6x17 Inconsistency
Gunnar Harboe
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, so Buffy having been in an asylum. How does that fit in with S1/S2?
I think it doesn't. I think Buffy's way too careless about talking about
vampires and slayerage for one who has been committed for it, and I
think Joyce is way too unconcerned about the slips and the strange
behaviour. It's always about Buffy "getting into trouble" and
"fighting", not about her being delusional.
Also, I think it radically changes Joyce's character. She was always
trying so hard to be a good mother, being very caring and loving, having
"read all the books" and followed all the advice (with one, IMO
out-of-character, slip; 'Becoming'). That does NOT include sending your
daughter to an asylum unless she's obviously insane. And we know Buffy
isn't insane (well, at least not in slayer-world), so her behaviour
can't have been THAT bizarre.
Of course, the whole concept of the early show was that Buffy was a
normal girl who was also a superhero, and how Joyce misunderstood one
for the other. This ret-con throws seriously messes up that level.
Some examples of passages that seem impossible/-plausible with this new
bit of history (I especially like "Buffy, are you crazy?" from 'School
Hard')...
Take 'The Witch' (1x3):
Joyce: Still, I just want you to know that, despite the problems you've
had, I really...
Buffy: (cuts her off) Mom, you just don't get it. And, believe me, you
don't want it. Y'know, there are just some things about being a Vampire
Slayer that the older generation...
Joyce: A what?
Buffy: It's a... long story.
Joyce: Buffy, are you feeling well?
Or 'The Harvest' (1x2):
Joyce: It's happening again, isn't it? I got a call from your new
principal. Says you missed some classes today?
Buffy: I was running an errand.
Joyce: We haven't finished unpacking, and I'm getting calls from the
principal.
Buffy: Mom, I promise, it is *not* gonna be like before. But I *have* to
go.
Joyce: No.
Buffy: Mom?!
Joyce: The tapes all say I should get used to saying it. No.
Buffy: This is really, really important.
Joyce: I know. If you don't go out it'll be the end of the world.
Everything is life or death when you're a sixteen-year-old girl.
Or 'Prophecy Girl' (1x12):
Joyce: Hi, honey. You alright?
Buffy: Sure.
Joyce: Probably just full from that bite of dinner you nearly had. Feel
like telling me what's on your mind?
Buffy: (turns to her mom) Mom, let's go away! (smiles)
Joyce: What?
Buffy: Anywhere, just for a while, all weekend!
Joyce: Honey, I...
Buffy: No, it'll be great! You and me, a mother-daughter thing... We
can talk about all the embarrassing things you love to bring up.
Joyce: You know the gallery's open on weekends.
Buffy: Mom, please!
Joyce: Isn't the Prom tomorrow night? Or Spring Fling, whatever they're
calling it?
Buffy: I-I guess.
Joyce: Nobody asked you?
Buffy: Oh, someone...
Joyce: But not the right someone. See, sometimes I actually do know
what you're thinking.
Buffy has "nightmares" or "sees shadows" in 'Angel', 'The Puppet Show'
and 'Nightmares'. Joyce doesn't seem particularly worried about them.
Going on to S2...
'When She Was Bad' (2x1):
Joyce: How much shopping did you let her do?
Hank: Oh, I just thought I was saving you from the big back-to-school
clothing nightmare. (unzips the suitcase)
Joyce: My nightmares of Buffy in school have nothing to do with
clothes. Did she manage to stay out of trouble in L.A.?
Hank: She did, yeah. She was, um... you know, great.
Joyce: But?
Hank: She was just, I don't know, um... distant. Not brooding or
sulking, just... there was no connection. The more time we spent
together, the more I felt like she was nowhere to be seen.
Joyce: Hence the shoes?
Hank: (hands her the shoes) I may have overcompensated a little bit.
Joyce: Hmm.
Hank: It's so strange. You know, at least when she was burning stuff
down I knew what to say.
Joyce: Well, welcome to my world. I haven't been able to get through to
her for so long. I'll just be happy if she makes it through the school
year.
...
Joyce: How are your new classes?
Buffy: Good.
Joyce: Good. Is there the slightest chance that if I asked you what was
wrong you would tell me?
Buffy looks over at her mother.
Joyce: Course not. It would take all the fun out of guessing.
And of course 'School Hard' (2x3):
Joyce: (comes over to the bed) Look, sweetheart. Life is more than
grades and homework and not getting kicked out of school. (sits next to
Buffy)
Buffy: I know.
Joyce: But we moved once because of you getting in trouble. And I had
to start a new business, not to mention a new life in a whole new town.
Buffy: And you don't wanna do it again.
Joyce: What I don't want is to be disappointed in you again.
Buffy: Mom, that's the last thing that I want, too. (exhales) I'm
trying, I really am. I just... I have a lot of pressure on me right now.
Joyce: Wait till you get a job. Sleep tight. (gets up and leaves)
...
Snyder: Who do you think you are?
Buffy: I'm the one that knows how to stop them.
She looks up and walks across the room, trying to find a way into the
ceiling. Joyce grabs her by the shoulders.
Joyce: Buffy, are you crazy? Look, I know you've been accused of
fighting and other things, but those guys are serious. You can't go out
there.
This bit is quite interesting, too... Ted (2x11):
Ted: Or what? (stands up and steps toward her) You'll slay me? I'm
real. I'm not some goblin you made up in your little diary.
Psychiatrists have a word for something like this: delusional. So, from
now on, you'll do what I say, when I say, or I show this (holds up her
diary) to your mother, and you'll spend your best dating years behind
the wall of a mental institution. Your mother and I are going to be
happy. You're not going to stand in the way. Sleep tight!
And finally, 'Bad Eggs' (2x12):
Joyce: (sternly) A little responsibility is all I ask. Honestly, don't
you ever think about anything besides boys and clothes?
Buffy: Saving the world from vampires?
Joyce: (crosses her arms and shakes her head) I swear, sometimes I
don't know what goes on in your head.
(Transcripts from
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/btvs/Scripts/Scripts.html)
Helen H
wrote:
Basically I can't make it fit at all. That's why I have a problem with
this whole concept. Especially with the dialogue running:
BUFFY: Back when I saw my first vampires ... I got so scared. I told
my parents ... and they completely freaked out. They thought there was
something seriously wrong with me. So they sent me to a clinic.
WILLOW: You never said anything.
BUFFY: I was only there a couple of weeks. I stopped talking about
it, and they let me go. Eventually ... my parents just ... forgot.
So her parents freaked out enough to have her confined in a clinic for
a fortnight. Then they promptly "forgot" all about it .... never gave
another thought to the fear and anguish that they went through when
they believed their daughter was seriously mentally disturbed. Never
secretly harboured a worry that it would all come flooding back .....
and it never struck a chord with Joyce when she found out Buffy's true
nature.
<major snippage - all very appropriate so I can't add anything more>
Helen
Niall Harrison
There is the theory that at this point Buffy is confusing her delusion and
reality - that she's inventing an incident in her past. The scene doesn't
play that way to me, though.
OTOH, I don't find it ruins the ep for me. I just pretend not to hear
those lines when I watch it. :-)
Niall
--
Goddamn right it's a beautiful day.
Helen H
>There is the theory that at this point Buffy is confusing her delusion and
>reality - that she's inventing an incident in her past. The scene doesn't
>play that way to me, though.
I buy that idea even less than the idea that Joyce and Hank could just
forget about having their daughter sectioned (or the equivalent of).
The conversation with Willow is (IMO) meant to explain why Buffy
should be so terrified of the asylum idea. If it was entirely from her
own subconscious thoughts with no root in reality then it would be
easier for Willow and the rest to keep her grounded. The writers chose
to emphasize the dilemma by grounding it in something real .... but to
do that they had to invent an, IMO, very flaky premise.
>OTOH, I don't find it ruins the ep for me. I just pretend not to hear
>those lines when I watch it. :-)
Wish I could do the same .... but, as I said elsewhere, having a
Victor Meldrew voice going "I don't believe it" in the back of my head
really spoiled the ambience!
But I guess by now you'll be aware that one annoying plot slip
*cough*Billy*cough* can hack massive chunks off my score. :)
Helen
Niall Harrison
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:41:08 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
> <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Previously, on uk.media.tv.buffy-v-slayer - Helen H wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:22:22 +0100, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Spoiler space for 6x17
Spoilerish mention of _Angel_ 3x06, as well.
Me too, but I thought it should be mentioned.
> The conversation with Willow is (IMO) meant to explain why Buffy
> should be so terrified of the asylum idea. If it was entirely from her
> own subconscious thoughts with no root in reality then it would be
> easier for Willow and the rest to keep her grounded. The writers chose
> to emphasize the dilemma by grounding it in something real .... but to
> do that they had to invent an, IMO, very flaky premise.
Yes.
>>OTOH, I don't find it ruins the ep for me. I just pretend not to hear
>>those lines when I watch it. :-)
>
> Wish I could do the same .... but, as I said elsewhere, having a
> Victor Meldrew voice going "I don't believe it" in the back of my head
> really spoiled the ambience!
Well, Victor Meldrew has a habit of doing that.
> But I guess by now you'll be aware that one annoying plot slip
> *cough*Billy*cough* can hack massive chunks off my score. :)
Sadly. :-)
I had a thought about that, actually. If it could be shown that Lilah
doesn't actually know what she's talking about wrt Billy, would that
improve things for you? Or would the Voice Of Authorial Intent in that
scene still be a problem?
Niall
--
Over my shoulder a piano falls
Crashing to the ground.
Talia
<s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
I've got a theory...
(always wanted to say that, sorry) ;)
Buffy in the clinic is part of the Dawn-verse, not the original Buffy-
verse that we saw in S1-S4?
I'm not sure why Dawn's existence would make her more likely to end up
in a clinic, but maybe she was scared for Dawn's sake, and told her
parents they had to move in case the vampires got her defenceless little
sis. After the whole "Buffy must protect her little sis" flashback we
got in that irritating episode at the end of S5.
--
"I've been making shows of trading blows, and hoping no-one knows"
Buffy admits porn shocker, Once More With Feeling
ankhor
"Talia" <nat...@darkisland.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:YvLOuXCN...@darkisland.demon.co.uk...
Hmm I was just thinking of that.
Especially when her mother finally knows that there are vampires
she didn`t say something like, sorry that we didn`t trust you then
etc..
She was amazed to see vampires and that buffy was a slayer.
Lilian Edwards
"Talia" <nat...@darkisland.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YvLOuXCN...@darkisland.demon.co.uk...
>
> (always wanted to say that, sorry) ;)
>
> Buffy in the clinic is part of the Dawn-verse, not the original Buffy-
> verse that we saw in S1-S4?
This is just amazingly clever. Are you sure you're not Joss? :-)
Lilian
Helen H
<snip>
>Buffy in the clinic is part of the Dawn-verse, not the original Buffy-
>verse that we saw in S1-S4?
>I'm not sure why Dawn's existence would make her more likely to end up
>in a clinic, but maybe she was scared for Dawn's sake, and told her
>parents they had to move in case the vampires got her defenceless little
>sis. After the whole "Buffy must protect her little sis" flashback we
>got in that irritating episode at the end of S5.
But if it was part of the Dawn-verse wouldn't Dawn exist in it?:
BUFFY: Dawn?
HANK: (to doctor) That's the sister, right?
DOCTOR: A magical key. Buffy inserted Dawn into her delusion, actually
rewriting the entire history of it to accommodate a need for a
familial bond. (to Buffy) Buffy, but that created inconsistencies,
didn't it? Your sister, your friends, all of those people you created
in Sunnydale, they aren't as comforting as they once were. Are they?
They're coming apart.
So if the clinic bit was part of the Dawn-verse no one would be
surprised at the existence of Dawn or the mention of a sister.
Helen
The Black King
verse that we saw in S1-S4?
I'm not sure why Dawn's existence would make her more likely to end up
in a clinic, >>
get out, Get Out! GETOUT!!! that alone in a sibling would make me invent a
story to spend a few peaceful weeks in an asylum!!
I subscribe to the "its part of the delusion" camp.... it flowed that way
for me, the walls between the two "realities" were breaking down, a period
in an asylum in the real world would make the delusion that much more
plausible, and self-justification is key in a good healthy delusion, it
doesnt have to be consistent or logical, it just has to make sense to you..
Basically its the psycological equivilant of fanwank.....<g>
BK
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
There may be a hundred stances and sword positions, but you win with just
one.
- Yagyu Munenori
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Christopher G Brannigan
"Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aaeb91$prb$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Billy??? Is this an angel spoiler?? If so please say so...this isn't an
angel board and some of us havn't watched it yet!
Niall Harrison
> "Niall Harrison" <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:aaeb91$prb$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>> Previously, on uk.media.tv.buffy-v-slayer - Helen H wrote:
>> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:41:08 +0000 (UTC), Niall Harrison
>> > <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>Previously, on uk.media.tv.buffy-v-slayer - Helen H wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:22:22 +0100, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>Spoiler space for 6x17
>>
>> Spoilerish mention of _Angel_ 3x06, as well.
<snip>
> [stuff] Is this an angel spoiler?? If so please say so...this isn't an
> angel board and some of us havn't watched it yet!
That would be why I *did* say so, then.
Niall
--
Found a message in the sand
It read 'just do the best you can'.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>So if the clinic bit was part of the Dawn-verse no one would be
>surprised at the existence of Dawn or the mention of a sister.
Not THAT bit in the clinic. The bit about Buffy having been in a clinic
in Slayerverse. Buffy was in a clinic in Dawnverse Slayerverse
Buffyverse, but not in preDawnverse Slayerverse Buffyverse. Of course,
she was in a clinic in Asylumverse Buffyverse, that's obvious. OK? :)
So you can say that when Buffy restructured her memories to insert Dawn
into her delusion, the bit about having been in a clinic slipped in.
Looking at it from the Sunnydale-is-real POV, the monks' spell
introduced this episode in her life (or memories, anyway) as a
side-effect.
I like it. Really clever.
Helen H
wrote:
But if the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse scenes come from a simple
rewrite of the preDawnverse-Buffyverse then the existence of Dawn (an
entirely Dawnverse-Buffyverse-nonAsylumverse character) would not
cause the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse parents and doctor to
consider Buffy deluded. She can *only* be deluded if she is, in fact,
in the true Asylumverse-preDawnverse-Buffyverse. Therefore Buffy's
talk with Willow has to have her history rooted in the "true" S1-S4
preDawnverse-Buffyverse.
>So you can say that when Buffy restructured her memories to insert Dawn
>into her delusion, the bit about having been in a clinic slipped in.
>Looking at it from the Sunnydale-is-real POV, the monks' spell
>introduced this episode in her life (or memories, anyway) as a
>side-effect.
But I still say, in this case (Sunnydale-is-real POV), Dawn would have
existed. And since Dawn would have existed, Buffy's "delusion" about
having a sibling would not have been a delusion. The only way that I
could see the asylum memory having been inserted by the monks would
have been if Buffy's asylum delusions had denied Dawn's existence
having her, instead, being created by monks as a key between portals.
Then the doctor could have said "ah! sibling rivalry - Buffy is trying
deny Dawn and make herself the centre of your world".
Quite simply I can't square the asylum experience she talked of to
Willow with the "monk effect", while in the poison induced asylum
delusion Dawn is taken as being a figment of her imagination. It seems
to be a bit like having your cake and eating it!
It is, nevertheless, a very clever, interesting and thought provoking
idea from Talia!
Helen
Shuggie
wrote:
No - from the Asylum pov Dawn's just a change in the wider delusion of
Sunnydale. From the Sunnydale pov there are two histories - one
without Dawn and one with. One of those histories could contain an
event which is not in the other - even if it doesn't appear directly
related to Dawn.
There's nothing we can infer about Buffy's parents and doctors will
react from the nature of her delusion without knowing a lot more than
we do about the commital to the asylum from their pov.
>
>>So you can say that when Buffy restructured her memories to insert Dawn
>>into her delusion, the bit about having been in a clinic slipped in.
>>Looking at it from the Sunnydale-is-real POV, the monks' spell
>>introduced this episode in her life (or memories, anyway) as a
>>side-effect.
>
>But I still say, in this case (Sunnydale-is-real POV), Dawn would have
>existed. And since Dawn would have existed, Buffy's "delusion" about
>having a sibling would not have been a delusion.
From a Sunnydale-is-real pov Buffy never had a 'delusion' about Dawn
being her sister. Dawn *is* her sister - post-monks she is anyway.
>The only way that I
>could see the asylum memory having been inserted by the monks would
>have been if Buffy's asylum delusions had denied Dawn's existence
>having her, instead, being created by monks as a key between portals.
>Then the doctor could have said "ah! sibling rivalry - Buffy is trying
>deny Dawn and make herself the centre of your world".
>
>Quite simply I can't square the asylum experience she talked of to
>Willow with the "monk effect", while in the poison induced asylum
>delusion Dawn is taken as being a figment of her imagination. It seems
>to be a bit like having your cake and eating it!
>
I can't quite see why you're making Dawn any more of a special case in
the delusion than Willow, Xander, the Hellmouth, etc. All Sunnydale
stuff is a figment of Buffy's imagination from the asylum pov - not
just Dawn.
--
Shug
Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into to her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane
Helen H
<snip>
>
>I can't quite see why you're making Dawn any more of a special case in
>the delusion than Willow, Xander, the Hellmouth, etc. All Sunnydale
>stuff is a figment of Buffy's imagination from the asylum pov - not
>just Dawn.
Because Talia's theory was that Buffy's 2 weeks in an asylum was
inserted into "reality" by the monks when they created Dawn (ie there
is no inconsistency between S1-5 and S6 in terms of retconning 'cos
the asylum incident was only created by the monks in S5).
I am making Dawn a "special case" simply because she is the one thing
that prevents Talia's theory from working. If the asylum incident was
inserted by the monks then at the time Buffy was in the asylum she had
a younger sister (the monks memory fixing was all to do with giving
Dawn a coherent past as well as substantial present). And if Buffy had
a younger sister then Dawn couldn't have been an invented sibling as
per the delusional asylum view.
There is therefore an inconsistency in NA which cannot be explained
away by simply saying that you can't relate S1-4 reality with S5
reality because Buffy hadn't been in an asylum until the monks put her
there!
Helen
Ian Kirk
news:3hbncuk9obmgfj2rj...@4ax.com...
After a little lie down my head's stopped spinning, and I can try to respond
to this...
Is it reasonable to attempt to base either the Asylumverse (any variation
of) on the Slayerverse (ditto) or vice versa, given that one or the other's
definitely a delusion?
If the Asylumverse is real there's no need to worry about Dawn/early clinic
visits/whatever-based inconsistencies, as the entire Slayerverse was made up
and revised in Buffy's head as she went along. On the other hand if the
Slayerverse is real the Asylumverse is a delusion which may happen to
incorporate elements of the "real" Slayerverse, so may well have small or
large flaws in its logic.
> >So you can say that when Buffy restructured her memories to insert Dawn
> >into her delusion, the bit about having been in a clinic slipped in.
> >Looking at it from the Sunnydale-is-real POV, the monks' spell
> >introduced this episode in her life (or memories, anyway) as a
> >side-effect.
>
> But I still say, in this case (Sunnydale-is-real POV), Dawn would have
> existed. And since Dawn would have existed, Buffy's "delusion" about
> having a sibling would not have been a delusion. The only way that I
> could see the asylum memory having been inserted by the monks would
> have been if Buffy's asylum delusions had denied Dawn's existence
> having her, instead, being created by monks as a key between portals.
> Then the doctor could have said "ah! sibling rivalry - Buffy is trying
> deny Dawn and make herself the centre of your world".
But if Sunnydale is real the Ayslumverse is all delusion, so judgements made
by the not-really-existent doctor in the Asylumverse are pretty meaningless;
as real-Buffy knows all about Dawn's retconning nature she could readily
make the pretend doctor say anything at all in connection with that.
> Quite simply I can't square the asylum experience she talked of to
> Willow with the "monk effect", while in the poison induced asylum
> delusion Dawn is taken as being a figment of her imagination. It seems
> to be a bit like having your cake and eating it!
>
> It is, nevertheless, a very clever, interesting and thought provoking
> idea from Talia!
I'd agree with that - Talia's theory's the only one I've heard so far that
could make sense within the Slayerverse's own internal logic and explain the
previously unhinted at clinic visits. Perhaps the Dawn-induced changes that
got Buffy briefly institutionalised will be expanded on in later eps. (Or
perhaps the writers will avoid the whole horrid can of worms, which seems
far more sensible to me.)
The one outstanding question is why my season 1-3 DVDs weren't reconned to
include Dawn - perhaps the monks' spell's effects were limited in range to
North America? :-)
Ian
Ian Kirk
Chipping in again as your response to Shuggie's post came at near enough the
same time as I raised the same issues myself...
> I am making Dawn a "special case" simply because she is the one thing
> that prevents Talia's theory from working. If the asylum incident was
> inserted by the monks then at the time Buffy was in the asylum she had
> a younger sister (the monks memory fixing was all to do with giving
> Dawn a coherent past as well as substantial present).
I'm OK with this so far...
> And if Buffy had
> a younger sister then Dawn couldn't have been an invented sibling as
> per the delusional asylum view.
But if the asylum view is delusional, all bets are off - the entire setup's
a consequence of Buffy's drugged mind, so why shouldn't it contain all sorts
of inconsistencies in what the pretend doctor/parents/mad Buffy says?
Or have I missed something?
Ian
Christopher G Brannigan
oops, scrolled thought the spoiler space coz I thought it would just be
buffy spoilers...was only a meta spoiler...didn't really mention much about
the story except Lilah has some guy called billy which makes no sense to me
coz I've only seen the first four angels from this season so far...
len
If she was only in the clinic for a couple of weeks and the got out as
she's technically sane, then perhaps her parents may well have dismissed
this as an adolescent phase. Especially as in Buffy's recollection she had a
younger sister who needed to be protected from this madness. I don't see
that it makes the events of subsequent seasons inconsistent and I think it
was becoming part 2 when Buffy actually introduced Joyce to a vampire
(Spike) so she could easily have repressed some stuff until it was stuck in
her face
Shuggie
wrote:
I think you're assuming that the asylum that we see Buffy in is the
same one she was admitted to 6 years ago, and that Buffy's
posion-induced delusion is extending those two weeks into this
alternate reality.
Even if that's true you're also assuming that Buffy's delusions have
to be consistent with her earlier asylum memories. There's no reason
to suppose that. They are delusions after all.
And from the asylum-is-real pov - Buffy begins to believe that
Sunnydale is a delusion. Her memories of Xander and Willow et al are
now being viewed as false delusions. If she also remembers Dawn
existing when she entered the asylum, but her parents tell her Dawn is
not real, then is it unreasonable to suppose she'll see those
pre-asylum Dawn memories as just more delusions? I don't think so.
Shuggie
wrote:
Now why couldn't I have put it that succintly? :)
>Or have I missed something?
>
>Ian
>
--
Helen H
wrote:
<snip>
>
>If she was only in the clinic for a couple of weeks and the got out as
>she's technically sane, then perhaps her parents may well have dismissed
>this as an adolescent phase. Especially as in Buffy's recollection she had a
>younger sister who needed to be protected from this madness. I don't see
>that it makes the events of subsequent seasons inconsistent and I think it
>was becoming part 2 when Buffy actually introduced Joyce to a vampire
>(Spike) so she could easily have repressed some stuff until it was stuck in
>her face
>
1. Parents don't just dismiss locking up a daughter in an institution
because they think she's insane - not to mention the fact that the
doctor's wouldn't have admitted her if they believed she was suffering
from nothing stronger than being a teenager.
2. In Buffy's recollection she had what? I don't remember that from
the episode ....
BUFFY: (sighs) Back when I saw my first vampires... (shot of the
photo) I got so scared. I told my parents ... and they completely
freaked out. They thought there was something seriously wrong with me.
So they sent me to a clinic.
WILLOW: (shocked) You never said anything.
BUFFY: (tearful) I was only there a couple of weeks. I stopped talking
about it, and they let me go. Eventually ... my parents just ...
forgot.
Buffy never mentions she has a little sister who needed to be
protected from the madness. Indeed in her asylum delusion she doesn't
have a little sister at all ... (that's all part of the internal
delusion within the asylum delusion).
Helen
Helen H
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I think you're assuming that the asylum that we see Buffy in is the
>same one she was admitted to 6 years ago, and that Buffy's
>posion-induced delusion is extending those two weeks into this
>alternate reality.
I'm assuming that because that's where Buffy fears she is.
BUFFY: What if I'm still there? What if I never left that clinic?
It seems quite clear from this that in her delusion she is indeed in
the same institution .... and in fact has never left it.
>Even if that's true you're also assuming that Buffy's delusions have
>to be consistent with her earlier asylum memories. There's no reason
>to suppose that. They are delusions after all.
I'd have thought the whole reason for this delusion being so powerful
is that it gels exactly with her earlier memories of her stay in the
clinic. If it was just any old delusion then she would be strong
enough to fight it - she has done in the past. The poison has awakened
a deep seated fear and combined it with her current fears. Together
they make a potent delusion ... but it has to be consistent to be
really effective.
>And from the asylum-is-real pov - Buffy begins to believe that
>Sunnydale is a delusion. Her memories of Xander and Willow et al are
>now being viewed as false delusions. If she also remembers Dawn
>existing when she entered the asylum, but her parents tell her Dawn is
>not real, then is it unreasonable to suppose she'll see those
>pre-asylum Dawn memories as just more delusions? I don't think so.
I haven't really considered " the asylum-is-real pov" 'cos that's just
too naff AFAIC. If the last 6 years have been one long delusion then
there can be no inconsistency because there is no reality. Actually I
can't say it ever crossed my mind that this could possibly be the
point of the episode (but then I didn't particularly enjoy the ep so I
didn't really analyse as I went along).
Helen
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>I'd have thought the whole reason for this delusion being so powerful
>is that it gels exactly with her earlier memories of her stay in the
>clinic. If it was just any old delusion then she would be strong
>enough to fight it - she has done in the past. The poison has awakened
>a deep seated fear and combined it with her current fears. Together
>they make a potent delusion ... but it has to be consistent to be
>really effective.
What you're saying is sensible, but it can't be true. In Buffy's
memories, she's had a little sister for the last fifteen or sixteen
years; in her asylum delusion (?) she doesn't. So the memories CANNOT
match up perfectly.
Helen H
wrote:
So her asylum delusion is more real than her fake monk memories -
which really just validates my argument that the asylum has not been
inserted into her memory by the monks and therefore this ep is
inconsistent with S1-4.
I suppose my problem is that I don't care enough about the ep to want
to make S1-4 consistent by doing even more retconning than the writers
already did for NA. Quite simply I thought this whole device was
clunky and it meant that the episode didn't work for me. It wasn't bad
.... but it wasn't a really good one either. So it was good but rather
badly flawed - and it didn't have me on the edge of my seat. As I've
said about other eps (both here and on umta) if an episode is exciting
enough to keep me riveted then I'm happy to ignore any clangers. But
if it isn't, then the inconsistencies grate enormously.
At the end of the day NA was an average Buffy ep (MOTW causes havoc
with member of scoobies, scooby goes nuts, other scooby comes to
rescue, MOTW despatched). I've seen the same thing done much better.
Helen
Andrew Cameron
news:SKSy8.16380$%k.23...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Well, possibly. However there are no *other* inconsistencies in mad Buffy's
delusion, so to say that the one problem we can't explain by other means
(which is the only, but coincidentally the largest flaw in the delusion) is
just Buffy's mind being flawed (and to be fair, if the Asylumverse is real,
she's got one hell of memory, having 6 years of non-real events mapped out
in her head), then that explanation is, in my estimation, the most tenuous
fanwank in the history of fanwankery.
Sorry, I'm just going to have to go with smapping the new writer a bit. :)
--
Tags, http://tags2k.co.uk
"Nowhere's home and I'm all wrong"
len
I'm assuming that Buffy only remembers the timeline that includes Dawn ,
anything else would be truly freaky
Talia
<hel...@easynet.co.uk> writes
*tries to follow without brain hurting*
No.. because if she was really in an asylum in the pre-Dawnverse-
Buffyverse, vampires demons and witches etc. would be real. So she would
have told her parents about them, they'd have freaked, put her in a
clinic, she'd have lied to get out, and things would have continued into
S1. She ended up in an asylum (in the delusion) because in that version
of reality, there *were* no vampires, demons, magic etc., so she was
insane.
And I'm not saying that
>the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse scenes come from a simple
>rewrite of the preDawnverse-Buffyverse
(excuse the double quote.. thought it was the clearest way to do this!)
I'm not saying that the Asylum scenes come from a re-write, I believe
they are a delusion. It's the earlier time in the clinic that I think
only came into being when the monks altered reality and the past.
If we look at the three versions of "reality" talked about in this
episode, the one where Buffy ends up in an asylum (A), the current
reality where she has a sister Dawn (B), and the previous reality where
she didn't (C), there are overlaps.
Timeline
Age 0-16: Buffy is an only child growing up in LA - both A and B
versions of Buffy.
16 onward. Version A splits off at 16 where Buffy cracks and starts
hallucinating, eventually ending up in an asylum. She may or may not
have been in a clinic for a few weeks previous to this, it isn't clear.
This continues till the current time.
16 onwards, Version B gets expelled from school for burning down the
gym, gets labelled as a troublemaker, her parents split up, but at no
point does she confide in them or get put in a clinic. This stops when
Buffy gets to 21 and reality is altered by the monks.
21 onward - Version C has a sister, and is aware that her past memories
are fake in some regard, but still accepts them (unless she's under the
influence of some weird spell). Among her fake memories are promising
her parents that she'll look after her new baby sister Dawn, and being
put in a clinic, which alters the adolescent arguments she had with
Joyce when she first moved to Sunnydale. She then gets spiked by a demon
and hallucinates that she's Version A but realises this isn't real and
returns to C.
So there are gaps in the timeline, Version C has no real past, Version B
had no real future as it started when the monks did the spell (and if
the monks hadn't done the spell, B's future would have ended very
quickly when Glory got her key with ease and opened the gates to Hell).
>Therefore Buffy's
>talk with Willow has to have her history rooted in the "true" S1-S4
>preDawnverse-Buffyverse.
I still don't think this is the case.
>Quite simply I can't square the asylum experience she talked of to
>Willow with the "monk effect", while in the poison induced asylum
>delusion Dawn is taken as being a figment of her imagination. It seems
>to be a bit like having your cake and eating it!
But *everyone* in the real Sunnydale is a figment of her imagination
according to her delusion.
>It is, nevertheless, a very clever, interesting and thought provoking
>idea from Talia!
Thanks - I admit I don't quite follow your arguments and I'm sorry if it
seems like I've said the same thing over and over again!
Talia
<hel...@easynet.co.uk> writes
The contents of Buffy's delusion don't really have anything to do with
the current reality, apart from it being her supposed "ideal world".
Let's say Buffy's confession about being in a clinic for a few weeks
came out in a previous episode, say if they were all watching "Girl,
Interrupted" and Dawn turned to Buffy and say "Hey, was it like that
when Mom and Dad sent you away that summer?". [1]
The fact still remains that in the current reality Buffy now claims that
she was in a clinic for a few years, which doesn't fit with various
things in S1-S4, like having Dawn as a little sister doesn't fit with
the lack of Dawn and comments about Buffy being a spoilt only child, in
S1-S4.
The presence of lack of Dawn in a demon-induced delusion doesn't really
affect it one way or another - they could just as easily had the non-
existent Joyce and Hank urging Buffy to get over her delusions so she
could come home with them and see her dear little sister again.
[1] Except knowing the way families work, Joyce and Hank would have
probably told Dawn that Buffy was "going to stay with Granny/random
relative for a few weeks". But you get the point....
Talia
Lilian Edwards <l.ed...@ed.ac.uk> writes
I'll confess to wanting to do Dances of Joy and Shame, but no other
features of Joss-ness ;)
Iain
Can I nominate the above paragraph for least-comprehensible post of the
week? :)
--
"I go online sometimes but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's
depressing." --Tara, Buffy 5x15 "I Was Made To Love You"
Helen H
wrote:
>
>I'm assuming that Buffy only remembers the timeline that includes Dawn ,
>anything else would be truly freaky
>
OK get you - it's just your "Especially as in Buffy's recollection she
had a younger sister who needed to be protected from this madness"
seemed pretty specific and I was blowed if I could find it on tape or
in the shooting script!
Helen
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Look; the memories of being in an asylum (that Buffy talk to Willow
about) must have included Dawn. Her delusions (?) of Asylumverse do not.
Since it obviously doesn't match up whatever way you look at it, you
can't use it as an argument against this theory.
So...
In Asylumverse, Buffy is an only child, she grows to be about fifteen
then goes mad.
In preDawnverse-Slayerverse, Buffy is an only child, she grows to be
about fifteen and is called as a Slayer. She is not put in a clinic (so
goes the theory), but moves to Sunnydale.
In Dawnverse-Slayerverse, Buffy has a sister called Dawn. At fifteen she
is called as a Slayer, and because of her strange behaviour she's in a
clinic for a week, then moves to Sunnydale.
>which really just validates my argument that the asylum has not been
>inserted into her memory by the monks and therefore this ep is
>inconsistent with S1-4.
No, it really doesn't.
The explanation works, and it's not particularly far-fetched.
>I suppose my problem is that I don't care enough about the ep to want
>to make S1-4 consistent by doing even more retconning than the writers
>already did for NA. Quite simply I thought this whole device was
>clunky and it meant that the episode didn't work for me.
But you care enough to argue against the ideas of others?
Jocelyn Lavin
Iain <spam...@deepsea.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>> But if the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse scenes come from a simple
>> rewrite of the preDawnverse-Buffyverse then the existence of Dawn (an
>> entirely Dawnverse-Buffyverse-nonAsylumverse character) would not
>> cause the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse parents and doctor to
>> consider Buffy deluded. She can *only* be deluded if she is, in fact,
>> in the true Asylumverse-preDawnverse-Buffyverse. Therefore Buffy's
>> talk with Willow has to have her history rooted in the "true" S1-S4
>> preDawnverse-Buffyverse.
>>
>
>Can I nominate the above paragraph for least-comprehensible post of the
>week? :)
Looks great, though, doesn't it?
--
Debbie: Hi, Oz. Hey, you're not doing jazz band this year?
Oz: Oh, can't take the pressure. It's not the music that's hard, it's the marching.
Buffy: We have a marching jazz band?
Oz: Yeah, but, you know, since the best jazz is improvisational, we'd be going off in all directions, banging into floats. Scary.
Gunnar Harboe
<nat...@darkisland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If we look at the three versions of "reality" talked about in this
>episode, the one where Buffy ends up in an asylum (A), the current
>reality where she has a sister Dawn (B), and the previous reality where
>she didn't (C), there are overlaps.
You mixed up B and C there. Just thought I'd mention it. :)
Niall Harrison
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:28:09 +0100, Helen H <hel...@easynet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:59:36 +0100, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:53:00 +0100, Helen H <hel...@easynet.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Spoiler space for 6x17
Check. That doesn't suggest that the whole memory is made up, though. The
monks' operating procedure with respect to Dawn-memories seems to have
been to overlay Dawn onto existing memories; there's no reason to suppose
they created any entirely new memories that did not involve Dawn. They had
the power, but there's nothing to suggest that they used it in that way.
You could argue that the doctor is right, that Dawn's very existence is
creating inconsistencies - and I rather like that theory. Trouble is, you
can't say it's anything more than a theory on the basis of 'Normal Again'.
What matters in NA is that Buffy believes that she was put in an
institution briefly when she saw her first vampire. The way the scene is
presented in NA, there is nothing to suggest that she's confusing her
realities, or that the memory is a false one created when Dawn was
created.
Niall
--
Whenever you reach up to the stars, hold on to your head.
Ian Kirk
news:aah7ma$am209$1...@ID-83402.news.dfncis.de...
I may well have lost track of the original point of discussion here, but
wasn't it Buffy's comment "I was in a clinic for a few weeks, ages back" -
made in the Slayerverse, whilst talking about one version or another of
Slayerverse history. If so it's outside, and unrelated to, any thing that
occurs in the "main" Asylumverse delusion.
> (which is the only, but coincidentally the largest flaw in the delusion)
Hardly coincidentally - as the only flaw what else could it be but the
largest (and smallest, median and mode as well) one? :-)
> is
> just Buffy's mind being flawed (and to be fair, if the Asylumverse is
real,
> she's got one hell of memory, having 6 years of non-real events mapped out
> in her head)
It would, but the consensus (including ME comments to this effect) is that
the Asylumverse was the delusional one, so the reality is that she was just
deluding about 6 years of real memory.
> then that explanation is, in my estimation, the most tenuous
> fanwank in the history of fanwankery.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but yes, saying "the monks did it" could be
used to cover a whole range of pre-S5/post-S5 inconsistencies so it is
reaching a bit - still, I'm sure there's been worse. (But no, I can't
actually think of an example of one just now...)
> Sorry, I'm just going to have to go with smapping the new writer a bit.
:)
Give him/her a small smap for me, too, please. Talia's been clever and
generous enough to give the writers something they can at least try to cover
their dignity with, but even so I think this was a simple "won't it be
intense if we make Buffy say..." decision on their part. Sadly they were
wrong.
Ian
Gunnar Harboe
Lavin) wrote:
>In article <Xns91FEB47012C...@80.3.128.4>,
>Iain <spam...@deepsea.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>>Can I nominate the above paragraph for least-comprehensible post of the
>>week? :)
>
>Looks great, though, doesn't it?
Yes, but it's still a SPOILER! You shouldn't have removed the spoiler
space.
--
Bye!
Gunnar Harboe
gh...@cam.ac.uk
The alt.fan.dune FAQ
<http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gh248/dunefaq/>
___
There should be a word-tension for "fated," conveying
a meaning opposite from a thing destined to be. There
should also be a garnish-tension for "parsley,"
denoting the opposite of the leafy herb. Oh, we speak
in daily discourse of "anti-parsley," but that is
another thing entire. What the word for a thing is
can consequent much.
- from "Mauve'Bib Has Ideas and Speaks Them,"
edited by the Princess Serutan
Gunnar Harboe
>>Can I nominate the above paragraph for least-comprehensible post of the
>>week? :)
>
>Looks great, though, doesn't it?
Yes, but it's still a spoiler! You shouldn't have removed the spoiler
space.
Jocelyn Lavin
Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Looks great, though, doesn't it?
>
>Yes, but it's still a SPOILER! You shouldn't have removed the spoiler
>space.
Ooh, I'm sorry. How stupid of me. And just when I'd told off someone else
for doing it.
Hopefully it was as totally incomprehensible as we said - but if not, many
apologies. I'm normally more careful than that.
--
Anya: I've got a theory! It could be bunnies!
Gunnar Harboe
Lavin) wrote:
>In article <s7bocuspuooqhrnfh...@4ax.com>,
>Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Looks great, though, doesn't it?
>>
>>Yes, but it's still a SPOILER! You shouldn't have removed the spoiler
>>space.
>
>Ooh, I'm sorry. How stupid of me. And just when I'd told off someone else
>for doing it.
>
>Hopefully it was as totally incomprehensible as we said - but if not, many
>apologies. I'm normally more careful than that.
Honest mistake. It's in the middle of a long spoilery thread anyway, I
doubt many came across it by mistake.
Jocelyn Lavin
Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>Looks great, though, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>Yes, but it's still a SPOILER! You shouldn't have removed the spoiler
>>>space.
>>
>>Ooh, I'm sorry. How stupid of me. And just when I'd told off someone else
>>for doing it.
>>
>>Hopefully it was as totally incomprehensible as we said - but if not, many
>>apologies. I'm normally more careful than that.
>
>Honest mistake. It's in the middle of a long spoilery thread anyway, I
>doubt many came across it by mistake.
Well, I hope so. Still feel guilty though.
--
Angel: Uh, what keeps him in the fire?
Skip: My will.
Angel: How come he's not screaming in pain?
Skip: Oh, he is. My will prevents him from being heard. I mean there is only so many 'oh my god! The pain! Please make it stop!' that you can listen to before it starts to bug the crap out of you.
Angel: I see your point.
Helen H
wrote:
<snip>
>
>But you care enough to argue against the ideas of others?
If the episode had been really good then I would happily argue the
logic of a major retcon ..... but it isn't .... so I - err - won't. :)
See - it's simple really!
Helen
Helen H
<nat...@darkisland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<lots snipped>
To make it simple ...... I believe that the episode works best if you
take it as a straight fact that Buffy was in a clinic sometime in the
true timeline (ie just prior to WTTH). If you do take it that way then
the horror of NA is palpable. You can suddenly understand why Buffy is
so confused and terrified by her delusions re the asylum. Her horror
is real because this isn't something "made up" - it's something that
actually happened to her and she has now been dragged back into that
nightmare (but now it's real .... and nothing she has experienced in
the last 6 years has been true).
The clever part of the episode is to then make the delusion attractive
and gradually make it sufficiently so that she actually wants to be
there rather than in her genuine confused life. Her subconscious is
giving her a way to solve all her problems in one go!
The problem I have with the episode doesn't really come from the
various timelines and possibilities (and in fact that part started as
me having a bit of fun with the Dawnverse-Buffyverse-Asylumverse
paragraph) ..... the problem I have is with the exchange that went:
BUFFY: (sighs) Back when I saw my first vampires... (shot of the
photo) I got so scared. I told my parents ... and they completely
freaked out. They thought there was something seriously wrong with me.
So they sent me to a clinic.
WILLOW: (shocked) You never said anything.
BUFFY: (tearful) I was only there a couple of weeks. I stopped talking
about it, and they let me go. Eventually ... my parents just ...
forgot.
WILLOW: God. That's horrible
And I have a problem with it because I simply don't accept that her
parents would have just forgotten about it.
Basically it was sloppy writing and a clumsy plot device .... If
Buffy had simply confided in Willow that she had sometimes thought she
was going mad and used to have recurring nightmares about her parents
putting her in an asylum then it would have worked for me!
..... But it's still a clever idea of yours!
Helen
Iain Clark
<hel...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
I agree with you - it's supposed to be a real event in the
standard history. Obviously it happened when her parents were
still together, so it was a long time ago.
>And I have a problem with it because I simply don't accept that her
>parents would have just forgotten about it.
>
You can argue that they forgot about it in the way that adults
forget about supernatural related things in the Buffyverse, but
that doesn't work for me.
For me, I don't think this event is *all that* inconsistent with
how Joyce acted in S2/3. The way she eventually found out
thinking Buffy was mad. And it's not implausible that she
wouldn't have immediately mentioned the clinic at the time, given
what else was going on. She was really floored, and she and
Buffy were arguing.
Yes, we should have had a scene later on, in S3, if this had
really happened, but we don't actively know that they didn't talk
about it, only that it didn't happen on screen. Which is
awkward, but not world-shattering.
Iain
--
"Could you learn to read minds?
In the case of mine do you read in the dark?"
Freedy
> Basically it was sloppy writing and a clumsy plot device .... If
> Buffy had simply confided in Willow that she had sometimes thought she
> was going mad and used to have recurring nightmares about her parents
> putting her in an asylum then it would have worked for me!
How is it sloppy writing and a clumsy plot device? To me
it's a very good plot device because it is definitely
plausible...
Look, people have been putting a lot of effort into this
Dawnverse/Slayerverse nonsense, when surely it would be
simpler to look at those early episodes with this new
information in mind and rationalise it that way. It's not
that Joyce has forgotten, precisely, it's just something
that she doesn't mention. There can be plenty of reasons for
this: she's embarrassed that her daughter was in a mental
hospital (both for Buffy and herself); it's just something
that doesn't come up; or that if Buffy 'forgot' as she said,
then Joyce thought it would be diplomatic to not mention it,
in case it brought up demons (not the real ones) that she
would rather not.
I mean, there's all sorts of things my family doesn't talk
about. Even for a gregarious Californian family, I'm sure
there are a few things they would rather not talk about. And
it was always a case that Joyce tended to 'ignore' various
things until it was ultimately forcibly brought to her
attention. There's a difference between a 15 year old girl
saying she's seen mythical monsters, and a 17 year old girl
saying she's a hero who kills these monsters. One is
something that can be 'treated'; the other... well it's just
something you've got to accept really (or not, as Joyce
initially does).
I mean, Joyce's attitude to Buffy is pretty inconsistent
throughout series two. One minute she's all forgiving and
supportive, the next she's grounding the hell out of her
(compare and contrast School Hard and Bad Eggs - two
episodes right next to each other for flip's sake). Could
this not be at least partly because she's more worried about
her daughter than just her pyromaniac gymnasular tendencies?
Could she be thinking of her daughter actually losing her
mind and not wanting to either provoke Buffy too much or let
her off the leash too far? How do you cope with a possibly
insane daughter?
(And never mind Hank, the wastrel that he is. He doesn't
care overmuch about his ex-wife or daughter dying. Why
should he mention his daughter's temporary insanity?)
I don't think it's sloppy writing. It creates a palpable
tension in the episode which grips the viewer. That's
'Viewer'; not 'Bunch Of Sad Acts On The Internet Who've
Memorised Every Episode'. Although I'm sure the writers try
and be consistent with earlier episodes (who goes out of
their way to piss off BOSAOTIWMEE?) if it comes down to
strengthening an episode that's being broadcast *now* or
maybe, perhaps playing on ambiguities from something 4
years earlier, I think any professional writer will tell you
what's more important.
Is there a line from earlier in the series which directly
contradicts what we've just discovered in Normal Again? And
if there is, is there a way of interpreting it in a way I
suggest above?
Terry
drsmith
denial but a continent of denial about
Buffy going away to college.Therefore Joyce choose to ignore Buffy
comments in TW and BE about
vampires on the basis that she shouldn't encorage Buffy delusions and
have to return her to hospital
After all Buffy staked a vampire straight in front of her in Becoming
and she still was reluctant to believe
what Buffy was telling her
Stephen Walker
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 01:56:10 +0100, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:36:02 +0100, Helen H <hel...@easynet.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 16:52:45 +0100, Talia
> >><nat...@darkisland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <aae9pk$p95$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Niall Harrison
> >>><s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
> >>>>Previously, on uk.media.tv.buffy-v-slayer - Helen H wrote:
> >>>verse that we saw in S1-S4?
> >>>I'm not sure why Dawn's existence would make her more likely to end up
> >>>in a clinic, but maybe she was scared for Dawn's sake, and told her
> >>>parents they had to move in case the vampires got her defenceless
little
> >>>sis. After the whole "Buffy must protect her little sis" flashback we
> >>>got in that irritating episode at the end of S5.
> >>
> >>But if it was part of the Dawn-verse wouldn't Dawn exist in it?:
> >>
> >>So if the clinic bit was part of the Dawn-verse no one would be
> >>surprised at the existence of Dawn or the mention of a sister.
> >
> >Not THAT bit in the clinic. The bit about Buffy having been in a clinic
> >in Slayerverse. Buffy was in a clinic in Dawnverse Slayerverse
> >Buffyverse, but not in preDawnverse Slayerverse Buffyverse. Of course,
> >she was in a clinic in Asylumverse Buffyverse, that's obvious. OK? :)
>
> rewrite of the preDawnverse-Buffyverse then the existence of Dawn (an
> entirely Dawnverse-Buffyverse-nonAsylumverse character) would not
> cause the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse parents and doctor to
> consider Buffy deluded. She can *only* be deluded if she is, in fact,
> in the true Asylumverse-preDawnverse-Buffyverse. Therefore Buffy's
> talk with Willow has to have her history rooted in the "true" S1-S4
> preDawnverse-Buffyverse.
>
You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby, are you?
Stephen
James Bremner
Yes, but we saw what ACTUALLY happened. They just all have messed up
memories of S1-S4. Just like any time they suffer amnesia, it doesnt
mean events didnt happen. The ACTUAL events of S1-S4 (regardless of
how the Scoobies remember them) are now profoundly compromised.
James Bremner
Helen H
>Is there a line from earlier in the series which directly
>contradicts what we've just discovered in Normal Again? And
>if there is, is there a way of interpreting it in a way I
>suggest above?
I would nominate the following exchange from Bad Eggs ....
Joyce: (sternly) A little responsibility is all I ask. Honestly,
don't you ever think about anything besides boys and clothes?
Buffy: Saving the world from vampires?
Joyce: (crosses her arms and shakes her head) I swear, sometimes I
don't know what goes on in your head.
If Buffy had been in a clinic because of her delusions over vampires
would that exchange have happened?
I submit to you (m'lud) that this shows that Buffy had never been
institutionalised for seeing vampires. If she had then Joyce's
response would be very different and it would *not* be something that
Buffy joked about in quite this manner.
Helen
Helen H
<srwa...@hotPOTATOmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby, are you?
My newest kitten is named after him .... so it's close!
Helen
Freedy
Hmm, yes. But would it really take that much tweaking to
interpret is as Buffy wilfully bringing up Something That
Should Not Be Mentioned Ever (to Joyce, Vampires = Mental
Patient, not actual vampires) as teenagers tend to do.
Joyce's reaction could be a general exasperation at the
tactlessness of teenagers, rather than ignorance.
> I submit to you (m'lud) that this shows that Buffy had never been
> institutionalised for seeing vampires. If she had then Joyce's
> response would be very different and it would *not* be something that
> Buffy joked about in quite this manner.
The court is not convinced. Alright, there's the obvious
interpretation that Buffy and Joyce are talking exactly as
we all thought they were, but I think there's enough
reasonable doubt here to suggest that Buffy is acting like a
bratty teenager who received one too many chastisements and
brought up something designed to annoy her mum. I can see
Buffy joking about something like this, as she has made many
sick jokes along these lines, and I can see Joyce
reacting in such a restrained manner because she knows Buffy
can be a brat and to chastise her loudly might encourage her
further.
I'm willing to hear responses telling me I'm a loon though.
The case continues...
Terry
Iain Clark
<fre...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Bearing in mind that Buffy was released from the clinic without
them finding anything wrong with her, it's not likely to be the
huge issue it might have been. Joyce has to conclude that Buffy
is sane and normal, but that she has a worryingly active
imagination.
I certainly feel as a retcon it's a slightly uncomfortable fit,
but that's as far as I'd go.
>> I submit to you (m'lud) that this shows that Buffy had never been
>> institutionalised for seeing vampires. If she had then Joyce's
>> response would be very different and it would *not* be something that
>> Buffy joked about in quite this manner.
>
But we *know* it's a retcon. We know that earlier seasons
weren't written with it in mind. So we search for minor things
that don't quite fit, buried in episodes people actively try to
forget :-) There are other things which directly contradict one
another in the series, like Buffy's birthdate, or whether Angel
sired Spike, but we let those go. I say this is far less
provable, and it's not worth getting worried about.
If we accept the story as stated - it was ages ago, they didn't
find anything wrong, her parents gradually put it out of their
minds, I don't see how anything actively contradicts it.
- unless someone can find a piece of dialogue where Joyce
outright states that they never put Buffy in a clinic for a
fortnight, in which case I concede the point :-)
>The court is not convinced. Alright, there's the obvious
>interpretation that Buffy and Joyce are talking exactly as
>we all thought they were, but I think there's enough
>reasonable doubt here to suggest that Buffy is acting like a
>bratty teenager who received one too many chastisements and
>brought up something designed to annoy her mum. I can see
>Buffy joking about something like this, as she has made many
>sick jokes along these lines, and I can see Joyce
>reacting in such a restrained manner because she knows Buffy
>can be a brat and to chastise her loudly might encourage her
>further.
>
Yes, we already knew Joyce and Hank were hugely concerned about
their daughter - this is just one more thing in their delinquent,
unreachable daughter's past.
>I'm willing to hear responses telling me I'm a loon though.
>
You're a loon. Hey, it's not often I get offers like that, so I
have to seize them. <g>
Iain Clark
(James Bremner) wrote:
>> >So if the clinic bit was part of the Dawn-verse no one would be
>> >surprised at the existence of Dawn or the mention of a sister.
>>
>> The contents of Buffy's delusion don't really have anything to do with
>> the current reality, apart from it being her supposed "ideal world".
>>
>> Let's say Buffy's confession about being in a clinic for a few weeks
>> came out in a previous episode, say if they were all watching "Girl,
>> Interrupted" and Dawn turned to Buffy and say "Hey, was it like that
>> when Mom and Dad sent you away that summer?". [1]
>> The fact still remains that in the current reality Buffy now claims that
>> she was in a clinic for a few years, which doesn't fit with various
>> things in S1-S4, like having Dawn as a little sister doesn't fit with
>> the lack of Dawn and comments about Buffy being a spoilt only child, in
>> S1-S4.
>
>Yes, but we saw what ACTUALLY happened. They just all have messed up
>memories of S1-S4. Just like any time they suffer amnesia, it doesnt
>mean events didnt happen. The ACTUAL events of S1-S4 (regardless of
>how the Scoobies remember them) are now profoundly compromised.
>
They're hardly "profoundly" compromised. Even if they'd planned
it all along we'd only have got one scene with Joyce and Buffy -
maybe in Becoming or early Season 3. Nothing is ruined abut the
series for me.
ohobain
"Jocelyn Lavin" <joc...@wardle.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B8F1EF3D...@wardle.demon.co.uk...
> In article <gubocuonnfmj8a7v9...@4ax.com>,
> Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>Looks great, though, doesn't it?
> >>>
> >>>Yes, but it's still a SPOILER! You shouldn't have removed the spoiler
> >>>space.
> >>
> >>Ooh, I'm sorry. How stupid of me. And just when I'd told off someone
else
> >>for doing it.
> >>
> >>Hopefully it was as totally incomprehensible as we said - but if not,
many
> >>apologies. I'm normally more careful than that.
> >
> >Honest mistake. It's in the middle of a long spoilery thread anyway, I
> >doubt many came across it by mistake.
>
> Well, I hope so. Still feel guilty though.
and as for those who actually did find it by accident, well they hardly
understood it, did they?
:)
--
Ro.
"We will bring you the limp and beaten body of Bob Barker!"
ohobain
"James Bremner" <james_...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f4d27d04.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > she was in a clinic for a few years, which doesn't fit with various
> > things in S1-S4, like having Dawn as a little sister doesn't fit with
> > the lack of Dawn and comments about Buffy being a spoilt only child, in
> > S1-S4.
>
> Yes, but we saw what ACTUALLY happened. They just all have messed up
> memories of S1-S4. Just like any time they suffer amnesia, it doesnt
> mean events didnt happen. The ACTUAL events of S1-S4 (regardless of
> how the Scoobies remember them) are now profoundly compromised.
lets assume buffy actually was sent to the clinc (because if we start to
decide what not to and what to believe we'll soon end up in clincs of our
own...) well it happende before season 1 didn't it? while hank and joyce
were still together?
Loz Pycock
<hel...@easynet.co.uk> mumble, "oooh, shiny new computer!" mumble,
mumble wrote:
>>There is the theory that at this point Buffy is confusing her delusion and
>>reality - that she's inventing an incident in her past. The scene doesn't
>>play that way to me, though.
>
>I buy that idea even less than the idea that Joyce and Hank could just
>forget about having their daughter sectioned (or the equivalent of).
>
>The conversation with Willow is (IMO) meant to explain why Buffy
>should be so terrified of the asylum idea. If it was entirely from her
>own subconscious thoughts with no root in reality then it would be
>easier for Willow and the rest to keep her grounded. The writers chose
>to emphasize the dilemma by grounding it in something real .... but to
>do that they had to invent an, IMO, very flaky premise.
If they could find some way to tie it in to her 'Killed by Death' fear
of hospitals it would work...
Loz
"11/09- Taking his time, George W. Bush formulates a measured
response - which turns out to be the most expensive bollocking
ever unleashed against shepherds." Chris Morris
Is there another word for synonym?
Loz Pycock
<gh...@cam.ac.uk> mumble, "oooh, shiny new computer!" mumble, mumble
wrote:
>No, that's not what I'm saying.
>
>Look; the memories of being in an asylum (that Buffy talk to Willow
>about) must have included Dawn. Her delusions (?) of Asylumverse do not.
>Since it obviously doesn't match up whatever way you look at it, you
>can't use it as an argument against this theory.
>
>So...
>
>In Asylumverse, Buffy is an only child, she grows to be about fifteen
>then goes mad.
>
>In preDawnverse-Slayerverse, Buffy is an only child, she grows to be
>about fifteen and is called as a Slayer. She is not put in a clinic (so
>goes the theory), but moves to Sunnydale.
>
>In Dawnverse-Slayerverse, Buffy has a sister called Dawn. At fifteen she
>is called as a Slayer, and because of her strange behaviour she's in a
>clinic for a week, then moves to Sunnydale.
What's so special about Dawn that putting her into Buffy's life
necessitates giving the family a memory of her going into an
institution for a couple of weeks?
>
>>which really just validates my argument that the asylum has not been
>>inserted into her memory by the monks and therefore this ep is
>>inconsistent with S1-4.
>
>No, it really doesn't.
>The explanation works, and it's not particularly far-fetched.
Well, the explanation will work if you can answer my question.
Riddle-me-re Batm- oh sorry, wrong universe...
Jocelyn Lavin
"ohobain" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, I hope so. Still feel guilty though.
>
>and as for those who actually did find it by accident, well they hardly
>understood it, did they?
Well, that's what I've been hoping. Still, stupid of me. And I hate being
stupid.
--
Willow: Some guy's attacking Buffy with a sword. Also there's a really big snake.
Gunnar Harboe
She's Buffy's sister, that's what makes her so special. Inserting a
sibling into someone's childhood memories isn't something that can be
done without major modification (someone suggested Dawn was "overlayed"
onto previous memories. I don't see that working at all, and even if it
did it would leave Buffy with no specific Dawn-centric memories and
probably no real emotional connection to her). I can't imagine the monks
hand-crafted every single memory, the spell probably generated them
automatically, and the asylum-time may have been an unforeseen
side-effect.
The main reason I like this explanation, though, is that it makes such
perfect sense from the Asylum-is-real POV. Buffy retreats from the world
into a psychosis where she is a superhero, but bits of reality start to
sneak into her delusion.
Shuggie
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:09:34 GMT, l_py...@hotmail.SPAMBEGONE.com (Loz
<SNIP>
>>What's so special about Dawn that putting her into Buffy's life
>>necessitates giving the family a memory of her going into an
>>institution for a couple of weeks?
>
>She's Buffy's sister, that's what makes her so special. Inserting a
>sibling into someone's childhood memories isn't something that can be
>done without major modification (someone suggested Dawn was "overlayed"
>onto previous memories. I don't see that working at all, and even if it
>did it would leave Buffy with no specific Dawn-centric memories and
>probably no real emotional connection to her). I can't imagine the monks
>hand-crafted every single memory, the spell probably generated them
>automatically, and the asylum-time may have been an unforeseen
>side-effect.
You've got to be very careful changing history - reminds me of "A
Sound of Thunder"
http://www.sba.muohio.edu/snavely/415/thunder.htm
--
Shug
Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into to her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane
Steven Bagley
>
> Basically I can't make it fit at all. That's why I have a problem with
> this whole concept. Especially with the dialogue running:
>
> BUFFY: Back when I saw my first vampires ... I got so scared. I told
> my parents ... and they completely freaked out. They thought there was
> something seriously wrong with me. So they sent me to a clinic.
> BUFFY: I was only there a couple of weeks. I stopped talking about
> it, and they let me go. Eventually ... my parents just ... forgot.
>
You're both forgetting one thing -- the way Normal Again plays (and
especially) how it ends, says that the Asylum is reality, Sunnydale is a
figment of her imaginations. Taken this way the consistenancy isn't, its
Buffy's fantasy that her parents pull her out two weeks in and forget all
about it, ie she's blanked out from herself what her parents did to her and
made them into normal people from whom she is keeping the secret from. S1
and s2 all fit into this view easily because Buffy is deluding herself into
a fantasy where her parents didn't put her in. Its only when she has
flashbacks in 6x17 that she remembers it. Indeed, it would also explain her
death/resurrection arc in S5. The heaven place she found was being loved by
her parents in the real world, but her delusions (the Scoobies) pull her
back into the mental institute.
Personally, I wish they'd pursue this aspect more -- its a lot more
interesting than the rest of season 6.
Of course it could just be a case of the old don't let the continuity get in
the way of a good story phenomenon.
See you earlier,
Steven
Ian Shuttleworth
sba...@nospam.ntlworld.com (Steven Bagley) wrote:
> the way Normal Again plays (and especially) how it ends, says that the
> Asylum is reality, Sunnydale is a figment of her imaginations.
Well, this is one of the cruces.
The way it plays narratively is that, from Buffy's PoV, the asylum is
*presented as if it is* reality. The way it's shown visually, in tune
with that PoV - jump-cuts rather than wavy dissolves or the like - puts it
on the same level of reality as Sunnydale. Hence the ambiguity, and these
debates.
The ending is stickier (though, as I realised yesterday, potentially not
as sticky as the establishing corridor shot immediately pre-titles).
However, I think it can be resolved without difficulty by taking into
account a number of factors:
Visual grammar was never that invariant in the first place (look at
Eisensteinian montage), and certainly isn't now. The fact that mainstream
culture can now talk casually of "reading" a film or TV programme shows
that approaches to viewing have become more aware and complex. We don't
expect simple linear spoon-feeding or a unified omniscient narrator any
more, even when the narrator is the camera. In this respect, screen
culture is about at the point of the early twentieth-century modernist
novel; even though a number of us in the population at large would balk at
tackling such a work on paper, we think nothing of taking the same tack to
cinema or TV, because we've grown with it. There's nothing to say that a
single scene presented in a given way supports only a particular reading.
Going on from this, reading isn't a passive activity. Meaning does not
inhere in a work, but lives at the interstices of the work and the reader.
We recognise that text - whether written or visual - isn't a stand-alone.
It has *context*, either within a larger work or with reference to
external social, cultural, etc. factors. In the case of the ending of
"Normal Again", we consider it not in isolation from its surroundings
refer to the context not only of Buffy's decision within that episode but
of the preceding 116 episodes and the however-many there are to follow.
It makes no sense to infer or expect closure so complete from what is in
effect a chapter rather than a book, no more than we'd say that James
Joyce messed up _Ulysses_ after the first three chapters by switching his
principal viewpoint from that of Stephen Dedalus to that of Leopold Bloom,
or Virginia Woolf much more fluidly in _To The Lighthouse_. What makes
this mistake temporarily plausible is that, at the time of writing, we
have no succeeding text to refer to; we can pretend that the ending of the
latest chapter is the ending of the book. If (when) subsequent episodes
confirm the pro-Sunnydale reading, it's not a cop-out or a retrograde
step, it's just the next chapter and more context. Think of this moment
as a conceptual rather than a narrative cliff-hanger :-)
Bottom line: I'm assuming it's obvious that ME didn't intend the ending of
"Normal Again" to be read unambiguously as "Asylum real, Sunnydale
delusion". The question, then, is did they supply such an unambiguous
reading, albeit unintentionally?
I don't see that they did. I think, at its simplest, they rely on the
viewer to interact with and contextualise what we're shown - not to paper
over the mistakes, but simply to take our part in the transaction of
viewing - and at its most complex (yes, my favourite word about these
series!), they've relished the headfuck aspect by presenting it as one of
a number of possibilities without closing off others.
I accept both of those options, as I've said. My personal narrative
preference is for the simple reading, which I don't think is precluded in
any way by what we're shown or how we're shown it. At the same time, I
also delight in the plurality of possible interpretations in - as has been
said - a metaphor which works upon the viewer rather than the characters,
and thus recognises the interactive nature of watching.
--
Ian S.
Loz Pycock
Great, Buffy doesn't have continuity errors, because everything can be
explained by 'it's the spell the Monks used to put her in'. Therefore
I predict that the season 7 big bad will be the mayor and the Master
double-teaming because Dawns insertion into the world means that for
some reason Buffy didn't kill either of them and they've just stayed
low for a couple of years. And also with Dawn there Buffy wouldn't
have given Angel that single moment of happiness so he never went bad
so Jenny Calender is in fact still working at Sunnydale High wondering
where Rupert got to...
Helen H
<snip>
>
>You're both forgetting one thing -- the way Normal Again plays (and
>especially) how it ends, says that the Asylum is reality, Sunnydale is a
>figment of her imaginations.
I'm not "forgetting" this - I just didn't read the ending (or the
episode) that way. As far as I'm concerned the episode presented the
asylum as a drug induced delusion. This obviously means that I don't
believe NA plays as the asylum being real nor do I believe the ending
was meant to imply that it was real.
<snip>
Helen
Ian Shuttleworth
l_py...@hotmail.SPAMBEGONE.com (Loz Pycock) wrote:
> Great, Buffy doesn't have continuity errors, because everything can be
> explained by 'it's the spell the Monks used to put her in'.
Ignoring the /reductio ad absurdum/ practised here, there are a number of
monk-free interpretations of this - for instance
As the asylum-time (let's not prejudge by saying "delusions") influences
Buffy's later-in-the-episode actions in Sunnydale, so it necessarily first
distorts her thoughts and feelings there, so why not her memories as well,
and she's in fact recounting a false memory?
Or maybe it *did* happen, and her parents didn't forget but deliberately
tiptoed round it (look at how tentative and eggshell-y Joyce is with Buffy
from her very first line in 1.1): at first they didn't mention for fear of
bringing up something they'd rather leave under the carpet just in case,
and later Joyce was so quietly racked with guilt when she discovered the
reality of vampires etc. that she could never explicitly (as far as we
see!) own up and apologise.
OK, so those are retcons, and viewer- rather than writer-supplied retcons,
but none of them strains the fabric of the narrative AFAICS, and we've all
swallowed others at least as great in the past.
--
Ian S.
Gunnar Harboe
Pycock) wrote:
>Mumble, mumble Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:43:07 +0100 mumble, Gunnar Harboe
><gh...@cam.ac.uk> mumble, "oooh, shiny new computer!" mumble, mumble
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>sibling into someone's childhood memories isn't something that can be
>>done without major modification (someone suggested Dawn was "overlayed"
>>onto previous memories. I don't see that working at all, and even if it
>>did it would leave Buffy with no specific Dawn-centric memories and
>>probably no real emotional connection to her). I can't imagine the monks
>>hand-crafted every single memory, the spell probably generated them
>>automatically, and the asylum-time may have been an unforeseen
>>side-effect.
>
>Great, Buffy doesn't have continuity errors, because everything can be
>explained by 'it's the spell the Monks used to put her in'. Therefore
>I predict that the season 7 big bad will be the mayor and the Master
>double-teaming because Dawns insertion into the world means that for
>some reason Buffy didn't kill either of them and they've just stayed
>low for a couple of years. And also with Dawn there Buffy wouldn't
>have given Angel that single moment of happiness so he never went bad
>so Jenny Calender is in fact still working at Sunnydale High wondering
>where Rupert got to...
Now you're just being unreasonable...
Riddle me this, then. Why would the writers talk about how introducing
Dawn created inconsistencies in the same episode where they themselves
create a big apparent inconsistency (as many of us see it)? It's not
like Dawn has actually created all that many inconsistencies.
redhorus
<srwa...@hotPOTATOmail.com> writes[...]
>> But if the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse scenes come from a simple
>> rewrite of the preDawnverse-Buffyverse then the existence of Dawn (an
>> entirely Dawnverse-Buffyverse-nonAsylumverse character) would not
>> cause the Asylumverse-Dawnverse-Buffyverse parents and doctor to
>> consider Buffy deluded. She can *only* be deluded if she is, in fact,
>> in the true Asylumverse-preDawnverse-Buffyverse. Therefore Buffy's
>> talk with Willow has to have her history rooted in the "true" S1-S4
>> preDawnverse-Buffyverse.
>>
>
>You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby, are you?
ROTFLMAO!
I can just hear his voice reciting that last paragraph now...
--
L/ Red Horus]}:>
<') "Note to self: Stop Doing Anything"
(_=\ - Homer Simpson
))-\
Adam
> OK, so Buffy having been in an asylum. How does that fit in with S1/S2?
>
> I think it doesn't. I think Buffy's way too careless about talking about
> vampires and slayerage for one who has been committed for it, and I
> think Joyce is way too unconcerned about the slips and the strange
> behaviour. It's always about Buffy "getting into trouble" and
> "fighting", not about her being delusional.
I agree with this.
> Also, I think it radically changes Joyce's character. She was always
> trying so hard to be a good mother, being very caring and loving, having
> "read all the books" and followed all the advice (with one, IMO
> out-of-character, slip; 'Becoming'). That does NOT include sending your
> daughter to an asylum unless she's obviously insane. And we know Buffy
> isn't insane (well, at least not in slayer-world), so her behaviour
> can't have been THAT bizarre.
But while we know that in the Buffyverse she's not insane, but to
most people outside of Sunnydale claiming to hunt vampires would be insane
behaviour! I think that could include Joyce before she actually saw the
evidence (starting with "gangs on PCP" up to the dusting of vampires).
> Of course, the whole concept of the early show was that Buffy was a
> normal girl who was also a superhero, and how Joyce misunderstood one
> for the other. This ret-con throws seriously messes up that level.
>
> Some examples of passages that seem impossible/-plausible with this new
> bit of history (I especially like "Buffy, are you crazy?" from 'School
> Hard')...
[examples snipped]
But I agree that all these examples are inconsistent with Buffy's having
been in an asylum before moving to Sunnydale. It would be almost impossible
for Joyce (for example) not to mention Buffy's previous insanity in these
contexts, unless they had very seriously agreed never to discuss it again.
So I think we have to conclude that mentioning the previous session in the
asylum, like creating the sister from mystical energy, is just part of
Buffy's revision of her delusion as discussed by the psychiatrist. This
means of course that the Buffyverse that we watch every week is all a
delusion inside the head of asylum Buffy.
;-)
-- Adam