AOQ Review 5-12: "Checkpoint"

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,

Jun 27, 2006, 11:58:52 PM6/27/06

to

A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
threads.

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"
(or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
bastard? Good to hear.")
Writers: Douglas Petrie and Jane Espenson
Director: Nick Marck

So, last week's big ending of Dawn finding out about her importance
is diffused with more of the same avoidance. Huh. One "I'm gonna
figure it out," and she's easily kept out of the know for the rest
of the show. I guess I have an inherent bias against anticlimaxing the
end-of-episode lead-in that way, even though I can appreciate logically
why it helps shake up the format.

The Watchers' Council chooses this moment to return to the show, and
to their old tricks. I'd assume most viewers are long past hoping
for any competence or nuance from Quinton and the others. And
"Checkpoint" feels free to live down to such expectations. The WC
are again portrayed as a group more obsessed with single-mindedly
staying in control than they are in actually doing the job they're
supposed to do. Given the prevalence of such people in real life, and
Jossverse disdain for authority and patriarchal figures, not so
surprising, but also not the stuff of a really captivating episode,
especially since it consists in large part of them disapproving of
everything about Giles, one thing at a time. CP doesn't even have
them mouth any remotely convincing platitudes about tradition and
greater good and such. I don't know whether some depth might have
been better, or whether the bald power-hungriness is refreshing and
necessary to avoid rehashing "Helpless." I'm apathetic. About
this whole plot, I mean. I'm also a little confused as to why they
waited until now to flex these deportation-fueled muscles they've
allegedly had all this time. The introduction of the extra bluster
(getting rid of Giles "in a heartbeat" and so on) diverts some
attention away from the storywise and thematic reason they're here
(and that out heroes tolerate them) at all: information about Glory.

It's a bit disconcerting to see Giles back to trying to please the WC
types, after the way he didn't take shit from them in late S3. Maybe
it's supposed to be, though; people do fall into old behavior
patterns that way sometimes, and he's the one who catalyzed this
whole situation by going to them for help.

For the sake of breaking up the complaining, let me mention that I'm
interested in Ben's role in all this, as the series continues to
slowly string us along. I do have to say that the punch-as-a-message
gag is older than age. So much for not complaining, huh? His
counterpart is back to sucking people's brains, or whatever's going
on there - what is it about human life-force and its ability to
sustain monsters? And does the mailman's behavior afterward serve as
an implicit explanation for the fact that we were seeing an unusually
high number of crazy people earlier this season?

UCSD seems to have a lot of condescending assholes as tenured faculty,
doesn't it?

The interrogations of Buffy's friends seem meant to be one of the big
comedy centers of the episode. Fell pretty flat for me. After the
"fine, now we can get to the questions" gag, it apparently didn't
occur to the writers that every other repetition of that basic joke
would be predictable and obvious. How far in advance were you guys
saying the punchline to the "your relationship" scene? I think it
was about ten seconds for me. Anya's fun at first with her basic
joke for the week, but it's a shame they used "ever since I moved
here from southeastern Indiana, where I was raised by both a mother and
a father" so early, since nothing else can match up to that one.

I'm really getting tired of Buffy so often needing to be rescued on
routine patrol. Let's hope it's leading somewhere rather than just
being repetitious. It seems like every episode lately has had her get
tossed around early, and then redeem herself by killing something
towards the end. Rinse, lather...

The plus side of that is that it gets Buffy and Spike together, and
their scenes together are clicking this week, as they often do. I must
say that something about leaving her family in a vampire's cave
doesn't sit right with me, but I can't actually say why, since it
makes sense in Buffy-logic. In any case, I liked watching these parts,
so that'll have to be enough.

Of course, this week Buffy's real redemption doesn't come about
through killing demons, but through taking charge of the power
dynamics. The epiphany happens over several scenes, two of which are
among the better moments of the show. Glory's visit to Casa Summers
is surprisingly good given that it has Glory in it - Kramer tones
down the performance a little bit, and suddenly the mix of sweet
demeanor and violence is working, the way it was probably intended to
from the beginning. "If I wanted to fight, you could tell by the
being dead already." As far as the vibe of the scene, it's
different than what's gone before, a new kind of suspense. Buffy
stalling, avoiding a fight with a superior opponent and fervently
hoping her enemy won't figure out the secret that's keeping her
alive, is not business as usual. And Gellar plays "scared" pretty
much the way one would expect from Buffy. Even Dawn's contribution
to the scene helps, as predictable as it is that Glory won't see
what's right in front of her. Any possibility that she might know
about Dawn is too close for comfort.

Following from that, Buffy gives a take-charge speech and wrests
control of the situation from the Watchers by virtue of being the
Slayer. About time. I tend to like moments like this, again because
of the actor; she can sell just about anything in that tone of voice.
Her speech gets everyone on the right page a lot more effectively than
anything the Watchers could've managed, and finds room for a little
bit of humor too ("*cough* retroactive"). Fine by me.

Willow's "that's Riley-speak" leaves me with one thing to say:
huh.

This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Because It's Spike
moment(s):
- "Blood?" "Well, if they're gonna die anyway... come to think
of it, though, that's a bit scandalous, isn't it? Personally, I'm
shocked."
- The Watcher who wrote her thesis about Spike
- "They didn't put a chip in your head, did they?"
- Spike and Joyce sitting down to watch _Passions_

And the Knights Of Byzantium too.

So...

One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.

AOQ rating: Decent

[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]

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:18:54 AM6/28/06

to

Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"
> (or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
> bastard? Good to hear.")

Hey, at least he's consistent...

>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
>

Yeah, pretty much. I *did* like Buffy's casual backhanded fling of the
sword to - ahem - get her point across...

--
Rowan Hawthorn

"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"

jil...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:29:13 AM6/28/06

to

I really admire the monks' weaving to hide the Key. Dawn, as far as
everyone sane knows, has been herself for 14+ years. She has nothing
remarkable to make her stand out, she's as normal as normal can be.
Skip the stupid comics. To hide her, she would have to make virtually
no waves in reality. She was never in the same school as Buffy. Joyce
would have taken her with on trips or something like that. She would
have been down with the flu. She would not have been at the school to
run into Angelus the night after he lost his soul.

The monks got Buffy complicit in hiding her (this is my fanwank)
because the spell was woven over a year, asking Buffy if she'd be
willing to take in a sister to protect. Asking Joyce if she wanted a
normal daughter to contrast Buffy. Asking Xander, Willow and etc. what
they would want Buffy's years-younger sister to be like. As for the
snarkiness and hair-pulling... I bet you they asked Spike. *grin*
Now, all of that asking would have taken place in the deepest depths of
their subconscousnesses.

So, when Dawn finally breaks onto the scene, they've been prepared for
her arrival for over a year.

Mel

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:32:09 AM6/28/06

to

Hmmm....nothing about the revelation that Glory is a god????

Mel

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:40:29 AM6/28/06

to

> It's a bit disconcerting to see Giles back to trying to please the WC
> types, after the way he didn't take shit from them in late S3. Maybe

giles loyality is to buffy
he does whatever is necessary for her
if that means groveling to the council
thats what he will do

> UCSD seems to have a lot of condescending assholes as tenured faculty,
> doesn't it?

its about power
who has it
who wants it

> And the Knights Of Byzantium too.

next episode they will demand a shrubbery

arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him

Horace LaBadie

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:48:27 AM6/28/06

to

In article <-e-dne61iovpmz_Z...@uci.net>,
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:

> Hmmm....nothing about the revelation that Glory is a god????

He's not easily impressed.

HWL

George W Harris

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:51:47 AM6/28/06

to

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:18:54 -0400, Rowan Hawthorn
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

:Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
:> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
:> threads.
:>
:>
:> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
:> Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"
:> (or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
:> bastard? Good to hear.")
:
:Hey, at least he's consistent...
:
:>
:> So...
:>
:> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
:>
:> AOQ rating: Decent
:>
:
:Yeah, pretty much. I *did* like Buffy's casual backhanded fling of the
:sword to - ahem - get her point across...

Especially after her earlier blindfolded fling of
the ax into the head of the dummy she was supposed
to be protecting...
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 1:26:09 AM6/28/06

to

George W Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:18:54 -0400, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> :> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> :> threads.
> :>
> :>
> :> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> :> Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"
> :> (or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
> :> bastard? Good to hear.")
> :
> :Hey, at least he's consistent...
> :
> :>
> :> So...
> :>
> :> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
> :>
> :> AOQ rating: Decent
> :>
> :
> :Yeah, pretty much. I *did* like Buffy's casual backhanded fling of the
> :sword to - ahem - get her point across...
>
> Especially after her earlier blindfolded fling of
> the ax into the head of the dummy she was supposed
> to be protecting...

Well... she wasn't *really pissed off* then...

Don Sample

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 1:45:35 AM6/28/06

to

In article <1151467132....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

"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 12: "Checkpoint"
> (or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
> bastard? Good to hear.")
> Writers: Douglas Petrie and Jane Espenson
> Director: Nick Marck
>
> So, last week's big ending of Dawn finding out about her importance
> is diffused with more of the same avoidance. Huh. One "I'm gonna
> figure it out," and she's easily kept out of the know for the rest
> of the show. I guess I have an inherent bias against anticlimaxing the
> end-of-episode lead-in that way, even though I can appreciate logically
> why it helps shake up the format.

Dawn really hasn't had any opportunity to figure anything out yet, but
they haven't forgotten about it. In addition to her "I'm going to
figure it out" she's shown trying to eavesdrop on Scooby meetings, to
get the information she needs to figure it out.

> I'm also a little confused as to why they
> waited until now to flex these deportation-fueled muscles they've
> allegedly had all this time. The introduction of the extra bluster
> (getting rid of Giles "in a heartbeat" and so on) diverts some
> attention away from the storywise and thematic reason they're here
> (and that out heroes tolerate them) at all: information about Glory.

Up until now, anything they did to Giles would just be simple
retribution for Buffy dumping them. Better to wait until they have a
carrot that Buffy wants, before they wave that particular stick at her
as well.

> It's a bit disconcerting to see Giles back to trying to please the WC
> types, after the way he didn't take shit from them in late S3. Maybe
> it's supposed to be, though; people do fall into old behavior
> patterns that way sometimes, and he's the one who catalyzed this
> whole situation by going to them for help.

And he is being a little snarky about their invasion: "In that case, I
severely underpriced it."

And

Giles: You all stand around and look somber. ... Good job.
Travers: You used to respect us, Giles You used to be one of us.
Giles: You used to pay me.

>
> And does the mailman's behavior afterward serve as
> an implicit explanation for the fact that we were seeing an unusually
> high number of crazy people earlier this season?

Given that the mailman is the second person we've seen Glory drive crazy
that way, and Ben's cleaning up of her leftovers a couple of episodes
back, I'd say that's a pretty good bet.

> The interrogations of Buffy's friends seem meant to be one of the big
> comedy centers of the episode. Fell pretty flat for me. After the
> "fine, now we can get to the questions" gag, it apparently didn't
> occur to the writers that every other repetition of that basic joke
> would be predictable and obvious. How far in advance were you guys
> saying the punchline to the "your relationship" scene? I think it
> was about ten seconds for me. Anya's fun at first with her basic
> joke for the week, but it's a shame they used "ever since I moved
> here from southeastern Indiana, where I was raised by both a mother and
> a father" so early, since nothing else can match up to that one.

Yeah...that was way overdone.

> I'm really getting tired of Buffy so often needing to be rescued on
> routine patrol. Let's hope it's leading somewhere rather than just
> being repetitious.

I don't think she needed rescuing. Spike was just overly impressed with
himself.

> I must
> say that something about leaving her family in a vampire's cave
> doesn't sit right with me, but I can't actually say why, since it
> makes sense in Buffy-logic.

I take this as evidence that the Monks have brainwashed Buffy, to make
her trust Spike taking care of Dawn, and they've brainwashed Spike so
that he will take care of her.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

William George Ferguson

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 1:32:05 AM6/28/06

to

On 27 Jun 2006 20:58:52 -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 12: "Checkpoint"
>(or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
>bastard? Good to hear.")
>Writers: Douglas Petrie and Jane Espenson
>Director: Nick Marck

[snip]

>Following from that, Buffy gives a take-charge speech and wrests
>control of the situation from the Watchers by virtue of being the
>Slayer. About time. I tend to like moments like this, again because
>of the actor; she can sell just about anything in that tone of voice.
>Her speech gets everyone on the right page a lot more effectively than
>anything the Watchers could've managed, and finds room for a little
>bit of humor too ("*cough* retroactive"). Fine by me.

"I'm fairly certain I said no interruptions." is pretty high on my Buffy
moments.

>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Because It's Spike
>moment(s):
>- "Blood?" "Well, if they're gonna die anyway... come to think
>of it, though, that's a bit scandalous, isn't it? Personally, I'm
>shocked."
>- The Watcher who wrote her thesis about Spike
>- "They didn't put a chip in your head, did they?"
>- Spike and Joyce sitting down to watch _Passions_
>
>And the Knights Of Byzantium too.

Given their mission statement (destroy the Key at all costs), we pretty
much settled on calling them The Knights Who Slay Key.

Other things I liked especially in the episode

The Watcher asking W&T what magic level they are. Willow's stammers and
Tara confidently says "Five". While the Watcher writes it down, Willow
looks at Tara and she just shrugs.

Anya: "Willow's an ex-demon?"

If you've paid attention, you've picked up some of the seasonal patterns.
Triangle was in the 'silly' slot, pretty much the same time of the season
as Bad Eggs, or Gingerbread, or A New Man. That means the next episode
corresponds to the 3rd week in January on the broadcast schedule.

--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 2:05:47 AM6/28/06

to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151467132....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"

> So, last week's big ending of Dawn finding out about her importance

> is diffused with more of the same avoidance. Huh. One "I'm gonna
> figure it out," and she's easily kept out of the know for the rest
> of the show. I guess I have an inherent bias against anticlimaxing the
> end-of-episode lead-in that way, even though I can appreciate logically
> why it helps shake up the format.

I'm not sure why you saw that as such a big end of show climax. She
overheard some pretty vague stuff that will certainly add to her
pre-existing feeling that people treat her weird. But I didn't think it was
something that demanded immediate follow-up. It seemed to me just a piece
of general story advancement as we see cracks developing in the secrecy
around Dawn. Her attitude that she's going to figure it out is all I think
is necessary.

> The Watchers' Council chooses this moment to return to the show, and
> to their old tricks. I'd assume most viewers are long past hoping
> for any competence or nuance from Quinton and the others. And
> "Checkpoint" feels free to live down to such expectations. The WC
> are again portrayed as a group more obsessed with single-mindedly
> staying in control than they are in actually doing the job they're
> supposed to do.

Except they do their job in the end.

> Given the prevalence of such people in real life, and
> Jossverse disdain for authority and patriarchal figures, not so
> surprising, but also not the stuff of a really captivating episode,
> especially since it consists in large part of them disapproving of
> everything about Giles, one thing at a time. CP doesn't even have
> them mouth any remotely convincing platitudes about tradition and
> greater good and such. I don't know whether some depth might have
> been better, or whether the bald power-hungriness is refreshing and
> necessary to avoid rehashing "Helpless." I'm apathetic. About
> this whole plot, I mean. I'm also a little confused as to why they
> waited until now to flex these deportation-fueled muscles they've
> allegedly had all this time.

Because they didn't have a lever like info about Glory before.

> The introduction of the extra bluster
> (getting rid of Giles "in a heartbeat" and so on) diverts some
> attention away from the storywise and thematic reason they're here
> (and that out heroes tolerate them) at all: information about Glory.
>
> It's a bit disconcerting to see Giles back to trying to please the WC
> types, after the way he didn't take shit from them in late S3. Maybe
> it's supposed to be, though; people do fall into old behavior
> patterns that way sometimes, and he's the one who catalyzed this
> whole situation by going to them for help.

That part didn't bother me so much. He was caught off guard - and didn't
see the right counter play - for good reason I think...

I've puzzled about this whole power play for a long time to no satisfactory
conclusion. The way it's depicted, I think the show's intent is pretty much
how it appears on the surface. The Watcher's Council attempted a
(desperate) power play, which almost worked, but Buffy figured out the
balance of power and forced them to toe the line.

But it's kind of stupid. The WC's position was not as strong as they
pretended, but it was also hardly as weak as Buffy said either. Her great
understanding that they needed her, so she has the power, has the glaring
hole that she also needed them. They have the Glory info. Buffy's position
was probably still the stronger one, but not so much as to negate the need
for any horse trading. She essentially made them give her what she had
asked for to begin with, sent them packing, and made them pay Giles to boot.
The WC would have fared better if they had just used the phone. Somehow I
think the Glory info was worth more than that.

What I'd like to do is imagine the WC having more substance than that. So,
for example, we might alter our perceptions to think of what they did as
taking a stab at getting back in with The Slayer (nothing ventured - nothing
gained), but no matter how that turns out, always intending to give all the
Glory information to Buffy because it's essential that she have it and they
really are dedicated to fighting forces of evil like her.

One might even look at the assessment as an actual clever test. If she
figures out the power relationship as she did - well, then, great. She
passed the test and earned the information. But to whatever extent she
might end up conceding power to the WC - well, then that's exactly the level
of authority they would need over that kind of slayer to get the best
results regarding Glory.

I'd *like* to think along those lines, but it seems pretty clear to me that
they were just grasping and ham handed and ultimately stupid by the design
of the series. So again, the WC construct is treated as a collection of
oafs, making them silly players in the game instead of the serious ones
people keep pretending they are. So I don't much like the general plot of
most of this episode.

Down at the lower level of the comedy of the various scenes, that plays
better for me. I could smile at the axe ending up in the dummy's head, and
the discomfort of answering the questions (I really liked Willow and Tara
being asked about their magic proficiency), and the Watcherette being all a
twitter in the company of Spike, and so on.

> For the sake of breaking up the complaining, let me mention that I'm
> interested in Ben's role in all this, as the series continues to
> slowly string us along. I do have to say that the punch-as-a-message
> gag is older than age. So much for not complaining, huh? His
> counterpart is back to sucking people's brains, or whatever's going
> on there - what is it about human life-force and its ability to
> sustain monsters? And does the mailman's behavior afterward serve as
> an implicit explanation for the fact that we were seeing an unusually
> high number of crazy people earlier this season?

How about explicit? We've already seen her victims end up in the mental
ward. And Ben called the Queller to clean up Glory's mess.

> UCSD seems to have a lot of condescending assholes as tenured faculty,
> doesn't it?

Forget him. Note Buffy's interest in exploring other possible explanations
for Rasputin. And the reference to the sleeping patterns of Prussian
generals. What she's doing is looking for the influence of vampires in
history.

> The interrogations of Buffy's friends seem meant to be one of the big
> comedy centers of the episode. Fell pretty flat for me. After the
> "fine, now we can get to the questions" gag, it apparently didn't
> occur to the writers that every other repetition of that basic joke
> would be predictable and obvious. How far in advance were you guys
> saying the punchline to the "your relationship" scene? I think it
> was about ten seconds for me. Anya's fun at first with her basic
> joke for the week, but it's a shame they used "ever since I moved
> here from southeastern Indiana, where I was raised by both a mother and
> a father" so early, since nothing else can match up to that one.

The interviews were uneven, but still had fun things I think. Tara choosing
level five sure makes me laugh.

> I'm really getting tired of Buffy so often needing to be rescued on
> routine patrol. Let's hope it's leading somewhere rather than just
> being repetitious. It seems like every episode lately has had her get
> tossed around early, and then redeem herself by killing something
> towards the end. Rinse, lather...

Needed to be rescued? You actually believed what Spike said? It was a
really nice move Spike made - I think the best slay from him we've seen.
But Buffy didn't need him.

> The plus side of that is that it gets Buffy and Spike together, and
> their scenes together are clicking this week, as they often do. I must
> say that something about leaving her family in a vampire's cave
> doesn't sit right with me, but I can't actually say why, since it
> makes sense in Buffy-logic. In any case, I liked watching these parts,
> so that'll have to be enough.

I think it's quite interesting. Recognizing that Spike is probably the best
fighter around to protect her family while she deals with other stuff is
rational in itself. As is finding a place to hide them that would not
readily occur to someone looking for them. But trusting Spike enough to do
it - wow. She hasn't spoken well of him or to him, but there must be an
element of respect deep in her somewhere to do that. More important, I
think, is what this means to Spike. He gives Buffy a hard time until she
says, "You're the only one strong enough to protect them." That gets him.
She's never turned to him like that before. No punch. No cash. Just a
plea to protect her family 'cause he's the strong one. Inside, his heart
must be soaring.

And, well, he and Joyce always get along anyway.

> Of course, this week Buffy's real redemption doesn't come about
> through killing demons, but through taking charge of the power
> dynamics. The epiphany happens over several scenes, two of which are
> among the better moments of the show. Glory's visit to Casa Summers
> is surprisingly good given that it has Glory in it - Kramer tones
> down the performance a little bit, and suddenly the mix of sweet
> demeanor and violence is working, the way it was probably intended to
> from the beginning. "If I wanted to fight, you could tell by the
> being dead already." As far as the vibe of the scene, it's
> different than what's gone before, a new kind of suspense. Buffy
> stalling, avoiding a fight with a superior opponent and fervently
> hoping her enemy won't figure out the secret that's keeping her
> alive, is not business as usual. And Gellar plays "scared" pretty
> much the way one would expect from Buffy. Even Dawn's contribution
> to the scene helps, as predictable as it is that Glory won't see
> what's right in front of her. Any possibility that she might know
> about Dawn is too close for comfort.

Yep, the stakes were just raised. And now Buffy knows she's a god. (Love
Buffy's expression at the end of the show.)

> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent

Fair enough. Definitely should have been better. But the plot still has
been advanced.

OBS

Rescued? She was knocked down, but appeared to be in no danger. She seemed
to me to be mad with Spike mostly for spoiling her sport of taking out her
anger at her professor on the poor vampire.

> The plus side of that is that it gets Buffy and Spike together, and
> their scenes together are clicking this week, as they often do. I must
> say that something about leaving her family in a vampire's cave
> doesn't sit right with me, but I can't actually say why, since it
> makes sense in Buffy-logic. In any case, I liked watching these parts,
> so that'll have to be enough.

Odd though. Its been a while since Spike last reminded anyone he is still
evil. But Buffy hadn't previously given any aknowledgement of his obviously
changed attitude to her. It certainly seems a big risk to take.

>
> Following from that, Buffy gives a take-charge speech and wrests
> control of the situation from the Watchers by virtue of being the
> Slayer. About time. I tend to like moments like this, again because
> of the actor; she can sell just about anything in that tone of voice.
> Her speech gets everyone on the right page a lot more effectively than
> anything the Watchers could've managed, and finds room for a little
> bit of humor too ("*cough* retroactive"). Fine by me.

The speech is a negative to me. We've seen one half of the anti-Glory team
(the WC) playing silly power games rather than co-operate, and now Buffy
joins them. The WC absurdly overplayed their hand, and now Buffy absurdly
overplays her slightly stronger hand. In any real life negotiation with
people as entrenched as the WC, her power play could simply have them going
off in a huff and getting Giles deported. They don't because, well, the
script says they don't. The "*cough* retroactive" was a nice touch though.

In the end, the info they reveal, that Glory is a god, is dramatically
powerful, but practically useless. It's just a label. It tells Buffy nothing
about the extent of Glory's powers and weaknesses. Buffy is the expert on
what Glory can do (unless Ben or the Knights who don't say "Ni!" will oblige
with info they seem to have) and all told her powers, although great, seem
somewhat less than than the label "god" might seem to imply.

>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Because It's Spike
> moment(s):
> - "Blood?" "Well, if they're gonna die anyway... come to think
> of it, though, that's a bit scandalous, isn't it? Personally, I'm
> shocked."
> - The Watcher who wrote her thesis about Spike
> - "They didn't put a chip in your head, did they?"
> - Spike and Joyce sitting down to watch _Passions_
>

Spike had some great moment, but I think my overall favourite line is
Buffy's - "Giles, that Travers guy is like sixty. I can't hit him. Can I?"

> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent

I like the fact that it gets the Glory story back on track. Remember Glory
Buffy? Big Bad, up to some kind of no good you haven't figured out yet, but
she does want to use your sister for some unspeakable purpose? And she'll go
ahead and do it, whether you're over your boyfriend or not. In Checkpoint,
Buffy moves on and gets her mission back. And, while its not a laugh in
minute, in this season I'll take what laughs I can get. So, while it has
problems, I'd call it Good. It's my 67th favourite BtVS episode, 8th best in
season 5.

--
Apteryx

lili...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 6:14:37 AM6/28/06

to

> >
> > Following from that, Buffy gives a take-charge speech and wrests
> > control of the situation from the Watchers by virtue of being the
> > Slayer. About time. I tend to like moments like this, again because
> > of the actor; she can sell just about anything in that tone of voice.
> > Her speech gets everyone on the right page a lot more effectively than
> > anything the Watchers could've managed, and finds room for a little
> > bit of humor too ("*cough* retroactive"). Fine by me.
>
> The speech is a negative to me. We've seen one half of the anti-Glory team
> (the WC) playing silly power games rather than co-operate, and now Buffy
> joins them. The WC absurdly overplayed their hand, and now Buffy absurdly
> overplays her slightly stronger hand. In any real life negotiation with
> people as entrenched as the WC, her power play could simply have them going
> off in a huff and getting Giles deported. They don't because, well, the
> script says they don't. The "*cough* retroactive" was a nice touch though.
>

Nah, she should have demanded a salary for herself as well.

Lore

George W Harris

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:08:21 AM6/28/06

to

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:29:08 +1200, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

:In the end, the info they reveal, that Glory is a god, is dramatically
:powerful, but practically useless.

Nygubhtu vg'f pyrneyl vzcyvrq yngre gung gurl
erirnyrq zhpu zber guna gung.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

vague disclaimer

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:21:07 AM6/28/06

to

In article <8l24a2pbj00kh2vbv...@4ax.com>,

George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:18:54 -0400, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> :> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> :> threads.
> :>
> :>
> :> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> :> Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"
> :> (or "What've you been up to? Still a one-note condescending
> :> bastard? Good to hear.")
> :
> :Hey, at least he's consistent...
> :
> :>
> :> So...
> :>
> :> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
> :>
> :> AOQ rating: Decent
> :>
> :
> :Yeah, pretty much. I *did* like Buffy's casual backhanded fling of the
> :sword to - ahem - get her point across...
>
> Especially after her earlier blindfolded fling of
> the ax into the head of the dummy she was supposed
> to be protecting...

Not to mentioned pointing up that Xander is not the only one with "more
field experience than all of you combined".
--
Wikipedia: like Usenet, moderated by trolls

Terry

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 8:31:49 AM6/28/06

to

Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in news:dsample-
E37FA4.014...@news.giganews.com:

I always thought Dawn had a bit of an "Everybody Else's Problem" field
about her. She seems to inspire people to go beyond the call of duty to
protect her.

Terry

Apteryx

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 8:38:20 AM6/28/06

to

"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:dno4a2ha57ssl6lk9...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:29:08 +1200, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> :In the end, the info they reveal, that Glory is a god, is dramatically
> :powerful, but practically useless.
>
> Nygubhtu vg'f pyrneyl vzcyvrq yngre gung gurl
> erirnyrq zhpu zber guna gung.

Jung rkgen ner lbh guvaxvat bs? Gur bayl nqqvgvbany fghss V pna erzrzore
fbheprq gb gur Pbhapvy vf gung ng gur fgneg bs Oybbq Gvrf jurer Tvyrf fnlf
gur Pbhapvy fnvq gung Tybel ehyrq n uryy qvzrafvba jvgu gjb bgure tbqf.
Fgvyy abg hfrshy.

Gur svefg hfrshy vasb pbzrf sebz gur yrnqre bs gur Xavtugf va Fcveny (ubj
Tybel pnzr gb or urer, jung fur jnagf gb hfr gur xrl sbe, jung gur rssrpgf
jvyy or sbe gur jbeyq, naq Tybel'f ihyarenovyvgl jura va uhzna sbez - Ora).
Fcvxr naq Knaqre gura svaq gur grkg va Jrvtug bs gur Jbeyq gung erirnyf ubj
gur xrl vf npgvingrq naq (nccneragyl) qrnpgvingrq.

--
Apteryx

Clairel

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 9:29:02 AM6/28/06

to

--Ah, I love it when somebody writes about what things must have felt
like from Spike's point of view. Good post.

I thought Checkpoint was a better episode than "Decent." Back in
January 2001, with so much unknown and so much suspense about the
nature of Glory, about whether anything would ever draw Buffy and Spike
closer together, etc., it was incredibly exciting to get as many
tidbits of information, plot development, etc., as we got in this
episode. The Knights of Byzantium were intriguing; it's the first time
we had seen or heard anything of them. And who could say, then, what
might come of the KoB? They had limitless, undefined potential. Or so
it seemed.

I think AOQ is a bit blase as a result of having the DVDs right there
and knowing he can find the answers as soon as he pleases.

Clairel

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 9:49:20 AM6/28/06

to

--There was a scene in the episode "Listening to Fear" that AOQ didn't
bother to mention. But it was always my favorite scene in that
episode.

It was just after Spike had tossed Buffy the knife that enabled her to
kill the Queller Demon. (And yes, I know he accidentally knocked the
knife out of her hand earlier when the Queller Demon took him by
surprise and he was thrashing around on the floor with it, but it was
clear that was an accident, and he made amends by getting the knife
back to her.) With the demon dead, Spike reaches out his hand to Buffy
to help her up off the floor. She takes his hand and after she's off
the floor they just stand there for a minute, hand in hand.

That's when Riley and his commandos burst in. Riley sees Buffy hand in
hand with Spike and sees it as something of great significance. His
perception of that is reinforced by Spike's gloating comment "You just
missed a real nice time." This incident is one of several things that
drive Riley to the vamp whorehouse, and thence out of Sunnydale.

I'm not saying it has exactly the significance that Riley thinks it
has. He's magnifying it in his imagination. But I don't think the
function of the hand-in-hand scene was just purely to have an effect on
Riley, through him getting the wrong idea. That was one reason, maybe
the biggest reason, to include the scene. But at the same time, it
subtly gets across the idea that Buffy is beginning to think of Spike
as -- not a good guy, but somebody who can be counted on for certain
things, in certain ways.

After "Listening to Fear," subsequent episodes would still contain
scenes of Buffy snubbing and reproving Spike in various ways. I'm
thinking of "Into the Woods" and "Triangle" now. Buffy is still
cynical, in "Triangle," about Spike's ostentatious refusal to take even
a lick of blood from the bleeding disaster victims. And well she
should be, since Spike was way too ostentatious about wanting credit.

But even so, something has changed. Buffy now knows that Spike is
somebody who will jump into a fight against a Queller Demon or a Troll,
just to help her out. (There was also the opening scene in
"Checkpoint," with Buffy fighting the vampire. She didn't really need
help, and Spike was again too eager for thanks and credit, but the fact
remains that he was there fighting alongside her, and going out of his
way to do it too.) He doesn't run from the Queller Demon or the Troll
-- he stays around and helps, despite the danger. A pattern has been
established. (By the way, the only reason why I'm not mentioning
Spike saving Buffy's life from the invisible demon in "Family" is
because I don't think she ever found out about that.) As a result of
that pattern Buffy, maybe without even consciously thinking about it
very much, has different expectations of Spike now.

Clairel

Espen Schjønberg

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 9:54:41 AM6/28/06

to

On 28.06.2006 05:58, Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 12: "Checkpoint"

>

> I'm really getting tired of Buffy so often needing to be rescued on
> routine patrol. Let's hope it's leading somewhere rather than just
> being repetitious.

Way to go!

> Following from that, Buffy gives a take-charge speech and wrests
> control of the situation from the Watchers by virtue of being the
> Slayer. About time. I tend to like moments like this, again because
> of the actor; she can sell just about anything in that tone of voice.
> Her speech gets everyone on the right page a lot more effectively than
> anything the Watchers could've managed, and finds room for a little
> bit of humor too ("*cough* retroactive"). Fine by me.

She has now explained to them why they exist: they exist to make her
fight possible. They are her logistic train.

This means, in the future they will send money, if the problem is money.

Etc.

> One-sentence summary: Competent, if limited.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent

Well, OK. But it is an important one.

--
Espen

EGK

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 10:25:16 AM6/28/06

to

To be fair, if you're a comic book fan, being a god isn't always that
impressive. It gets tossed around too much.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Vanya6724

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 10:37:09 AM6/28/06

to

Clairel wrote:

> I thought Checkpoint was a better episode than "Decent." Back in
> January 2001, with so much unknown and so much suspense about the
> nature of Glory, about whether anything would ever draw Buffy and Spike
> closer together, etc., it was incredibly exciting to get as many
> tidbits of information, plot development, etc., as we got in this
> episode. The Knights of Byzantium were intriguing; it's the first time
> we had seen or heard anything of them. And who could say, then, what
> might come of the KoB? They had limitless, undefined potential. Or so
> it seemed.
>
> I think AOQ is a bit blase as a result of having the DVDs right there
> and knowing he can find the answers as soon as he pleases.
>
> Clairel

You're right. AOQ must be having a bad day. Checkpoint is excellent,
one of the top 40 Buffy episodes of the whole series, probably #3 in
season 5.

JJ Karhu

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 10:41:11 AM6/28/06

to

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:48:27 -0400, Horace LaBadie
<hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:

BUFFY: (gets up) Just a minute. (Giles stops) Glory. I wanna know.
TRAVERS: Well, there's a lot to go through.
BUFFY: Just tell me what kind of demon I'm fighting.
TRAVERS: Well, that's the thing, you see. Glory isn't a demon.
BUFFY: What is she?
TRAVERS: She's a god.
BUFFY: (long pause, eyes widen) Oh.

For me, that was a definite "holy shit!" moment.

// JJ

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 11:06:21 AM6/28/06

to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-C32604...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <12a471u...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:

>> One might even look at the assessment as an actual clever test. If she
>> figures out the power relationship as she did - well, then, great. She
>> passed the test and earned the information. But to whatever extent she
>> might end up conceding power to the WC - well, then that's exactly the
>> level
>> of authority they would need over that kind of slayer to get the best
>> results regarding Glory.
>
> I don't think that they're smart enough to come up with a test like that.

No, they're not. And that's my beef. The persistent depiction of the WC as
oafs is likely my greatest annoyance in the series. I like the idea of the
WC a great deal. The way it fits into the slayer myth. Their function as
the primary organized higher authority that too often acts as Buffy's
nemesis. They are the tangible object of her rebellion. Yet there is
always a touch of ambiguity in their status as foes to the slayer, since
both share such similar objectives, and it is often unclear that Buffy's
philosophy is truly the better one. Like it or not, Buffy owes much to them
too. Giles, after all, is/was a watcher.

So, to me, that calls for something genuinely formidable - a worthy foe and
sometimes uncomfortable ally. For a little while in Helpless, that's pretty
much what they seemed. I hate it that since then it is mainly lip service
given to their abilities while the reality has largely been oafish comic
relief.

>> > UCSD seems to have a lot of condescending assholes as tenured faculty,
>> > doesn't it?
>>
>> Forget him. Note Buffy's interest in exploring other possible
>> explanations
>> for Rasputin. And the reference to the sleeping patterns of Prussian
>> generals. What she's doing is looking for the influence of vampires in
>> history.
>
> Don't forget her theory about vampires in the French Revolution.

Never. And that one, within the Buffyverse, especially makes sense, since
we know from the Boxer Rebellion scenes how vampires are drawn to that kind
of upheaval.

OBS

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 11:16:00 AM6/28/06

to

"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1151501342.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> I thought Checkpoint was a better episode than "Decent." Back in
> January 2001, with so much unknown and so much suspense about the
> nature of Glory, about whether anything would ever draw Buffy and Spike
> closer together, etc., it was incredibly exciting to get as many
> tidbits of information, plot development, etc., as we got in this
> episode. The Knights of Byzantium were intriguing; it's the first time
> we had seen or heard anything of them. And who could say, then, what
> might come of the KoB? They had limitless, undefined potential. Or so
> it seemed.
>
> I think AOQ is a bit blase as a result of having the DVDs right there
> and knowing he can find the answers as soon as he pleases.

Yeah, there's something to that point of view. The stakes are raised quite
a bit in this episode. And perhaps the speed of viewing blurs a little how
much the broader stories are advanced. But I still struggle to get past how
cheap and obvious the episode's centerpiece story of the WC comes across to
me.

OBS

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 11:17:46 AM6/28/06

to

> episode. The Knights of Byzantium were intriguing; it's the first time
> we had seen or heard anything of them. And who could say, then, what
> might come of the KoB? They had limitless, undefined potential. Or so
> it seemed.

another little moment is that buffy initially asked what is it
takes off the mask and sees he is a human
and then asks who is it

another demon-human distinction buffy makes

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:00:48 PM6/28/06

to

"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:1151502560.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> But even so, something has changed. Buffy now knows that Spike is
> somebody who will jump into a fight against a Queller Demon or a Troll,
> just to help her out. (There was also the opening scene in
> "Checkpoint," with Buffy fighting the vampire. She didn't really need
> help, and Spike was again too eager for thanks and credit, but the fact
> remains that he was there fighting alongside her, and going out of his
> way to do it too.) He doesn't run from the Queller Demon or the Troll
> -- he stays around and helps, despite the danger. A pattern has been
> established. (By the way, the only reason why I'm not mentioning
> Spike saving Buffy's life from the invisible demon in "Family" is
> because I don't think she ever found out about that.) As a result of
> that pattern Buffy, maybe without even consciously thinking about it
> very much, has different expectations of Spike now.

That reminds me of something else about Spike's vampire staking in
Checkpoint. In the past, Spike's interventions in Buffy's patrols have been
somewhat comic and marginally effective. Here he's superbly effective.
It's a fabulous slay that *has* to impress Buffy, if for no other reason
than we know that she observes and studies fighting techniques. (Remember
her commentary about the martial arts movie?) I think this fresh memory of
how skilled he really can be is influencing her too. Both in the immediate
sense of it being a good idea to house her family with him, and in the more
general sense of developing a kind of respect for him.

The tossing of the knife to her a few episodes back that you mention has, I
think, a similar effect. There it's not so much the skill shown, or even
the willingness to fight with her, but the demonstration that they can work
together effectively. Spike was in tune with the battle situation and
provided the proper aid at the right time. This is the kind of thing that
someone who lives for battle would notice and appreciate.

Indirectly, these thoughts send me back to the conclusion of Fool For Love.
Why did Buffy let Spike console her? Was she so beaten down at that moment
she didn't have the energy to resist? Was she just that desperate for
company? Well, probably yes and yes as far as that goes. But I think it
was easier for her because, whatever else Spike was, he was also a fellow
warrior that understood things about her life nobody else did. Their last
meeting had ended badly, but in it, Spike none the less demonstrated real
knowledge of how relentless and hard her life all too often is. In a way
that no Scooby ever does. Not even Giles.

In sum, I think she's been developing - mostly subconsciously - a kind of
professional respect and regard for Spike that has begun leaking over a
little into a realm of limited friendship on that basis. Spike has been
acting differently with her ever since his dream, but especially since Fool
For Love. But he's not alone. Buffy has been acting differently towards
Spike too, even though I don't think she's really aware of it. Spike
certainly must sense that, and be motivated by it, even though his own
obsession misreads it.

OBS

Lord Usher

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 12:07:01 PM6/28/06

to

EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:r845a2hcijvmb6mkg1ie3kn9up6u1jnc6v@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:48:27 -0400, Horace LaBadie
> <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <-e-dne61iovpmz_Z...@uci.net>,
>> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm....nothing about the revelation that Glory is a god????
>>
>>He's not easily impressed.
>>
>>HWL
>
> To be fair, if you're a comic book fan, being a god isn't always that
> impressive. It gets tossed around too much.

Especially since we have no idea what it means to be a god in the
Buffyverse. They might as well have revealed that she was a Splef Monster.

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 2:03:28 PM6/28/06

to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

>
> The interrogations of Buffy's friends seem meant to be one of the big
> comedy centers of the episode. Fell pretty flat for me. After the
> "fine, now we can get to the questions" gag, it apparently didn't
> occur to the writers that every other repetition of that basic joke
> would be predictable and obvious. How far in advance were you guys
> saying the punchline to the "your relationship" scene?

Yes, it was predictable, but I liked it. Hannigan and Benson were perfect,
and I really loved the magic level thing.

> I must
> say that something about leaving her family in a vampire's cave
> doesn't sit right with me, but I can't actually say why, since it
> makes sense in Buffy-logic. In any case, I liked watching these parts,
> so that'll have to be enough.

Joyce and Spike have always been great together, so I am grateful for any
scene with them in it regardless of the lack of logic.

> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway Because It's Spike
> moment(s):

> - The Watcher who wrote her thesis about Spike

Best scene of the episode.

> AOQ rating: Decent

I call it Good.
There is some interesting plot advancement, some good comedy moments, some
character development. I liked it.

Rincewind.

--
-------------------------------------------
Lines you'll never hear on Buffy:

OLIVIA: Rupert, I'm sorry, but I can't stay. I'm flying back to England
tonight.
GILES: You decided my life is too dangerous?
OLIVIA: No, I just find it intensely creepy that you spend all your free
time hanging around a group of teenage girls. Seriously, get a hobby.

cry...@panix.com

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 2:58:13 PM6/28/06

to

One Bit Shy <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:

> I don't mind the idea of them being trapped in their hidebound
> ways - or more generally stifled by oppressive bureaucracy.
> I've always liked the WC concept. But that doesn't explain them
> so grossly overplaying their position and then just caving
> entirely without ever playing their Glory knowledge card.
> Outdated or not, I'd still expect their methods to be applied
> with a reasonable degree of competence.

Maybe they realize that withholding the Glory information could
end up killing them all, so to them it was only ever a bluff?
Likewise crippling the Slayer's ability to train or research by
taking away her watcher Giles could hinder her efforts, and again
lead to killing them all, so perhaps that was a bluff too?

Buffy has the power because she can keep them from all dying
horrible deaths :-)

--
-Crystal

Don Sample

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 3:04:02 PM6/28/06

to

Uh...no.. An "Everybody Else's Problem" field would make everyone go
"nope, she's not my problem." If Dawn has any sort of field around her
it would be a "This is *My* Problem" field.

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 3:36:58 PM6/28/06

to

<cry...@panix.com> wrote in message news:e7ujg5$dkh$1...@reader2.panix.com...

That brings me back full circle to my original post where I suggested much
the same possibility. I'd *like* to believe something along those lines,
but I don't think that's what was presented on screen. "Now perhaps you're
used to idle threats and sloppy discipline, Miss Summers, but you're dealing
with grownups now." Whereupon they proceed to act like children, and when
it comes down to it, show the backbone of a jelly fish. These guys are
supposed to be world class players in the halls of power. "This stuff, the,
uh, bureaucracy, the pulling of political strings, they're the best in the
world. They can kill you with the stroke of a pen." Yet they act like
they've never seen a power play in their lives.

OBS

Clairel

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 3:50:17 PM6/28/06

to

--Again, a good post; 100% accurate IMO. I'm glad to find somebody
else who is interested in the Spikecentric aspects of these episodes.
I don't think you were posting on the NG back in 2001, were you?

And I'd be interested to know what what AOQ, the "onlie begetter" of
these threads, thinks of your and my take on Spike, Spike's POV, and
Buffy's POV as of this point in time.

Clairel

sjelena

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 3:58:58 PM6/28/06

to

Maybe they're used to playing with other grownups and Buffy (with whole
of their history) is someone they don't know how to deal with. Giles
does know "rules of the game" (and act accordingly) but Buffy is a
"loose cannon" and already turn her back on them twice. But,
essentially, yes they "fell" for "Power Speech" too easy.

Sjelena

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 4:14:24 PM6/28/06

to

> Maybe they're used to playing with other grownups and Buffy (with whole
> of their history) is someone they don't know how to deal with. Giles
> does know "rules of the game" (and act accordingly) but Buffy is a
> "loose cannon" and already turn her back on them twice. But,
> essentially, yes they "fell" for "Power Speech" too easy.

i think quentin realized buffy saw through their bluff
they could do a lot of damage
but quentin realized that he was going to have to deal with buffy on her terms
sooner or later
so better sooner while council still has some shreds of relevancy left

while buffy dictated some terms to them
she was still willingly to leave them in the game

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 4:41:27 PM6/28/06

to

"Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:1151524217.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> --Again, a good post; 100% accurate IMO. I'm glad to find somebody
> else who is interested in the Spikecentric aspects of these episodes.
> I don't think you were posting on the NG back in 2001, were you?

I'm interested in other things too. ;-) But, yes, Spike's development has
its own fascination.

No, I wasn't posting here in 2001. The reception I got for the WB was a
blurry fuzz. So I didn't start watching until it showed up in syndication
the next year. My fascination grew rapidly from then, but I was never in
the discussion loop when shows were originally aired. I've read a lot of
commentary from various sources since then, but the AOQ review sequence is
the first I've seriously participated in. The sequential walkthrough
offered an opportunity that I couldn't pass up.

OBS

George W Harris

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 6:34:14 PM6/28/06

to

On 28 Jun 2006 11:07:01 -0500, Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

:EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:r845a2hcijvmb6mkg1ie3kn9up6u1jnc6v@

:4ax.com:
:
:> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:48:27 -0400, Horace LaBadie
:> <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
:>
:>>In article <-e-dne61iovpmz_Z...@uci.net>,
:>> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
:>>
:>>> Hmmm....nothing about the revelation that Glory is a god????
:>>
:>>He's not easily impressed.
:>>
:>>HWL
:>
:> To be fair, if you're a comic book fan, being a god isn't always that
:> impressive. It gets tossed around too much.
:
:Especially since we have no idea what it means to be a god in the
:Buffyverse. They might as well have revealed that she was a Splef Monster.

No. We know what a god is. It's common terminology.
We've never met one in Buffy, so it's impressive.
--
"Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

George W Harris

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 6:38:40 PM6/28/06

to

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:38:20 +1200, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

:"George W Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message

Ng fbzr cbvag Tvyrf zragvbaf tbvat guebhtu gur
vasbezngvba gur Pbhapvy tnir gurz. Ur qbrfa'g fnl jung
vg nyy vf, fb jr pna'g fnl vg vfa'g hfrshy, naq vg qbrf riraghnyyl
gryy gurz nobhg gur evghny bs gur Xrl (gurl unq gb trg gung
vasbezngvba sebz fbzrjurer).

Vg'f nyy vzcyvpvg, V jvyy nqzvg, ohg gurl qb yrnea n ybg zber
nsgre "Purpxcbvag", naq vg'f angheny gb fhezvfr gung gur JP
tnir vg gb gurz (va enj sbez, ng yrnfg).
--
"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."
-Hermann Goering

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

George W Harris

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 6:43:05 PM6/28/06

to

On 28 Jun 2006 06:49:20 -0700, "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote:

:It was just after Spike had tossed Buffy the knife that enabled her to

:kill the Queller Demon. (And yes, I know he accidentally knocked the
:knife out of her hand earlier when the Queller Demon took him by
:surprise and he was thrashing around on the floor with it, but it was
:clear that was an accident, and he made amends by getting the knife
:back to her.) With the demon dead, Spike reaches out his hand to Buffy
:to help her up off the floor. She takes his hand and after she's off
:the floor they just stand there for a minute, hand in hand.
:
:That's when Riley and his commandos burst in. Riley sees Buffy hand in
:hand with Spike and sees it as something of great significance. His
:perception of that is reinforced by Spike's gloating comment "You just
:missed a real nice time." This incident is one of several things that
:drive Riley to the vamp whorehouse, and thence out of Sunnydale.
:
:I'm not saying it has exactly the significance that Riley thinks it
:has. He's magnifying it in his imagination. But I don't think the
:function of the hand-in-hand scene was just purely to have an effect on
:Riley, through him getting the wrong idea. That was one reason, maybe
:the biggest reason, to include the scene. But at the same time, it
:subtly gets across the idea that Buffy is beginning to think of Spike
:as -- not a good guy, but somebody who can be counted on for certain
:things, in certain ways.

The significance is amplified by the sequence in
S4 where they intercut Buffy and Riley fighting demons
with their post-combat sex, and the clear link that's built
in Riley's mind between their fighting together and their
sex life. This more than anything is what leads him to
think that normal human Riley is inadequate, and then
seeing Buffy and Spike in a post-combat moment
focuses his jealousy *and* his envy (he's jealous of
Buffy, and he's envious of what Spike can have with
her that he can't).
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 6:56:34 PM6/28/06

to

Maybe someone should paint her pink.

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 6:57:56 PM6/28/06

to

William George Ferguson wrote:

> Given their mission statement (destroy the Key at all costs), we pretty
> much settled on calling them The Knights Who Slay Key.

Works for me.

-AOQ

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:03:16 PM6/28/06

to

In article <1151535393.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:

now youre channeling soc-men

Terry

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:17:56 PM6/28/06

to

Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in

news:dsample-5682B7...@news.giganews.com:

> In article <VEuog.2$6s...@fe03.lga>, Terry <no...@nonesuch.com> wrote:

>> I always thought Dawn had a bit of an "Everybody Else's Problem"
>> field about her. She seems to inspire people to go beyond the call of
>> duty to protect her.

> Uh...no.. An "Everybody Else's Problem" field would make everyone go

> "nope, she's not my problem." If Dawn has any sort of field around
> her it would be a "This is *My* Problem" field.

Right. That's what I meant, but was attempting to be too clever. And
missing. Damn.

But, you know what I mean -- I think she has a "my goodness this is my
problem" thing going with folks around her. She inspires people to want to
protect her.

Terry

Lord Usher

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:32:03 PM6/28/06

to

George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in

news:fs06a2hhf6uoi71pu...@4ax.com:

>:Especially since we have no idea what it means to be a god in the
>:Buffyverse. They might as well have revealed that she was a Splef
>:Monster.
>
> No. We know what a god is. It's common terminology.
> We've never met one in Buffy, so it's impressive.

Go ahead, then -- explain the things that are inherent to the term "god"
that differentiate such a being from, say, all the really powerful demons
the series showed us previously.

Extra credit if it's something that actually ends up being true and
important about Glory.

vague disclaimer

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:49:06 PM6/28/06

to

In article <dsample-5682B7...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

No. That's a Somebody Else's Problem field (the ref is to one of the
HHGTTG books - So Long and Thanks For All the Fish, I think).

The Everybody Else's Problem Field should be more properly known as the
Ostrich Field.

Dawn has a My Sister's The Slayer And She Has A Bunch of Pals Field.

Spike has a Chip Filtered Through An Obsession With The Slayer Field.

Oh....hang on.
--
Wikipedia: like Usenet, moderated by trolls

David E. Milligan

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:51:58 PM6/28/06

to

"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151535476....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I always wondered why Quinton didn't recognize the sword (I'm quite sure
the WC was well aware of the KofB, they seem to know about just about
everything else), or why Buffy didn't tell him the Knights were on the
scene.

David

vague disclaimer

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 7:59:55 PM6/28/06

to

In article <Xns97F0BC4C11D...@216.40.28.76>,
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well they were rather specific about that (can't recall when it was
shown so rot-13) : fur jnf bar bs gur obffrf bs ure qvzrafvba,
nccneragyl n zhygv-tbq qvzrafvba. Orvat gur obff bs n qvzrafvba frrzf
cerggl zhpu gur qrsvavgvba bs n tbq gb zr.

Ure cbjre va guvf qvzrafvba...re....gur Ohsslirefr....jnf pbafgenvarq,
zrnavat fur arrqrq gbc-hc oenva fhpxf. Naq nyfb gb yvir va Ora. Rira
gura, fur pbhyq fgvyy xvpx Ohssl'f nefr naq vg gbbx n pbzcyrk (naq va
gur raq sngny sbe Ohssl) cyna gb gnxr ure qbja.

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 8:39:14 PM6/28/06

to

> Well they were rather specific about that (can't recall when it was
> shown so rot-13) : fur jnf bar bs gur obffrf bs ure qvzrafvba,
> nccneragyl n zhygv-tbq qvzrafvba. Orvat gur obff bs n qvzrafvba frrzf
> cerggl zhpu gur qrsvavgvba bs n tbq gb zr.

she appears to be invincibly immortal
we have seen nothing that can harm her
(the dagon sphere is perhaps merely uncomfortable)
and she apparently predates written language
she is very fast and very strong

also glory has shown no empathy and no law or morality
except that which she makes for herself like a god

> Ure cbjre va guvf qvzrafvba...re....gur Ohsslirefr....jnf pbafgenvarq,
> zrnavat fur arrqrq gbc-hc oenva fhpxf. Naq nyfb gb yvir va Ora. Rira
> gura, fur pbhyq fgvyy xvpx Ohssl'f nefr naq vg gbbx n pbzcyrk (naq va
> gur raq sngny sbe Ohssl) cyna gb gnxr ure qbja.

ora vf gur pnhfr abg gur pbafrdhrapr
fur jnf vzcevfbarq va ora naq jvyy qvr jura ora qvrf
ohg ora pnaabg pbagnva ure naq fur vf noyr oernx bhg sebz gvzr gb gvzr
vgf ure vzcevfbazrag gung znxrf tybel penml
naq nyfb fur vf yvzvgrq gb zbfgyl chapuvat crbcyr

Terry

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 8:47:15 PM6/28/06

to

vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote in
news:l64o-1rj5-D7F27...@mercury.nildram.net:

> In article <dsample-5682B7...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

>> In article <VEuog.2$6s...@fe03.lga>, Terry <no...@nonesuch.com> wrote:

>> > I always thought Dawn had a bit of an "Everybody Else's Problem"
>> > field about her. She seems to inspire people to go beyond the call
>> > of duty to protect her.

>> Uh...no.. An "Everybody Else's Problem" field would make everyone go

>> "nope, she's not my problem." If Dawn has any sort of field around
>> her it would be a "This is *My* Problem" field.
>
> No. That's a Somebody Else's Problem field (the ref is to one of the
> HHGTTG books - So Long and Thanks For All the Fish, I think).

That was the reference I was attempting to make (Douglas Adams at least,
I forget which book), but missed slightly in trying to change it to
reflect the opposite.

-Terry

Rincewind

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 9:03:44 PM6/28/06

to

"vague disclaimer" <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:

>
> No. That's a Somebody Else's Problem field (the ref is to one of the
> HHGTTG books - So Long and Thanks For All the Fish, I think).

It's actually Life, the Universe and Everything (but I had to look it up on
Wikipedia to be sure...:-).

Rincewind.

--
----------------------------------------------
What I have learned from Buffy.

Flammability of vampires is inversely proportional to how well they know
Buffy, so if you ever become one, stay away from torches, cigarette
lighters, and tiny slivers of sunlight until you've met her a couple of
times.

Don Sample

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 9:16:20 PM6/28/06

to

In article <g216a2lp3g9af0c4r...@4ax.com>,

George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:

>
> Ng fbzr cbvag Tvyrf zragvbaf tbvat guebhtu gur
> vasbezngvba gur Pbhapvy tnir gurz. Ur qbrfa'g fnl jung
> vg nyy vf, fb jr pna'g fnl vg vfa'g hfrshy, naq vg qbrf riraghnyyl
> gryy gurz nobhg gur evghny bs gur Xrl (gurl unq gb trg gung
> vasbezngvba sebz fbzrjurer).

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 10:04:44 PM6/28/06

to

> One Bit Shy wrote:
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1151467132....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> > > So, last week's big ending of Dawn finding out about her importance
> > > is diffused with more of the same avoidance. Huh. One "I'm gonna
> > > figure it out," and she's easily kept out of the know for the rest
> > > of the show. I guess I have an inherent bias against anticlimaxing the
> > > end-of-episode lead-in that way, even though I can appreciate logically
> > > why it helps shake up the format.
> >
> > I'm not sure why you saw that as such a big end of show climax.

Perhaps the fact that the scene stopped in the middle with a dramatic
fade to black had something to do with it. If the writers weren't
trying to make the audience expect it to be something of a turning
point with regards to Dawn, maybe they shouldn't have bridged the scene
across "Triangle" and "Checkpoint." I guess one could argue that
bringing in the Watchers was the real lead-in, but not having seen CP,
the focus seemed to be on Dawn.

> > I've puzzled about this whole power play for a long time to no satisfactory
> > conclusion. The way it's depicted, I think the show's intent is pretty much
> > how it appears on the surface.
[snip]
> > But it's kind of stupid.

Agreed with all the comments below about how the Watchers shouldn't
have been such goons. How they still have any influence is beyond me.

Clairel wrote:
> The Knights of Byzantium were intriguing; it's the first time
> we had seen or heard anything of them. And who could say, then, what
> might come of the KoB? They had limitless, undefined potential. Or so
> it seemed.

Really? They struck me as comic relief punching bags, and served that
purpose well, with the whole ridicuously archaic look going. It never
occurred to me to think that they'd play a major role, in any event.

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 10:07:14 PM6/28/06

to

Mel wrote:

> Hmmm....nothing about the revelation that Glory is a god????

Well, others may have something to say. Like Apteryx's nice summary
that this information (thought he kinda like it dramatically) is
"practically useless. It's just a label. It tells Buffy nothing
about the extent of Glory's powers and weaknesses. Buffy is the expert
on
what Glory can do (unless Ben or the Knights who don't say "Ni!" will
oblige
with info they seem to have) and all told her powers, although great,
seem
somewhat less than than the label "god" might seem to imply."

-AOQ

Arbitrar Of Quality

unread,

Jun 28, 2006, 10:13:47 PM6/28/06

to

One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Clairel" <reld...@usa.net> wrote in message

> news:1151502560.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>> But I don't think the function of the hand-in-hand scene was just purely to have an effect on
>> Riley, through him getting the wrong idea. That was one reason, maybe the biggest reason, >> to include the scene. But at the same time, it subtly gets across the idea that Buffy is
>> beginning to think of Spike as -- not a good guy, but somebody who can be counted on for
>> certain things, in certain ways.

[]

> > But even so, something has changed. Buffy now knows that Spike is
> > somebody who will jump into a fight against a Queller Demon or a Troll,
> > just to help her out. (There was also the opening scene in
> > "Checkpoint," with Buffy fighting the vampire. She didn't really need
> > help, and Spike was again too eager for thanks and credit, but the fact
> > remains that he was there fighting alongside her, and going out of his
> > way to do it too.) He doesn't run from the Queller Demon or the Troll
> > -- he stays around and helps, despite the danger. A pattern has been
> > established. (By the way, the only reason why I'm not mentioning
> > Spike saving Buffy's life from the invisible demon in "Family" is
> > because I don't think she ever found out about that.) As a result of
> > that pattern Buffy, maybe without even consciously thinking about it
> > very much, has different expectations of Spike now.

>

> The tossing of the knife to her a few episodes back that you mention has, I
> think, a similar effect. There it's not so much the skill shown, or even
> the willingness to fight with her, but the demonstration that they can work
> together effectively. Spike was in tune with the battle situation and
> provided the proper aid at the right time. This is the kind of thing that
> someone who lives for battle would notice and appreciate.

[]

> In sum, I think she's been developing - mostly subconsciously - a kind of
> professional respect and regard for Spike that has begun leaking over a
> little into a realm of limited friendship on that basis. Spike has been
> acting differently with her ever since his dream, but especially since Fool
> For Love. But he's not alone. Buffy has been acting differently towards
> Spike too, even though I don't think she's really aware of it. Spike
> certainly must sense that, and be motivated by it, even though his own
> obsession misreads it.

Both good thoughts. I think the "Listening To Fear" scene does a lot
more in that regard than the CP Slaying, since the latter is unwanted
(she claims) help and buried beneath them reminding each other how much
they say they don't like each other for the thousandth time. At the
time I was a little too caught up with thoguhts of Joyce and Riley to
let it make much of an impressiion, but the former was a natural little
moment. And having just seen "Blood Ties," this is definately a
background thread that's becoming more blatant.

-AOQ

(Harmony) Watcher

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 12:37:43 AM6/29/06

to

"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:12a56ng...@news.supernews.com...

> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message

> news:dsample-C32604...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <12a471u...@news.supernews.com>,

> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>

> >> One might even look at the assessment as an actual clever test. If she
> >> figures out the power relationship as she did - well, then, great. She
> >> passed the test and earned the information. But to whatever extent she
> >> might end up conceding power to the WC - well, then that's exactly the
> >> level
> >> of authority they would need over that kind of slayer to get the best
> >> results regarding Glory.
> >
> > I don't think that they're smart enough to come up with a test like
that.
>
> No, they're not. And that's my beef. The persistent depiction of the WC
as
> oafs is likely my greatest annoyance in the series. I like the idea of
the
> WC a great deal. The way it fits into the slayer myth. Their function as
> the primary organized higher authority that too often acts as Buffy's
> nemesis. They are the tangible object of her rebellion. Yet there is
> always a touch of ambiguity in their status as foes to the slayer, since
> both share such similar objectives, and it is often unclear that Buffy's
> philosophy is truly the better one.
>
>
> Like it or not, Buffy owes much to them
> too. Giles, after all, is/was a watcher.
>
>
Er, only insofar as Giles' education at Oxford is concerned (and that's
already giving the Council the benefit of the doubt that Giles' education
was supported by the Council), but I think not much more beyond that.

They probably owed the Council for the Council's digging up Glory's dirt,
but Giles was quite capable of digging that up if only he had the access to
all the Council's records. The Council's attempt to use that information as
a leverage to control the Slayer pretty much negated any need for gratitude.

But like I said in another subthread, Giles was also a distinguished Watcher
in that he rebelled against the Council's principles probably long before he
met Buffy. I do not take it as forgetry or a mere chance occurrence that
Buffy never got her "Slayer manual" from Giles (assuming Buffy did not lie
about that just to make a joke to Kendra).

--
==Harmony Watcher==

(Harmony) Watcher

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 12:59:31 AM6/29/06

to

"sjelena" <milic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151524738.2...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

That's probably because Quentin did watch Masterpiece Theatre every week and
was frustrated by how he was the only one among his Professor buddies at
Oxford who could not publish his knowledge, or some of his closest Professor
buddies laughed at him when he hinted "crazy" theories about ancient
creatures. In short, perhaps Buffy nailed Quentin's Achilles' heel by
accident. Her speech stunned Quentin by surprise (zhpu yvxr Naqerj'f fcrrpu
va NgF "Qnzntr" fghaarq Natry yvxr n serrmr-enl tha jura Naqerj fnvq abg bar
bs gubfr 12 Inzcle Fynlref oruvaq uvz unq rire qngrq uvz). And Quentin was
too "gentlemanly" to play nasty in front of everybody after Buffy's insult.

--
==Harmony Watcher==

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 10:17:00 AM6/29/06

to

Dead is dead. If the gods can die, regardless of *how* they die,
they're not truly immortal. Just less mortal than humans (and some of
the human/god hybrids *were* killed by humans, despite having powers and
abilities far beyond "puny mortals"...)

Horace LaBadie

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 11:43:58 AM6/29/06

to

In article <ROydnbi7ouhdQj7Z...@giganews.com>,
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

There's a guy named Benedict calling long distance from the Vatican
neighborhood in Rome on line one who wants to speak to you about a god
who transcends death. There's a guy named Frazer on line two who wants
to talk to you about hundreds of gods who transcend death. And there's a
guy named Campbell on line three who wants to talk about the first two
guys.

HWL

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 12:19:28 PM6/29/06

to

You misunderstood - by quite a lot, actually. By "Dead is Dead," I
don't mean that it's necessarily permanent, or even long-term. Hell,
death isn't necessarily *permanent* even for *people* in lots of
traditional world mythologies (let alone the Buffyverse.) BUT - "Dead
is Dead," in that it doesn't matter how you get there: Bullet in the
brain, divine lightning bolt, or mis-calculating the length of your
bungee cord.

Horace LaBadie

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 12:57:49 PM6/29/06

to

In article <ktmdnXpH6dzuYT7Z...@giganews.com>,
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

SNIP

> >> Dead is dead. If the gods can die, regardless of *how* they die,
> >> they're not truly immortal. Just less mortal than humans (and some of
> >> the human/god hybrids *were* killed by humans, despite having powers and
> >> abilities far beyond "puny mortals"...)
> >
> > There's a guy named Benedict calling long distance from the Vatican
> > neighborhood in Rome on line one who wants to speak to you about a god
> > who transcends death. There's a guy named Frazer on line two who wants
> > to talk to you about hundreds of gods who transcend death. And there's a
> > guy named Campbell on line three who wants to talk about the first two
> > guys.
> >
> > HWL
>
> You misunderstood - by quite a lot, actually. By "Dead is Dead," I
> don't mean that it's necessarily permanent, or even long-term. Hell,
> death isn't necessarily *permanent* even for *people* in lots of
> traditional world mythologies (let alone the Buffyverse.) BUT - "Dead
> is Dead," in that it doesn't matter how you get there: Bullet in the
> brain, divine lightning bolt, or mis-calculating the length of your
> bungee cord.

"Dead is dead" means "totally dead," not "just a little dead," nor "I've
seen worse." When you bring godhood into it, then "dead is dead" is an
especially strong way of stamping finis to the case. When Time Magazine
asked "Is God Dead?" on its April 8, 1966 cover, it didn't mean "Is God
just sleeping?"

If you meant something else, that's not my misunderstanding. Choose
another phrasing.

HWL

peachy ashie passion

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 12:58:53 PM6/29/06

to

(Harmony) Watcher wrote:

>
> But like I said in another subthread, Giles was also a distinguished Watcher
> in that he rebelled against the Council's principles probably long before he
> met Buffy. I do not take it as forgetry or a mere chance occurrence that
> Buffy never got her "Slayer manual" from Giles (assuming Buffy did not lie
> about that just to make a joke to Kendra).
>

You did say that in another thread, and I'd meant to bring it up
then.. I know you believe it. I'm not sure there is anything in the
show to base it on.

Don Sample

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 1:15:12 PM6/29/06

to

In article <hFTog.11884$Wh.8492@trnddc04>,

Especially since, as I mentioned in the other thread, Buffy's first
Watcher also didn't bother to show her a copy of the Slayer's Handbook,
so Watchers not showing that book to Slayers would seem to be a fairly
common occurrence.

Clairel

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 1:39:18 PM6/29/06

to

Lord Usher wrote:
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:r845a2hcijvmb6mkg1ie3kn9up6u1jnc6v@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:48:27 -0400, Horace LaBadie
> > <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <-e-dne61iovpmz_Z...@uci.net>,

> >> Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hmmm....nothing about the revelation that Glory is a god????
> >>

> >>He's not easily impressed.
> >>
> >>HWL
> >
> > To be fair, if you're a comic book fan, being a god isn't always that
> > impressive. It gets tossed around too much.

>
> Especially since we have no idea what it means to be a god in the
> Buffyverse. They might as well have revealed that she was a Splef Monster.
>

> It's an overrated moment in an overrated episode, a cheap attempt at
> melodramatic one-upmanship with no real substance behind it.

--What Lord Usher doesn't seem to grasp is that even if what it means
to be a god has never been defined in the Buffyverse, this is still a
dramatically effective moment on which to end an episode, because it
gets the viewer wondering and thinking and feeling eager for the
answers that presumably will be forthcoming in future weeks.

It's not that the writers are evading or disregarding the point that
they've never before defined Godhood in the Buffyverse; rather, they're
rubbing our noses in that fact, and dangling before us the possibility
that they *will* soon be defining what Godhood is in their fictional
universe.

It's something viewers might well have been wondering about already;
and if they didn't wonder before, they certainly will wonder after
Quentin's statement "She's a god." Why this is more intriguing than
saying "she's a Splef monster" is because the word Splef (LU's
off-the-cuff coinage, I assume) has no connotations whatsoever, while
the word "god" has lots of different connotations for viewers to mull
over until next week's episode.

That's how it worked for me back in January 2001, at any rate. I
remember it quite vividly.

Clairel

Don Sample

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 1:52:02 PM6/29/06

to

In article
<hwlabadiejr-D912...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:

The point you seem to be missing is that mythology is full of gods who
died. Many were killed by quite mundane means. That some gods refuse
to stay dead, doesn't mean that all gods who are killed will come back,
nor does it mean that gods can't die.

3D Master

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 2:55:07 PM6/29/06

to

One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-C32604...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <12a471u...@news.supernews.com>,

>> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>

>>> One might even look at the assessment as an actual clever test. If she
>>> figures out the power relationship as she did - well, then, great. She
>>> passed the test and earned the information. But to whatever extent she
>>> might end up conceding power to the WC - well, then that's exactly the
>>> level
>>> of authority they would need over that kind of slayer to get the best
>>> results regarding Glory.
>> I don't think that they're smart enough to come up with a test like that.
>
> No, they're not. And that's my beef. The persistent depiction of the WC as
> oafs is likely my greatest annoyance in the series. I like the idea of the
> WC a great deal. The way it fits into the slayer myth. Their function as
> the primary organized higher authority that too often acts as Buffy's
> nemesis. They are the tangible object of her rebellion. Yet there is
> always a touch of ambiguity in their status as foes to the slayer, since
> both share such similar objectives, and it is often unclear that Buffy's
> philosophy is truly the better one. Like it or not, Buffy owes much to them
> too. Giles, after all, is/was a watcher.
>

> So, to me, that calls for something genuinely formidable - a worthy foe and
> sometimes uncomfortable ally. For a little while in Helpless, that's pretty
> much what they seemed. I hate it that since then it is mainly lip service
> given to their abilities while the reality has largely been oafish comic
> relief.

Indeed, and more; how come they're bad? All of them it seems? There is
but one Slayer, she can be but in one place, and she can fight but in
one place. Who guards and fought all the baddies in all the other places
at the same time? Especially those wanting to end the world? All those
Slayers over time guided by Watchers: the world's still spinning. These
guys must have, or at least had to have, the continued existence of the
world at heart, and they were obviously successful for 10,000(+) years.
They can't all be a bunch of power hungry, control freak bureaucrats.

3D Master
--
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!"
- The Kurgan, Highlander

"Give me some sugar, baby!"
- Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness
~~~~~

Author of several stories, which can be found here:
http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 3:54:52 PM6/29/06

to

Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <ktmdnXpH6dzuYT7Z...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>> Dead is dead. If the gods can die, regardless of *how* they die,
>>>> they're not truly immortal. Just less mortal than humans (and some of
>>>> the human/god hybrids *were* killed by humans, despite having powers and
>>>> abilities far beyond "puny mortals"...)
>>> There's a guy named Benedict calling long distance from the Vatican
>>> neighborhood in Rome on line one who wants to speak to you about a god
>>> who transcends death. There's a guy named Frazer on line two who wants
>>> to talk to you about hundreds of gods who transcend death. And there's a
>>> guy named Campbell on line three who wants to talk about the first two
>>> guys.
>>>
>>> HWL
>> You misunderstood - by quite a lot, actually. By "Dead is Dead," I
>> don't mean that it's necessarily permanent, or even long-term. Hell,
>> death isn't necessarily *permanent* even for *people* in lots of
>> traditional world mythologies (let alone the Buffyverse.) BUT - "Dead
>> is Dead," in that it doesn't matter how you get there: Bullet in the
>> brain, divine lightning bolt, or mis-calculating the length of your
>> bungee cord.
>
> "Dead is dead" means "totally dead," not "just a little dead," nor "I've
> seen worse."

Cites? Do you have a dictionary entry which specifically states that
the colloquialism "Dead is dead" means "totally dead" or "permanently
dead" as opposed to just another way of saying "A rose by any other
name?" I thought not.

> When you bring godhood into it, then "dead is dead" is an
> especially strong way of stamping finis to the case. When Time Magazine
> asked "Is God Dead?" on its April 8, 1966 cover, it didn't mean "Is God
> just sleeping?"

Of course not. And it didn't mean literally "Has God Himself passed
away?" in a physical sense, either. See Nietzsche's "The Madman" for an
explanation.

>
> If you meant something else, that's not my misunderstanding. Choose
> another phrasing.

Or, here's a thought: either learn to parse colloquialisms, or just
learn to ask the speaker to clarify.

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 4:12:33 PM6/29/06

to

In article <O5SdnR72lvJ...@giganews.com>,
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

how many gods have slayers slain?

every demon has had a vunerability which a slayer could exploit
glory has no known vunerability and no reason to think she will have one

that means there may be no way to destroy her
just defeat her by keeping her from doing her bad key mojo
whatever that is

except for the dream monster from amends
everything buffy has come up against has been destructible
the question has never been if but how

with glory its back to if

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 4:40:29 PM6/29/06

to

mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:

> In article <O5SdnR72lvJ...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cites? Do you have a dictionary entry which specifically states that
>> the colloquialism "Dead is dead" means "totally dead" or "permanently
>> dead" as opposed to just another way of saying "A rose by any other
>> name?" I thought not.
>
> how many gods have slayers slain?

I see you didn't really read my posts, either. Never mind.

nimue

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 6:47:14 PM6/29/06

to

Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <ktmdnXpH6dzuYT7Z...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>> Dead is dead. If the gods can die, regardless of *how* they die,
>>>> they're not truly immortal. Just less mortal than humans (and
>>>> some of the human/god hybrids *were* killed by humans, despite
>>>> having powers and abilities far beyond "puny mortals"...)
>>>
>>> There's a guy named Benedict calling long distance from the Vatican
>>> neighborhood in Rome on line one who wants to speak to you about a
>>> god who transcends death. There's a guy named Frazer on line two
>>> who wants to talk to you about hundreds of gods who transcend
>>> death. And there's a guy named Campbell on line three who wants to
>>> talk about the first two guys.
>>>
>>> HWL
>>
>> You misunderstood - by quite a lot, actually. By "Dead is Dead," I
>> don't mean that it's necessarily permanent, or even long-term. Hell,
>> death isn't necessarily *permanent* even for *people* in lots of
>> traditional world mythologies (let alone the Buffyverse.) BUT -
>> "Dead is Dead," in that it doesn't matter how you get there: Bullet
>> in the brain, divine lightning bolt, or mis-calculating the length
>> of your bungee cord.
>
> "Dead is dead" means "totally dead," not "just a little dead," nor
> "I've seen worse."

Okay, Miracle Max -- what about *mostly* dead, huh? And don't fuck around;
you'll piss of Valerie.

>When you bring godhood into it, then "dead is
> dead" is an especially strong way of stamping finis to the case. When
> Time Magazine asked "Is God Dead?" on its April 8, 1966 cover, it
> didn't mean "Is God just sleeping?"
>
> If you meant something else, that's not my misunderstanding. Choose
> another phrasing.
>
> HWL

--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

drifter

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 6:52:38 PM6/29/06

to

Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <ktmdnXpH6dzuYT7Z...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>> Dead is dead. If the gods can die, regardless of *how* they die,
>>>> they're not truly immortal. Just less mortal than humans (and
>>>> some of the human/god hybrids *were* killed by humans, despite
>>>> having powers and abilities far beyond "puny mortals"...)
>>>
>>> There's a guy named Benedict calling long distance from the Vatican
>>> neighborhood in Rome on line one who wants to speak to you about a
>>> god who transcends death. There's a guy named Frazer on line two
>>> who wants to talk to you about hundreds of gods who transcend
>>> death. And there's a guy named Campbell on line three who wants to
>>> talk about the first two guys.
>>>
>>> HWL
>>
>> You misunderstood - by quite a lot, actually. By "Dead is Dead," I
>> don't mean that it's necessarily permanent, or even long-term. Hell,
>> death isn't necessarily *permanent* even for *people* in lots of
>> traditional world mythologies (let alone the Buffyverse.) BUT -
>> "Dead is Dead," in that it doesn't matter how you get there: Bullet
>> in the brain, divine lightning bolt, or mis-calculating the length
>> of your bungee cord.
>
> "Dead is dead" means "totally dead," not "just a little dead," nor
> "I've seen worse."

Maybe he's just "mostly dead." I clearly heard him say, "To blave."

> If you meant something else, that's not my misunderstanding. Choose
> another phrasing.

OK, everyone, from now on, no using phrases that Horace doesn't
understand. Horace, we'll need a list, please.

For the record, I understood it fine.
--

Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."

(Harmony) Watcher

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 8:43:50 PM6/29/06

to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message

news:dsample-EB92CE...@news.giganews.com...

I don't remember if AOQ had seen the original BtVS movie or not, but since
you did not ROT13 your comment about Buffy's first Watcher, I'll assume I
don't have to ROT13 anything about that movie.

OK, even if we accept the original BtVS movie (starring Kristy Swanson) as
canon, doubling the sample size from 1 to 2 does not necessarily warrant a
blanket generalization to a common practice among Watchers. There is the
question of whether the two samples were independent (Merrick and Giles).
Perhaps both Giles and Merrick had the same mentor and both subscribed to
the same general philosophical and political viewpoints (such as train
Slayers to be independent thinking beings rather than just mere instruments
of the Council)? Who knows?

--
==Harmony Watcher==

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 9:06:48 PM6/29/06

to

"(Harmony) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in message
news:at_og.110364$IK3.13211@pd7tw1no...

You don't need the movie for that. Buffy's first watcher was depicted in
Angel flashbacks back in S2.

OBS

Don Sample

unread,

Jun 29, 2006, 9:29:28 PM6/29/06

to

In article <at_og.110364$IK3.13211@pd7tw1no>,

"$Harmony$ Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:

> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-EB92CE...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <hFTog.11884$Wh.8492@trnddc04>,
> > peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > (Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But like I said in another subthread, Giles was also a
> > > > distinguished Watcher in that he rebelled against the Council's
> > > > principles probably long before he met Buffy. I do not take it
> > > > as forgetry or a mere chance occurrence that Buffy never got
> > > > her "Slayer manual" from Giles (assuming Buffy did not lie
> > > > about that just to make a joke to Kendra).
> > > >
> > >
> > > You did say that in another thread, and I'd meant to bring it up
> > > then.. I know you believe it. I'm not sure there is anything in
> > > the show to base it on.
> >
> > Especially since, as I mentioned in the other thread, Buffy's first
> > Watcher also didn't bother to show her a copy of the Slayer's
> > Handbook, so Watchers not showing that book to Slayers would seem
> > to be a fairly common occurrence.
> >
> >
> I don't remember if AOQ had seen the original BtVS movie or not, but
> since you did not ROT13 your comment about Buffy's first Watcher,
> I'll assume I don't have to ROT13 anything about that movie.

Buffy had a Watcher before Giles--this was pretty much established in
the first episode; Buffy was not aware that there was a Slayer Handbook.
Ergo Buffy's previous Watcher did not show it to her. No need to go
into what happened in the movie.

>
> OK, even if we accept the original BtVS movie (starring Kristy Swanson) as
> canon, doubling the sample size from 1 to 2 does not necessarily warrant a
> blanket generalization to a common practice among Watchers. There is the
> question of whether the two samples were independent (Merrick and Giles).
> Perhaps both Giles and Merrick had the same mentor and both subscribed to
> the same general philosophical and political viewpoints (such as train
> Slayers to be independent thinking beings rather than just mere instruments
> of the Council)? Who knows?

But the original statement wasn't about what was common among Watchers.
It was about what was uncommon--making Giles out to be some sort of
rebel for not showing Buffy the Slayer Handbook. But from a sample size
of three we had two Watchers do the thing that you found to be so
rebellious.

And no other Watcher has ever mentioned it either. When Gwendolyn Post
was picking apart everything that Giles was doing wrong, she never
mentions the Handbook. Travers and Company in "Checkpoint" never
mention the Handbook.

(Harmony) Watcher

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 12:01:46 AM6/30/06

to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message

news:dsample-F68BF9...@news.giganews.com...

It stands to reason that if it was made into a handbook or manual, the
"Slayer handbook" must have been something that the Council had deemed
important, at least at some point in time in the past. Whether a Watcher
would or should hand it out to the newly activated Slayer is anybody's guess
because it all depends on whether it was a rule that a Watcher must follow,
and on how many rebellious or non-conformist Watchers there are at any
particular point in time.

This will be a point of departure for at least two lines of reasoning
(fanfic, of course) that flow from that:

(1) Standard procedures from the Council *prescribe* that
all Watchers must give the newly activated Slayer
a copy of the Handbook, and teach her all the rules.

(2) The Council merely *recommends* that the Handbook be given
out to a newly activated Slayer, but it is up to
the Watcher to decide.

Now, my assumption and personal *bias* is that the Council had become a
stodgy organization, especially the one led by Quentin. So, I vote for (1).
Just my imagination.

On my assumption of the "rare" practice of a Watcher not giving the Slayer a
handbook, I would not mind a single bit if I am wrong. For if it is a more
common occurrence than what I made it out to be, it can only mean one thing:
many Watchers are intelligent and enlightened enough to be nonconformists.

Zl *ovnf* ntnvafg gur Pbhapvy jnf zber be yrff onfrq ba Ohssl'f vafgvapgf.
Sbe znal crbcyr, Ohssl vafgvapgf unq arire orra jebat, naq ol zl bja pbhag,
fur jnf bayl jebat bapr (ohg gung'f nabgure vffhr sbe nabgure guernq). Va
nal pnfr, V fgvyy gehfg Ohssl'f vafgvapgf hc gb guvf cbvag. Fb, jura fur
sryg gung gur Dhragva-yrq Pbhapvy jnf rivy, V'q fnl gur Pbhapvy jnf rivy,
whfg yvxr fur sryg gung gur Funqbj Zra jrer rivy.

A more-or less evil Council of Watchers under Quentin with rebellious
Watchers would make much more interesting stories, but that is my own
imagination anyway.

--
==Harmony Watcher==

Horace LaBadie

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 12:36:19 AM6/30/06

to

In article <O5SdnR72lvJ...@giganews.com>,
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Cites? Do you have a dictionary entry which specifically states that
> the colloquialism "Dead is dead" means "totally dead" or "permanently
> dead" as opposed to just another way of saying "A rose by any other
> name?" I thought not.

It's an intensifier as phrased.

> > When you bring godhood into it, then "dead is dead" is an
> > especially strong way of stamping finis to the case. When Time Magazine
> > asked "Is God Dead?" on its April 8, 1966 cover, it didn't mean "Is God
> > just sleeping?"
>
> Of course not. And it didn't mean literally "Has God Himself passed
> away?" in a physical sense, either. See Nietzsche's "The Madman" for an
> explanation.
>
> >
> > If you meant something else, that's not my misunderstanding. Choose
> > another phrasing.
>
> Or, here's a thought: either learn to parse colloquialisms, or just
> learn to ask the speaker to clarify.

You clarified. I accept your clarification.

HWL

Horace LaBadie

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 12:44:02 AM6/30/06

to

In article <dsample-A4A8F7...@news.giganews.com>,
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
SNIP

>
> The point you seem to be missing is that mythology is full of gods who
> died. Many were killed by quite mundane means. That some gods refuse
> to stay dead, doesn't mean that all gods who are killed will come back,
> nor does it mean that gods can't die.
>

No, I see the ambiguity of the "dead is dead" statement. It is a poor
choice of words. The specific intention has been made clear.

HWL

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 12:58:02 AM6/30/06

to

Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <O5SdnR72lvJ...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cites? Do you have a dictionary entry which specifically states that
>> the colloquialism "Dead is dead" means "totally dead" or "permanently
>> dead" as opposed to just another way of saying "A rose by any other
>> name?" I thought not.
>
>
> It's an intensifier as phrased.

No. If I'd said, "As dead as it gets," or "You don't get any deader
than that," or even "Dead *as* dead," *those* would be intensifier
phrases. "Dead is dead" simply means that the end results are the same,
no matter how you get there.

>
>
>>> When you bring godhood into it, then "dead is dead" is an
>>> especially strong way of stamping finis to the case. When Time Magazine
>>> asked "Is God Dead?" on its April 8, 1966 cover, it didn't mean "Is God
>>> just sleeping?"
>> Of course not. And it didn't mean literally "Has God Himself passed
>> away?" in a physical sense, either. See Nietzsche's "The Madman" for an
>> explanation.
>>
>>> If you meant something else, that's not my misunderstanding. Choose
>>> another phrasing.
>> Or, here's a thought: either learn to parse colloquialisms, or just
>> learn to ask the speaker to clarify.
>
>
> You clarified. I accept your clarification.
>
> HWL

Cool. I wasn't sure I could sleep tonight.

Stephen Tempest

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 4:32:42 AM6/30/06

to

"$Harmony$ Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> writes:

>(1) Standard procedures from the Council *prescribe* that
> all Watchers must give the newly activated Slayer
> a copy of the Handbook, and teach her all the rules.
>
>(2) The Council merely *recommends* that the Handbook be given
> out to a newly activated Slayer, but it is up to
> the Watcher to decide.

Mine would be:

(3) The Slayer's Handbook is for the use of the *Watcher*, to guide
him in the training and management of his Slayer. Watchers may quote
selectively from the Handbook to add authority to their statements.
Actually giving the Slayer their own copy of the Handbook is only
recommended if, in the opinion of the Watcher, she has the
intelligence to understand it, and he believes that showing her this
token of trust would enhance her sense of loyalty and obedience to the
Council.

Plus, as I said before, Merrick didn't have all that much time to show
Buffy anything becore he got himself killed.

Stephen

Don Sample

Such a Handbook would likely be aimed at fairly young children
(assuming it's given to them as Potentials, not when they're actually
Chosen). It has to assume that English might not be their first
language - and that there's no guarantee that a Potential will be
particularly academically gifted. Most importantly, it would have
been written by the Watcher's Council, an organisation that's not well
known for sharing useful information willingly, and is probably only
just coming to terms with the idea of women being allowed to read
books at all.

So Giles probably thought that Buffy would treat the Handbook with
such withering scorn and contempt that it would burst into flames
under her stare... while Kendra probably received it and memorised it
at the age of seven.

I still think there'd have to be an extensive, multi-volume guide for
the Watcher on how to manage his Slayer, though - doubtless _this_
would be stodgy and full of footnotes.

Stephen

One Bit Shy

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 10:32:39 AM6/30/06

to

"Terry" <no...@nonesuch.com> wrote in message news:PJ8pg.11$iL...@fe03.lga...

> "$Harmony$ Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in
> news:Hx8pg.111325$IK3.91056@pd7tw1no:
>
>> But as for Giles, the situation was different. He had time to give her
>> a copy if he chose to. From Kendra's remarks
>> (http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=2475) about "all dose
>> footnotes" and "volume 6", it sounded like an extensive scholarly
>> work. Even Giles commented on it being "a bit stodgy".
>
> My reading of the scene is, Volume Six is of the writings of Dramius.
> Kendra talks about the assasins in the writings of Dramius, volume six.
> Buffy asks why she studies. Kendra says it says so in the handbook. Giles
> complains about all those footnotes in Dramius Six, not the handbook. Two
> different volumes.
>
> Maybe the Slayer Handbook is more of a pamphlet. Giles knew it wouldn't
> be useful because Buffy already was a Slayer for a year. Merrick didn't
> use it because Buffy was found so late. [/fanwank]

Or perhaps the handbook is meant for children of grade school age studying
to be a slayer when they get older. Filled with bromides like slayers study
very hard and drink lots of Ovaltine.

Whatever the answer to the handbook question may be, I think the greater
clue is in the discussion about the stodgy volume 6. Giles clearly
determined that Buffy wasn't the intense book studying type, and felt that
it would be counterproductive to try to force that upon her so late. That
would change later. Buffy's new found interest in slayer studies thrills
Giles here in S5 - suggesting to me that he would have loved to have gone
that direction from the beginning if only Buffy had shown that kind of
interest then.

That may demonstrate a willingness to improvise atypical of other watchers,
but falls well short of outright rebellion.

OBS

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 11:02:28 AM6/30/06

to

(Harmony) Watcher wrote:
>
> Perhaps Giles's (extra "s" just to make nimue happy) first impression of
> Buffy was not very flattering.

Actually, we *know* that, based on Wesley's reading from Giles' (no 's'
just for the hell of it) early journal entries. And he was always
rather mystified and flustered, even after discovering that there was
more to her than first appearances suggested:

From "Hush"

GILES: Well, it could definitely be one of your prophetic dreams or it
could just be the eternal mystery that is your brain.

George W Harris

unread,

Jun 30, 2006, 11:05:04 AM6/30/06

to

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:11:19 GMT, "$Harmony$ Watcher"
<nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:

:But as for Giles, the situation was different. He had time to give her a

:copy if he chose to. From Kendra's remarks
:(http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=2475) about "all dose footnotes" and
:"volume 6", it sounded like an extensive scholarly work. Even Giles
:commented on it being "a bit stodgy".

"Volume 6" and "all dose footnotes" refer to the
writings of Dramius, not to the Slayer's Handbook. The
Slayer's Handbook requires that the slayer study; Dramius
is one of the things Kendra studied.
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.