one of the few times in the series when she actually showed
the ability to think tactically and strategically.
BTR1701
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges schreef:
>
> > > > Elisi schreef:
> > > > > She threw the zoo keeper into the hyena pit in 'The Pack'. He was
> > > > > human.
> >
> > attempted to kill faith
> > and fully expected to feed faith to angel till she was dead
> Uhm we have no real reason to believe that she was planning to let
> Angel feed from Faith till she was dead. Chances are high, she was
> planning to let Angel have just enough and then get Faith to a doctor.
>
> Buffy is stronger than Angel, so if he got her to the doctor in time,
> I'm sure that a Buffy who isn't just recovering from a serious illness,
> would have gotten Faith there in time as well.
From "Graduation Day":
OZ
The only way to cure this thing is to drain the blood of a Slayer.
Buffy takes a long beat, considering.
BUFFY
Good.
XANDER
Good? What did I miss?
BUFFY
No, it's perfect. Angel needs to drain a Slayer? Then I'll bring him one.
WILLOW
Buffy, if Angel drains Faith's blood, it'll kill her.
BUFFY
(cold)
Not if she's already dead.
BTR1701
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153077832....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >
> > > This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> > > - "We should drop a piano on her. Well, it always works for that
> > > creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
> > > speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
> > > convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
> > > - "You know this is your fault for saying that."
> > > - The order to aim for the horsies.
> > >
> > >
> > > So...
> > >
> > > One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
> > >
> > > AOQ rating: Weak
> >
> > Trying to think of something to say here, but episodes 19 and 20 (and
> > to some extent 21) of S5 are always an indistinguishable blur to me.
> > Although there are bits and pieces that I utterly love in between all
> > the 'boring' stuff). I guess I'd say decent, but not much more.
> > Although I hope it's not spoilery to say that I, personally, think the
> > payoff is great. If you think it's worth it, is of course an entirely
> > different matter. (I just re-watched B, B & B the other day and still
> > adore it.
>
> MAJOR SPOILER ROT13'ed:
> <rot13>
> Fvapr lbh qvfyvxr vg fb zhpu, lbh zvtug or va gebhoyr er. gur
> frnfba svanyr fvapr Knaqre cresbezf n ybirfcryy ba Tybel naq raqf hc
> jvgu ure naq Ora va na bqq fbeg bs guerrfbzr!
How is that a spoiler?
peachy ashie passion
For me as well. It is a claustrophobic and lost feeling, and it
frustrates me so I don't like watching it, but I always have figured it
was intentionally crafted and I just don't enjoy the desperation.
Because it was too well done.
peachy ashie passion
> In article <12bm4ff...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>
>>"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1153075837.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>>Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
>>
>>>Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
>>>it),
>>
>>It's the second weakest episode of the year for me - avoiding the cellar
>>more for its significant plot advancement than for its viewing experience.
>>It's a shame really because it fills a rather important place in Buffy's
>>personal part of the story this year, getting it across rather weakly.
>>
>>But it's hard to overcome half of the show being stuck in one static not
>>very interesting location, and the big action sequence being absurd and
>>appearing to violate for no good reason Buffy's record of not killing a
>>human.
>
>
> Everyone always acts like this is some kind of transgression and for the
> life of me, I don't see why.
>
> They were trying to kill her. They were trying to kill her family.
> Violently. With swords.
>
I'm with you on this one. 100%.
I didn't see a problem with it at the time, and was just plain
shocked when someone else thought it was a problem.
Are ya'll NUTS?
maxims
BTR1701 wrote:
> Well, that and the fact that no one seems to notice or care that this
> gang of armored horse riders with swords is galloping down a California
> state highway. Everyone always says "Well, it was out in the desert and
> there were no other cars around" but that begs the question as to how
> they *got* out into the desert from Sunnydale without the CHP making a
> few not-so-polite inquiries.
>
they live when they aren't chasing Buffy. And I always assumed that the
monks lived there too, making it easy for them to exchange information
and spy on each other, and that both the monks and the knights either
live for thousands of years or else reproduce asexually to ensure the
continuation of the race. And I also assumed that that their horses are
a special magical kind that don't need water, that their chainmail is
unusually light and flexible, and that once the Key is destroyed/Glory
is defeated they will bugger off back to wherever it is they come from
rather than hanging around sponging off social security or being
retrained as useful members of the Californian community. I think it's
necessary to make these kinds of assumptions about them because that
way you don't get irritated by the fact that they don't fit into the
real world AT ALL.
maxims
One Bit Shy
Gur eryngvir zbenyvgl bs gur fvghngvba vfa'g zl pbaprea. Vg'f gur zlgubf
gung gur frevrf unf rfgnoyvfurq nebhaq Ohssl gung znggref. Gurer ner ab
pnirngf va Tvyrf jbeqf. Ohssl pna'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr. Hagvy guvf rcvfbqr,
gur frevrf unf tbar guebhtu pbafvqrenoyr rssbeg gb xrrc ure erpbeq pyrna.
Vg'f vzzngrevny jurgure gurer ner pvephzfgnaprf fur fubhyq be jurgure vg'f
zbeny be rira jurgure fur jbhyq vs ernyyl arprffnel. (V guvax jr nyy nffhzr
gung fur jbhyq.) Gur cbvag - rfcrpvnyyl abj ng gur raq bs F5 - vf gung fur
*unfa'g* xvyyrq uhznaf ol ure bja unaqf. Gung fur'f jba terng onggyrf naq
ernpurq na rknygrq ureb'f fgnghf juvyr fbzrubj ergnvavat gung chevgl.
Gung'f gur zlgubf. Gur punzcvba jub fnirq gur jbeyq ercrngrqyl, ohg gur
bayl uhzna yvsr fur gbbx jnf ure bja.
V qba'g guvax gung'f na vqrn gb gbff nfvqr yvtugyl nsgre fcraqvat 5 lrnef
rfgnoyvfuvat vg - naq gura cynaavat gb rzcunfvmr vg va gur svanyr. V
oryvrir vg jnf n ubeevoyr zvfgnxr.
OBS
Rowan Hawthorn
V qba'g guvax vg jnf "gbffrq nfvqr yvtugyl" ng nyy. Bs pbhefr, vs nal
naq nyy pvephzfgnaprf haqre juvpu gung npgvba zvtug bpphe ner pbafvqrerq
"veeryrinag," gura V fhccbfr V pna frr jurer bar zvtug srry gung jnl...
One Bit Shy
Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are more.
Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She didn't break their
necks or stab them or shoot them or whatever. Invariably they actually died
as the product of their own foolishness. The coach eaten by the fish
monsters he created. The Commandos shooting each other. The zoo keeper
consumed by the beasts he was using to achieve his power.
It can be debated whether that's a distinction that should matter, but it's
still something the series has nurtured. Made part of Buffy's mythos. Part
of the miracle of Buffy's hero's status, one of the things that sets her
apart, is that she has been the great battle champion saving the world while
somehow remaining unstained by the killing of humans. I think it's crazy
for the series to throw that away now. Naq qbhoyl fb gb gura ghea nebhaq va
Gur Tvsg naq rzcunfvmr ubj fur pna'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
OBS
Elisi
> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
> coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are more.
> Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
>
> But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She didn't break their
> necks or stab them or shoot them or whatever. Invariably they actually died
> as the product of their own foolishness. The coach eaten by the fish
> monsters he created. The Commandos shooting each other. The zoo keeper
> consumed by the beasts he was using to achieve his power.
>
> It can be debated whether that's a distinction that should matter, but it's
> still something the series has nurtured. Made part of Buffy's mythos. Part
> of the miracle of Buffy's hero's status, one of the things that sets her
> apart, is that she has been the great battle champion saving the world while
> somehow remaining unstained by the killing of humans. I think it's crazy
> for the series to throw that away now. Naq qbhoyl fb gb gura ghea nebhaq va
> Gur Tvsg naq rzcunfvmr ubj fur pna'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
>
> OBS
Uzzz V frr jung lbh'er fnlvat, ohg gurer'f fgvyy gur ovt qvivqvat yvar
orgjrra znafynhtugre va frys-qrsrapr naq zheqre. Xvyyvat gur xavtug vf
frys-qrsrafr. Xvyyvat Ora vf zheqre. Naq nf crbcyr cbvag bhg
qbja-guernq, fur jnf tbvat gb xvyy Snvgu va pbyq oybbq. Lrf Snvgu jnf n
guerng, ohg vs Snvgu unq qvrq Ohssl jbhyq unir orra n zheqrere!
One Bit Shy
V fnj n gbznunjx guebj phyzvangvat na Vaqvnaf punfvat gur fgntrpbnpu
fpranevb naq gura abguvat sbyybjvat hc ba gur frevbhfarff bs gur rirag. (Nf
bccbfrq gb gjb rfcvfbqrf va gur frevrf gung ner pragrerq ba gur ubeebe gung
fur zvtug unir xvyyrq fbzrbar.) Gurl qba'g ersrerapr vg va gur arkg rcvfbqr
qhevat gur qrngu vf ure tvsg cnegf. Abe qbrf vg nqq fvtavsvpnagyl gb gur
trareny ngzbfcurer bs qrngu nebhaq ure. Vg jnf na npgvba zbzrag qbar naq
cnfg va n zbzrag. Gur frn bs obqvrf yrsg ol Tybel ng gur raq qb sne zber gb
oevat ubzr gur frafr bs Ohssl orvat erfcbafvoyr sbe qrngu.
Fb, V'z fbeel, ohg vg fher ybbxf yvxr fbzrguvat gbffrq nfvqr yvtugyl gb zr.
Zl irel fgebat fhfcvpvba vf gung vg jnf n zvfgnxr. Fbzrguvat svyzrq sbe gur
fnxr bs gur rcvfbqr jvgubhg shyy ernyvmngvba bs vgf vzcyvpngvba. Vs lbh
unir fbzr pbagenel rivqrapr, V'q ybir gb urne vg. Ohg whfg fnlvat Qnja naq
fgerff ner tbbq ernfbaf qbrfa'g nqq hc gb zr. V qba'g frr gur sbyybj hc.
Naq V oryvrir vg svgf irel cbbeyl jvgu jung'f qbar va Gur Tvsg.
Jura V fnvq gur fvghngvbany rguvpf jrer vzzngrevny, V qvqa'g zrna gung fhpu
rguvpf ner havzcbegnag va gurzfryirf. V zrnag gung gurl'er vzzngrevny gb
gur rfgnoyvfurq zlgubf nebhaq Ohssl. Jung znggref gb gung vf gur fvzcyr
snpg bs ure abg xvyyvat crbcyr - sbe nal ernfba. Nal xvyyvat, sbe nal
ernfba, oernxf gur zlgubf. Gur vqrn vf gung ng gur raq fur unq ergnvarq ure
chevgl naq gur *svefg* qrngu ol ure bja unaq vf ure bja.
OBS
One Bit Shy
Bu, fher. Gung'f n ovt qvivqvat yvar vaqrrq. V qba'g guvax nalobql guvaxf
gung Ohssl jbhyqa'g xvyy vs vg jrer gehyl arprffnel.
Ohg gur guvat vf, fur fgvyy unfa'g. Jurgure vg'f yhpx be gur CGO be gehyl
ure urneg svaqvat n jnl - fbzrubj fur'f tbggra gb guvf cbvag hagnvagrq. Gur
Snvgu vapvqrag - bar qryvorengryl qrfvtarq gb or zbenyyl nzovthbhf, cvggvat
ure vafgvapgf gb chg gur barf fur ybirf svefg ntnvafg gur cebfpevcgvba
ntnvafg xvyyvat uhznaf - vf zrnag gb oevat Ohssl gb gur rqtr - gb trg ure gb
srry gung ubeebe fur fubjf nsgre fgnoovat Snvgu. Ohg gura fnir ure sebz gur
npghny qrrq jvgu gur yrffba fgvyy vagnpg. Snvgu qbrfa'g qvr.
Znlor V'z penml, ohg guvf frrzf yvxr n ovt qrny gb zr. Fbzrguvat jbexrq ng
sbe svir lrnef. Gur Snvgu fgbel rzcunfvmvat vg creuncf gur zbfg. Vg znxrf
ab frafr gb zr sbe gung fgevat gb raq va synfu qhevat n zbivr ubzntr fprar
naq yrsg hapbzzragrq ba. Fbzrguvat'f jebat jvgu gung cvpgher.
OBS
William George Ferguson
Since Don seems to be on vacation, I'll go ahead and say it. That knight
she tomahawked with the axe, or one of the ones she threw off the top of
the Winney before him, was Not the first human she had killed on the
series. There aren't a lot, and they all occurred in the heat of battle,
with Buffy defending innocents from them, but Buffy has killed humans
before (this is the part where you jump in and explain how each of the
seven or eight humans she has previously killed on screen don't really
count as her killing a human, and then BTR or someone will jump in and
explain that yes, they do count, and that it was ok because she was
completely justified in so doing).
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
BTR1701
Yeah, it's like they think because she's a Slayer, she loses the same
basic right of self-defense that everyone enjoys.
Faith may have been wrong when she claimed that being Slayers gave them
*more* rights than a normal person but it's just as wrong to claim that
being a Slayer gives them *less* rights as well.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153116113.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > One Bit Shy wrote:
> >
> >> As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn and stress
> >> are amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge
> >> part of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
> >
> > She threw the zoo keeper into the hyena pit in 'The Pack'. He was
> > human.
>
> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
> coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are more.
> Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
>
> But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She didn't break their
> necks or stab them or shoot them or whatever. Invariably they actually died
> as the product of their own foolishness. The coach eaten by the fish
> monsters he created. The Commandos shooting each other. The zoo keeper
> consumed by the beasts he was using to achieve his power.
You're kidding, right? If I throw you into a pool of Great White sharks
and they rip you to pieces, that's not me killing you by my own hand?
The sharks are just the weapon. The killing blow is the toss into the
pool.
BTR1701
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, by *trying* to kill Faith, she's already an attempted murderer
which is no small crime. It'll get you 25-to-life.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Uzzz V frr jung lbh'er fnlvat, ohg gurer'f fgvyy gur ovt qvivqvat yvar
> > orgjrra znafynhtugre va frys-qrsrapr naq zheqre. Xvyyvat gur xavtug vf
> > frys-qrsrafr. Xvyyvat Ora vf zheqre. Naq nf crbcyr cbvag bhg
> > qbja-guernq, fur jnf tbvat gb xvyy Snvgu va pbyq oybbq. Lrf Snvgu jnf n
> > guerng, ohg vs Snvgu unq qvrq Ohssl jbhyq unir orra n zheqrere!
> Oh, sure. That's a big dividing line indeed. I don't think anybody thinks
> that Buffy wouldn't kill if it were truly necessary.
>
> But the thing is, she still hasn't. Whether it's luck or the PTB or truly
> her heart finding a way - somehow she's gotten to this point untainted. The
> Faith incident - one deliberately designed to be morally ambiguous, pitting
> her instincts to put the ones she loves first against the proscription
> against killing humans - is meant to bring Buffy to the edge - to get her to
> feel that horror she shows after stabbing Faith. But then save her from the
> actual deed with the lesson still intact. Faith doesn't die.
>
> Maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a big deal to me. Something worked at
> for five years. The Faith story emphasizing it perhaps the most. It makes
> no sense to me for that string to end in flash during a movie homage scene
> and left uncommented on. Something's wrong with that picture.
First, I left the above unscrambled because there's no actual spoiler
there. This ROT-13 stuff is annoying enough without us starting to
encode things that don't need to be.
Second, I wouldn't call you crazy but you're certainly misguided if you
think that being an attempted murderer somehow leaves Buffy "untainted".
Whether Faith actually died or not is irrelevant. Buffy set out to
commit premeditated 1st-degree murder. She's very much tainted.
There's a reason why they still lock you up and throw away the key when
you try to kill someone, regardless of whether you're successful or not.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> Gur eryngvir zbenyvgl bs gur fvghngvba vfa'g zl pbaprea. Vg'f gur zlgubf
> gung gur frevrf unf rfgnoyvfurq nebhaq Ohssl gung znggref. Gurer ner ab
> pnirngf va Tvyrf jbeqf. Ohssl pna'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
Yes, she can. If a human being tries to kill her (or anyone else) she
can respond with deadly force if that's what it takes to stop the threat.
Giles isn't a law unto himself and even so, I don't think he's ever said
she's forbidden from killing a human, just that she herself chooses not
to.
shuggie
lili...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul Hyett wrote:
> > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer on Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Shuggie wrote :
> > >Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
> > >> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
> > >> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
> > >> was in the same place as the Key?
> > >
> > >Wait, are you suggesting there's some connection between Ben and Glory?
> > >
> > You mean... Ben is Glory, and Glory is Ben?
> > --
> > Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
>
>
> Thlf, jr'er abg ng jrvtug bs gur jbeyq lrg, cyrnfr xrrc gur wbxr va sbe
> bar zber erivrj. Cerggl cyrnfr
>
Vg'f unezyrff. Onfrq ba uvf hfhny unovgf NBD jvyy unir frra JbgJ ol
abj. Vs abg, jung qbrf zl cbfg gryy uvz gung ur qbrfa'g nyernql xabj?
Abguvat. Vg qbrfa'g rira fcbvy gur wbxr orpnhfr vg'f abg gung xvaq bs
wbxr.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> When I said the situational ethics were immaterial, I didn't mean that such
> ethics are unimportant in themselves. I meant that they're immaterial to
> the established mythos around Buffy. What matters to that is the simple
> fact of her not killing people - for any reason.
Which would be an idiotic stand for her to take. To not kill for any
reason means you're willing to let those who *will* kill not only do you
harm but you're also willing to let your friends, family and innocents
in general get killed as well.
> Any killing, for any reason, breaks the mythos.
Well, if it's a silly mythos, then it's not much of a loss.
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153116113.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > One Bit Shy wrote:
> >
> >> As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn and stress
> >> are
> >> amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge
> >> part
> >> of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
> >
> > She threw the zoo keeper into the hyena pit in 'The Pack'. He was
> > human.
>
> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
> coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are more.
> Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
>
> But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She didn't break their
> necks or stab them or shoot them or whatever.
There's the guy whose throat she slashed with her skate, or doesn't that
count as "by Buffy's own hands."
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
> (or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
Oh, come on. You never heard the Dead Kennedys' "Winnebago Warrior"?
> Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
> it), things start out great. Willow kicks things into high gear on the
> magic front, looking simultaneously lovable and badass while throwing
> gods around. But it turns out her powers only work for making barriers
> in specific fixed situations.
With one exception, Willow's magic only seems capable of moving Glory
around, or blocking her movements, not actually hurting her. The one
exception was that "I owe you pain!" zap thingie in Tough Love, and even
that may have just caused a sensation of pain rather than any physical
damage. Maybe Willow should be looking in another magical direction.
Concealment spells, perhaps?
> That being said, though, I may have to roll my eyes and frown
> disapprovingly if everyone at UC[Sun]D, and particularly the driver,
> remains blissfully unaware (or unwilling to accept) that there's a
> big supernatural world out there.
Sunnydale's powers of denial are as well-established as the Hellmouth
itself by now. I always figured (or fanwanked) that many of the people
who realize that the supernatural is out there try to avoid thinking about
it as much as possible, because it's too upsetting; and almost all of them
avoid talking about it with anyone else, because it's too crazy-sounding.
People who grow up there are probably warned from childhood that certain
things should not be talked about. (I think Joyce's speech in Gingerbread
goes into this.) The result is that lots of locals know that Something is
out there, but none of them ever talk about it or band together against
it, and newcomers are completely unprepared.
> After that, our hero decides that it's time to take everyone on a
> road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
> This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
> her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
> to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
> people.
As others have already said, it's unusual for her, but perfectly logical
in the situation. They've tried everything else they can think of, with
little result. "We've barely been able to manage not getting seriously
dead every time we've crossed paths with Glory." So why not flee?
Unlike many previous Apocalypses, fleeing is at least possible this time
-- they aren't tied to the Hellmouth. Buffy feels helpless, but at this
point she's not really giving up, just trying one last thing *before*
giving up. And IMHO, fleeing is such an obvious idea that it would have
been hard to suspend disbelief if they didn't try it, or at least debate
the idea.
> I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
> dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
> like Buffy.
It's not like our usual Buffy, but that's because she has snapped.
Everyone has their limit, and she has been pushed past hers in a way we've
never seen before.
> I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
> funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
> pace with a motor vehicle. I still think the Knights are way too goofy
> to be taken seriously, especially since they don't have any special
> powers other than the ability of a Renaissance fair cult to draw so
> many members.
I agree that the Knights are a major weak point. It might have worked
better, at least for me, if they had played up the Knights' basic
ridiculousness. Not exactly for laughs -- this isn't the right time for a
comedy episode -- but to add another layer to the burdens on our heroine.
It could have been like adding insult to injury. Buffy should have been
as exasperated at the silliness of their medieval-style attack as she was
angry at their insistence on killing Dawn. But instead, the Knights in
this ep fall between two stools, too silly to be a good threat but played
too straight to be a good joke.
Oh, well. Some good fighty stuff. I loved at least one image from the
fight, when Buffy twirls her captured sword around (yngre nqqrq gb gur
bcravat perqvgf). The part that bothered me most was outside the gas
station, when the Knights' second-in-command yells for Clerics. Suddenly
our John Ford homage has become a Gary Gygax homage.
> Spike is one of the gang again, thanks to Buffy articulating her
> rediscovered trust also seen last week; they don't all like him, but
> that's nothing new. I kinda liked Xander lighting the cigarette for
> him.
That's a great little moment. Of course Xander and Spike start fighting
again a few seconds later, but it's over a serious question of strategy.
And now they're arguing as comrades who happen to dislike each other,
rather than as enemies who happen to be stuck together.
(Though maybe Spike thinks he's just working for Buffy, not actually part
of the team. In the Winnebago he wishes that he, Buffy and Dawn had taken
off by themselves, leaving the others to be killed by Glory. Again, his
concern for humans doesn't extend much past Buffy and Dawn.)
> The captured Knight's speech to Buffy is one of the high points of
> the episode. And at the same time, it just goes on and on.
Agreed on both counts. Finally we learn exactly what Glory wants to do
with the Key, and what will happen to the world if she does it. But it
could have been done in half the time and with twice the wit. (Buffy's
side doesn't strike me as any worse than the general's though.)
One thing none of the characters seem to consider: would killing Dawn
really destroy the Key? Or would it just return the Key to its original
form? Or even just leave it hidden in Dawn's remains?
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
One joke I didn't like was Xander getting carsick. This is the guy who
seriously planned to drive across the country after graduation. I know
people prone to carsickness don't feel it as severely if they're driving,
but still, it felt like a continuity error to me.
> - "You know this is your fault for saying that."
My favorite moment in the episode. And really, she's right. Jinxes do
seem to work in the Buffyverse.
> AOQ rating: Weak
In my opinion, the silly Knights and some slow moments drag Spiral down,
but they don't cripple it. I'd give it a Decent, and not even an absolute
bottom level Decent.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
George W Harris
<exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> Everyone always acts like this is some kind of transgression and for the
:> life of me, I don't see why.
:>
:> They were trying to kill her. They were trying to kill her family.
:> Violently. With swords.
:>
:
: I'm with you on this one. 100%.
:
: I didn't see a problem with it at the time, and was just plain
:shocked when someone else thought it was a problem.
:
: Are ya'll NUTS?
Are y'all BLIND? It's not that it's morally wrong
(nobody's saying that), it's that it fundamentally alters the
mythos of Buffy that she's never killed a human with her
own hands. And, although a big deal, it goes completely
unremarked.
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
shuggie
> "Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153116113.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > One Bit Shy wrote:
> >
> >> As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn and stress
> >> are
> >> amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge
> >> part
> >> of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
> >
> > She threw the zoo keeper into the hyena pit in 'The Pack'. He was
> > human.
>
> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
> coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are more.
> Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
>
> But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She didn't break their
> necks or stab them or shoot them or whatever. Invariably they actually died
> as the product of their own foolishness. The coach eaten by the fish
> monsters he created. The Commandos shooting each other. The zoo keeper
> consumed by the beasts he was using to achieve his power.
>
> It can be debated whether that's a distinction that should matter, but it's
> still something the series has nurtured.
The problem with your argument is that you're begging the question.
Either the distinction you're making matters, in which case we can ask
why the series has kept Buffy's hands 'clean' - but even so I'd
hesitate to use a loaded word like 'nurtured' - OR - the distinction is
meaningless and Buffy's hands are only technically clean - that a pool
full of killer fish-monsters is as much a weapon as a knife.
Look at it this way - if you set out to make a show with a hero who you
want people to see as basically good but who will kill humans in
self-defence - what would that look like? Well you'd want most of the
deaths caused by the hero to be non-human, you'd want human deaths to
be rare and be in self-defence. Maybe if you wanted to play the moral
amibiguity of the character you'd have the hero wrestle with murderous
desires in extreme circumstances, but you'd probably be wise to pull
back from outright murder in cold blood.
In other words it'd look pretty much like what we've seen.
So what about your theory that they've specifically nutured Buffy's
"clean hands"? If they were to do that what would we expect? Wouldn't
we expect to see some reason for that? Perhaps there's some mystical
act or spell that's only open to those without blood on their hands and
Buffy will qualify (if only on a technicality)? But no such thing has
yet been shown and if it's about to be then I'd've hoped for more
foreshadowing.
On the other side of the argument if you're making a fantasy show with
fighting in it you want to spice things up with the manner of deaths
don't you? If you're Davd Fury you're not going to pitch the end of Go
Fish as '...and then she wrestles the gun off the Coach and shoots him
dead' are you? Purely on the basis of doing something a little more
interesting you're going to use the fish-men (ironically they are the
Chekov's gun in this). So variety of action scenes dictates that many
of Buffy's kills won't be (technically) "by her hand alone" as it were.
>Made part of Buffy's mythos. Part
> of the miracle of Buffy's hero's status, one of the things that sets her
> apart, is that she has been the great battle champion saving the world while
> somehow remaining unstained by the killing of humans. I think it's crazy
> for the series to throw that away now.
I think they throw it away not because they're careless, but because,
as argued above, they were never really preserving it in the first
place.
BTR1701
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:03:37 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> Everyone always acts like this is some kind of transgression and for the
> :> life of me, I don't see why.
> :>
> :> They were trying to kill her. They were trying to kill her family.
> :> Violently. With swords.
> :>
> :
> : I'm with you on this one. 100%.
> :
> : I didn't see a problem with it at the time, and was just plain
> :shocked when someone else thought it was a problem.
> :
> : Are ya'll NUTS?
>
> Are y'all BLIND? It's not that it's morally wrong
> (nobody's saying that), it's that it fundamentally alters the
> mythos of Buffy that she's never killed a human with her
> own hands. And, although a big deal, it goes completely
> unremarked.
What about the guy whose throat she slashed with her skate? Or does she
have to actually strangle him with her hands (skin on skin) for it to
count as "with her own hands"?
This whole "with her own hands" distinction is silly. If you toss a guy
into a pack of ravenous hyenas, you have killed him.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > human.
>
> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
> coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are more.
> Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
more accurately you can say she didnt hunt down and pursue humans
with deadly intent except faith
the faith exception was also remarked on by xander
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
One Bit Shy
news:dsample-429396...@news.giganews.com...
I always thought he was demon.
OBS
peachy ashie passion
Aside from that.. if we are counting her moral standing in killing
humans, she lost that back when she killed Ted.
Sure, he turned out not to be human - but if what you are working on
his her moral standing, at the time she killed him she fully believed
him to be human, and knowingly and intentionally committed the killing.
I think that the series didn't intend this purity at all, it is a
fictive state of certain viewers.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
outside of socially regressive texas
deadly force can only be used in response to perceived deadly force
how deadly is a sword in human hands to a slayer?
peachy ashie passion
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:03:37 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> Everyone always acts like this is some kind of transgression and for the
> :> life of me, I don't see why.
> :>
> :> They were trying to kill her. They were trying to kill her family.
> :> Violently. With swords.
> :>
> :
> : I'm with you on this one. 100%.
> :
> : I didn't see a problem with it at the time, and was just plain
> :shocked when someone else thought it was a problem.
> :
> : Are ya'll NUTS?
>
> Are y'all BLIND? It's not that it's morally wrong
> (nobody's saying that), it's that it fundamentally alters the
> mythos of Buffy that she's never killed a human with her
> own hands. And, although a big deal, it goes completely
> unremarked.
You know, after I saw her kill Ted, I sorta thought that mythos
was.. well... not.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> they live when they aren't chasing Buffy. And I always assumed that the
from their comments about gathering forces
sounded like more prosaic travel
> and spy on each other, and that both the monks and the knights either
> live for thousands of years or else reproduce asexually to ensure the
the knights are human
at least according to buffy
when she first meets them in checkpoint
she asks what are they
takes off one of their masks
and then rephraases as who are they
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
we dont know
the order of tarrakan includes human and demon
worm guy was demon
the woman dressed as police is generally assumed to be human
Rowan Hawthorn
Now, *that* I don't agree with, either. The reading I get from watching
"Ted" is that Buffy *did* knowingly and intentionally give Ted a royal
(and well-deserved, might I add) ass-kicking, but the fatal result was
*not* intended. She simply let her anger get the best of her judgment,
like people do on occasion, with tragic results (or, at least, what
*would* have been tragic results if Ted had been a "real boy.")
>
> I think that the series didn't intend this purity at all, it is a
> fictive state of certain viewers.
I'm kinda in-between here. I think it's clear that, for the most part,
Buffy holds herself to pretty high standards. But I *don't* think she
was intended to be portrayed as anything other than a human being,
trying, and occasionally failing, to do the best she could to uphold
those standards.
One Bit Shy
news:3jcnb2tdi70rffeiu...@4ax.com...
I'd rather not role play. I've seen some of that conversation before too.
It seemed to me that the series had attempted to make the distinction
between direct and indirect deaths so as to be able to claim that Buffy
hadn't killed humans even though humans had died. The worthiness of that
distinction can be argued. But I'm not going to. I'm just observing that
the distinction seems to have been made. I don't believe I'm the first to
observe that.
OBS
(Harmony) Watcher
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:12bna17...@news.supernews.com...
> > One Bit Shy wrote:
> >
stress
> >> are
> >> amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate such a huge
> >> part
> >> of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without comment.
> >
> > human.
>
> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times. That's one. The
> coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos in Homecoming. There are
more.
> Somebody posted an inventory a little while ago.
>
> But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She didn't break their
died
> as the product of their own foolishness. The coach eaten by the fish
> monsters he created. The Commandos shooting each other. The zoo keeper
> consumed by the beasts he was using to achieve his power.
>
> It can be debated whether that's a distinction that should matter, but
it's
Part
> of the miracle of Buffy's hero's status, one of the things that sets her
> apart, is that she has been the great battle champion saving the world
while
> somehow remaining unstained by the killing of humans. I think it's crazy
va
>
>
For me, it's one of those silly things that Buffy had cooked up for herself
(thanks, in small part, to Gile's indoctrination). I see that, overtime,
Buffy also felt the absurdity of it too, the present example being just one
of a number of situations that confronted her and demanded her to re-think
the silly rule that she made up for herself.
But if she allowed herself to take a human life when the situation warranted
it (say, the human attacked with deadly force), it would require her to make
*conscious* moral judgement calls, and I believe that it would make her
brain hurt too much (or any superhero's brain with a conscience, for that
matter). For sure, it would not be an easy call. I feel that she just did
not want to deal with the human component of her responsibility. And it is
my opinion that she was naive in that regard.
Va Frnfba Frira, Knaqre pbasebagrq ure jvgu gur qvssrerag gerngzragf Ohssl
jnagrq gb unaqyr gur Nalnaxn guerng irefhf gur Qnegu Ebfraoret (QE) guerng.
Naq Ohssl'f nethzragf jrer abg pbaivapvat gb zr gb fnl gur yrnfg
(abgjvgufgnaqvat gur snpg gung fur jnf yvxryl hanoyr gb qrsrng QE ng gur raq
bs gur qnl unq Knaqre abg zrygrq QE'f urneg). Abgr: QE, sbe nyy vagragf naq
checbfrf, jnf ab ybatre uhzna ol gur gvzr fur jnf noyr gb (1) fubbg
yvtugavat obygf npebff gur qvfgnaprf sebz ure unaqf, naq (2) culfvpnyyl
qr-zngrevnyvmr naq gura er-zngrevnyvmr urefrys sebz bar cynpr gb nabgure.
So, in a way, I actually liked the way the series had presented these
ambiguous moral dilemmas for Buffy to face. In a way, Buffy learned to deal
and face the tough questions in an ad hoc manner.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
peachy ashie passion
Exactly!
Buffy's policy was "don't kill humans", but sometimes they were bad
guys and she ran out of other options in the middle of a fight.
Letting her anger get the best of her might knock it down to
manslaughter in a court of law, but it's still Buffy killing the guy.
Clairel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
> (or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> Considering how bored I got with this episode (spoiler: I didn't like
> it), things start out great. Willow kicks things into high gear on the
> magic front, looking simultaneously lovable and badass while throwing
> gods around. But it turns out her powers only work for making barriers
> reactions, she can't outrun a god forever. But she's defiant, if
> fearful, to the end when staring down Glory, and her delivery on
> "just one. Truck" is a good vintage gag (they're classics for a
> reason). Even the transformation into Ben makes for a good surreal
> moment. Strong teaser all around.
>
> That being said, though, I may have to roll my eyes and frown
> disapprovingly if everyone at UC[Sun]D, and particularly the driver,
> remains blissfully unaware (or unwilling to accept) that there's a
> big supernatural world out there.
>
> road trip and disappear. Um... okay. Not quite what one might expect.
> This kind of hopelessness is new to Buffy - the only time I remember
> her seeming so defeated was the Summer Of Anne, and she was trying not
> to care about anything then, whereas this is all about caring for
> during the aforementioned episode, I can't quite get it to work for
> me. I've tried to talk my way through it logically, but that empty
> dazed look at the end of the episode in particular just doesn't seem
> like Buffy.
>
> perspective why Joyce's death happens when it does. The
> circumstances have to be just wrong if the show is going to do this to
> the character, so it's more likely to work now than it would have at
> any other point in the series.
>
> It's not just Buffy who doesn't feel like herself - it's BTVS
> as a whole. Quite simply, I'm not engaged. The last couple episodes
> haven't felt like the series I fell in love with, they've felt
> like, well, some action show. It was surprising to see myself close to
> Dorothy Heydt's Eight Deadly Words. Part of it is that Glory and her
> man-nurse don't much interest me, but this program's always been
> about the heroes anyway. I don't know where the life is - it's
> not like there's no effort being made, as the characters go through
> the motions of emotion and Buffyverse banter (a few successful attempts
> too, like about half of the Anya gags, and the stuff below in the
> TIRSBILA sections). For the most part, though, they look like the
> group I liked so much, but they're so colorless and serious in a
> bland way about everything, getting scared by the crises and nodding at
> the mystical exposition. Buffy's "we are not your enemy!" speech
> in particular is the kind of cheesily impassioned platitude that
> could've easily come out of a much more generic heroes-n'-villains
> show.
>
> I guess Giles's line about tricycles with more power, besides being
> funny, is meant to explain why a bunch of guys on horseback can keep
> pace with a motor vehicle. I still think the Knights are way too goofy
> to be taken seriously, especially since they don't have any special
> powers other than the ability of a Renaissance fair cult to draw so
> than one episode at a time, I think. Mrs. Quality cites them as the
> main thing dragging down this episode - I'd be more likely to call
> them a symptom rather than a cause. Oh, and the fight in act two is
> all right, but goes on too long.
>
> Rupert's near death is okay, decent enough to get its own paragraph.
> I think both the timing of the injury and the way in which he opens up
> with his praise for Buffy are pretty good. Here maybe the Knights are
> a cause of a problem, since I was never worried about him, and had he
> died, I wouldn't have been heartbroken, I'd have been annoyed at
> the show for giving him such a lame send-off.
>
> Spike is one of the gang again, thanks to Buffy articulating her
> rediscovered trust also seen last week; they don't all like him, but
> that's nothing new. I kinda liked Xander lighting the cigarette for
> him.
>
> and it has that lame Buffy monologue that I mentioned earlier. Still,
> at least it provides the impression of moving the plot along, even if
> it's as an infodump. We learn not only more about how our evil god
> works and what she's up to, but learn about two people who could
> serve as weaknesses. One of them is Dawn, whom her sister makes clear
> is off limits, as an innocent and as family. {On an unrelated note, I
> just watched episode 2-12 of _24_, which also has to do with when it is
> or isn't okay to kill a couple innocents in hopes of saving millions.
> Just seemed like a fun coincidence.}
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind killing Ben, though. He seemed like such a
> fun character once too. I still don't get what he's thinking at
> all - did it never occur to him that Glory might take over while he
> himself, why has he never moved against Dawn directly rather than
> hanging around in her general vicinity until he transformed into Glory?
> Having Buffy call him in seems pretty contrived. And while I'm at
> it, I'd also kill the high-pitched sycophant explaining things to him
> near the beginning, just because.
>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> creepy cartoon rabbit when he's running from that nice man with the
> speech impediment." "[rolls eyes] Yes, or perhaps we could paint a
> convincing tunnel on the side of a mountain."
> - "You know this is your fault for saying that."
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Kinda dull.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
>
> [Season Five so far:
> 1) "Buffy Vs. Dracula" - Good
> 2) "Real Me" - Decent
> 3) "The Replacement" - Good
> 4) "Out Of My Mind" - Weak
> 5) "No Place Like Home" - Decent
> 6) "Family" - Excellent
> 7) "Fool For Love" - Excellent
> 8) "Shadow" - Good
> 9) "Listening To Fear" - Decent
> 10) "Into The Woods" - Good
> 11) "Triangle" - Decent
> 12) "Checkpoint" - Decent
> 13) "Blood Ties" - Good
> 14) "Crush" - Excellent
> 15) "I Was Made To Love You" - Weak
> 16) "The Body" - Good
> 17) "Forever" - Decent
> 18) "Intervention" - Decent
> 19) "Tough Love" - Decent
> 20) "Spiral" - Weak]
-- Hmm, I would have reversed the ratings of Tough Love and Spiral if I
were you. As I was just commenting on the TL thread, Tough Love had
only a few nifty moments in it, whereas to me almost all of Spiral was
gripping. I can see you getting bored through large parts of TL last
week, but how on earth Spiral can be boring to you or seem like sub-par
BtVS, I just cannot fathom.
Just reading about it takes me back to the spring of 2001, when I was
so wildly excited to find out what would happen to Our Gang. I was
literally on the edge of my seat and biting my fingernails throughout
this episode when it first aired.
Anybody else remember that feeling back then?
Clairel
One Bit Shy
news:btr1702-D9891A...@news.giganews.com...
Why are you talking about sharks? It isn't a hypothetical situation. If
you must go down this path, at least reference the few actual incidents.
Whether Buffy deserves any credit for limiting her actions to indirect
rather than direct killings can be debated. But what ever the answer - if a
definitive answer even exists - the distinction still persists. Add
Gwendolyn Post to that list. Killed by the lightening she called forth.
OBS
William George Ferguson
tomys des anges <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Deadly force is allowed, both morally and legally, when used in the
>
>outside of socially regressive texas
>deadly force can only be used in response to perceived deadly force
>
>how deadly is a sword in human hands to a slayer?
Deadly force can be used to prevent deadly force either against oneself or
against others, pretty much everywhere in the US. How deadly are swords,
lances, axes and other melee weapons, in the 30 or 40 hands, against a 40
something Englishman, a 20 year old carpenter, a couple of female college
students, one of them temporarily impaired, and a junior high school
student?
I tend to agree that Buffy shouldn't use deadly force when she doesn't have
to in order to defuse the situation (as in Hush, when she just broke the
guy's arm that was going to club Riley), even though she would have every
legal right to do so. However, when a large number of people armed with
lethal weapons are attacking her party, preventing her friends from being
killed takes precedence over being overly careful not to inflict lethal
damage, and has since the Pack (probably since before that, but that's the
first time we saw her engage in reckless disregard for the safety of her
human opponent, resulting in her opponent's death. Buffy doesn't seem to
have ever been bothered by that, and I don't see any evidence that she
engaged in sophistry concerning her role in their deaths. To paraphase
Heinlein, Buffy's attitude afterward has generally been, 'they're dead, the
innocents aren't, and I prefer that outcome."
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Elisi
> > I'm kinda in-between here. I think it's clear that, for the most part,
> > Buffy holds herself to pretty high standards. But I *don't* think she
> > was intended to be portrayed as anything other than a human being,
> > trying, and occasionally failing, to do the best she could to uphold
> > those standards.
> >
>
> Exactly!
>
> Buffy's policy was "don't kill humans", but sometimes they were bad
> guys and she ran out of other options in the middle of a fight.
>
> Letting her anger get the best of her might knock it down to
> manslaughter in a court of law, but it's still Buffy killing the guy.
I think it basically comes down to Buffy never killing someone who's
defenceless. Can everyone agree on that?
One Bit Shy
When discussing whether somebody has killed, it seems to me that whether the
victim has died is relevant. My tainted remark referred only to having
killed. I'm sorry that the word evokes more in you. But killing was the
only source of taint that I was speaking of.
> There's a reason why they still lock you up and throw away the key when
> you try to kill someone, regardless of whether you're successful or not.
And there's a reason why I was talking about killing rather than attempted
killing. This whole thing is because I questioned how the killing of the
guy on the RV roof fit into Buffy's established story - specifically because
I did not believe she had directly killed a human like that before. I'm not
denying anything about the significance of attempting to kill Fatih beyond
the simple fact that she didn't kill her.
OBS
shuggie
Substitute swim-team-turned-monsters for sharks and it's not so
hypothetical.
> Whether Buffy deserves any credit for limiting her actions to indirect
> rather than direct killings can be debated.
You've said that before so OK let's debate. I say that throwing the
Zookeeper to the hyenas (and not going in after when she heard the
screams), and throwing coach to the fish-men was as direct as using a
knife or a gun. I say that because in both cases there were many on to
one and supernatural strength was involved. The chances of them
escaping on their own are probably at least as great as a gun
misfiring.
The guy on the ice-rink was killed directly by Buffy and he at least
looked human. As did Ted although I think the intent to kill there is
ambiguous.
Anyway that's my argument what's yours.
> But what ever the answer - if a
> definitive answer even exists - the distinction still persists.
You've noticed a distinction. Ignoring ice-rink guy for a second I'll
accept that the distinction exists. The question is, is that
distinction meaningful? See my other post for why I think it isn't.
>Add
> Gwendolyn Post to that list. Killed by the lightening she called forth.
She did and Buffy couldn't know for sure she was killing Ms Post rather
than simply disarming her. (I could probably make a case for her
knowing enough about traumatic blood loss from a severed arm to say she
should, but I won't)
This is a clear case of Good triumphing over Evil - with Ms Post's own
dark power bringing about her demise. And I argue that it's made clear
so that we continue to see Buffy as a hero. In the same way that in
every case where someone (human) dies, Buffy is seen as acting in
self-defense or defense of others.
One Bit Shy
> In article <12bn911...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> Gur eryngvir zbenyvgl bs gur fvghngvba vfa'g zl pbaprea. Vg'f gur zlgubf
>> gung gur frevrf unf rfgnoyvfurq nebhaq Ohssl gung znggref. Gurer ner ab
>> pnirngf va Tvyrf jbeqf. Ohssl pna'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
>
> pna erfcbaq jvgu qrnqyl sbepr vs gung'f jung vg gnxrf gb fgbc gur guerng.
>
> Tvyrf vfa'g n ynj hagb uvzfrys naq rira fb, V qba'g guvax ur'f rire fnvq
> fur'f sbeovqqra sebz xvyyvat n uhzna, whfg gung fur urefrys pubbfrf abg
> gb.
V qba'g zrna gung Tvyrf vf qryvirevat na rqvpg. Furrfu. Ernq gur qnzarq
dhbgr. Vg'f xvaqn snzbhf. Vg'f uvf *bofreingvba* bs Ohssl'f punenpgre.
OBS
Daniel Damouth
news:btr1702-DBEEA3...@news.giganews.com:
> Second, I wouldn't call you crazy but you're certainly misguided
> if you think that being an attempted murderer somehow leaves Buffy
> "untainted". Whether Faith actually died or not is irrelevant.
> Buffy set out to commit premeditated 1st-degree murder. She's very
> much tainted.
I'd say that Faith being a Slayer puts her in Buffy's jurisdiction.
-Dan Damouth
Daniel Damouth
news:1153166207.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>> Buffy's policy was "don't kill humans", but sometimes they
>> were bad
>> guys and she ran out of other options in the middle of a fight.
>>
>> Letting her anger get the best of her might knock it down to
>> manslaughter in a court of law, but it's still Buffy killing the
>> guy.
>
> I think it basically comes down to Buffy never killing someone
> who's defenceless. Can everyone agree on that?
Well, there was that pathetic vampire-prostitute girl running away from
her...
-Dan Damouth
George W Harris
<exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ted the robot, you mean? Or did you stop
watching that episode after he fell down the stairs?
--
Firefly Fan Since September 20th, 2002 - Browncoat Since Birth
One Bit Shy
> In article <12bnbtr...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> such
>> ethics are unimportant in themselves. I meant that they're immaterial to
>> the established mythos around Buffy. What matters to that is the simple
>> fact of her not killing people - for any reason.
>
> Which would be an idiotic stand for her to take. To not kill for any
> reason means you're willing to let those who *will* kill not only do you
> harm but you're also willing to let your friends, family and innocents
> in general get killed as well.
>
>> Any killing, for any reason, breaks the mythos.
>
> Well, if it's a silly mythos, then it's not much of a loss.
It's not a stand. It's a state of being. Since you seem to like analogies,
imagine me walking across a crowded bar carrying a full beer and managing to
make it to my table without getting bumped and spilling beer. When I say,
"Look, I made it without spilling any," I'm not taking a stand on the
virtues of going spill free, nor implying there would be something wrong
with me if I had spilled. I'm just happy that I got there with a full
glass. If I do it regularly, maybe I'll get the reputation as the one to
ask to go get the beers. Maybe that means I'm good. Or maybe it means I'm
lucky. But it's not a stance. It's just absent spills.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> It seemed to me that the series had attempted to make the distinction
> between direct and indirect deaths so as to be able to claim that Buffy
> hadn't killed humans even though humans had died. The worthiness of that
> distinction can be argued. But I'm not going to. I'm just observing that
> the distinction seems to have been made. I don't believe I'm the first to
> observe that.
- if i leave him tied up and left him where oh vampires are known to frequent
its not like i actually killed him myself
i dont give buffy an out because she merely pulled a trigger
and it was the bullet that actually penetrated flesh
in my world intent is important
and what i see is that other than faith there was no intent to hunt down humans
there were reactions and chains of consequences
but faith was the only one she hunted down with intent to kill
and that one was controversial with her friends
and even faith recognized buffy had put on big sisters clothes
(leather pants of moral ambiguity)
at first when faith killed the vice mayor
the discussion was more about her intent and attitude
with giles pointing out that slayers have killed humans before
and that what matters was the intent
buffy took on three knights at once before without apparently to kill any
so maybe she could have aimed the axe better to wound or stun
William George Ferguson
She generally prefers not to even kill soulless demons who are defenseless.
That's part of why, if the demon is willing to run away, most the time
Buffy is willing to let it run away.
burt...@hotmail.com
Count me as someone else who doesn't see the distinction you're talking
about. What does it matter if you kill someone by breaking their neck
or by throwing them into a pack of hyenas? Either way, they're still
dead.
Rowan Hawthorn
>>>> One Bit Shy wrote:
>>>>> "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:woqdndBmJfnziibZ...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> One Bit Shy wrote:
>>>>>>> There is a certain degree of entertainment in that fight. And I
>>>>>>> guess it's part of Joss's school of thinking where you've gotta have
>>>>>>> a rocket launcher or you gotta have flaming arrows. This time it's
>>>>>>> you gotta have Indians chasing the stagecoach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But mostly I find it dumb, illogical on many levels, and as I
>>>>>>> mentioned earlier, I think they made a real problem for themselves
>>>>>>> suggesting that Buffy killed a human in this battle. I don't care
>>>>>>> what movie tribute they were making - it could have been Citizen
>>>>>>> episode.
>>>>>> I disagree with this - I think, actually, there couldn't be a better
>>>>>> place for it, because 1) this is something - protecting Dawn - that
>>>>>> without hesitation, especially 2) now with everything that has been
>>>>>> piled on her; Buffy is stressed to the point where it would be totally
>>>>>> illogical for her *not* to use whatever means necessary to repel the
>>>>>> Knights rather than risk Dawn's life further, and 3) it's one more
>>>>>> thing, one last burden, to weigh on Buffy's mind. Yes, the Knights
>>>>>> brought it on themselves, and yes, it was necessary to protect her
>>>>>> charges, but it's the line that she's always tried not to cross.
>>>>> stress are amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary to violate
>>>>> such a huge part of Buffy's back story for that. Especially without
>>>>> comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> or n tbbq engvbanyr. Ohg vg'f abg bssrerq. Vafgrnq, jung jr npghnyyl
>>>>> trg vf guvf:
>>>>>
>>>>> TVYRF: Pna lbh zbir?
>>>>> ORA: Arrq n ... n zvahgr. Fur pbhyq'ir xvyyrq zr.
>>>>> TVYRF: Ab fur pbhyqa'g. Arire. Naq fbbare be yngre Tybel jvyy
>>>>> er-rzretr, naq ... znxr Ohssl cnl sbe gung zrepl. Naq gur jbeyq jvgu
>>>>> ure. Ohssl rira xabjf gung... naq fgvyy fur pbhyqa'g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gung'f n ceboyrz. Naq vg fgvyy ybbxf gb zr yvxr n eblny fperjhc sbe
>>>>> gur fnxr bs n zbivr ubzntr.
>>>>>
>>>>> OBS
>>>> Abg ng nyy - Ora jnf *qbja*, naq jvgubhg Tybel er-rzretvat, jnf ab
>>>> ybatre na vzzrqvngr guerng. Gur Xavtugf jrer npgviryl zbhagvat
>>>> <nurz...> na nggnpx. Xvyyvat fbzrbar jub'f snpvat lbh jvgu n qenja
>>>> jrncba vf n qvssrerag znggre sebz xvyyvat n qbjarq bccbarag. Vg jbhyq
>>>> unir orra fznegre gb svavfu Ora bss, ohg gung gnxrf n yriry bs
>>>> centzngvfz gung Ohssl'f abg lrg pncnoyr bs. Tbbq guvat Tvyrf *vf*.
>>> Gur eryngvir zbenyvgl bs gur fvghngvba vfa'g zl pbaprea. Vg'f gur zlgubf
>>> gung gur frevrf unf rfgnoyvfurq nebhaq Ohssl gung znggref. Gurer ner ab
>>> rcvfbqr, gur frevrf unf tbar guebhtu pbafvqrenoyr rssbeg gb xrrc ure
>>> erpbeq pyrna.
>>>
>>> Vg'f vzzngrevny jurgure gurer ner pvephzfgnaprf fur fubhyq be jurgure
>>> vg'f zbeny be rira jurgure fur jbhyq vs ernyyl arprffnel. (V guvax jr
>>> nyy nffhzr gung fur jbhyq.) Gur cbvag - rfcrpvnyyl abj ng gur raq bs
>>> F5 - vf gung fur *unfa'g* xvyyrq uhznaf ol ure bja unaqf. Gung fur'f jba
>>> terng onggyrf naq ernpurq na rknygrq ureb'f fgnghf juvyr fbzrubj
>>> ergnvavat gung chevgl. Gung'f gur zlgubf. Gur punzcvba jub fnirq gur
>>> jbeyq ercrngrqyl, ohg gur bayl uhzna yvsr fur gbbx jnf ure bja.
>>>
>>> V qba'g guvax gung'f na vqrn gb gbff nfvqr yvtugyl nsgre fcraqvat 5 lrnef
>>> rfgnoyvfuvat vg - naq gura cynaavat gb rzcunfvmr vg va gur svanyr. V
>>> oryvrir vg jnf n ubeevoyr zvfgnxr.
>>>
>>> OBS
>> V qba'g guvax vg jnf "gbffrq nfvqr yvtugyl" ng nyy. Bs pbhefr, vs nal naq
>> nyy pvephzfgnaprf haqre juvpu gung npgvba zvtug bpphe ner pbafvqrerq
>> "veeryrinag," gura V fhccbfr V pna frr jurer bar zvtug srry gung jnl...
>>
>> --
>> Rowan Hawthorn
>
> V fnj n gbznunjx guebj phyzvangvat na Vaqvnaf punfvat gur fgntrpbnpu
> fpranevb naq gura abguvat sbyybjvat hc ba gur frevbhfarff bs gur rirag. (Nf
> bccbfrq gb gjb rfcvfbqrf va gur frevrf gung ner pragrerq ba gur ubeebe gung
> fur zvtug unir xvyyrq fbzrbar.) Gurl qba'g ersrerapr vg va gur arkg rcvfbqr
> qhevat gur qrngu vf ure tvsg cnegf. Abe qbrf vg nqq fvtavsvpnagyl gb gur
> trareny ngzbfcurer bs qrngu nebhaq ure. Vg jnf na npgvba zbzrag qbar naq
> cnfg va n zbzrag. Gur frn bs obqvrf yrsg ol Tybel ng gur raq qb sne zber gb
> oevat ubzr gur frafr bs Ohssl orvat erfcbafvoyr sbe qrngu.
V'q fhttrfg gung vg'f abg qjryg ba orpnhfr gurer ner bgure, zber
*vzzrqvngryl* vzcbegnag, guvatf gung gurl ner pbaprearq jvgu: yvxr,
*Ubj* pna fur svtug Tybel; *ubj* pna fur cebgrpg Qnja, abg gb zragvba
gur bguref.
>
> Fb, V'z fbeel, ohg vg fher ybbxf yvxr fbzrguvat gbffrq nfvqr yvtugyl gb zr.
Jryy... gura znlor gung'f na vffhr jvgu gur vagrecergngvba engure guna
gur cerfragngvba.
> Zl irel fgebat fhfcvpvba vf gung vg jnf n zvfgnxr. Fbzrguvat svyzrq sbe gur
> fnxr bs gur rcvfbqr jvgubhg shyy ernyvmngvba bs vgf vzcyvpngvba. Vs lbh
> unir fbzr pbagenel rivqrapr, V'q ybir gb urne vg. Ohg whfg fnlvat Qnja naq
> fgerff ner tbbq ernfbaf qbrfa'g nqq hc gb zr. V qba'g frr gur sbyybj hc.
> Naq V oryvrir vg svgf irel cbbeyl jvgu jung'f qbar va Gur Tvsg.
V'q yvxr gb frr fbzr npghny *rivqrapr* sbe jung lbh'er frrvat, gbb.
Jvgubhg gur jevgref jrvtuvat va ba jung gurve vagragvbaf jrer, V qba'g
frr ubj rvgure bs hf ner tbvat gb trg vg, fb onfvpnyyl jr'er cerggl zhpu
fghpx jvgu qvssrevat vagrecergngvbaf.
>
> Jura V fnvq gur fvghngvbany rguvpf jrer vzzngrevny, V qvqa'g zrna gung fhpu
> rguvpf ner havzcbegnag va gurzfryirf. V zrnag gung gurl'er vzzngrevny gb
> gur rfgnoyvfurq zlgubf nebhaq Ohssl. Jung znggref gb gung vf gur fvzcyr
> snpg bs ure abg xvyyvat crbcyr - sbe nal ernfba. Nal xvyyvat, sbe nal
> ernfba, oernxf gur zlgubf. Gur vqrn vf gung ng gur raq fur unq ergnvarq ure
> chevgl naq gur *svefg* qrngu ol ure bja unaq vf ure bja.
Frr, V qba'g guvax gung gurer ernyyl *vf* nal fhpu zlgubf; Tvyrf fnlf gung:
TVYRF: Ab, fur pbhyqa’g. Arire. Naq fbbare be yngre Tybel jvyy errzretr
naq znxr Ohssl cnl sbe gung zrepl... naq gur jbeyq jvgu ure. Ohssl rira
xabjf gung naq fgvyy fur pbhyqa’g gnxr n uhzna yvsr.
Lrg, gung'f abg *fgevpgyl* gehr; juvyr Ohssl znl be znl abg unir xyyrq
uhznaf *jvgu ure bja unaqf* nf lbh fgerff (gur whel vf fgvyy bhg nf gb
jurgure gur vpr-evax nffnffva jnf uhzna be qrzba,) gurer vf nofbyhgryl
ab dhrfgvba ohg gung Ohssl *unf* ba frireny bppnfvbaf chg n uhzna
nggnpxre vagb sngny pvephzfgnaprf, naq va gur pnfr bs Unaf naq Serqrevpx
("Ubzrpbzvat") fur pregnvayl frg gurz hc qryvorengryl gb trg pnhtug va
gurve bja pebffsver. V zrna, jurer qb lbh qenj gur yvar ng qrsvavat
"jvgu ure bja unaqf?" V pbhyq qebc fbzrbar bss n ohvyqvat naq znxr n
pnfr gb gur rssrpg gung, "Url, *V* qvqa'g xvyy uvz, gur fhqqra fgbc jura
ur uvg gur tebhaq vf jung xvyyrq uvz," frr jung V zrna?
Ohg, V'yy tvir lbh guvf: *fur unf arire xvyyrq n uhzna gung jnfa'g na
vzzrqvngr guerng*, abe - jvgu gur rkprcgvba bs U&S - qvq fur rire
nccebnpu nal bs ure uhzna bccbaragf jvgu nccrnerq gb or na *vagrag* gb
xvyy nf bccbfrq gb fvzcyl chg gurz bhg bs npgvba. (V qba'g pbhag Snvgu,
nf gurer jrer bgure pvephzfgnaprf ng cynl gurer, naq tvira Snvgu'f
crefbanyvgl - jryy, ng fbzr cbvag, lbh whfg unir gb cynl ebhtu.)
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-43F175...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <12bnbtr...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >
> >> When I said the situational ethics were immaterial, I didn't mean that
> >> such
> >> ethics are unimportant in themselves. I meant that they're immaterial to
> >> the established mythos around Buffy. What matters to that is the simple
> >> fact of her not killing people - for any reason.
> >
> > Which would be an idiotic stand for her to take. To not kill for any
> > reason means you're willing to let those who *will* kill not only do you
> > harm but you're also willing to let your friends, family and innocents
> > in general get killed as well.
> >
> >> Any killing, for any reason, breaks the mythos.
> >
> > Well, if it's a silly mythos, then it's not much of a loss.
>
> It's not a stand. It's a state of being.
No, it's not. If Buffy is faced with a situation where she has to kill a
person in order to save herself or another, she has to make a choice.
Will she or won't she? A choice is not a state of being.
> Since you seem to like analogies,
> imagine me walking across a crowded bar carrying a full beer and managing to
> make it to my table without getting bumped and spilling beer. When I say,
> "Look, I made it without spilling any," I'm not taking a stand on the
> virtues of going spill free, nor implying there would be something wrong
> with me if I had spilled.
That's because you're not faced with a decision to either consciously
spill it or not, with other people's lives hanging in the balance.
> If I do it regularly, maybe I'll get the reputation as the one to
> ask to go get the beers. Maybe that means I'm good. Or maybe it means I'm
> lucky. But it's not a stance. It's just absent spills.
In which case this mythos that you're so disappointed has been shattered
is nothing but a happy accident in the first place. If Buffy's lack of
human kills is equivalent to lucking out and not spilling beer, as
opposed to her conscious moral choice, then it's just accidental that
she hasn't killed anyone and if that's the case, who cares if that
record is broken? It's as much of a disappointment as the end of a
no-spill streak, which is to say, not much.
BTR1701
Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
No, Buffy is still subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the United
States and the State of California. She isn't exempt from the penal
code. And Faith is still human, regardless of "jurisdiction". The issue
was whether Buffy has killed humans before. She set out to kill Faith
and did her damndest to bring it off. That Faith happened to fall off a
building before Buffy could follow through hardly leaves Buffy
"untainted".
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > There's a reason why they still lock you up and throw away the key when
> > you try to kill someone, regardless of whether you're successful or not.
>
> And there's a reason why I was talking about killing rather than attempted
> killing.
It's a distinction without meaning. The mens rea exists in both cases.
Whatever "taint" one gets from killing a person, one gets from
attempting to kill them as well.
BTR1701
peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article <12bnd1p...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>Uzzz V frr jung lbh'er fnlvat, ohg gurer'f fgvyy gur ovt qvivqvat yvar
> >>>orgjrra znafynhtugre va frys-qrsrapr naq zheqre. Xvyyvat gur xavtug vf
> >>>frys-qrsrafr. Xvyyvat Ora vf zheqre. Naq nf crbcyr cbvag bhg
> >>>qbja-guernq, fur jnf tbvat gb xvyy Snvgu va pbyq oybbq. Lrf Snvgu jnf n
> >>>guerng, ohg vs Snvgu unq qvrq Ohssl jbhyq unir orra n zheqrere!
> >
> >
> >>Oh, sure. That's a big dividing line indeed. I don't think anybody thinks
> >>that Buffy wouldn't kill if it were truly necessary.
> >>
> >>But the thing is, she still hasn't. Whether it's luck or the PTB or truly
> >>her heart finding a way - somehow she's gotten to this point untainted. The
> >>Faith incident - one deliberately designed to be morally ambiguous, pitting
> >>her instincts to put the ones she loves first against the proscription
> >>against killing humans - is meant to bring Buffy to the edge - to get her
> >>to
> >>feel that horror she shows after stabbing Faith. But then save her from the
> >>actual deed with the lesson still intact. Faith doesn't die.
> >>
> >>Maybe I'm crazy, but this seems like a big deal to me. Something worked at
> >>for five years. The Faith story emphasizing it perhaps the most. It makes
> >>no sense to me for that string to end in flash during a movie homage scene
> >>and left uncommented on. Something's wrong with that picture.
> >
> >
> > First, I left the above unscrambled because there's no actual spoiler
> > there. This ROT-13 stuff is annoying enough without us starting to
> > encode things that don't need to be.
> >
> > Second, I wouldn't call you crazy but you're certainly misguided if you
> > think that being an attempted murderer somehow leaves Buffy "untainted".
> > Whether Faith actually died or not is irrelevant. Buffy set out to
> > commit premeditated 1st-degree murder. She's very much tainted.
> >
> > There's a reason why they still lock you up and throw away the key when
> > you try to kill someone, regardless of whether you're successful or not.
>
>
> Aside from that.. if we are counting her moral standing in killing
> humans, she lost that back when she killed Ted.
>
> Sure, he turned out not to be human - but if what you are working on
> his her moral standing, at the time she killed him she fully believed
> him to be human, and knowingly and intentionally committed the killing.
>
> I think that the series didn't intend this purity at all, it is a
> fictive state of certain viewers.
Yep. I really don't get where some folks are coming from when they say
the series has "nurtured" this mythos or whatever it is.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-D9891A...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <12bna17...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >> Humans have died in battle with Buffy a number of times.
> >> That's one. The coach in Go Fish is another. The Commandos
> >> in Homecoming. There are more. Somebody posted an inventory
> >> a little while ago.
> >>
> >> But none of them were killed by Buffy's own hands. She
> >> didn't break their necks or stab them or shoot them or
> >> whatever. Invariably they actually died as the product
> >> of their own foolishness. The coach eaten by the fish
> >> monsters he created. The Commandos shooting each other.
> >> The zoo keeper consumed by the beasts he was using to
> >> achieve his power.
> >
> > You're kidding, right? If I throw you into a pool of
> > Great White sharks and they rip you to pieces, that's
> > not me killing you by my own hand?
> >
> > The sharks are just the weapon. The killing blow is
> > the toss into the pool.
>
> Why are you talking about sharks?
Because it's the same deal as the hyenas and fish guys.
> It isn't a hypothetical situation.
Yes, it is. The whole series is hypothetical.
> If you must go down this path,
Is there something wrong with going down this path? Am I somehow causing
you angst by expressing my point of view?
And analogies tend to enlighten and clarify. There's a reason why
they've survived the millennia.
> Whether Buffy deserves any credit for limiting her actions to
> indirect rather than direct killings can be debated.
Throwing a guy in a hyena den is not an indirect killing. It's a direct
killing in every sense of the phrase.
> But what ever the answer - if a definitive answer even
> exists - the distinction still persists.
It's a distinction without meaning. Buffy never killed anyone while
wearing a ballerina tutu, either. That distinction also exists but it
means nothing.
BTR1701
<mair_fheal-15B6F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Deadly force is allowed, both morally and legally, when used in the
>
> outside of socially regressive texas
Wrong. Alaska allows deadly force in defense of property.
It must suck being both an elitist and misinformed at the same time...
> deadly force can only be used in response to perceived deadly force
Wrong. (You're 0 for 2 today.)
Deadly force can also be used to prevent grave bodily injury and not
just in Texas. That's the case in virtually every American jurisdiction.
BTR1701
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:38:38 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten
> tomys des anges <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Deadly force is allowed, both morally and legally, when used in the
> >
> >outside of socially regressive texas
> >deadly force can only be used in response to perceived deadly force
> >
> >how deadly is a sword in human hands to a slayer?
>
> Deadly force can be used to prevent deadly force either against oneself or
> against others, pretty much everywhere in the US. How deadly are swords,
> lances, axes and other melee weapons, in the 30 or 40 hands, against a 40
> something Englishman, a 20 year old carpenter, a couple of female college
> students, one of them temporarily impaired, and a junior high school
> student?
>
> I tend to agree that Buffy shouldn't use deadly force when she doesn't have
> to in order to defuse the situation (as in Hush, when she just broke the
> guy's arm that was going to club Riley),
And we don't know that those straight-jacketed lunatic guys in "Hush"
weren't human, either. There was nothing particularly supernatural about
them. They didn't float like the Gentlemen. They didn't have super
strength, speed or any other kind of extraordinary ability... they just
seemed like crazy people. And Buffy was snapping their necks like twigs.
One Bit Shy
news:1153166934....@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Turned monster by the coach. How much that may matter to someone is
variable, but it is a distinction that can be part of the argument,
demonstrating why I'm not fond of analogies when the real thing is available
and clearer.
>> Whether Buffy deserves any credit for limiting her actions to indirect
>> rather than direct killings can be debated.
>
> You've said that before so OK let's debate.
I'm not eager to. The nuances of the morality (which have already been
shown to generate disagreement) don't alter the existence of the
distinction. Most of what I'm reacting to is the construct that appears to
me to have been deliberately built around Buffy naq ersreraprq va Gur Tvsg,
and then questioning the seeming ease by which it was broken. Please keep
that in mind in my following responses.
> I say that throwing the
> Zookeeper to the hyenas (and not going in after when she heard the
> screams), and throwing coach to the fish-men was as direct as using a
> knife or a gun. I say that because in both cases there were many on to
> one and supernatural strength was involved. The chances of them
> escaping on their own are probably at least as great as a gun
> misfiring.
I'm not sure that the physical circumstances were that much in control.
That gets into the nuances of staging that could end up making everything
depend on how good the choreography was. But, then, luck of the draw can be
involved in whether someone gets killed directly too. So I would concede
that broadly speaking, there is little difference between killing directly
and throwing someone into a situation of certain death. Not no distinction,
there's still some, but not a lot.
That's why what they're thrown into is given extra meaning here. The
victims here are not thrown in front of a random train, but rather consumed
by their own evil. Metaphoric and literal. One of the repeated series
themes. The peril of the situation is of their own making, giving them a
level of responsibility that they normally wouldn't have. They are not
merely brought down by a well placed slayer kick, they are brought down by
playing with deadly forces they never should have touched. Brought down by
attempting to control those forces - an innately perilous pursuit that Buffy
has nothing to do with.
At this point, the argument can go into how that's not so different from
non-magical circumstances (itself getting kind of circular since the
metaphor likely points to non-fantastic equivalencies anyway, though not
necessarily deadly ones) and questioning whether it's a distinction that
matters.
But it is a clear distinction. Much more so than just tossing the guy to
the sharks - unless he put the sharks there for nefarious and deadly
purpose.
> The guy on the ice-rink was killed directly by Buffy and he at least
> looked human.
Honestly, I always thought he was a demon. Hadn't thought about it before.
I was just looking at the script for that episode, and note that there are
some pretty big changes between it and what got aired concerning the
demon/human status of the assassins. Though nothing to clearly resolve that
particular one. Anyway, it appears that originally they were all supposed
to be demon, though they could look human. The aired show, however, allows
for them to be human. This guy, I don't know. He looks kind of human,
though I don't know about that eye. And seems to be substantially stronger
than both Buffy and Angel.
It's a fair question, but I don't know that it can be answered.
> As did Ted although I think the intent to kill there is
> ambiguous.
But he wasn't human. And for this purpose, results count more than intent.
It's not that Buffy is a saint. But it might be that she's blessed. Ted
might be interesting anyway. Whether to kill a human wasn't the only issue
there. The fact that he wasn't, that Buffy's instincts were right all along
even if she didn't know it, suggests the slayer instinct influence. What is
it and when do you listen to it.
> Anyway that's my argument what's yours.
>
>> But what ever the answer - if a
>> definitive answer even exists - the distinction still persists.
>
> You've noticed a distinction. Ignoring ice-rink guy for a second I'll
> accept that the distinction exists. The question is, is that
> distinction meaningful? See my other post for why I think it isn't.
OK. When I see it. I've tried to describe it further here.
>>Add
>> Gwendolyn Post to that list. Killed by the lightening she called forth.
>
> She did and Buffy couldn't know for sure she was killing Ms Post rather
> than simply disarming her.
I don't believe you just said that.
> (I could probably make a case for her
> knowing enough about traumatic blood loss from a severed arm to say she
> should, but I won't)
>
> This is a clear case of Good triumphing over Evil - with Ms Post's own
> dark power bringing about her demise. And I argue that it's made clear
> so that we continue to see Buffy as a hero. In the same way that in
> every case where someone (human) dies, Buffy is seen as acting in
> self-defense or defense of others.
I hope it's clear that I'm not questioning whether Buffy is a hero. Rather
I'm looking at an unusual distinguishing characteristic of her particular
hero's status. One that might not necessarily even be more than good luck.
But one that still adds a kind of aura.
And why is Ms Post's own dark power bringing about her demise clearer than
the swim coach's dark power bringing abut his demise? Not enough lightening
bolts? He created the creatures and put them in that feeding pool and
actively sought to feed Buffy to them. He created the peril. Tried to
control it. And then got knocked into it. Isn't that what happened to our
disgraced watcher?
In some fashion, the swimming coach, the zoo keeper, the commandos and Ms.
Post were all consumed by their own evil.
OBS
peachy ashie passion
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:40:21 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :George W Harris wrote:
> :
> :> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:03:37 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> :> <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :> Everyone always acts like this is some kind of transgression and for the
> :> :> life of me, I don't see why.
> :> :>
> :> :> They were trying to kill her. They were trying to kill her family.
> :> :> Violently. With swords.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> : I'm with you on this one. 100%.
> :> :
> :> : I didn't see a problem with it at the time, and was just plain
> :> :shocked when someone else thought it was a problem.
> :> :
> :> : Are ya'll NUTS?
> :>
> :> Are y'all BLIND? It's not that it's morally wrong
> :> (nobody's saying that), it's that it fundamentally alters the
> :> mythos of Buffy that she's never killed a human with her
> :> own hands. And, although a big deal, it goes completely
> :> unremarked.
> :
> :
> : You know, after I saw her kill Ted, I sorta thought that mythos
> :was.. well... not.
>
> Ted the robot, you mean? Or did you stop
> watching that episode after he fell down the stairs?
No, I just watched the part before as well.
There is no definition of innocent that fits a hitman who shoots and
misses.
Buffy didn't start that fight thinking she was fighting a robot.
Buffy didn't end that fight thinking she had killed a robot.
The whole big argument is that Buffy's never killed a human before.
Well, she's succeeded in actions that killed other humans, though it
was death by fish and death by hyena. So she is guilty of the act if not
the intent.
And she's taken actions that "killed" Ted, so she's guilty of the
intent if not the act.
And then there is Faith, where she's also guilty of the intent.
So the whole big point about Buffy being innocent until the Knights
Who Say Key is wrong.
Michael Ikeda
news:12bm6rv...@news.supernews.com:
> As to 1 & 2, of course Buffy *would* if she had to. But Dawn
> and stress are amply handled in other ways. It's not necessary
> to violate such a huge part of Buffy's back story for that.
> Especially without comment.
It isn't violating ANY part of Buffy's back story. Buffy has
ALWAYS been willing to use deadly force against humans in immediate
defense of herself or others. She has, in fact, already used
deadly force several times and has killed several people. She
(with the exception of Faith) has NOT been willing to use deadly
force against humans outside of immediate defense. And she tends
to use a fairly restrictive definition of the term "immediate
defense". It would, in fact, have been out of character for Buffy
to refrain from the use of deadly force in "Spiral".
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Actually, they were pretty clearly not human. They kept getting up
after Buffy and Riley did things to them that would kill a normal person.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Michael Ikeda
news:ihflb2l7gu9ghvlco...@4ax.com:
> On 16 Jul 2006 11:50:37 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
> <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these
>>review threads.
>>
>>
>>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>Season Five, Episode 20: "Spiral"
>>(or "Oh, you bet, we can do anything in our... WINNEBAGO!")
>>Writer: Steven DeKnight
>>Director: James A. Contner
>>
>
> This is a little off, but you are closing in on episode 100 (the
> season finale). If you haven't watched the episode yet, and if
> you have a computer that can open a dvd disc without playing it,
> get out disc six of season 7, open it without playing it, and
> launch the video file "vts_05_1.vob" first. This (an easter egg
> on the disc) is the original "Previously on Buffy" tease from
> episode 100.
>
> I wouldn't advise opening the disc to play, because even the
> splash page on disc six is a pretty significant spoiler
> (although you might not know what it is spoiling,
> specificially).
In case you do open the disc to play, the way to get to the montage
is the following:
1) Once Disc 6 starts up select the item "Special Features" from
the main menu.
2) Select the item "Featurettes".
3) Move down to the entry "The Last Sundown".
4) Press the "left arrow" key. This will highlight a letter "B".
5) Press "play". This should start the montage.
(As WGF mentions above, getting to this point will inevitably
expose you to some minor spoilers.)