helpless [spoilers]
Hanneke
:))
George said:
>spoilers for helpless (season 3)
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>s
>p
>a
>c
>e
>a
>n
>d
>s
>t
>u
>f
>f
>l
>i
>k
>e
>t
>h
>a
>t
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>Well what can I say?? A *GREAT* ep. The whole buffy giles relationship
>needed exploring amd here you have it!! And not only that, buffy gets
>betrayed by a father like figure two times in this ep...you've gotta
>feel sorry for her!!
Yes, a *very* nice ep. Especially Giles was *very* good. The vampire was
extremely um, convincing. <shudder>
And I loved the scenes with Angel. <sigh>
>
>The ending is the best bit though, giles admits his fatherly feelings
>for buffy and their relationship definatly hits a new level there....all
>in all great!! I'm sure people will disagree though, so lets have it <g>
Nope, no major disagreeing this time. :)
Hanneke
george van hal
The ending is the best bit though, giles admits his fatherly feelings
for buffy and their relationship definatly hits a new level there....all
in all great!! I'm sure people will disagree though, so lets have it <g>
See Ya,
George
André
wrote:
This is the first episode of this season I actually liked a lot the
first time around. Most of the other eps were good, but took a little
more thought or getting used to than this one. Maybe it's the
slasher-pic-angle of this episode that made it stand out in the horror
dept. and finally produced a vamp that not only talks the talk, but
also walks the walk. Sort of like an Angelus, but different.
I'm almost sorry he had to be killed right away (good thinking on
Buffy's part BTW).
So, I liked the ep., except for one tiny detail: *what's the <insert
swearword here> story on this test?*
To me it seems utterly ridiculous to subject a perfectly good
functioning slayer to a test that could very well kill her! If a
slayer isn't up to snuff the bad guys (i.e. vampires) will get her
anyway, so what's the point?
Testing the watcher's attachment to his ward is a bit trickier <sp>,
but there are other ways I'm sure. To avoid too severe an attachment
could easily be foregone by rotating watchers periodically, every
couple of years or so.
Anyway, glad for Buffy it wasn't a written test, because...
--
Peace,
Dré (looking forward to tonights ep.)
"Art has to be forgotten, beauty must be realized" - Piet Mondriaan
To reply replace "spamsux" with "cyberdude": dredoes @ cyberdude .com
george van hal
"André" wrote:
> So, I liked the ep., except for one tiny detail: *what's the <insert
> swearword here> story on this test?*
>
> To me it seems utterly ridiculous to subject a perfectly good
> functioning slayer to a test that could very well kill her! If a
> slayer isn't up to snuff the bad guys (i.e. vampires) will get her
> anyway, so what's the point?
Ok this is of course in now way funded by the events in the episode, but what
if this test isn't meant to test the slayer and/or the watcher but just to
get rid of them. An ageing slayer is bound to get more independeant as time
progrsesses and the same goes for a watcher. I'm thinking that slayers who
seem loyal enough get an easy way out of the test with either outside help or
an easy to kill adversary. Slayers prone to rebelion can only prove to become
a problem as they age and get more independant and this test is perhaps a
good way to get rid of them and get a new slayer who could be better for the
needs of the council. Again this isn't even hinted at in the ep, but I've
allways thought since I first saw the ep that this could have been a real
option and its not like the council wouldnt do this, because they arent
exactly a bunch of good and hounest people....
Anyways thats about it.......next in line is tonights ep....get ready for a
comedy ep.....
See Ya,
George
Miriam Rocke
My pet theory is that they didn't want Buffy to survive. That even if
she didn't die in the test, she's be shaken enough to die quickly out
in the field.
I'm not sure whether the test is documented well enough in advance
that Giles knew about it, or if it was just Travers coming and saying
"Hey, there's this test thing, and you're going to help us." I'm also
not sure whether the 'standard' test is more controlled, more safe,
and that Buffy's was intentionally hard, or if the Watchers figure
that any Slayer who survives to that age is getting old and rusty and
they need a new, fresher Slayer.
I don't even think they expected Buffy to survive very long at all--
since it appears that (at least in their opinion) Watchership is
assigned, not a destiny thing, they *could* have assigned a "better",
less black-sheep Watcher than Giles. But I think that because Buffy
had so much trouble in LA (and, one presumes, got her Watcher killed),
they didn't want to risk a good Watcher, and figured that Buffy could
get Giles killed and/or Giles could get Buffy killed and they wouldn't
have to outright kill either of them.
Or perhaps (dontcha love theories? <g>) Travers could belong to some
sort of splinter faction that's trying to take control of the whole
Watcher enterprise, and so he wants independant thinkers out of the
way.
Or it could be that I just really don't like the Watcher's Council.
Can't imagine why that would be, though...
Nevertheless, the test *is* pretty stupid. How is a Slayer supposed
to increase "confidence derived from self-reliance" if the test takes
away all her self-confidence, all her faith in herself and her
abilities?
[And-- predictably enough, for those who know me-- I've got a fic
brewing about this. I *really* need to stop coming up with fic
ideas...]
Mir
--
Miriam Rocke "Just so we're clear, you guys
mrr...@ucdavis.edu know you're nuts, right?"
http://handel.cipic.ucdavis.edu/~mrrocke/ --BtVS, "Gingerbread"
Peter Kleiweg
I snipped that.
I think you've watched too many X-Files episodes. You really
like elaborate conspiracies, don't you? The Watchers' Council
messing with the script-writers... let's just say the writers
didn't think this thing through.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: xl -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A moment, please, of quiet reflection.
-- Giles, I, Robot -- You, Jane
Miriam Rocke
: Miriam Rocke skriver...
<g>
: You really
: like elaborate conspiracies, don't you? The Watchers' Council
: messing with the script-writers...
Um. Fourth wall, please. I said nothing about the Watchers'
Council-- characters in the Buffyverse-- interacting with the script
writers-- who are in the realworld. I'm not explaining why the script
writers chose to do that test. Anyway, most of the time the motives of
the writers and the motives of the characters are not the same. And
really, wanting to kill off an irresponsible uncontrollable Slayer
(and/or a black-sheep Watcher) without blatantly murdering them is
*not* an elaborate conspiracy. Yes, some of the things I propose are
more suitable to Mulder. So? Who says Mulder's wrong? ;)
: let's just say the writers didn't think this thing through.
Duh. That's happened before ["I have no breath"; the whole Jenny-being-
a-gypsy thing; etc], and it's going to happen again. That
doesn't stop me from attempting to rationalize it *within the context
of the Buffyverse*. If you don't like that, don't read my posts.
george van hal
Miriam Rocke wrote:
> : let's just say the writers didn't think this thing through.
>
> Duh. That's happened before ["I have no breath"; the whole Jenny-being-
> a-gypsy thing; etc], and it's going to happen again. That
> doesn't stop me from attempting to rationalize it *within the context
> of the Buffyverse*. If you don't like that, don't read my posts.
I have to agree with miriam here. The fact that something wasnt meant by the
writers isnt a valid argument (you (peter that is) even told me so during the
whole cordelia's dress thing). The fact that something is weird or
inconsistent is only a great jump off point for some discussion or
rationalising. The fact just remains that joss doesnt really care about the
whole mythology behind the show and that he writes for the drama part of an
ep. That doesnt mean however that one cant rationalise and even fantasise
about how it *could* be, thats part of the fun of being a fan of a show and
the main reason fanfic exsists (i'll be reading that fanfic if you finish it
mariam.....send me the addy than....have you ever done a wish universe fic or
know a good one btw?). So its fine that *you* (that being peter again <g>)
dont want to go into that teritory, but dont critisize others if they *do*...
See Ya,
George
Peter Kleiweg
I don't understand what you are trying to say. But we never
agreed on that dress thing in the first place, did we?
> The fact that something is weird or inconsistent is
> only a great jump off point for some discussion or
> rationalising. The fact just remains that joss doesnt really
> care about the whole mythology behind the show and that he
> writes for the drama part of an ep.
Yes. And?
> That doesnt mean however that one cant rationalise and even
> fantasise about how it *could* be, thats part of the fun of
> being a fan of a show and the main reason fanfic exsists (i'll
> be reading that fanfic if you finish it mariam.....send me the
> addy than....have you ever done a wish universe fic or know a
> good one btw?). So its fine that *you* (that being peter again
> <g>) dont want to go into that teritory, but dont critisize
> others if they *do*...
Criticising? Miriam stepped into Buffyverse, I switched back to
dramatisation. Isn't that allowed? Is there only one proper way
to express your fandom? We are talking television drama here
(well, I am), which is different from fiction in literature, or
in theatre, music, religion, or politics. Or real life. All have
different rules. Accept the quirkiness of the medium, and you
can focus on what makes characters tick on the bumps in the
night. (I'm really over-stretching my grasp of the English
language here, hoping for the best.)
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: xl -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was brought up a proper lady. I wasn't meant to understand
things. I'm just meant to look pretty, and then someone nice
will marry me. Possibly a Baron.
-- Buffy, Halloween
Peter Kleiweg
> Peter Kleiweg (kle...@let.rug.xl) wrote:
> : Miriam Rocke skriver...
> :
> : > André (dre...@spamsux.com) wrote:
> : > : On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:50:17 +0200, george van hal <hal0...@wxs.nl>
> : > : So, I liked the ep., except for one tiny detail: *what's the
> : > : <insert swearword here> story on this test?*
> : > :
> : > : To me it seems utterly ridiculous to subject a perfectly
> : > : good functioning slayer to a test that could very well kill
> : > : her! If a slayer isn't up to snuff the bad guys (i.e.
> : > : vampires) will get her anyway, so what's the point?
> : >
> : > My pet theory is
> :
> : I think you've watched too many X-Files episodes.
>
> <g>
>
> : You really like elaborate conspiracies, don't you? The
> : Watchers' Council messing with the script-writers...
>
> Um. Fourth wall, please.
Americanism?
> I said nothing about the Watchers' Council-- characters in the
> Buffyverse-- interacting with the script writers-- who are in
> the realworld.
No, I concocted that for you. Because I think you are
deliberately confusing story background with opportunistic
writing.
> I'm not explaining why the script writers chose to do that
> test. Anyway, most of the time the motives of the writers and
> the motives of the characters are not the same. And really,
> wanting to kill off an irresponsible uncontrollable Slayer
> (and/or a black-sheep Watcher) without blatantly murdering
> them is *not* an elaborate conspiracy. Yes, some of the things
> I propose are more suitable to Mulder. So? Who says Mulder's
> wrong? ;)
Please, I don't even take X-Files' script writers seriously.
> : let's just say the writers didn't think this thing through.
>
> Duh. That's happened before ["I have no breath"; the whole
> Jenny-being- a-gypsy thing; etc], and it's going to happen
> again. That doesn't stop me from attempting to rationalize it
> *within the context of the Buffyverse*. If you don't like
> that, don't read my posts.
You seem to forget that even a great show like BtVS has loose
ends, now and again. The writers cock-up, for the sake of the
show. That doesn't make it's a bad show. There is no need to
invent elaborate justifications to cover up inconsistencies. I
think they do more harm than good, alienating from the show's
impact. This goes for moralizing as well.
I enjoy the show the most when I can sense under the skin of the
characters. (Does that make sense in translation?) The here and
now is what matters. Inconsistencies are irrelevant, they are
just noise in the messiness of the troubles the characters are
going through. Good dramatisation is the most essential part to
suck the viewer into the screen. Errors in the plot development
have to be major before they interfere with the impact, like
what happened in The Wish where the plot development fouled up
the drama completely. So not all episodes are perfect.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: xl -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Giles: I've never actually heard of anyone attacked by a lone
baseball bat before.
Xander: Maybe it's a vampire bat.
-- Invisible Girl
Miriam Rocke
: Miriam Rocke skriver...
:
P'raps. Fourth wall...I think it comes from stage work, plays and
stuff, where the stage has three sides and the fourth is the audience.
Breaking the fourth wall is when, say, a character addresses the
audience as the audience, or expresses meta-knowledge. To break the
fourth wall in Buffy, the characters would have to be aware that it's
a tv show. What I meant, perhaps expressed a bit too succinctly, was
that you can't say something like "Watcher's Council messing with the
script-writers" without messing with the fourth wall. The Watcher's
Council does not interact with script-writers, because that would
require knowledge of the existence of script-writers.
: > I said nothing about the Watchers' Council-- characters in the
: > Buffyverse-- interacting with the script writers-- who are in
: > the realworld.
:
: No, I concocted that for you. Because I think you are
: deliberately confusing story background with opportunistic
: writing.
Um, huh? No I'm not. Have I ever said that my explanations are
what the scriptwriters meant? No.
There are two levels at work here [and this *is* different from the
whole "is there a Message in an ep" discussion]. One is the real-life
level. In this, there are scriptwriters, there are scripts, there are
actors, there is Joss (for Buffy at least), there are cameras, there
is an audience, and the vampires are people in funny makeup. One is
the ... I don't know what to call it. Buffyverse level. In this,
there are no scripts, there are no actors, nothing is known in
advance, vampires are real, demons are real, zombies are real. Does
the distinction between the two levels make sense to you? Because if
not, I don't think the rest of this will make much sense either.
The whole test thing wasn't well-thought-out in the real-life level.
[There are lots of aspects of the mythology that aren't well thought
out in the real-life level, some things that don't even make much
sense.] It was kind of a spur-of-the-moment invention on the part of
the writers. But in the Buffyverse, the test wasn't just a
spur-of-the-moment thing the Watcher's council came up with. "...an
archaic exercise in cruelty"-- either it's existed a long time, and
must have some sort of rationale (however deluded/misguided), or is
something which the Council is pretending has been in effect for a
while.
Yes, I am fully aware that it was really just a way for the writers to
have a situation where Buffy was put in danger, where she lost her
powers, where she lost her trust in Giles. But that explanation only
applies in the real-life level. The original question, to which I was
responding, was phrased in such a way that I interpreted it to be
Buffyverse explanation, not real-world explanation. The latter would
be less fun anyway ["Because the writers said so. Nyah."] So I chose
to delve into the Buffyverse level.
: Please, I don't even take X-Files' script writers seriously.
That's only because you've been brainwashed by the aliens. Duh.
[Reality check, please? :) I don't take X-Files seriously either.]
: You seem to forget that even a great show like BtVS has loose
: ends, now and again.
You seem to be very liberal with your knowledge of what I forget.
Does Buffy have loose ends? 'Course. Does that mean I can't speculate
on them? I'm a writer; I speculate; it's what I do. Joss gives me
some fun stuff to play with, so I play. And it's no fun playing with
the things that are set in concrete. I like wiggle room. I like
finding explanations, canonically consistent, for the things that the
writers *don't* spend a lot of time explaining.
In another post, but on the same thread, you wrote:
: Criticising? Miriam stepped into Buffyverse, I switched back to
: dramatisation. Isn't that allowed? Is there only one proper way
: to express your fandom?
Peter, please take a look at what you wrote. Even if you didn't
intend it, the two paragraps came across as condescending, as a
"Anyone who tries to rationalize problems in a fictional tv show must
be someone who worships X-Files as truth", as a "You're stupid to even
be doing this sort of thing, why don't we stop". You don't like
finding subtexts to Buffy episodes; you don't like trying to
rationalize consistencies with more than "the writers messed up".
That's quite okay. What's *not* okay is condeming other people for
doing it.
Yes, it's allowed to look at fandom in different ways, to express it
in different ways, to stay at the real-world level and not go deeper.
As far as I can tell, no one here has said you can't; no one here has
said you must change. [People have debated stuff with you, and people
have objected to your dismissal of other peoples' views of fandom, but
no one has said that *you* must find a Moral in an episode, that *you*
must try to reason out the wrinkles in the plot.] But dismissing
someone else's preferences, just because they don't agree with yours,
is not playing nicely. You don't have to participate in the
discussions which you feel are detracting from your enjoyment of the
show. Personally, I get more enjoyment out of it if I *do* go deeper,
if I look for subtleties, if I rationalize errors; because all that
happens afterward. I watch the episode, and enjoy it as
entertainment, and it's all good and happy [unless it's the W/X parts
of Homecoming or Lover's Walk, but I digress], and then I come back
and discuss it and analyze it and that's how I get more out of it than
if I just sat there and said "Yeah. That was an episode." [Please
note that I'm not saying that's what you do. It's just the only thing
that would be left to *me* if I didn't do the things which I enjoy
doing and you don't.] You don't have to be the same way. Just don't
require that *my* preferences parallel yours, because they don't and
they won't.
And, um, heh, where did this soapbox come from? *sheepish grin*
Peter Kleiweg
Like the ep from Northern Exposure, where the characters refuse
to play their part as the script writers wrote it, claiming the
audience wouldn't believe the characters would act in the way
the writers would have them act. I liked that, some
self-indulgence, some self-irony from the writers. The boundary
can be broken in a more subtle way too, less explicit. I think
it happened in The Zeppo.
Four walls may be a good metaphor for theatre, I think running
tv shows have more than four (see below).
> : > I said nothing about the Watchers' Council-- characters in the
> : > Buffyverse-- interacting with the script writers-- who are in
> : > the realworld.
> :
> : No, I concocted that for you. Because I think you are
> : deliberately confusing story background with opportunistic
> : writing.
>
> Um, huh? No I'm not. Have I ever said that my explanations are
> what the scriptwriters meant? No.
>
> There are two levels at work here [and this *is* different
> from the whole "is there a Message in an ep" discussion]. One
> is the real-life level. In this, there are scriptwriters,
> there are scripts, there are actors, there is Joss (for Buffy
> at least), there are cameras, there is an audience, and the
> vampires are people in funny makeup. One is the ... I don't
> know what to call it. Buffyverse level. In this, there are no
> scripts, there are no actors, nothing is known in advance,
> vampires are real, demons are real, zombies are real. Does the
> distinction between the two levels make sense to you? Because
> if not, I don't think the rest of this will make much sense
> either.
I get what you mean. But I think there is a third level, one I
have more trouble with putting my finger on. It has to do with
reshaping the Buffyverse between episodes, about
multiple-personalities of the characters carried over episode
boundaries. It has to do with writers entering the story (more
common in written fiction), about actors becoming the acted, and
vice-versa.
And as a twist: some real-life people claim to have knowledge
about some Great Script-Writer in the Sky, so why not characters
in a 'realistic' tv show?
> The whole test thing wasn't well-thought-out in the real-life
> level. [There are lots of aspects of the mythology that aren't
> well thought out in the real-life level, some things that
> don't even make much sense.] It was kind of a
> spur-of-the-moment invention on the part of the writers. But
> in the Buffyverse, the test wasn't just a spur-of-the-moment
> thing the Watcher's council came up with. "...an archaic
> exercise in cruelty"-- either it's existed a long time, and
> must have some sort of rationale (however deluded/misguided),
> or is something which the Council is pretending has been in
> effect for a while.
Apart from clear logic, there is always tension between
real-life common sense and common sense in a fictional reality.
How far can a writer stress the audience's credulity? That
depends on what kind of fiction it is. A UFO in a show that is
supposed to dramatise real life would cross the line. A UFO in a
sf show won't. Some consistency is required between the premises
of the fiction on the one hand and the expectations of the
audience on the other hand. How much can a writer ask of his or
her audience in willingness to give up their views of reality.
These things may be very dependent on the cultural background of
the audience.
What you were doing in explaining the Council's actions was a
reaction on a misjudgement of the writers. They overstepped the
line, asked too much of your willingness to accept their
reshaping of reality.
At least, that was my interpretation.
And then I get puzzled. Why would you want to justify the
mistakes of the writers, from within the fictional level? The
writers didn't cross the line of credulity for me, but your
explanation did. And I react differently. In fiction, it's
rather a personal choice when and how to apply Occam's razor.
> Yes, I am fully aware that it was really just a way for the
> writers to have a situation where Buffy was put in danger,
> where she lost her powers, where she lost her trust in Giles.
> But that explanation only applies in the real-life level. The
> original question, to which I was responding, was phrased in
> such a way that I interpreted it to be Buffyverse explanation,
> not real-world explanation. The latter would be less fun
> anyway ["Because the writers said so. Nyah."] So I chose to
> delve into the Buffyverse level.
Or you could delve into it from the third level.
> : Please, I don't even take X-Files' script writers seriously.
>
> That's only because you've been brainwashed by the aliens.
> Duh. [Reality check, please? :) I don't take X-Files seriously
> either.]
I'm sorry. I react a bit oversensitive when people mention the
X-Files. I shouldn't have done so myself. Better not getting
into this any further.
> : You seem to forget that even a great show like BtVS has loose
> : ends, now and again.
>
> You seem to be very liberal with your knowledge of what I
> forget. Does Buffy have loose ends? 'Course. Does that mean I
> can't speculate on them? I'm a writer; I speculate; it's what
> I do. Joss gives me some fun stuff to play with, so I play.
> And it's no fun playing with the things that are set in
> concrete. I like wiggle room. I like finding explanations,
> canonically consistent, for the things that the writers
> *don't* spend a lot of time explaining.
>
> In another post, but on the same thread, you wrote:
>
> : Criticising? Miriam stepped into Buffyverse, I switched back to
> : dramatisation. Isn't that allowed? Is there only one proper way
> : to express your fandom?
>
> Peter, please take a look at what you wrote. Even if you
> didn't intend it, the two paragraps came across as
> condescending, as a "Anyone who tries to rationalize problems
> in a fictional tv show must be someone who worships X-Files as
> truth", as a "You're stupid to even be doing this sort of
> thing, why don't we stop". You don't like finding subtexts to
> Buffy episodes; you don't like trying to rationalize
> consistencies with more than "the writers messed up". That's
> quite okay. What's *not* okay is condeming other people for
> doing it.
I didn't mean to be condescending.
There was a discussion last week in a Dutch ng about language,
about the use of the word "but". The Dutch equivalent is used
quite often, as a very minor modifier, to add some new point, or
as a gentle way to put something in a different perspective. In
Dutch the word 'maar' (but) can be used without harm in
situations, where in American-English it can be very offensive.
The cultural level of a language is very difficult to grasp,
many people don't even realise it exists.
Apart from some misinterpretation of each other's intentions, no
reason why we couldn't enjoy these discussions.
> Yes, it's allowed to look at fandom in different ways, to
> express it in different ways, to stay at the real-world level
> and not go deeper. As far as I can tell, no one here has said
> you can't; no one here has said you must change. [People have
> debated stuff with you, and people have objected to your
> dismissal of other peoples' views of fandom, but no one has
> said that *you* must find a Moral in an episode, that *you*
> must try to reason out the wrinkles in the plot.]
Just wondering, what level would the moral apply to?
> But dismissing someone else's preferences, just because they
> don't agree with yours, is not playing nicely. You don't have
> to participate in the discussions which you feel are
> detracting from your enjoyment of the show. Personally, I get
> more enjoyment out of it if I *do* go deeper, if I look for
> subtleties, if I rationalize errors; because all that happens
> afterward. I watch the episode, and enjoy it as entertainment,
> and it's all good and happy [unless it's the W/X parts of
> Homecoming or Lover's Walk, but I digress], and then I come
> back and discuss it and analyze it and that's how I get more
> out of it than if I just sat there and said "Yeah. That was an
> episode." [Please note that I'm not saying that's what you do.
> It's just the only thing that would be left to *me* if I
> didn't do the things which I enjoy doing and you don't.] You
> don't have to be the same way. Just don't require that *my*
> preferences parallel yours, because they don't and they won't.
Well, I prefer to discus things from the third level. This may
not mix well at times with discussions on the Buffyverse level.
But I don't see any harm in this.
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: xl -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I know what you're thinking. Don't worry, I don't bite.
-- Angel, Welcome to the Hellmouth