"Revelations" Stream of Consciousness - Spoilers
AUNTIELIB
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
This one was a heart-pounder right from the start! There wasn't as much
witty dialogue as there was last week, but the action quotient was way up,
and the emotional content very satisfying. That's what I love about
this show: you never know what end of the spectrum you'll get from
week to week.
Willow: "Oz, hey! Have a seat. Except we don't have any seats."
Oz: "It's okay, I'll just scrunch in."
Cordelia: "Xander. Why are you giving me a lap-dance?"
Xander: "What? I just like ya."
Willow: "And that's very beautiful. I think it's great when two people
like two people and wanta be close to them instead of anyone else."
Xander: (nodding vigorously) "Hear! Hear!"
Oz: "Yeah, well put. Hey, can I snag a sip?"
Willow and Xander grab for the cup simultaneously and, in their
nervousness, fling it onto some unsuspecting by-bystanders. Their little
secret is beginning to take its toll. Willow has developed a little twitch
and Xander's hair looks like Einstein's. On a *good* day.
Oz's "otherwhereness" is beginning to get on my nerves. He is so out of
the loop, I'm surprised he can follow a conversation. How can he *not*
know what's going on? Cordelia, I can understand. But Oz? The
genius?
Willow: "Hey! Speaking of people and... things they do that aren't like
usual. Anyone notice Buffy acting sort of... different?"
(Willow's dialogue is full of ellipses. She has mastered the art of the
fractured run-on sentence. And yet, she still manages to make sense.)
Xander: "Let's see, um...killing zombies, torching sewer monsters and...
no, that's, uh, pretty much the, uh, same old Buffster."
I like the fact that they just assume that Buffy has a new "honey." It's the
first thing most females would suspect if a friend was acting all distracted.
Willow: "A boyfriend? Why wouldn't she tell us?"
Cordelia: "Excuse me? When your last steady killed half the class, and
then your rebound guy sends you a dump-o-gram? It makes a girl shy."
I've said it before, and I'll go on saying it; what Cordelia lacks in tact,
she makes up for in directness. And that's not always a bad thing.
Buffy: "I wouldn't use the word 'dating.' But I am going out with
somebody. Tonight as a matter of fact."
(Does this show have a large lesbian following like, say, "Xena"? Or
else, why the little hug between Buffy and Faith? It was suggestive,
to say the least.)
Buffy: "Really, we're just friends."
Giles seems a little bored watching Buffy and Faith tandem slaying. Just
how long did it take him to get used to the idea of training *two* slayers,
when he has been taught that, as a Watcher, he will be responsible for
*one* girl in all the world?
Buffy: "Synchronized slaying."
Faith: "New Olympic category."
Buffy: (to Giles) "What do you think?"
Mrs. Gwendolyn Post.: "Sloppy. You telegraph punches. Leave blind
sides open and, uh, for a school-night slaying, take entirely too much
time. Which one of you is Faith?"
Faith's new Watcher is... um... How can I put this delicately? A smug
bitch. At first glance, she seems to be doing a poor imitation of Giles.
And since Giles is dumbfounded, looking from Mrs. Post to Faith and
back again, I guess it's good that *someone* is. If that's any indication
of the other Watchers, it's a good thing Giles has little to do with them.
Faith: "No offense, lady, I just have this problem with authority-figures.
They end up kinda dead."
This makes me wonder how many dead authority-figures she has known.
Her Watcher. Her mother, certainly. Teachers? Her history is still
vague, but gaining a bit of interest.
Mrs. Post: "Mr. Giles, where do you keep the rest of your books?"
Giles: "I... I'm sorry. The rest?"
Mrs. Post: "Yes. The *actual* library."
Her denigration of Giles' reference collection is not funny. At least *I'm*
not laughing. You know, if she's trying to win friends and influence
people, she's doing a piss-poor job of it. I don't like seeing her rag on
Giles in that oh-so-superior way. And I don't like seeing *him* in the
role of whipped puppy, trying to please some strange snake who
slithered into town under dubious circumstances. There, now I feel
better.
Mrs. Post: "The Council wishes me to report on the entire situation here.
Including you."
Buffy: "Mmmm. Academic probation's not so funny today, huh Giles?"
While Mrs. Post blathers on, there is a series of looks from Giles to Buffy
to Giles and back again. (I like watching the outer edges of a scene. It's
a sign of very good technique when actors stay in character and in the
scene even when they have no lines and are not the center of attention.)
Mrs. Post: "The fact is, there is talk in the Council that you have become
a bit too... American."
Giles: "Me?"
Buffy: "Him?"
Mrs. Post: "Mr. Giles. An illustration of Lagos, if you please."
Giles pulls out a chair and hops to it. How is it that he is so cowed by
this woman? (And I use the term loosely.) I think it is a reminder of
something we tend to forget: that Giles is an anti-social bookworm with
little social skill. His choice of librarian in an attempt to "...minimize
said contact" with the students points out how alone he would like to be
left. Mrs. Post is challenging his authority in the one area he feels secure:
the library. In this context, he is a bureaucrat at the mercy of someone
who treats him as inferior.
The Glove of Myhnegon. Where do they come up with these things?
Mrs. Post: "Lagos must be stopped."
Giles: "What do you propose?"
Mrs. Post: "Well, if it's not too radical a suggestion, I thought we might
kill him."
Now Giles is looking thoroughly demoralized. Gwendolyn Post gives
every one of her lines such scathing emphasis. It's not really necessary in
this situation and I am wondering why she feels the need to beat him
down. They are supposed to be on the same side. What is her angle? (I
think I've been hanging around Sunnydale too long: I think *everyone*
has an angle.)
Twelve cemeteries within the city limits. Pasadena doesn't even have
one, outside of a few churchyards.
Mrs. Post: "Anything in your books that might pin-point the exact
location of the tomb would be useful. But then, we cannot ask for
miracles."
Okay, now Giles is getting a little fed up. Good! Anything is better than
that pussy-whipped creature-who-looks-like-Giles.
I'm surprised that Faith went with her so meekly. The way she rebels, I
expected more of an argument. Another reason to suspect that Faith is
mostly talk in some ways.
Giles: "That was bracing."
Buffy: "Interesting lady. Can we kill her?"
Giles: "The Council might frown upon that." Ahh, you're no fun.
The cut from Giles' "How do you feel about a spot of training?" to Angel
and Buffy doing that slow, synchronized little martial arts dance was
wonderful. It is the most erotic scene between the two of them in a long
time. It wasn't just that Angel was shirtless. Really. He could have been
fully-clothed and it still would have packed a wallop. It was the way it
was so beautifully choreographed; each mirroring the moves of the other,
until their hands meet high above their heads. This scene, for some
reason, was hotter than any I've ever seen between Angel and Buffy. And
they barely touched; just an almost-kiss. Those who feel that Angel and
Buffy have no chemistry should head straight for the nearest emergency
room and insist on a blood-pressure test. They're so on fire for each
other, in fact, that I think the Scooby Gang's concerns may be justified.
Buffy: "I've gotta go. Big night for us slayer types. People to see.
Demons to kill."
Buffy's mentioning that she was on her way to "...vent a little hormonal
angst by going out there and killing a Lagos" was an odd bit of
exposition. There was no reason for her to say it. The scene was over
and she was almost out the door. The only reason I can see was to give
Angel the piece of information. It was awkward, to say the least. She
should have mentioned it when she said the line about having demons to
kill. It would have fit there. I can overlook it, though, because this sort
of thing is very *very* rare in a "Buffy" script. It's a small thing, really,
and I'm probably the only one who thought it didn't fit.
Xander: "Hey! You're not the Watcher of me."
Giles: "Then go home. But if you choose to stay, then work."
Trust Xander, little boy hiding in a big boy's body, to come up with that
line.
Willow: "What does he want from us, anyway?"
Xander: "The number of a qualified surgeon to remove the British flag.
From his butt!"
Willow: "Stop."
Xander: "Right. Stop means no, and no means no so um ... stop."
Whereupon, Willow grabs his face and gives him a great big kiss. Wasn't
that her fantasy in an earlier episode? Or was it that Xander would grab
*her* and...? While Willow and Xander's predicament is played mostly
for laughs, it is also quite serious for those involved. The actors
(especially Alyson) do a great job of showing how agonizing the situation
has become. The consequences for all involved could be serious and only
underscore the funnier aspects of trying to hide their new-found passion.
They'd better find a solution soon, or something's gonna have to give. (I
fear it might be Willow's good sense.)
And Giles is so oblivious!
Willow: "That's great, Giles. How'd you find it?"
Giles: "I looked." Shorter and more to the point than your average Giles
explanation.
Faith: "So, what about you?"
Buffy: "You mean, like, me and guys me?"
Faith: "Mm hmm."
Buffy: "Not much to tell these days."
Faith: "Yeah, but you gotta have stories. I mean, I've had my share of
losers, but, you... you boinked the undead! What was that like?"
I was hoping she'd go into some details, but I guess it wouldn't have been
Buffy-like to kiss and tell. Faith isn't real quick on the up-take, though,
since she didn't notice that Buffy said "Life with Angel is... *was*
complicated." It was done SMG-subtle, but it was there if you were
listening. Faith wasn't.
That is some demon Faith encounters in Shadyhill Cemetery. What
*were*" those things on its face? Tusks? She was lucky it didn't kill
her, especially since it was so upset at not finding what it was looking for
in the grave.
Xander: (to himself) "Hey, Giles! Here's a nifty idea. Why don't I
alleviate my guilt by goin' out and gettin' myself really, really killed."
I just don't buy guilt as Xander's primary motivation in all this. I'm not
saying *he* doesn't think that's the reason, but I'm not convinced.
Oh, shit! If anyone had to discover Angel's reappearance, why did it
have to be Xander? The person who hates him the most for the most
immature of reasons? And what was Buffy doing back with Angel? I
thought she was trying to be the saner of the two. Love really does make
you do the wacky.
Buffy: "What're we doing? What are *you* doing?"
Angel: "I don't know."
Buffy: "Shame on you! Oh, God. I... I don't even know why I came
back here."
Guess that answers my question. (Buffy realizes that Angel, as the older,
supposedly wiser, of the two of them, bears more than half of the
responsibility for keeping control of their encounters. But Angel, even if
he is 241, isn't any more in control of himself when he's around her than
any other man in love. No matter how old.)
Buffy: "Great. Just, wherever this was gift-wrapped, remind me not to
shop there."
Angel: "Glove of Myhnegon."
Buffy: "World's ugliest fashion accessory." (That is one nasty, pointy
piece of work.)
Angel: (grabbing her hand) "Don't! Once you put it on the glove can
never be removed."
Buffy: "So... no touching. (looks at their hands, touching) Kinda like
us."
Neat symmetry.
Why did Giles invite Mrs. Post into his home? His personal space? To
check out the books he keeps there? It hardly seems worth it.
Mrs. Post: "The pictures are fun to look at, Mr. Giles, but one really
ought to read the nice words, as well."
I'm beginning to wonder why she is treating him with such contempt. We
know that he is an educated man who can read five languages "on a
normal day" and yet he lets her talk to him as if he were an incompetent
imbecile.
Giles: "Yes. Some tea perhaps."
A spot of tea can smooth over any situation, but Mrs. Post has brought
her own tea fixin's and removes Giles' teabag from her cup. (They may
have a slight problem.) And I loved Giles' stilted little hands-in-pockets,
tight-assed duck walk to the kitchen to get the hot water. For someone
wound as tight as he is, it's the only way he can show his displeasure and
still remain polite.
Mrs. Post: "I know that you must find me tiresome. But it's insidious
really. A person slips up on the little things and soon everything's gone
to hell in a handbasket. For example, Buffy. Your Slayer."
Giles: "Mrs. Post. I can assure you that Buffy is both dedicated and
industrious, and I am in complete control of my slayer."
- into which bursts Xander with news! Poor Giles. He just can't get a
break.
I'd be a little nervous, too, walking into the library to find Xander,
Cordelia, Willow, Oz and Giles all sitting around the table, staring at me.
Buffy: "What's with all the tragedy masks?"
Giles: "We know Angel is alive. Xander saw you with him. It would
appear that you've been hiding him and that you lied to us."
(Willow is such a little mediator.)
Willow: "Nobody's here to blame you, Buffy. But this is serious. You
need help."
Buffy: "It's not what you think."
Xander: "Hope not. 'Cause I think you're harboring a vicious killer."
Willow: "This isn't about attacking Buffy. Remember, *I* statements
only. *I* feel angry. *I* feel worried."
Cordelia: "Fine. Here's one. I feel worried. About me! Last time
around, Angel barely laid a hand on Buffy. He was way more interested
in killing her friends!"
Buffy: "I was going to tell you. I was! It was just that I... I didn't know
why he came back. I just wanted to wait."
Xander: "For what? For Angel to go psycho again the next time you
give him a happy?"
Buffy: "But I'm not going t..." (pause) "We're not together like that."
Buffy: "It was wrong, okay, I know that. And I know that it can't happen
again. But you guys have to believe me I would never put you in any
danger. If I thought for a second that Angel was gonna hurt anyone..."
Xander: "You would stop him. Like you did last time with Miss
Calendar."
That was a low blow. Even for Xander. Jenny's death was not caused by
anything Buffy knowingly did. She feels enough guilt about it as it is.
This whole "demons anonymous" intervention scene bothered me. On
one level, it was good to get everything out into the open, but knowing
what Angel is like now, I have trouble sympathizing with anyone but
Buffy here. I can understand Cordelia's concern being for herself, but...
well, I guess I didn't expect anything more from Xander, either. They're
more suited to each other than I thought. Still, their fear doesn't justify
ganging up on her like that. (Especially given the way they accept Oz.)
And I don't understand Xander's vehemence. What *is* his deal? He
doesn't have a right to be more outraged than anyone else, yet he is
the leader of the outrage posse.
Buffy: "Thanks for the bail in there. I know this is a lot to absorb, but
Angel did find the glove and that was a good..."
Giles: "Be quiet."
(long pause)
Giles: (continued) "I won't remind you that the fate of the world often
lies with a slayer. What would be the point? Nor shall I remind you that
you've jeopardized the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring a
known murderer. But, sadly, I must remind you that Angel tortured me.
For hours. For pleasure. You should've told me he was alive. You
didn't. You have no respect for me, or the job I perform."
Gulp. Giles' quiet little speech made a bigger impact than screaming ever
could have. He was hurt and disappointed and not afraid to let her see
that. And he was very eloquent in the simplicity and emotion of his
message. I think this, more than anything else anyone could've said,
impressed on Buffy the seriousness of what she has done.
Mrs. Post: (to Faith, after she opens her door, stake at the ready) "A
word of advice? Vampires rarely knock. Especially in daylight."
I think Faith is in for some hard times ahead with her new Watcher.
Gwendolyn Post's methods ("...a true fighter needs nothing else") are the
antithesis of Giles'. But it is Giles' unconventional methods that have
kept Buffy alive this long. (This idea of a well-rounded existence is the
theme behind "Searching For Bobby Fischer", one of my favorite movies.
A child-prodigy chess master's father comes to realize that it is his son's
other activities that enrich his life while, at the same time, also enriching
his chess. Giles understand this only too well.)
Mrs. Post: "You will probably hate me a great deal of the time."
Faith: "You think?"
Mrs. Post is much gentler on Faith than she was on Giles. I think she's
after something, and she's manipulating everyone. She's very good at
making Faith feel more isolated than she already does.
Mrs. Post: "But that is not important. Let him have his games and secret
meetings."
Faith: "What meetings?"
Mrs. Post: "Oh, I don't know. Something with Buffy and her friends."
Faith: "Oh, right. I guess that doesn't include me."
I'm not sure whether Mrs. Post really believes that isolating Faith will
make her a better slayer, or if she has more subversive motives for tearing
her down.
Mrs. Post: "Would you like to do some training?"
Faith: "Training. As in kicking, punching, stabbing?"
Mrs. Post: "Yes, that's the idea."
Faith: "I'm your girl."
Willow and Buffy have a very healthy friendship. It doesn't take
long before they are on their way to forgiving and moving on.
(Willow's own secret is giving her a push in the right direction.)
Buffy: "So, on a scale of one to a million, how much are you hating me
right now?"
Willow: "Zero! You were scared, you kept a secret. You know, it's
okay. I mean, secrets aren't bad, you know, they're normal, they're
better than normal, they're good. Secrets are good. Must be a reason
why we keep 'em, right?"
She had *me* convinced. Wonder if she managed to convince
herself? (Doubt it. Doubt it very much.)
Buffy: "I figure sooner or later he's bound to show up at that crypt
looking for it."
Willow: "Ahh, but instead, he finds a Buffy in a not-so-good-mood?"
Buffy: "That's my brilliant plan."
I'd like to know why Xander is so pissed. Maybe I'm having trouble
seeing things from his side because I'm so sympathetic to Buffy and
Angel? His anger seems out of proportion to that of the other members of
the group. Either he's more complicated than I've given him credit for,
or the writers can't decide how to portray him.
Faith: "I say I slay."
Xander: "Can I come?"
If Giles gets conked on the head one more time, I swear I'm going to go
postal myself! It can't be good for his mental processes to have his brains
bashed around in his skull so often. And by prissy Mrs. Post, of all
people. I may have been suspicious, but I didn't see *this* coming.
Right up until the moment Giles informed her he had found the glove
and that a friend of Buffy's was guarding it, she was innocent-seeming,
if overbearing. Okay, her eyes did light up at the mention of the glove,
and she was genuinely shocked at Giles' suggestion that they destroy
it, but.... The lady wields a mean club.
Willow: "Um, not to downplay my own slaying abilities, which in some
circles are considered formidable but, shouldn't Faith be here?"
Buffy: "I tried calling but no one was home. Look, if you're feeling any
demonophobia, please, splitting is totally an option. You're not the one
in trouble with Giles."
It is interesting that, of all the reactions she got around that library table,
it is Giles' quiet disappointment that she is most bothered by. Bothered
enough to try to take Lagos on her own.
Willow: "Keeping secrets is a lot of work!" (pause) "One could,
hypothetically, imagine."
Buffy: "You have no idea."
Willow: (too emphatic) "None whatsoever!"
She's so cute.
I'm wondering if Willow is looking for an excuse to continue to keep her
and Xander's relationship a secret. Or maybe she's feeling that the secret
is what makes them suddenly so irresistible to each other. Forbidden
passion has forever been considered a turn-on, but I think Willow is
finding out that it only works in theory, not practice.
Buffy: "What makes you think all this secret stuff is sexy, anyway?"
Willow: "Nothing! I'm just wondering. Gotta keep asking the big old
questions when you're blessed with this girl's thirst for knowledge and...
okay, there's something I have to tell you."
What with the time it took Willow to get down to it, I just knew her
confession would never happen. (Willow: "... I want you to be the first
to know that... that... there's a demon behind you.") Hah!
I am unable to fast-forward through this fight scene as I usually do
because the cuts to Willow's reaction to the fight are so hilarious! Buffy
proves, once again, that a little initiative goes a long way against brute
strength when fighting demons. She can think fast enough on her feet to
use its own ax (?) to cut its head off. Willow's rah rah, thumbs up
cheering was priceless!
Buffy: "So. What were you saying?"
Willow: "Oh. I...I opened my SAT test booklet five minutes early.
Just doesn't seem important now, does it?"
Buffy: "Your secret's safe with me."
Xander's sudden about-face after he and Faith find Giles unconscious on
the floor just doesn't ring true. Now he's Mr. "think a minute"?
Faith: "Yeah, I'm thinking. Thinking Buffy's ex-meat did this."
Xander: "It's not Angel's style."
Faith: "The guy's a demon. How much more proof do you need?"
Xander: "Bite marks would be nice!"
This is yet another example of Xander's contradictory attitudes. I'll give
him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has grown beyond merely
being jealous of Angel and, while he still wants to destroy him, doesn't
want to condemn him in this instancewithout proof. Faith is a ticking
time bomb looking for any excuse after having her mind messed with by
the lovely Mrs. Post, and therefore understandable.
Why do television characters, when they only have a few words to say
before being carried out on a stretcher, utter such unhelpful ones? If
Giles only had strength for a sentence or two, wouldn't the words "Mrs."
and "Post" and "did this" have been helpful?
I also have a problem with Xander's attitude when Buffy arrives. It
would seem that Xander is back to blaming Angel. But no, he's telling
Buffy that *Faith* does. And he seems a little sheepish about it. Just
what are his feelings now? He's running so hot and cold, I've lost track.
Willow: (to Xander, before he can open his mouth) "Shut up and help
me!"
Mrs. Post: "That's what I love about this town. Everyone's so helpful."
Said after Angel has informed her where the glove is hidden, and
immediately after striking him in the back of the head with a shovel.
(What was that shovel doing there?)
Angel: (popping up, now with his "game face" on) "Okay, that hurt."
Shades of Angelus in the words. He's back and he ain't takin' no crap
from nobody!
Mrs. Post: "But it was supposed to kill you. If you'd been human, it
would have. But..." (snapping the shovel in half) "... I believe *this* is
your poison."
Faith must think she is about to lose yet another authority-figure, and
she's not about to let that happen. For his part, Angel thinks Faith is after
the glove along with Gwen. Thank goodness Buffy arrives in the nick.
Xander: "Think we got it?"
Willow: "Well, it's either the catalyst for living flame or just some really
smelly sand. We'll have to test this."
Xander: "I'll double-check." (he checks his book)
Willow: (off Xander's pause) "What?"
Xander: "I know what the glove does." (shows her the book)
Willow: "There's no time to test this!"
Who does Faith trust? Her new Watcher. Buffy and Faith *are* evenly
matched, though. (Note: Eliza's stunt double is a lot more noticeable
than Sarah's.)
Ow! Didn't that glove hurt? All those spikes going into Mrs. Post's arm!
Is it really worth it just to have lightening at your fingertips? What
practical uses would such a thing have? Unless there are other powers
which go along with it.
Mrs. Post: "Faith. A word of advice. You're an idiot."
Not only has she used Faith and betrayed her trust, she is now openly
taunting her. What a bitch.
Nice throw, Buff. That relatively small piece of glass, thrown just so,
was able to slice off Mrs. Post's arm, leaving her a pile of ashes and one
glove destined to become living flame.
Oz: "Sounds like I missed a lot of fun."
Xander: (bitter) "Then we're telling it wrong!"
Willow: "What do you think Buffy and Angel are gonna do?"
Xander: "Boy, do I don't know!"
Willow: "Well, he saved me from a horrible, flamey death. That sorta
makes me like him again."
Xander: "Well, as long as she and Angel don't get pelvic, we'll be okay,
I guess."
Buffy" (joining the group) "What're you guys talking about?"
Oz: "Oddly enough, your boyfriend. Again."
I guess the guys are starting to come to terms with the idea that Angel is
back and they're going to have to deal with him.
Xander: (to Buffy) "But I trust you."
Cordelia: "I don't. Just for the record."
Buffy: "Let me guess. Gwendolyn Post. Not a Watcher?"
Giles: "Yes, she was. She was, uh, kicked out by the Council a couple
of years ago for misuses of dark power. They swear there was a memo."
And, may I say that Giles looks like hell! What with the bandage and the
black eye and the swollen face, he looks like he got his head bashed in.
Oh, right. He did! Even Buffy is sporting a few bruises. They didn't
even look *this* bad at the end of "Becoming, Part 2."
What I liked best was that most of the issues that have been festering
below the surface since last season's finale have now been, to some
extent, dealt with. They have a way to go, but I feel that certain chapters
are now closed. (Except for the Xander/Willow thing. And how Buffy
and Angel are going to deal with each other. And Faith.)
As they add more details to Faith's story, I find myself sympathizing with
her more. I don't particularly like her yet, but she has qualities I've got to
admire. I can't think what they are right now, but I'm sure she must have
some. She has obviously been hurt and has a hard time trusting. Her
sojourn on the Hellmouth has not helped any. In fact, it has probably
added a few -isms to her already fragile psyche. (Girl's gotta go.)
Altogether, I thought it was a satisfying monster-of-the-week episode. It
fit nicely within the overall arc of where I see the season going, and
some of the scenes were powerful indeed. I feel as if, in some ways, I
can move on now and enjoy wherever they go from here.
elizabeth
Mike Zeares
>Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>
>s
>
>p
>
>o
>
>i
>
>l
>
>e
>
>r
>
>s
[Many snips throughout]
>This one was a heart-pounder right from the start! There wasn't as much
>witty dialogue as there was last week, but the action quotient was way up,
>and the emotional content very satisfying. That's what I love about
>this show: you never know what end of the spectrum you'll get from
>week to week.
That wacky Joss, he just keeps ya guessin'! That's why we love him.
>
>Buffy: "I wouldn't use the word 'dating.' But I am going out with
>somebody. Tonight as a matter of fact."
>(Does this show have a large lesbian following like, say, "Xena"? Or
>else, why the little hug between Buffy and Faith? It was suggestive,
>to say the least.)
Judging by the responses to the "lipstick lesbian" thread, I'd say the
answer is yes.
>Buffy: "Really, we're just friends."
The little frustrated slash-fic writer in me was having a fit by the end
of this ep. I'm trying to figure out a scenario that includes a hot
tub.
>Twelve cemeteries within the city limits. Pasadena doesn't even have
>one, outside of a few churchyards.
This fits nicely with Sunnydale's 47 churches. Although, the way bodies
disappear, you wouldn't think they'd need so many. Matter of fact,
after DEAD MAN'S PARTY, I guess the cemeteries are mostly empty, though
the townsfolk don't know it.
[Willow and Xander]
>They'd better find a solution soon, or something's gonna have to give. (I
>fear it might be Willow's good sense.)
>
Oh, I think that's been gone for awhile now. Heck, when you've nearly
been turned inside out by the spirit realm, fooling around with Xander
is nothing. I fear for Willow when the chickens come home to roost.
>Faith: "So, what about you?"
>Buffy: "You mean, like, me and guys me?"
>Faith: "Mm hmm."
>Buffy: "Not much to tell these days."
>Faith: "Yeah, but you gotta have stories. I mean, I've had my share of
>losers, but, you... you boinked the undead! What was that like?"
Bonus points for use of the word "boinked."
>
>Why did Giles invite Mrs. Post into his home? His personal space? To
>check out the books he keeps there? It hardly seems worth it.
>Mrs. Post: "The pictures are fun to look at, Mr. Giles, but one really
>ought to read the nice words, as well."
>I'm beginning to wonder why she is treating him with such contempt. We
>know that he is an educated man who can read five languages "on a
>normal day" and yet he lets her talk to him as if he were an incompetent
>imbecile.
>Giles: "Yes. Some tea perhaps."
I liked the way the tea kettle started whistling just after Mrs. Post's
last little dig there. Yes, I think Giles was just about at a boil.
>
>I also have a problem with Xander's attitude when Buffy arrives. It
>would seem that Xander is back to blaming Angel. But no, he's telling
>Buffy that *Faith* does. And he seems a little sheepish about it. Just
>what are his feelings now? He's running so hot and cold, I've lost track.
There may be another factor involved. Fear. Twice, Xander has
confronted Buffy rather forcefully, and both times she counter-attacked
(verbally, but in DMP I think she was about ready for violence). It may
have crossed Xander's mind, as he stood there looking at Buffy, that it
was perhaps possible to push her too far. I know that would be going
through my mind. The most frightening thing I've seen in the series to
date is STILL when Buffy turned on Xander in BB&B. ("So you're saying
this is just a game?")
>Willow: (to Xander, before he can open his mouth) "Shut up and help
>me!"
Even in the grip of dark forces beyond her control, Willow still rocks.
>Mrs. Post: "That's what I love about this town. Everyone's so helpful."
>Said after Angel has informed her where the glove is hidden, and
>immediately after striking him in the back of the head with a shovel.
>(What was that shovel doing there?)
It's in the script. Duh. ;)
>Ow! Didn't that glove hurt? All those spikes going into Mrs. Post's arm!
>Is it really worth it just to have lightening at your fingertips? What
>practical uses would such a thing have? Unless there are other powers
>which go along with it.
No, but there are all these nifty attachments. Destroy your enemies AND
make julienne (sp?) fries.
>
>Mrs. Post: "Faith. A word of advice. You're an idiot."
>Not only has she used Faith and betrayed her trust, she is now openly
>taunting her. What a bitch.
Everybody! -- Mrs. Post is a bitch, she's a big, big bitch, she's the
biggest bitch in the whole wide world....
>Willow: "Well, he saved me from a horrible, flamey death. That sorta
>makes me like him again."
>Xander: "Well, as long as she and Angel don't get pelvic, we'll be okay,
>I guess."
Bonus points for the use of the word "pelvic."
>I guess the guys are starting to come to terms with the idea that Angel is
>back and they're going to have to deal with him.
>Xander: (to Buffy) "But I trust you."
>Cordelia: "I don't. Just for the record."
Classic. Brutally honest and direct. Gotta love her.
>And, may I say that Giles looks like hell! What with the bandage and the
>black eye and the swollen face, he looks like he got his head bashed in.
>Oh, right. He did! Even Buffy is sporting a few bruises. They didn't
>even look *this* bad at the end of "Becoming, Part 2."
Faith was also bruised, at the left side of her mouth. Those Slayers
really did a number on each other.
>
>What I liked best was that most of the issues that have been festering
>below the surface since last season's finale have now been, to some
>extent, dealt with. They have a way to go, but I feel that certain chapters
>are now closed. (Except for the Xander/Willow thing. And how Buffy
>and Angel are going to deal with each other. And Faith.)
What scares me is the knowledge that the main arc of Season 2 didn't
really get going until the second half. All these issues being resolved
means that they're being cleared for the true horror that awaits.
>
>Altogether, I thought it was a satisfying monster-of-the-week episode. It
>fit nicely within the overall arc of where I see the season going, and
>some of the scenes were powerful indeed. I feel as if, in some ways, I
>can move on now and enjoy wherever they go from here.
Which will be straight to Hell in a handbasket, but it'll be fun
watching them. Ok, I realize that this is a rather twisted use of the
word "fun," but we all have our issues.
-- Mike Zeares
AUNTIELIB
>AUNTIELIB said:
>
>>Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>
>>s
>>
>>p
>>
>>o
>>
>>i
>>
>>l
>>
>>e
>>
>>r
>>
>>s
>
>[Many snips throughout]
>
>>Buffy: "Really, we're just friends."
>
>The little frustrated slash-fic writer in me was having a fit by the end
>of this ep. I'm trying to figure out a scenario that includes a hot
>tub.
ROTFLMAO! Is a threesome *every* man's dream?
>I liked the way the tea kettle started whistling just after Mrs. Post's
>last little dig there. Yes, I think Giles was just about at a boil.
Good observation. He was steaming!
>>I also have a problem with Xander's attitude when Buffy arrives. It
>>would seem that Xander is back to blaming Angel. But no, he's telling
>>Buffy that *Faith* does. And he seems a little sheepish about it. Just
>>what are his feelings now? He's running so hot and cold, I've lost track.
>
>There may be another factor involved. Fear. Twice, Xander has
>confronted Buffy rather forcefully, and both times she counter-attacked
>(verbally, but in DMP I think she was about ready for violence). It may
>have crossed Xander's mind, as he stood there looking at Buffy, that it
>was perhaps possible to push her too far. I know that would be going
>through my mind. The most frightening thing I've seen in the series to
>date is STILL when Buffy turned on Xander in BB&B. ("So you're saying
>this is just a game?")
That's a very good point. Now that I think about it, you may be right. I
thought of him as sheepish here, but it may very well have been fear.
>>(What was that shovel doing there?)
>
>It's in the script. Duh. ;)
Okay, so that's two unoriginal writing conventions in this ep. (They've still
got a ways to go before matching any other series on the air for script
contrivances.)
>>Willow: "Well, he saved me from a horrible, flamey death. That sorta
>>makes me like him again."
>>Xander: "Well, as long as she and Angel don't get pelvic, we'll be okay,
>>I guess."
>
>Bonus points for the use of the word "pelvic."
Hear! Hear!
>What scares me is the knowledge that the main arc of Season 2 didn't
>really get going until the second half. All these issues being resolved
>means that they're being cleared for the true horror that awaits.
Oh, yeah. Wait for what will come, indeed!
>>Altogether, I thought it was a satisfying monster-of-the-week episode. It
>>fit nicely within the overall arc of where I see the season going, and
>>some of the scenes were powerful indeed. I feel as if, in some ways, I
>>can move on now and enjoy wherever they go from here.
>
>Which will be straight to Hell in a handbasket, but it'll be fun
>watching them. Ok, I realize that this is a rather twisted use of the
>word "fun," but we all have our issues.
I think you and I have a similar definition of "fun". That's why we're *all*
here. For fun. I am *so* looking forward to my trip to hell in that
handbasket. (I call shotgun!)
elizabeth
Mike Zeares
>>
>>>Buffy: "Really, we're just friends."
>>
>>The little frustrated slash-fic writer in me was having a fit by the end
>>of this ep. I'm trying to figure out a scenario that includes a hot
>>tub.
>
>ROTFLMAO! Is a threesome *every* man's dream?
My dear Auntie Lib, you misunderstand. I'm talking about a scenario
with just Buffy and Faith in a hot tub, a la Xena and Gabrielle. I
would never be so pathetic as to write myself into a scene involving two
women. I just like to watch.
-- Mike Zeares
Ssnbrtn
>the loop, I'm surprised he can follow a conversation. How can he *not*
>know what's going on? Cordelia, I can understand. But Oz? The
>genius?
I think Oz may know something is up. He had a troubled look on his face when
he was playing in the band at the beginning of the episode.
Reepicheep
time together in the past long before either started with their respective dates now. And
everyone knows their background. So there is no reason for anyone to suspect anything is
"up" just because they're spending time together.
As for them acting a little "weird" - well in the Hellmouth, who doesn't from time to time?
ssn...@aol.com (Ssnbrtn) wrote:
>>Oz's "otherwhereness" is beginning to get on my nerves. He is so out of
>>the loop, I'm surprised he can follow a conversation. How can he *not*
>>know what's going on? Cordelia, I can understand. But Oz? The
>>genius?
>
>I think Oz may know something is up. He had a troubled look on his face when
>he was playing in the band at the beginning of the episode.
><> Reepicheep <><
><> Darkness to Light <><
><> http://www.dtl.org <><
Daniel Solomon
>Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>
>s
>
>p
>
>o
>
>i
>
>l
>
>e
>
>r
>
>s
>
You really should watch Xander more carefully. You have all these
preconceived notions about him and his actions.
>Xander: (to himself) "Hey, Giles! Here's a nifty idea. Why don't I
>alleviate my guilt by goin' out and gettin' myself really, really killed."
>I just don't buy guilt as Xander's primary motivation in all this. I'm not
>saying *he* doesn't think that's the reason, but I'm not convinced.
Please enlighten us as to his supposed motivation? He doesn't suspect
anything is going on. He just went to check out the information that
Giles uncovered. Remember there was a demon strolling about trying to
find the glove. It was only coincidence that he saw Angel.
>Oh, shit! If anyone had to discover Angel's reappearance, why did it
>have to be Xander? The person who hates him the most for the most
>immature of reasons? And what was Buffy doing back with Angel? I
>thought she was trying to be the saner of the two. Love really does make
>you do the wacky.
No, apparently love makes you do the insanely stupid and irresponsible.
>Buffy: "What're we doing? What are *you* doing?"
>Angel: "I don't know."
>Buffy: "Shame on you! Oh, God. I... I don't even know why I came
>back here."
I like how she blames Angel for *her* lack of restraint.
>Buffy: "I was going to tell you. I was! It was just that I... I didn't know
>why he came back. I just wanted to wait."
>Xander: "For what? For Angel to go psycho again the next time you
>give him a happy?"
>Buffy: "But I'm not going t..." (pause) "We're not together like that."
>
>Buffy: "It was wrong, okay, I know that. And I know that it can't happen
>again. But you guys have to believe me I would never put you in any
>danger. If I thought for a second that Angel was gonna hurt anyone..."
>Xander: "You would stop him. Like you did last time with Miss
>Calendar."
Did you intentionally leave out Oz's line about Buffy kissing Angel? That
makes a *huge* difference in how the scene plays out. She denys anything
happened between her and Angel when everyone knows she is lying.
>That was a low blow. Even for Xander. Jenny's death was not caused by
>anything Buffy knowingly did. She feels enough guilt about it as it is.
And yet she insists on behaving in the exact manner that led to Jenny's
death. Are you forgetting why Angel lost his soul?
>This whole "demons anonymous" intervention scene bothered me. On
>one level, it was good to get everything out into the open, but knowing
>what Angel is like now, I have trouble sympathizing with anyone but
>Buffy here. I can understand Cordelia's concern being for herself, but...
>well, I guess I didn't expect anything more from Xander, either. They're
>more suited to each other than I thought. Still, their fear doesn't justify
>ganging up on her like that. (Especially given the way they accept Oz.)
>And I don't understand Xander's vehemence. What *is* his deal? He
>doesn't have a right to be more outraged than anyone else, yet he is
>the leader of the outrage posse.
Buffy doesn't deserve sympathy. She is selfish, irresponsible, deceitful,
and completely concerned about the possible ramifications of her actions.
>Buffy: "Thanks for the bail in there. I know this is a lot to absorb, but
>Angel did find the glove and that was a good..."
>Giles: "Be quiet."
>(long pause)
>Giles: (continued) "I won't remind you that the fate of the world often
>lies with a slayer. What would be the point? Nor shall I remind you that
>you've jeopardized the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring a
>known murderer. But, sadly, I must remind you that Angel tortured me.
>For hours. For pleasure. You should've told me he was alive. You
>didn't. You have no respect for me, or the job I perform."
Giles really put her in her place. This scene especially rings true when
you consider the last scene in Innocence. She doesn't respect him. And I
still didn't get the impression that Buffy realizes how much damage she
has done.
>I'd like to know why Xander is so pissed. Maybe I'm having trouble
>seeing things from his side because I'm so sympathetic to Buffy and
>Angel? His anger seems out of proportion to that of the other members of
>the group. Either he's more complicated than I've given him credit for,
>or the writers can't decide how to portray him.
>Faith: "I say I slay."
>Xander: "Can I come?"
He is pissed at Buffy for lying to them. He probably still hasn't
forgiven her for running off. The fact that you are sympathetic to Buffy
and Angel shows that you seem to be ignoring the fact that Angel could
very well lose his soul again if Buffy were to continue as she was.
*That* is why Xander is so pissed.
>Xander's sudden about-face after he and Faith find Giles unconscious on
>the floor just doesn't ring true. Now he's Mr. "think a minute"?
>Faith: "Yeah, I'm thinking. Thinking Buffy's ex-meat did this."
>Xander: "It's not Angel's style."
>Faith: "The guy's a demon. How much more proof do you need?"
>Xander: "Bite marks would be nice!"
>This is yet another example of Xander's contradictory attitudes. I'll give
>him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has grown beyond merely
>being jealous of Angel and, while he still wants to destroy him, doesn't
>want to condemn him in this instancewithout proof. Faith is a ticking
>time bomb looking for any excuse after having her mind messed with by
>the lovely Mrs. Post, and therefore understandable.
I love how you dismiss Xander's actions here. You are showing your
obvious bias. Xander doesn't see Angel as in immediate threat, only a
potential threat. One constant throughout the entire series with Xander
has been willingness to help others in danger. The fact that you say that
it "doesn't ring true" shows that you really haven't been paying
attention.
- Dan Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
http://www.enteract.com/~dsolomon/
"No amount of planning will ever replace dumb luck."
AUNTIELIB
>(AUNTIELIB) wrote:
>>Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>
>>s
>>
>>p
>>
>>o
>>
>>i
>>
>>l
>>
>>e
>>
>>r
>>
>>s
>>
>
>You really should watch Xander more carefully. You have all these
>preconceived notions about him and his actions.
Actually, I'm confused. His actions are inconsistent. I'm not saying it's bad
writing or characterization, just human.
>Did you intentionally leave out Oz's line about Buffy kissing Angel? That
>makes a *huge* difference in how the scene plays out. She denys anything
>happened between her and Angel when everyone knows she is lying.
(I cut the line for length, not to make it appear that the scene played out any
differently.) She didn't deny anything happened. Just that they aren't
"...together like that." It's a little extreme to jump from a few kisses to
full-body contact. If they had known about the consequences the first time,
and done it anyway, there would've been more reason to be concerned. But it is
unfair to just blindly assume that they would be unable to keep from taking it
that far now that they know.
>And yet she insists on behaving in the exact manner that led to Jenny's
>death. Are you forgetting why Angel lost his soul?
No. I'm not. And it wasn't "smoochies". Her actions the first time around
were fueled by ignorance. That is no longer the case.
>Buffy doesn't deserve sympathy. She is selfish, irresponsible, deceitful,
>and completely concerned about the possible ramifications of her actions.
(You probably meant *un*concerned?) Anyway, I think you're being a little hard
on her. You have some issues with the whole Angel/Buffy relationship. I can
respect that, especially since you have stated them so eloquently in the past.
But...
As for Buffy?
Selfish? Well, yeah. She's seventeen and has a good chance of dying before
ever having a chance to experience a solid relationship. That's a pretty big
inducement to grab what she can while she can. Within limits. (Don't just
assume that she doesn't know those limits.)
Irresponsible? Probably. Having superpowers doesn't guarantee an overly
developed sense of responsibility. She's learning it as she goes along.
Deceitful? Yes. Again, though, it is understandable under the circumstances.
She has information the others do not. And those others are not always
rational themselves. She feels justified in protecting Angel, when the rest of
the group may act rashly without waiting for all of the information.
Unconcerned? I think not. She has been agonizing about her little secret for
weeks now. I agree that she can't always see straight when it comes to Angel,
but that doesn't mean she can't see anything else.
>Giles really put her in her place. This scene especially rings true when
>you consider the last scene in Innocence. She doesn't respect him. And I
>still didn't get the impression that Buffy realizes how much damage she
>has done.
Just how much damage has she done? Her not telling Giles was wrong, granted,
but I hope we're not heading for a "Xander Lied" marathon here. The issue was
important when everyone was in the dark regarding Angel's soul, or lack
thereof. Now that he is revealed to be good Angel, I think they can all move
on and learn to deal. The fear for the others was in the not knowing. (There
is a parallel to Oz here, which you failed to mention. They deal with that
danger very well. Why can't they deal with this?)
I think Buffy respects Giles, in her own way, but she has a lot of growing up
to do. You forget how young she is. Giles' little speech really brought home
to her the fact that her lack of trust has hurt him deeply. Her reaction
showed that. (And I don't think Micky is right that she was merely annoyed at
getting caught. The scene was played on a much deeper level than that.) She
already had some idea of how her deception would hurt him, but I think she
decided to take the lesser of two evils: hurting Giles, or protecting Angel.
She thinks, like any teenager, that when it comes to certain personal things,
she has all the answers.
>He is pissed at Buffy for lying to them. He probably still hasn't
>forgiven her for running off. The fact that you are sympathetic to Buffy
>and Angel shows that you seem to be ignoring the fact that Angel could
>very well lose his soul again if Buffy were to continue as she was.
>*That* is why Xander is so pissed.
His anger is still too extreme. The lie was proven to be a non-issue, now that
they know that it is the good Angel who is back. Her running away had little
to do with him, outside of what he *chose* to make of it so, again, under
normal circumstances, he should be moving on. And I'm not ignoring the threat
Angel poses, I'm just giving them a little more credit than you and Xander are.
>I love how you dismiss Xander's actions here. You are showing your
>obvious bias. Xander doesn't see Angel as in immediate threat, only a
>potential threat. One constant throughout the entire series with Xander
>has been willingness to help others in danger. The fact that you say that
>it "doesn't ring true" shows that you really haven't been paying
>attention.
The turn-around, as written, was too abrupt. It didn't play as if Xander was
only concerned for Giles at the moment and willing to put off killing Angel
until after Giles had been taken care of. He was suddenly expressing doubts
with something he was *real* sure about only a few minutes earlier. I don't
have a bias against Xander. I like him. I just think *he* has a bias against
Angel. And it makes him act inconsistently.
We all have our issues on this newsgroup. You have a problem with the
Angel/Buffy, older man/teenager, vampire/slayer relationship. Micky has a
problem with the way Buffy treats Giles and what she sees as Buffy's lack of
regard for and trust in him. David Hines *really* has a problem with
plot-holes and bad writing. There are others, but I can't put a name to the
issue, so I'll quit there. What are mine? A too-romantic view of things,
perhaps? Or a willingness to overlook what others consider obvious problems?
I don't know. I can't really see the sub-text in my posts all that clearly.
The point is, our issues color how we judge the characters and we can't always
get away from that. (Myself included.) It makes for some lively discussion,
though.
elizabeth
Jennifer Matthews
>
> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>
> s
>
> p
>
> o
>
> i
>
> l
>
> e
>
> r
>
> s
> the loop, I'm surprised he can follow a conversation. How can he *not*
> know what's going on? Cordelia, I can understand. But Oz? The
> genius?
I like Oz's "otherwhereness" primarily because I suspect that it's not.
My fantasy is that some episode, in the very near future, we get to see
him and Willow together (as opposed to Xander and Willow) and see him
trying
to find out what's up. I think he may know something odd is going on;
he just
may not know quite what to do about it.
>
<snip>
> Her denigration of Giles' reference collection is not funny. At least *I'm*
> not laughing. You know, if she's trying to win friends and influence
> people, she's doing a piss-poor job of it.
I didn't like Giles being treated like this, either. At the same time,
it's
precisely what I expected from a representative of the group that didn't
invite
him to their conference. 'Course, it begged the question of *why*
anyone treats
him this way all evening. If he stinks so bad, how did he become a
watcher in
the first place? No answers forthcoming, however.
<snip>
> Buffy: "Mmmm. Academic probation's not so funny today, huh Giles?"
Y'know, I found this unsupportive to the extreme, particularly since
Buffy is
back in school due to Giles.
<snip>
>
> I'm surprised that Faith went with her so meekly. The way she rebels, I
> expected more of an argument. Another reason to suspect that Faith is
> mostly talk in some ways.
Well, I saw it more as Faith trying to cut Giles a break. The woman
just got
down telling them they were all under review, and I saw Faith as trying
not to
make any more trouble. Which, I suppose, does follow the "mostly talk"
accusation.
She says she doesn't like authority figures, but she does seem to like
Giles . . .
<snip>
>
> Buffy's mentioning that she was on her way to "...vent a little hormonal
> angst by going out there and killing a Lagos" was an odd bit of
> exposition. There was no reason for her to say it. The scene was over
> and she was almost out the door. The only reason I can see was to give
> Angel the piece of information. It was awkward, to say the least.
The big argument in my house erupted over how Angel knew about the
glove. If
you'll recall, Buffy says Lagos needs to find a magic thing-a-ma-gig.
Angel seems
to know not only what it is, but where. I say that's what comes of
spending lots of
time in Hell, getting to know the demons and all the gossip associated
with them.
Other members of my household thought this was just an oversight in the
script.
However, like you, we all managed to shrug it off.
<snip>
> Whereupon, Willow grabs his face and gives him a great big kiss. Wasn't
> that her fantasy in an earlier episode? Or was it that Xander would grab
> *her* and...? While Willow and Xander's predicament is played mostly
> for laughs, it is also quite serious for those involved.
I like the way this is being handled between the actors, and it makes
sense to me;
at least when I look at it from Willow's perspective. I'm not sure I
understand what's
going on with Xander, but whatever. The only concern I have is that
Willow manages to
convolute her keeping this situation secret into a reason to justify and
accept Buffy's
keeping Angel's return a secret. The two situations aren't the same,
and I don't like
them being linked (unchallenged) in the show.
<snip>
>
> Oh, shit! If anyone had to discover Angel's reappearance, why did it
> have to be Xander?
That's a rhetorical question, right? :)
>The person who hates him the most for the most immature of reasons?
Xander's hatred of Angel is only immature if you ascripe it to
jealousy. Otherwise,
there's several reasons to hate him that don't necessarily have an
immature basis.
<snip>
> (Buffy realizes that Angel, as the older, supposedly wiser, of the two of them,
> bears more than half of the responsibility for keeping control of their encounters.
Which is silly to the extreme.
> But Angel, even if he is 241, isn't any more in control of himself when he's around her than
> any other man in love. No matter how old.)
Well, I guess. Maybe I could feel more strongly about this if it wasn't
for the fact
that David is playing Angel in a way that reminds me of Harrison Ford's
portrayal of Han
Solo in "Return of the Jedi." In both cases, the characters tend to
walk around and have
nothing very interesting to say. In fact, they act a bit hung-over. My
point being that
whatever is going on with Angel, I want to give him coffee . . . I don't
see him as a man
madly in love.
>
<snip>
> Willow: "Nobody's here to blame you, Buffy. But this is serious. You
> need help."
> Buffy: "It's not what you think."
> Xander: "Hope not. 'Cause I think you're harboring a vicious killer."
> Willow: "This isn't about attacking Buffy. Remember, *I* statements
> only. *I* feel angry. *I* feel worried."
> Cordelia: "Fine. Here's one. I feel worried. About me! Last time
> around, Angel barely laid a hand on Buffy. He was way more interested
> in killing her friends!"
I had mixed feelings about this scene. On the one hand, I thought it
made sense to have
everyone confront Buffy (particularly since they clearly talked about
*how* to do it); but
at the same time, I wasn't sure I liked the idea of her being ganged up
on. Now, don't
misunderstand. I firmly believe that Buffy is in the wrong here. Not
in terms of
letting Angel live; but in terms of not telling *everyone* the risk she
was running.
Cordelia's point (as usual) is on the money. If Angel goes psycho
again, then it's not
only Buffy (and Buffy won't be first) feel the impact of that. Even so,
I'm not sure it was right to let everyone have a chance to vent.
<snip>
> Xander: "You would stop him. Like you did last time with Miss
> Calendar."
> That was a low blow. Even for Xander.
It was mean and petty for him to walk all over Giles's grief in order to
lash out at Buffy.
I was very disappointed in him.
<snip>
> Still, their fear doesn't justify ganging up on her like that. (Especially given the way
> they accept Oz.) And I don't understand Xander's vehemence. What *is* his deal? He doesn't
> have a right to be more outraged than anyone else, yet he is the leader of the outrage posse.
I believe that Xander's problem here is the same problem he's had since
Buffy ran away. Yeah,
she's the Slayer and everything, but they all threw in with her, and
have made her problems
their problems. If I were in his shoes, I would be deeply resentful of
the fact that she denies
her friends any say on issues whose ramifications have consequences to
them. Buffy may be right
in that part of Xander's anger stems from jealousy (but I don't think he
would have ever liked
Angel). Frankly, I think Xander's anger stems from his feeling that
Buffy choses Angel over
the rest of the group. And, in that context, I can see his point.
However, Giles expresses this the best. He should have been the one to
talk and I would
have been happy.
<snip>
>
> Mrs. Post: "But that is not important. Let him have his games and secret
> meetings."
> Faith: "What meetings?"
> Mrs. Post: "Oh, I don't know. Something with Buffy and her friends."
> Faith: "Oh, right. I guess that doesn't include me."
All I'm gonna say about this is that I firmly believe Faith would have
been included, had
it not been for Mrs. Post. Still, I felt awfully sympathetic to Faith
when she reacted to
the news she'd been cut out of something. She cares about the Scooby
Gang, and I'm sorry
to see her hurt here.
<snip>
>
> Buffy: "So, on a scale of one to a million, how much are you hating me
> right now?"
> Willow: "Zero! You were scared, you kept a secret.
Uh, okay. Like I said, I really hate the way Willow equates her secret-
keeping to Buffy's. I'll also note that it bugs me that Buffy and
Willow
talk about this for, like, ever. See, I remember that Willow's a withc;
and since I would like to make things happy for the gang and keep Angel
alive, I guess I'd ask my witchy friend if we can figure out if Angel's
still cursed, and whether or not we can do anything about it.
Oh well.
<snip>
> And by prissy Mrs. Post, of all people. I may have been suspicious, but I didn't see
> *this* coming.
No, I didn't either. Partly because I knew that somebody would someday
come to get Faith. I
just accepted Mrs. Post and moved on from there . . .
<snip>
>
> Xander's sudden about-face after he and Faith find Giles unconscious on
> the floor just doesn't ring true.
Oh, I don't know. I guess the issue may be that I understand Xander's
attitude, and don't feel
that he's irrational. In that context, there is no realistic connection
between finding Giles
hurt and Angel. Xander expects certain behavior from Angel and this
isn't it. So, he slows down.
<snip>
> Faith is a ticking time bomb looking for any excuse after having her mind messed with by
> the lovely Mrs. Post, and therefore understandable.
Faith is a slayer and slayers are supposed to take out vampires. Angel
is a vampire, and hence,
Faith is inhabiting a lovely black and white world. The fact that she's
pissed off at Buffy is
only adding to the urgency.
>
<snip>
> (What was that shovel doing there?)
For that matter, what is Mrs. Post doing there? Giles didn't tell her
*where* the glove was;
nor did he tell her *who* had it. Ah well, I forgive the writers . . .
BTW: remember how I said that Angel was acting a bit hung-over. Here's
a really good example
of that. See, when the hag showed up and told him Giles sent her, I
wanted Angel to haul off and
come up-side her head then and there. Unless I've gone nutty, didn't
Buffy tell him she was
keeping him a secret cuz she was worried everyone would freak?
<snip>
> Mrs. Post: "Faith. A word of advice. You're an idiot."
This was so mean . . . I guess I'm liking Faith.
BTW: I liked the fact that both Buffy & Faith sport bruises after the
fight. Not that
I'm sadistic or anything; I just think it's cool that they can hurt each
other when practically
nothing else can.
<snip>
> Buffy" (joining the group) "What're you guys talking about?"
> Oz: "Oddly enough, your boyfriend. Again."
>
> I guess the guys are starting to come to terms with the idea that Angel is
> back and they're going to have to deal with him.
> Xander: (to Buffy) "But I trust you."
> Cordelia: "I don't. Just for the record."
I'd still feel better about all of this if we could move it away from a
"trust" issue. I won't get
into my feelings on this "moment of true happiness" crap, then can't
Willow change the spell? She
cast it after all. But, my point here is that I'd rather she a
discussion about that, as opposed
to the above.
All in all, I really liked it. 'Course, I can hardly wait 'til next
week and the return of
one of my favorites!
-Jen
C Barrans
>
> AUNTIELIB wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
> >
> > s
> >
> > p
> >
> > o
> >
> > i
> >
> > l
> >
> > e
> >
> > r
> >
> > (What was that shovel doing there?)
When the three vampires first moved into the mansion, Dru did discuss the
possibility of sleeping underground. And maybe she did a little
nighttime gardening?
> For that matter, what is Mrs. Post doing there? Giles didn't tell her
> *where* the glove was;
> nor did he tell her *who* had it. Ah well, I forgive the writers . . .
I believe he told her that it was being kept in such-and-such mansion by
a friend of Buffy's. Then he turned to prove to Mrs. Post that it was
possible to destroy the glove, and she knocked him out. One would think
that Giles would stop keeping heavy objects in his library unless they're
under lock and key--he's been attacked enough times in there by now!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Science is not the way to find answers to all our questions.
Science is a way to find better questions.
Victor J. Pusateri
>dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
>>(AUNTIELIB) wrote:
>>>Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>>
>>>s
>>>
>>>p
>>>
>>>o
>>>
>>>i
>>>
>>>l
>>>
>>>e
>>>
>>>r
>>>
>>>s
>>>
>>
>>You really should watch Xander more carefully. You have all these
>>preconceived notions about him and his actions.
>
>Actually, I'm confused. His actions are inconsistent. I'm not saying it's
bad
>writing or characterization, just human.
>
>
>
i will immediately cop to my "issues" in that i agree with xander re:angel
and have since day one. with that admission of [possible ;-)] bias out of
the way, let me say that i don't think the change from "kill angel now" to
"maybe angel didn't do this" was too abrupt on xander's part. my reasons:
1) the obvious thing: giles is still alive. angel is known for finishing the
job.
2) angel is known for torturing his victims and leaving them for their loved
ones to find. giles knocked out in the library doesn't quite fit that mo.
3) no bite marks
4) he doesn't yet know that buffy has killed lagos -- for all he knows, the
demon could have attacked giles -- okay, that's far-fetched, but still. . .
it's enough to make him doubt that angel attacked giles.
as for his anger about catching buffy and angel making with the smoochies [i
love that expression], sure there's a smidge of jealousy. however, let's
look at it from a less paranormal angle:
you have a friend [say, who you also work with] who dated a guy who wound up
treating her *very* badly - you could even say he's been abusive. they break
up, and she runs away, leaving you to pick up the slack at work. she comes
back, and expects everything to return to how it was, even though you've
been covering for her for 3 months and still have issues between you to be
resolved.
then you find out she's secretly seeing the boyfriend who was so very very
bad before, and that she's lied to you about it. you are going to be angry -
at least i would be angry. that she lied. that she's putting herself back
into a very dangerous situation. that your friendship, which has been
tenuous lately due to all the circumstances outlined above, could very well
break down altogether over this issue [i've got friends who don't speak now
because of this type situation]. you get the impression that she'd chose
this loser over her friends if given the chance ["it's not like that. . .
he's better now"], even with all that's happened, and that ticks you off as
well.
i think those are perfectly good reasons to be angry. the smidge of jealousy
fuels the fire. add in the supernatural aspects, such as seeing this
boyfriend offer a violent and horrible death to all you hold dear -- never
forget how xander reacts to willow being put in danger [from wswb - "if they
hurt willow, i'll kill you"]. i think his anger was fitting, just as i think
his behavior when finding giles fits. he's shown ease under pressure in the
past - in fact, it's probably where he's at his best, thinking-wise.
wow, sorry to be so long-winded. i hope this makes sense.
victoria
if woody had gone to the police, this never would have happened.
Don Sample
>Jennifer Matthews wrote:
>>
>> AUNTIELIB wrote:
>> >
>> > Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>> >
>> > s
>> >
>> > p
>> >
>> > o
>> >
>> > i
>> >
>> > l
>> >
>> > e
>> >
>> > r
>> >
>> > s<much snipped>
>> > (What was that shovel doing there?)
>
>When the three vampires first moved into the mansion, Dru did discuss the
>possibility of sleeping underground. And maybe she did a little
>nighttime gardening?
If Angel had been doing the living flame thing out in the garden, then I
could understand the shovel being there, but in the living room?
I also noticed tonight that the house has lovely sky lights to go along
with its big windows. No wonder Spike was so thrilled with it.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Case Lovecraft
AUNTIELIB wrote:
> Xander: (to himself) "Hey, Giles! Here's a nifty idea. Why don't I
> alleviate my guilt by goin' out and gettin' myself really, really killed."
> I just don't buy guilt as Xander's primary motivation in all this. I'm not
> saying *he* doesn't think that's the reason, but I'm not convinced.
Based on what? Your comment reflects prejudice. Staff writers have asaying - if
it's not on the page, it's not on the stage.
> Oh, shit! If anyone had to discover Angel's reappearance, why did it
> have to be Xander? The person who hates him the most for the most
> immature of reasons?
Yeah, hate a murderer - not mature. Here's a reason. Angel tried tokill Willow.
> That was a low blow. Even for Xander. Jenny's death was not caused by
> anything Buffy knowingly did.
Do you watch the show? Buffy let Angel walk out of the mall at the endof S/I -
she had him down - then walked away. That was/is/am Buffy's fault.
Buffy accepted Jenny's death was her fault in the last scene of Passion and
restated it in KBD.
> I'd like to know why Xander is so pissed. Maybe I'm having trouble
> seeing things from his side because I'm so sympathetic to Buffy and
> Angel? His anger seems out of proportion to that of the other members of
> the group. Either he's more complicated than I've given him credit for,
> or the writers can't decide how to portray him.
How about this. He has a problem with creatures who kill a largenumber of people.
> Xander's sudden about-face after he and Faith find Giles unconscious on
> the floor just doesn't ring true. Now he's Mr. "think a minute"?
Again - do you actually watch the show? Xander has shown an eye fordetail since
the first episode.
> This is yet another example of Xander's contradictory attitudes. I'll give
> him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has grown beyond merely
> being jealous of Angel and, while he still wants to destroy him, doesn't
> want to condemn him in this instancewithout proof.
Again - there's no proof Xander is jealous of Angel. The jealousy thingwas
invented on this group and the posting board. There's no
proof he hated Angel until after S/I.
CL
Tom Vallejos
>
> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>
> s
>
> p
>
> o
>
> i
>
> l
>
> e
>
> r
>
> s
>
opening scene Oz, Willow, Xander, and Cordelia at the Bronze...
> Willow and Xander grab for the cup simultaneously and, in their
> nervousness, fling it onto some unsuspecting by-bystanders. Their little
> secret is beginning to take its toll. Willow has developed a little twitch
> and Xander's hair looks like Einstein's. On a *good* day.
>
> Oz's "otherwhereness" is beginning to get on my nerves. He is so out of
> the loop, I'm surprised he can follow a conversation. How can he *not*
> know what's going on? Cordelia, I can understand. But Oz? The
> genius?
Willow and Xander are two of the unlikeliest people to "cheat" on their
partners. Before there is a cry of "Hey what about last year when Willow
caught Xander and Cordy making out in the stacks," Willow and Xander
weren't a couple then, despite Willow's hopes. Color them guilty.
I think Cordy wouldn't know unless she catches them in liplock. The
reason is simply that NO one cheats on Cordelia Chase, especially with
someone like Willow. This is not a slam on Willow, I don't think that CC
could believe such a situation would happen.
In Oz's case, it may simply be the guy is the last one to know. That is
too pat, I just don't know...
>
> Willow: "Hey! Speaking of people and... things they do that aren't like
> usual. Anyone notice Buffy acting sort of... different?"
> (Willow's dialogue is full of ellipses. She has mastered the art of the
> fractured run-on sentence. And yet, she still manages to make sense.)
She has also mastered the art on how to change the subject while keeping
others from catching on.
snip to part where Buffy and Faith hug.
> Buffy: "I wouldn't use the word 'dating.' But I am going out with
> somebody. Tonight as a matter of fact."
> (Does this show have a large lesbian following like, say, "Xena"? Or
> else, why the little hug between Buffy and Faith? It was suggestive,
> to say the least.)
> Buffy: "Really, we're just friends."
>
some people read too much into a couple of attractive young women
hugging. It's, uh, what are we talking about?
snip: Buffy and Faith fighting vamps and Mrs. Post arrives.
> Mrs. Gwendolyn Post.: "Sloppy. You telegraph punches. Leave blind
> sides open and, uh, for a school-night slaying, take entirely too much
> time. Which one of you is Faith?"
> Faith's new Watcher is... um... How can I put this delicately? A smug
> bitch. At first glance, she seems to be doing a poor imitation of Giles.
She reminded me of Emma Peel. I wonder what she looks like in a catsuit?
snip
>
> Twelve cemeteries within the city limits. Pasadena doesn't even have
> one, outside of a few churchyards.
helps takes care of the unnecessary deaths.
snip
> Willow: "Stop."
> Xander: "Right. Stop means no, and no means no so um ... stop."
> Whereupon, Willow grabs his face and gives him a great big kiss. Wasn't
> that her fantasy in an earlier episode? Or was it that Xander would grab
> *her* and...? While Willow and Xander's predicament is played mostly
> for laughs, it is also quite serious for those involved.
I think the laugh stuff is more 50-50.
>
> And Giles is so oblivious!
Have to look at that again...if so, he's to be commended.
>
snip
> Faith: "Yeah, but you gotta have stories. I mean, I've had my share of
> losers, but, you... you boinked the undead! What was that like?"
great line, best of night IMHO.
snip
>
>
> Oh, shit! If anyone had to discover Angel's reappearance, why did it
> have to be Xander? The person who hates him the most for the most
> immature of reasons?
I think your a little hard on Xander. At one time he had it bad for
Buffy, but more recent events and passions has toned downed his feelings
for her.
snip
> Giles: "We know Angel is alive. Xander saw you with him. It would
> appear that you've been hiding him and that you lied to us."
> (Willow is such a little mediator.)
>
snip
>
> Giles: (continued) "I won't remind you that the fate of the world often
> lies with a slayer. What would be the point? Nor shall I remind you that
> you've jeopardized the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring a
> known murderer. But, sadly, I must remind you that Angel tortured me.
> For hours. For pleasure. You should've told me he was alive. You
> didn't. You have no respect for me, or the job I perform."
> Gulp. Giles' quiet little speech made a bigger impact than screaming ever
> could have. He was hurt and disappointed and not afraid to let her see
> that. And he was very eloquent in the simplicity and emotion of his
> message. I think this, more than anything else anyone could've said,
> impressed on Buffy the seriousness of what she has done.
I thought this confronattion scene was one of teh best scenes of the
episode.
snipped bonding dialogue and 'meetings" comment
> I'm not sure whether Mrs. Post really believes that isolating Faith will
> make her a better slayer, or if she has more subversive motives for tearing
> her down.
My alrm bells started to ring. I think this may have been telgarphed too
easily.
snip
--
Tom Vallejos
to email me remove "nospam" from address
email: flying...@nospamearthlink.net
Cordelia: "So, does looking at guns really make girls wanna' have sex?
That's scary."
Xander: "Yeah, I guess."
Cordelia: "Well, does looking at guns make you wanna' have sex?"
Xander: "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna' have sex."
Daniel Solomon
>dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
>>(AUNTIELIB) wrote:
>>>Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>>
>>>s
>>>
>>>p
>>>
>>>o
>>>
>>>i
>>>
>>>l
>>>
>>>e
>>>
>>>r
>>>
>>>s
>>>
>>
I apologize for being a little testy. I normally try to be more moderate
in my debates.
>(I cut the line for length, not to make it appear that the scene played out any
>differently.) She didn't deny anything happened. Just that they aren't
>"...together like that." It's a little extreme to jump from a few kisses to
>full-body contact. If they had known about the consequences the first time,
>and done it anyway, there would've been more reason to be concerned. But it is
>unfair to just blindly assume that they would be unable to keep from taking it
>that far now that they know.
>
>>And yet she insists on behaving in the exact manner that led to Jenny's
>>death. Are you forgetting why Angel lost his soul?
>
>No. I'm not. And it wasn't "smoochies". Her actions the first time around
>were fueled by ignorance. That is no longer the case.
Which is why this time around it is much more serious. The fact that she
is making very little effort to stop herself is worrisome. Also, it may
not have to be a sexual encounter that could trigger his happiness. After
committing all those heinous acts as Angelus and being sent to hell for a
few centuries, just being with Buffy, having her kiss him, and knowing
that she forgives him may be enough to make him happy. The problem is
that we don't know what it will take, but they should err on the side of
caution, for all their sakes.
>>Buffy doesn't deserve sympathy. She is selfish, irresponsible, deceitful,
>>and completely unconcerned about the possible ramifications of her actions.
>
>(You probably meant *un*concerned?) Anyway, I think you're being a little hard
>on her. You have some issues with the whole Angel/Buffy relationship. I can
>respect that, especially since you have stated them so eloquently in the past.
Actually, I don't have issues with the Buffy/Angel relationship. I have
issues with renewing the Buffy/Angel relationship. I liked the
relationship, and dramatically having Angel lose his soul was brilliant
because of all of the issues that have come up. Passion wouldn't have
been nearly as powerful without the Buffy/Angel relationship. I would
side with Xander on the whole staking Angelus for the same reasons he
gave. I tend to be more pragmatic, and at the time, with what they knew,
killing him was the best first option. Now that he is back and his soul
appears to be intact, I don't think it would be necessary to kill him.
However, Buffy should be showing much more self-control.
>But...
>
>As for Buffy?
>Selfish? Well, yeah. She's seventeen and has a good chance of dying before
>ever having a chance to experience a solid relationship. That's a pretty big
>inducement to grab what she can while she can. Within limits. (Don't just
>assume that she doesn't know those limits.)
>Irresponsible? Probably. Having superpowers doesn't guarantee an overly
>developed sense of responsibility. She's learning it as she goes along.
>Deceitful? Yes. Again, though, it is understandable under the circumstances.
>She has information the others do not. And those others are not always
>rational themselves. She feels justified in protecting Angel, when the rest of
>the group may act rashly without waiting for all of the information.
>Unconcerned? I think not. She has been agonizing about her little secret for
>weeks now. I agree that she can't always see straight when it comes to Angel,
>but that doesn't mean she can't see anything else.
You don't paint a particularly stellar picture of her. My point was that
Buffy is often viewed as misunderstood and sympathetic, while Xander is
viewed as vile and selfish. I am just trying to hold up a mirror to
Buffy's actions and show that most of the times her actions are just as
bad as Xander's are characterized.
>>Giles really put her in her place. This scene especially rings true when
>>you consider the last scene in Innocence. She doesn't respect him. And I
>>still didn't get the impression that Buffy realizes how much damage she
>>has done.
>
>Just how much damage has she done? Her not telling Giles was wrong, granted,
>but I hope we're not heading for a "Xander Lied" marathon here. The issue was
>important when everyone was in the dark regarding Angel's soul, or lack
>thereof. Now that he is revealed to be good Angel, I think they can all move
>on and learn to deal. The fear for the others was in the not knowing. (There
>is a parallel to Oz here, which you failed to mention. They deal with that
>danger very well. Why can't they deal with this?)
It is not quite the same situation. Oz is predictable and controllable.
They can plan for what happens to him. Angel is still an unknown. The
whole Angelus situation was extrememly traumatic for everyone. When they
saw Buffy not only hiding Angel, but starting to get romantically involved
again, they understandably would be a little wigged out. There would not
have been such an intense reaction if Buffy hadn't been kissing Angel.
>I think Buffy respects Giles, in her own way, but she has a lot of growing up
>to do. You forget how young she is. Giles' little speech really brought home
>to her the fact that her lack of trust has hurt him deeply. Her reaction
>showed that. (And I don't think Micky is right that she was merely annoyed at
>getting caught. The scene was played on a much deeper level than that.) She
>already had some idea of how her deception would hurt him, but I think she
>decided to take the lesser of two evils: hurting Giles, or protecting Angel.
>She thinks, like any teenager, that when it comes to certain personal things,
>she has all the answers.
True, but it was more than just the deception. I'm sure that he is still
hurt that she abandoned him after he had been tortured by Angelus. I was
especially glad that he brought that up. It must have been extremely
traumatic for him to go through that, and to have Buffy just leave without
seeing him or contacting him must have nearly destroyed him. The fact
that Buffy still didn't see that is why she doesn't respect him. At the
end of Passion she embraces him and claims how much she needs him, but
completely disregards how much he needs her.
>>I love how you dismiss Xander's actions here. You are showing your
>>obvious bias. Xander doesn't see Angel as in immediate threat, only a
>>potential threat. One constant throughout the entire series with Xander
>>has been willingness to help others in danger. The fact that you say that
>>it "doesn't ring true" shows that you really haven't been paying
>>attention.
>
>The turn-around, as written, was too abrupt. It didn't play as if Xander was
>only concerned for Giles at the moment and willing to put off killing Angel
>until after Giles had been taken care of. He was suddenly expressing doubts
>with something he was *real* sure about only a few minutes earlier. I don't
>have a bias against Xander. I like him. I just think *he* has a bias against
>Angel. And it makes him act inconsistently.
I will agree that he does have a bias against Angel, which is for the most
part justified. However I took the appearance of Giles clubbed and laying
on the floor as snapping Xander out of his mood. It was supposed to be
abrupt. I'd say that his demeanor at the Bronze was very much like his
demeanor when he cornered Amy in BBB. It is a particularly ugly side of
him, I will admit, and I think he wasn't justified in either going after
Angel or goading Faith into it. I just want to make myself clear on that
point. I don't feel that Angel should die now. What I liked was that
when he saw Giles, he immediately went from the angry Xander to the noble
Xander. His issues were still there, but they were pushed to the back by
more important matters, and he was able to see that it most likely wasn't
Angel. We saw the same exact thing in Innocence after Angel nearly kills
Willow and Buffy runs off. Xander doesn't focus on Angel, he focuses on
the Judge and the way to stop him. What you see as inconsistent, I see as
multi-faceted :-)
AUNTIELIB
>
>s
>
>p
>
>o
>
>i
>
>l
>
>e
>
>r
>
>s
>
>I apologize for being a little testy. I normally try to be more moderate
>in my debates.
Apology accepted. (Even though what you call "testy" I call spirited debate.)
<snipped the stuff about which I had nothing to say>
>Actually, I don't have issues with the Buffy/Angel relationship. I have
>issues with renewing the Buffy/Angel relationship.
Good point.
>I liked the relationship, and dramatically having Angel lose his
>soul was brilliant because of all of the issues that have come up.
>Passion wouldn't have been nearly as powerful without the
>Buffy/Angel relationship. I would side with Xander on the whole staking
Angelus for the same reasons he
>gave. I tend to be more pragmatic, and at the time, with what they knew,
>killing him was the best first option. Now that he is back and his soul
>appears to be intact, I don't think it would be necessary to kill him.
>However, Buffy should be showing much more self-control.
I agree she should, but she's too young to. And I don't agree that anything
other than sexual contact would cause Angel to lose his soul. They did
everything *but* last season. It took intercourse to accomplish it. I don't
see that anything has changed.
>You don't paint a particularly stellar picture of her.
I see Buffy as human. (I spend a lot of time with one of my nieces who is
fifteen. She is loud, obnoxious, selfish and has an opinion on *everything*.
She is also interesting, funny, smart and caring. In other words, she is a
*teenager*. I'm being realistic.)
>My point was that Buffy is often viewed as misunderstood and sympathetic,
>while Xander is viewed as vile and selfish. I am just trying to hold
>up a mirror to Buffy's actions and show that most of the times her
>actions are just as bad as Xander's are characterized.
You succeeded very well. But the problem is, *I* have never seen Xander as
vile or selfish. I think he has been painted as a very complex, human
character who does lots of things with no clear motiviation, just like...
surprise!... real people do. When I said I didn't nderstand his anger, I meant
that I didn't understand it, not that there was anything wrong with it. But
you did a good job of pointing out that Buffy and Xander are both acting out of
self-interest. (I think, being a woman, and a romantic, heterosexual woman at
that, I see Buffy's motivation more clearly than I do Xander's.)
>It is not quite the same situation. Oz is predictable and controllable.
>They can plan for what happens to him. Angel is still an unknown. The
>whole Angelus situation was extrememly traumatic for everyone. When they
>saw Buffy not only hiding Angel, but starting to get romantically involved
>again, they understandably would be a little wigged out. There would not
>have been such an intense reaction if Buffy hadn't been kissing Angel.
I agree totally with this. They had good reason to freak out at first.
>True, but it was more than just the deception. I'm sure that he is still
>hurt that she abandoned him after he had been tortured by Angelus. I was
>especially glad that he brought that up. It must have been extremely
>traumatic for him to go through that, and to have Buffy just leave without
>seeing him or contacting him must have nearly destroyed him. The fact
>that Buffy still didn't see that is why she doesn't respect him. At the
>end of Passion she embraces him and claims how much she needs him, but
>completely disregards how much he needs her.
I agree that Giles was probably hurt at her not coming to see him after his
torture, but I don't think it is that big an issue with him now. Giles is a
grownup. He understood that she had other things on her mind. I think her
hiding Angel brought back the hurt, but I also think he was bringing up those
feelings to shame her, as a good mentor would, into doing the right thing. He
was using it as an opportunity for her to grow and learn. I still maintain,
however, that her not understanding his hurt doesn't come from lack of respect.
It comes from lack of maturity and experience. (And, yes, from selfishness.)
But not disrespect. She knows and appreciates most of what he does for her.
It's just that she feels his meddling in what she sees as her personal life is
not in his job description.
>I will agree that he does have a bias against Angel, which is for the most
>part justified. However I took the appearance of Giles clubbed and laying
>on the floor as snapping Xander out of his mood. It was supposed to be
>abrupt. I'd say that his demeanor at the Bronze was very much like his
>demeanor when he cornered Amy in BBB. It is a particularly ugly side of
>him, I will admit, and I think he wasn't justified in either going after
>Angel or goading Faith into it. I just want to make myself clear on that
>point.
You have. After reading many of the posts on the subject, I am beginning to
see his actions differently here. Someone already brought up the fact that
when Xander faces Buffy, he is probably scared of pushing her too far. I can
see where that might be the case. You may be right here, as well. I'll have
to watch it again with that in mind.
>I don't feel that Angel should die now. What I liked was that
>when he saw Giles, he immediately went from the angry Xander to the noble
>Xander. His issues were still there, but they were pushed to the back by
>more important matters, and he was able to see that it most likely wasn't
>Angel. We saw the same exact thing in Innocence after Angel nearly kills
>Willow and Buffy runs off. Xander doesn't focus on Angel, he focuses on
>the Judge and the way to stop him. What you see as inconsistent, I see as
>multi-faceted :-)
I think we're each using a different word to describe the same thing. Damn!
There goes the argument! It's a good thing, too, because if it had gone on any
longer, we really *would've* had to re-name the thread "Xander Lied Redux".
elizabeth
David Adrien Tanguay
> Again - there's no proof Xander is jealous of Angel. The jealousy thingwas
> invented on this group and the posting board.
Actually, there're several little indications in the first season, when
he was effectively still in competition with Angel. The last reference
I think is in Halloween, "Give it up, Cordy. You're never gonna get
between those two. Believe me, I know.", following his "dead boy"
comment in Lie to Me. That said, I agree that many people play the
jealousy as a lot more than it was.
> There's no
> proof he hated Angel until after S/I.
Prophecy Girl and What's My Line both show this. Again, some people
overplay it. In both cases (jealousy and hatred, pre-S/I) I don't think
that Xander was against Angel personally, but rather for what Angel was,
a rival for Buffy and a vampire. After Phases and Theresa, the hatred
became personal and intense.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.on.ca http://www.thinkage.on.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Chris Hart
Jennifer Matthews wrote...
>AUNTIELIB wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>
>> s
>>
>> p
>>
>> o
>>
>> i
>>
>> l
>>
>> e
>>
>> r
>>
>> s
>
>
>Y'know, I found this unsupportive to the extreme, particularly since
>Buffy is
>back in school due to Giles.
I took this as casual joking and a bit of empathy rather than being
unsupportive. Buffy is just saying that's she's been there herself, and
she can empathize with Giles' position.
>> I'm surprised that Faith went with her so meekly. The way she rebels,
I
>> expected more of an argument. Another reason to suspect that Faith is
>> mostly talk in some ways.
>
>Well, I saw it more as Faith trying to cut Giles a break. The woman
>just got
>down telling them they were all under review, and I saw Faith as trying
>not to
>make any more trouble. Which, I suppose, does follow the "mostly talk"
>accusation.
>She says she doesn't like authority figures, but she does seem to like
>Giles . . .
Ok, my take on this is a bit different from either of yours and may be
off, but... I see Faith going along so easily with Post because she
*wants* a strong authority figure. Her problem is not having people with
authority over her, but the fact that they leave her--they get killed. I
see Faith as lonely and lost and trying to hide it and get over it with
her attitude. Things really haven't changed much since her introduction
in FHT; it's a basic character trait rather than just a one-time issue
with Kakistos. Faith talks big, but that scene near the end--sitting on
the bed alone--just blew me away with the pain of her loneliness. Her
need for an authority figure is just part of this. Certainly it's
significant that in all this time there has been no mention of her
parents. There's another extremely important pair of authority figures in
her life that she is (evidently) cut off from. This is not the same as
Buffy in Anne. Buffy as Anne was alone, but she still had a mother she
could go home to, along with Giles and her friends. Faith doesn't even
have that; why else is she continuing to hang around in Sunnydale? Having
someone she could really trust, especially an authority figure such as a
watcher, would be a real improvement for her.
> The only concern I have is that
>Willow manages to
>convolute her keeping this situation secret into a reason to justify and
>accept Buffy's
>keeping Angel's return a secret. The two situations aren't the same,
>and I don't like
>them being linked (unchallenged) in the show.
Does this really need to be challenged? It seems to me this is one of
those moral judgement questions that the audience can decide for itself.
I am with you in thinking that Willow is not thinking straight in
connecting the two secrets, and is acting inappropriately by justifying
Buffy's secret with her own, but I don't think we need the writers to tell
us this. It could be done well if the issue were dealt with in the future
between the characters, but I think it remains more effective to have the
audience see it without the show explicitly challenging it.
>Well, I guess. Maybe I could feel more strongly about this if it wasn't
>for the fact
>that David is playing Angel in a way that reminds me of Harrison Ford's
>portrayal of Han
>Solo in "Return of the Jedi." In both cases, the characters tend to
>walk around and have
>nothing very interesting to say. In fact, they act a bit hung-over. My
>point being that
>whatever is going on with Angel, I want to give him coffee . . .
LOL
>I had mixed feelings about this scene. On the one hand, I thought it
>made sense to have
>everyone confront Buffy (particularly since they clearly talked about
>*how* to do it); but
>at the same time, I wasn't sure I liked the idea of her being ganged up
>on.
I agree. It feels a bit too much like the gang-up-on-Buffy scene in DMP
(albeit with less crying...). Now that episode I liked; the gang-up scene
worked so well because it was an unpremeditated release of strong, pent-up
emotions. In this episode, however, it *is* premeditated (to some extent
anyway). So it just seems like not such a good idea to allow that sort of
confrontation.
>> Xander: "You would stop him. Like you did last time with Miss
>> Calendar."
>> That was a low blow. Even for Xander.
>
>It was mean and petty for him to walk all over Giles's grief in order to
>lash out at Buffy.
>I was very disappointed in him.
I agree again. This is not Xander's best side. He plays the Jenny
Calender card a little too readily, both here and in Becoming 1. It does
seem extremely insensitive towards Giles to use that in such a cavalier
manner.
>However, Giles expresses this the best. He should have been the one to
>talk and I would
>have been happy.
Yes and no. Xander's confrontation of Buffy was rude and overblown, but
dramatically the contrast between him and Giles is so striking because we
get both of them confronting her in different ways. Giles quiet but
forceful speech to Buffy was all the more powerful after seeing Xander
lose his head. It can be easy for Buffy--and the audience--to downplay
the Angel issue because Xander goes so overboard with it. Having Giles
express his feelings afterwards, however, brings the issue back with a
vengence. The whole contrast worked really well for me.
>All I'm gonna say about this is that I firmly believe Faith would have
>been included, had
>it not been for Mrs. Post. Still, I felt awfully sympathetic to Faith
>when she reacted to
>the news she'd been cut out of something. She cares about the Scooby
>Gang, and I'm sorry
>to see her hurt here.
I see your point, but I can't agree. Faith did *not* belong in that
meeting, regardless of whether Mrs. Post was an issue or not. Faith may
have a place in the Scooby Gang, but she wasn't there when they had to
deal first-hand with Angelus. This is between Buffy and the Scooby Gang,
and Faith has no place in that discussion, regardless of whether or not it
makes her feel left out.
>See, I remember that Willow's a withc;
>and since I would like to make things happy for the gang and keep Angel
>alive, I guess I'd ask my witchy friend if we can figure out if Angel's
>still cursed, and whether or not we can do anything about it.
If I am reading you correctly, you are still willing to question whether
the 'moment of happiness' escape clause still exists in Angels current
curse. To me this is just another issue much like the Xander's lie issue.
It's a popular item of discussion among people in the newsgroup, but it is
a complete non-issue with the writers of the show. We can fairly safely
assume that the current curse works exactly the same as the old one,
complete with the moment of happiness bit. And even if this is an
incorrect assumption, it still is not a question for the characters.
Clearly from this episode they do assume that the curse is the same--thus
the "pelvic" comment.
>> And by prissy Mrs. Post, of all people. I may have been suspicious,
but I didn't see
>> *this* coming.
>
>No, I didn't either. Partly because I knew that somebody would someday
>come to get Faith. I
>just accepted Mrs. Post and moved on from there . . .
Of course the question of whether Faith will be assigned a new full-time
watcher, and if not why not, is still left hanging. Nice trick with the
fake watcher, but isn't it about time a real watcher showed up?
>> (What was that shovel doing there?)
It's a good thing I read this newsgroup because otherwise questions like
this would never occur to me, and I would remain completely oblivious.
:-)
>For that matter, what is Mrs. Post doing there? Giles didn't tell her
>*where* the glove was;
>nor did he tell her *who* had it. Ah well, I forgive the writers . . .
Being VCR-less, I can't go back and check, but as I recall Giles did tell
Post exactly where Angel and the glove were right before she bopped him.
He told her something to the effect of a friend of his had the glove in
that mansion at 235 Crawford Street or wherever. I remember thinking it
was awfully convenient that he gave her an exact adress to find Angel.
(On the other hand my memory is atrocious, so no guarantees of my being
right...)
>> Mrs. Post: "Faith. A word of advice. You're an idiot."
Gotta love the needless cruelty... (If you're gonna be evil, why do it
halfway?)
>I'd still feel better about all of this if we could move it away from a
>"trust" issue. I won't get
>into my feelings on this "moment of true happiness" crap, then can't
>Willow change the spell? She
>cast it after all. But, my point here is that I'd rather she a
>discussion about that, as opposed
>to the above.
I already expressed my (not so humble) opinion on this, but I will add
that I doubt it is up to Willow to change the spell. Sure Willow can cast
spells and has some knowledge of witchcraft, but I doubt she has the
requisite skills or knowledge to modify the curse. It seems to me that
it's a heck of a powerful spell, and really not something she would want
to mess with even if she thought she could. And if she does attempt it
and fails, does she run the risk of negating the curse altogether,
resulting in evil Angel again? Not something to be taken lightly...
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hart
cjh...@peachnet.campus.mci.net
--------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
away." --Philip K. Dick
Chris Hart
Victor J. Pusateri wrote in message
+ADw-734gm4+ACQ-stq+AEA-bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net+AD4-...
.
.
.
The usual spoilers below, etc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
+AD4-i will immediately cop to my +ACI-issues+ACI- in that i agree with xander
re:angel
+AD4-and have since day one. with that admission of +AFs-possible +ADs--)+AF0- bias out of
+AD4-the way, let me say that i don't think the change from +ACI-kill angel now+ACI-
to
+AD4AIg-maybe angel didn't do this+ACI- was too abrupt on xander's part. my reasons:
+AD4-
+ADw-snipped reasons+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-it's enough to make him doubt that angel attacked giles.
I don't think Xander even needs those reasons (good as they are) to doubt
that Angel was the attacker. He saw himself Angel and Buffy making with
the smoochies, so he knows Angel is not evil at the moment. The very fact
that they were kissing rather than fighting should have made this clear.
And no matter how evil Angelus was, good Angel would never have reason to
do something like that to Giles.
+AD4-as for his anger about catching buffy and angel making with the smoochies
+AFs-i
+AD4-love that expression+AF0-, sure there's a smidge of jealousy. however, let's
+AD4-look at it from a less paranormal angle:
+AD4-
+ADw-hate to snip that, but...+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-wow, sorry to be so long-winded. i hope this makes sense.
+AD4-
+AD4-victoria
Not only did it make sense, but it was by far the best explication and
vindication of Xander's position I have seen yet. Bravo. Frankly it does
make Xander seem a little more reasonable when put in such mundane terms.
Also it fits in with the allegorical nature of BtVS both specifically and
in general. Specifically, this point was made in the Beauty and the
Beasts episode. I felt it was pretty clear that a connection was being
drawn between the relationship of Buffy and Angel and the relationship of
Hyde-boy and his abused girlfriend (drawing a blank on names here)--these
are not healthy relationships. Also in general BtVS does work the
allegory bit, with the experiences of everyday life translated into the
literally world-threatening events in the Buffyverse. It is not
surprising to see that this issue has its mundane counterpart, making it
much easier to identify with and understand.
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hart
cjhart+AEA-peachnet.campus.mci.net
--------------------------------------------------------
+ACI-Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
away.+ACI- --Philip K. Dick
Hildegard Hettinger
Daniel Solomon wrote:
> In article <19981119035019...@ng140.aol.com>, aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) wrote:
> >Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
> >
> >s
> >
> >p
> >
> >o
> >
> >i
> >
> >l
> >
> >e
> >
> >r
> >
> >s
> >
>
> >Buffy: "What're we doing? What are *you* doing?"
> >Angel: "I don't know."
> >Buffy: "Shame on you! Oh, God. I... I don't even know why I came
> >back here."
>
> I like how she blames Angel for *her* lack of restraint.
Well, I saw her blaming angel more as a belated attempt at damage control. Just like she never
told him that Scott dumped her, letting angel believe she is still involved with some else, so is
she trying to throw him of track here, by blaming him for a kiss she in all likelyhood started
herself.
> >Buffy: "Thanks for the bail in there. I know this is a lot to absorb, but
> >Angel did find the glove and that was a good..."
> >Giles: "Be quiet."
> >(long pause)
> >Giles: (continued) "I won't remind you that the fate of the world often
> >lies with a slayer. What would be the point? Nor shall I remind you that
> >you've jeopardized the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring a
> >known murderer. But, sadly, I must remind you that Angel tortured me.
> >For hours. For pleasure. You should've told me he was alive. You
> >didn't. You have no respect for me, or the job I perform."
>
> Giles really put her in her place. This scene especially rings true when
> you consider the last scene in Innocence. She doesn't respect him. And I
> still didn't get the impression that Buffy realizes how much damage she
> has done.
I think one thing that made Giles react so severe was all the crap he's been taking from Mrs.
Post. She's been working at him every chance she gets. and finding out about Buffy hiding angel
after he just assured Mrs. Post that he had his slayer totally under control, and that in front of
her.... that had to affect his reaction on top of everything else. He had been snapping at
everyone in this episode, and under the circumstances, I think his reaction was actully rather
restrained.
Don Sample
>AUNTIELIB wrote:
>
>> Xander: (to himself) "Hey, Giles! Here's a nifty idea. Why don't I
>> alleviate my guilt by goin' out and gettin' myself really, really killed."
>> I just don't buy guilt as Xander's primary motivation in all this. I'm not
>> saying *he* doesn't think that's the reason, but I'm not convinced.
>
>Based on what? Your comment reflects prejudice. Staff writers have asaying -
>if it's not on the page, it's not on the stage.
It wasn't so much going to the graveyard that was alleviating his guilt.
It was that his guilt made him have to come up with an excuse to get out of
the library quick, and checking out the crypt was the first thing that came
to mind. Once he said he'd do it he was stuck with it.
Liv
>In article <3655BD...@erols.com>, C Barrans <cbar...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Jennifer Matthews wrote:
>>>
>>> AUNTIELIB wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>> >
>>> > s
>>> >
>>> > p
>>> >
>>> > o
>>> >
>>> > i
>>> >
>>> > l
>>> >
>>> > e
>>> >
>>> > r
>>> >
>>> > s<much snipped>
(again)
>I also noticed tonight that the house has lovely sky lights to go along
>with its big windows. No wonder Spike was so thrilled with it.
----------------------
Damn, you're right. Every vamps favourite decorating motif.....why is
the damn thing vacant to begin with, yet in such good shape? Hell of
a weird town......
Liv
garba...@Ziplink.net
take out the garbage to reply
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing...
Tom Vallejos
>
> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>
> s
>
> p
>
> o
>
> i
>
> l
>
> e
>
> r
>
> s
>
snip
> Mrs. Post: "The Council wishes me to report on the entire situation here.
> Including you."
> Buffy: "Mmmm. Academic probation's not so funny today, huh Giles?"
snip
> Mrs. Post: "The fact is, there is talk in the Council that you have become
> a bit too... American."
> Giles: "Me?"
> Buffy: "Him?"
>
Why is it we Americans think that an upper class British accent is a
sign of intelligence? If Giles' is any indication, the other watchers
and the council still rely on snail mail and a huge library for
research. I have nothing against library's, i love them, but for rapid
information retrieval a computer beats it hands down, provided an
adequate database. Not to mention that no one accietly scans another
demon that was trapped into the book on to the computer. :)
snip
> Willow and Buffy have a very healthy friendship. It doesn't take
> long before they are on their way to forgiving and moving on.
> (Willow's own secret is giving her a push in the right direction.)
> Buffy: "So, on a scale of one to a million, how much are you hating me
> right now?"
> Willow: "Zero! You were scared, you kept a secret. You know, it's
> okay. I mean, secrets aren't bad, you know, they're normal, they're
> better than normal, they're good. Secrets are good. Must be a reason
> why we keep 'em, right?"
> She had *me* convinced. Wonder if she managed to convince
> herself? (Doubt it. Doubt it very much.)
Agree with that. willow really wants to tell Buffy, but she is so guilty
and embarrased. Her shyness factor has dropped by quite a bit since she
started dating Oz.
snip
> I'd like to know why Xander is so pissed. Maybe I'm having trouble
> seeing things from his side because I'm so sympathetic to Buffy and
> Angel? His anger seems out of proportion to that of the other members of
> the group. Either he's more complicated than I've given him credit for,
> or the writers can't decide how to portray him.
Let's see why Xander may be pissed: top 5 reasons
5) Xander had wanted Buffy too, but she wanted Angel and Angel wanted
Buffy
4) Buffy boinked the undead namely Angel
3) Angel killed Teresa (a classmate) and harrased all of Buffy's
friends.
2) Angel killed Ms Calendar
1) Angel trie to destroyed the world not once but twice!
> If Giles gets conked on the head one more time, I swear I'm going to go
> postal myself! It can't be good for his mental processes to have his brains
> bashed around in his skull so often. And by prissy Mrs. Post, of all
> people. I may have been suspicious, but I didn't see *this* coming.
The alarm bells came on with her telling Faith of the "secret meeting."
> Right up until the moment Giles informed her he had found the glove
> and that a friend of Buffy's was guarding it, she was innocent-seeming,
> if overbearing. Okay, her eyes did light up at the mention of the glove,
> and she was genuinely shocked at Giles' suggestion that they destroy
> it, but.... The lady wields a mean club.
>
>
>
> Why do television characters, when they only have a few words to say
> before being carried out on a stretcher, utter such unhelpful ones? If
> Giles only had strength for a sentence or two, wouldn't the words "Mrs."
> and "Post" and "did this" have been helpful?
Reminds me of a Get Smart ep where max and 99 were trying to get info
from a dying Agent, but he died. They found a scrawl by his body and max
realized it's a Control death scrawl, agents were supposed to leave
these if they were dying...
Has it occured to you that if Giles was able to get out a sentence or
"Post" or "That Bitch" he would've been a little more coherent than that
bump on the head would've had allowed for. :-)
>
> I also have a problem with Xander's attitude when Buffy arrives. It
> would seem that Xander is back to blaming Angel. But no, he's telling
> Buffy that *Faith* does. And he seems a little sheepish about it. Just
> what are his feelings now? He's running so hot and cold, I've lost track.
Feels guilty about jumpinmg all over her.
> Mrs. Post: "That's what I love about this town. Everyone's so helpful."
> Said after Angel has informed her where the glove is hidden, and
> immediately after striking him in the back of the head with a shovel.
> (What was that shovel doing there?)
Didn't Angel bring it with him when he brought in the glove?
snips
>
> Mrs. Post: "Faith. A word of advice. You're an idiot."
> Not only has she used Faith and betrayed her trust, she is now openly
> taunting her. What a bitch.
remind Faith not to send her a Christmas card. Too late, Gwen buys it
here.
>
> Nice throw, Buff. That relatively small piece of glass, thrown just so,
> was able to slice off Mrs. Post's arm, leaving her a pile of ashes and one
> glove destined to become living flame.
very Sam Raimi-like
more snips
> As they add more details to Faith's story, I find myself sympathizing with
> her more. I don't particularly like her yet, but she has qualities I've got to
> admire. I can't think what they are right now, but I'm sure she must have
> some. She has obviously been hurt and has a hard time trusting. Her
> sojourn on the Hellmouth has not helped any. In fact, it has probably
> added a few -isms to her already fragile psyche. (Girl's gotta go.)
Fragile? Sure. But wouldn't yours be?
>
> elizabeth
--
Tom Vallejos
email: flying...@earthlink.net
"May I be frank? I only started talking with you on that ice floe out of
sheer boredom. Now you've got an opinion on virtually everything."
(Fraser to Diefenbaker)
---- From DUE SOUTH episode "Chicago Holiday"
Tom Breton
>
> >> Xander: "You would stop him. Like you did last time with Miss
> >> Calendar."
> >> That was a low blow. Even for Xander.
> >
> >It was mean and petty for him to walk all over Giles's grief in order to
> >lash out at Buffy.
> >I was very disappointed in him.
>
>
> I agree again. This is not Xander's best side. He plays the Jenny
> Calender card a little too readily, both here and in Becoming 1. It does
> seem extremely insensitive towards Giles to use that in such a cavalier
> manner.
You Xander-bashers have no justification for this either. Why should
Xander not have mentioned her murder? Especially while her murderer
is the topic of conversation, and conversation sneaking towards
sympathetic?
What's really cavalier and smacks of ulterior motive is the use of
Giles as some sort of token victim, just to slam Xander. I would
think Giles should be more aggrieved that Jenny's murder is forgotten
or swept aside!
Where I think that is coming from is that in Xander-bashers' minds,
Xander is *defined as* bad, so if he says something important and
moving, he "must be" {impertinent, low, cavalier, insensitive, uppity}
for doing so, him being the mere unworthy Xander that he is. It must
be some sort of dirty trick, him sounding noble like that, because you
*know* he's bad...
I think if Willow'd said the same, we'd hear the sort of effusive
admiration we heard after Reptile Boy instead. The difference is,
Willow is defined as "good".
--
Tom Breton
I use ugh-free spelling. You can too.
draperj
> <snip> SPOILER SPAKCES
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Why is it we Americans think that an upper class British accent is a
> sign of intelligence? If Giles' is any indication, the other watchers
> and the council still rely on snail mail and a huge library for
> research. I have nothing against library's, i love them, but for rapid
> information retrieval a computer beats it hands down, provided an
> adequate database. Not to mention that no one accietly scans another
> demon that was trapped into the book on to the computer. :)
> snip
> >
world the Watchers' didn't have at least a computerized library
(surprised I never wondered about it before - guess old books are more
appealing and realistic to me!) Of course, it wouldn't have been as
dramatic to have Willow type 'Lagos' into a search engine ... Who
knows; maybe if Jenny Calender hadn't been murdered, Giles would have
made some tentative steps into the computer age by now. Personally, I
would rather have seen Willow continue on with Jenny's computer work
than her experimentation with witchcraft.
Don Sample
>AUNTIELIB wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>>
>> s
>>
>> p
>>
>> o
>>
>> i
>>
>> l
>>
>> e
>>
>> r
>>
>> s
>>
>
>snip
>> Mrs. Post: "The Council wishes me to report on the entire situation here.
>> Including you."
>> Buffy: "Mmmm. Academic probation's not so funny today, huh Giles?"
>
>snip
>
>> Mrs. Post: "The fact is, there is talk in the Council that you have become
>> a bit too... American."
>> Giles: "Me?"
>> Buffy: "Him?"
>>
>
>Why is it we Americans think that an upper class British accent is a
>sign of intelligence?
Maybe because at their core most Americans wish they were upper class
Brits? The whole reason for the American Revolution was because the Brits
were treating the Yanks like a bunch of colonials, not the aristocrats they
thought they were.
>If Giles' is any indication, the other watchers
>and the council still rely on snail mail and a huge library for
>research. I have nothing against library's, i love them, but for rapid
>information retrieval a computer beats it hands down, provided an
>adequate database. Not to mention that no one accietly scans another
>demon that was trapped into the book on to the computer. :)
>snip
Nothing wrong with libraries, if you know how to use them. Knowledge of
how to use a card catalogue will get you all sorts of useful information.
(Books also have the advantage that they continue to work when there is a
power failure.)
I really do think that the Watchers should scan and OCR all their books
into a database, and properly index it all, but they shouldn't toss the
paper books when they are done. As Giles said in I Robot--You Jane:
The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... It has no,
texture, no context. It's there and then it's gone. If it's
to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, tangible,
it should be um ... smelly.
Isaac Asimov once wrote an article in which he layed out the requirements
for the ideal information storage and retreaval device: hand held, random
access, independant of external power sources, and a bunch of other
requirements. The device that met his requirements: A book.
Can books be improved upon? Sure they can, but there is still something
about them. I can go to www.gutenberg.com and pick up the full text of
many classic books, but for books that I want to read I would much rather
pick them up at a local book store. The Gutenberg versions are great for
'reference'. If I want to know just where "Once more unto the breach"
appears in Henry V I can look it up in the version I have saved on my HD,
but if I want to _read_ Henry V again I'll pick up the version I have
sitting on my book shelf.
Tom Vallejos
> >>
> >> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
> >>
> >> s
> >>
> >> p
> >>
> >> o
> >>
> >> i
> >>
> >> l
> >>
> >> e
> >>
> >> r
> >>
> >> s
> >>
> >
snips
> >Why is it we Americans think that an upper class British accent is a
> >sign of intelligence?
>
> Maybe because at their core most Americans wish they were upper class
> Brits? The whole reason for the American Revolution was because the Brits
> were treating the Yanks like a bunch of colonials, not the aristocrats they
> thought they were.
Aristocrats? It has been determined that something like 1/3 of the
populace supported the revolution while 1/3 were loyalists, 1/3 didn't
care. I think that the attitude about upper class accents comes from
more recent events of the 19th and twentieth centuries.
According to "The Story Of English," the upperclass British acccent is
one the 'requirements' for a career.
>
> >If Giles' is any indication, the other watchers
> >and the council still rely on snail mail and a huge library for
> >research. I have nothing against library's, i love them, but for rapid
> >information retrieval a computer beats it hands down, provided an
> >adequate database. Not to mention that no one accietly scans another
> >demon that was trapped into the book on to the computer. :)
> >snip
>
> Nothing wrong with libraries, if you know how to use them. Knowledge of
> how to use a card catalogue will get you all sorts of useful information.
> (Books also have the advantage that they continue to work when there is a
> power failure.)
Most of the libraries around (SF Bay Area, California) here have retired
the card catalog and replaced with a computer retrieval system
>
> I really do think that the Watchers should scan and OCR all their books
> into a database, and properly index it all, but they shouldn't toss the
> paper books when they are done. As Giles said in I Robot--You Jane:
>
> The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... It has no,
> texture, no context. It's there and then it's gone. If it's
> to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, tangible,
> it should be um ... smelly.
>
> Isaac Asimov once wrote an article in which he layed out the requirements
> for the ideal information storage and retreaval device: hand held, random
> access, independant of external power sources, and a bunch of other
> requirements. The device that met his requirements: A book.
>
> Can books be improved upon? Sure they can, but there is still something
> about them. I can go to www.gutenberg.com and pick up the full text of
> many classic books, but for books that I want to read I would much rather
> pick them up at a local book store. The Gutenberg versions are great for
> 'reference'. If I want to know just where "Once more unto the breach"
> appears in Henry V I can look it up in the version I have saved on my HD,
> but if I want to _read_ Henry V again I'll pick up the version I have
> sitting on my book shelf.
I don't any of Shakespeare's works except on CD.
>
> --
> Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
For you and me and the non-watcher world where rapid info retrieval
isn't a requirement for survival of the world, musty old books are fine.
Nor do I think that tossing the books away after scanning them is a
bright idea. Blackouts can happen, did two years ago here. Most of the
West Coast was knocked for several hours. But there such things as
independent power sources like back-up generators, batteries and even
solar panels.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981120041123...@ng139.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
: dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
:: [...] Oz's line about Buffy kissing Angel [...] makes a *huge*
:: difference in how the [intervention] scene [in "Revelations"] plays
:: out. She denys anything happened between her and Angel when everyone
:: knows she is lying.
: She didn't deny anything happened. Just that they aren't "...together
: like that." It's a little extreme to jump from a few kisses to
: full-body contact.
It hardly a great leap. I've gone at this from two different angles
using the, "How do we trust mentally ill killers enough to give them
their freedom?" angle. If that doesn't impress you, then let's use the
metaphor they brought up more than once in the story: chemical
addiction.
If an alcoholic has killed because he goes into a rage when drunk, then
surely the chief condition of society giving him his liberty is that he
never drink again. What Xander witnessed was the equivalent of Buffy
and Angel having themselves one drink and then saying, "Oh, no, we can't
do this. We might get drunk," and pouring the rest of the bottle down
the drain. Maybe they'll never take another drink again but maybe they
will. Why should society be willing to put every single human being
alive at risk just waiting around to find out while these two push at
the limits of their self-control? The fact that I don't personally
think that Buffy and Angel will ever make love again is irrelevant to
the others' clear right to demand something more reassuring than getting
blown off.
I didn't make up the addiction analogy. Buffy was the one who asked if
they made a patch for their condition, and while she was dismissive of
the "Demons Anonymous" intervention, Giles -- note, not Xander, but
Giles -- seemed to think she did need one. Prominent features of
addiction are denial that there is a problem, denial that it's anyone
else's business, denial that any help is needed, and once the initial
appeasement is made, an attempt to deny the damage done and brush aside
the consequences. You don't have to go so far as to get drunk (or in
this case, "Give Angel a happy") in order to need help. You call your
AA sponsor if you take just a single drink. You're playing with fire.
Now, that briefly covers Buffy's side of it. There's still the matter
of the stake the others have in it all. In normal society we submit our
actions to the rule of law because no one's judgment is perfect and
above the scrutiny of others. Everyone is accountable to everyone else.
The situation in the Buffyverse is different since the supernatural is
beyond the ken and reckoning of normal human society. However, Buffy is
not in this alone. There are other rational beings who both can and
should be consulted on matters that affect not only them, but the entire
world. Buffy is not some sort of absolute monarch to dictate policy to
the others and to the world, holding both her motives and her judgment
above scrutiny. She holds herself accountable to nothing and no one.
That shows not only a lack of respect for Giles, but for them all.
: But it is unfair to just blindly assume that they would be unable to
: keep from taking it that far now that they know.
"Unfair"?? They do not OWE Angel and Buffy the chance to destroy the
world again without good-faith tokens of trustworthiness, which Angel
and Buffy have failed UTTERLY to provide. The world is not morally
obligated to sit back and bite its collective fingernails wondering
whether Angel and Buffy will be able to successfully practice "smoochus
interruptus" the next time.
:: Buffy doesn't deserve sympathy.
I can spare her a little sympathy for having a hard life, while still
insisting she's wrong, wrong, wrong. Pulling the "I'm just a poor
victim" defense is fine for pity, but it gets you zero trust.
:: She is selfish, irresponsible, deceitful, and completely
:: [un]concerned about the possible ramifications of her actions.
: I think you're being a little hard on her.
How hard should one be on someone who has flirted with the end of the
world and dismissed the implications? This wasn't just a teenage
peccadillo. It involved far more than just Buffy; it involved far more
than just Buffy and Angel. Yet she refused to acknowledge that. All
the way through, as far as she was concerned, the only pertinent issue
was whether or not Angel was good-Angel. She rejected the others'
concerns, their feelings, and their very rights as human beings. She
OWED them convincing reassurances that she (and Angel) could be trusted,
but instead of providing those reassurances, she dismissed the entire
idea, which, frankly, inspires even less trust than before.
You bet I'm hard on her.
: As for Buffy?
: Selfish? Well, yeah. She's seventeen and has a good chance of dying
: before ever having a chance to experience a solid relationship.
: That's a pretty big inducement to grab what she can while she can.
: Within limits. (Don't just assume that she doesn't know those
: limits.)
Elsewhere you present her youth as a mitigating reason as to why she
doesn't show more self-control, which therefore makes the argument that
she will respect her own limits *antithetically* unpersuasive. Once
again, the world does not owe her the opportunity to probe hers and
Angel's limits, especially when they want to sneak around everyone
else's backs without moral accountability.
: Deceitful? Yes. Again, though, it is understandable under the
: circumstances.
Understandable, but not justifiable. Even murder in a jealous rage is
"understandable" from the standpoint of seeing what gave rise to the
motive.
: She has information the others do not.
That's one of her *transgressions*, not one of her excuses.
: And those others are not always rational themselves. She feels
: justified in protecting Angel, when the rest of the group may act
: rashly without waiting for all of the information.
That doesn't hold a drop of water. She always had the option of going
privately to Giles, who, in the vast majority of instances, has been far
more rational than she, not to mention more mature, more intelligent,
and more experienced. The idea that she was the only one both
entitled and qualified to decide what was best for Angel and all of
humanity was intolerably arrogant. Once Angel was verbal and no longer
had to be chained up to make him nonhazardous, Buffy was fresh out of
excuses and rationalizations. Where does she get off deciding that
only her judgment and feelings are worth considering?
: Unconcerned? I think not. She has been agonizing about her little
: secret for weeks now.
She's been worried about getting caught, not about the injury she's
caused others. She has said nothing counter to that.
: I agree that she can't always see straight when it comes to Angel, but
: that doesn't mean she can't see anything else.
But the former is an *indictment* of her trustworthiness on the matter,
not a mitigation of her guilt, and the latter does not equal an
entitlement to make decisions for the world.
:: Giles really put her in her place. This scene especially rings true
:: when you consider the last scene in Innocence. She doesn't respect
:: him. And I still didn't get the impression that Buffy realizes how
:: much damage she has done.
:
: Just how much damage has she done?
I've been saying this for weeks before "Revelations": how can Giles
trust her at all? How can Slayer and Watcher work together under these
kinds of conditions when she doesn't trust him?
She STILL has not apologized, to Giles or anyone else. That door is
still open. She can still avail herself of it. I'm hoping, but I'm not
making bets.
: The issue was important when everyone was in the dark regarding
: Angel's soul, or lack thereof. Now that he is revealed to be good
: Angel, I think they can all move on and learn to deal. The fear for
: the others was in the not knowing.
That's not the only issue by a long shot. Of course, Buffy thought that
was the only issue. She went into Giles' office bubbling about how
helpful Angel was being and had to be yanked hard around to seeing the
issue she had ignored. Or rather, yanked around to *listening* to the
issue she had ignored, since she showed no sign of truly seeing it.
By your own admission, Buffy is selfish, irresponsible, and deceitful.
They may or may not trust her to avoid "getting pelvic" with Angel, but
since she still doesn't see the fundamental issue of disrespect of
others, there's nothing in her character to stop her from pulling a
similar stunt in the future. She still has learned nothing about either
trusting or respecting others.
: (There is a parallel to Oz here, which you failed to mention. They
: deal with that danger very well. Why can't they deal with this?)
Because what you failed to mention is that when Oz is about to become
dangerous, he voluntarily foregoes his freedom and accepts the
supervision of others. Oz acts responsibly to deal with his problem.
He's earned their trust. By kissing Buffy and continuing to hide, Angel
has shown no such similar signs of responsibility.
:: The fact that you are sympathetic to Buffy and Angel shows that you
:: seem to be ignoring the fact that Angel could very well lose his soul
:: again if Buffy were to continue as she was. *That* is why Xander is
:: so pissed.
:
: His anger is still too extreme. The lie was proven to be a non-issue,
: now that they know that it is the good Angel who is back.
Lying is NOT a "non-issue." Demanding 100% total blind trust and yet
giving not a scrap of trust in return is not a "non-issue."
-Micky
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <36557D...@umich.edu>, Jennifer Matthews
<jen...@umich.edu> writes:
: AUNTIELIB wrote:
:: Buffy: "Mmmm. Academic probation's not so funny today, huh Giles?"
:
: Y'know, I found this unsupportive to the extreme, particularly since
: Buffy is back in school due to Giles.
Not only pettily unsupportive but rashly irresponsible. Giles shoots
her a very piqued look, and I can well imagine why. Mrs. Post said
she'd be evaluating all of them. The implication was that if Giles'
performance was found wanting, he could be recalled and replaced by the
Council on Mrs. Post's say-so. Unless getting Giles' butt kicked out
was what Buffy had in mind, she was treating the whole matter with
childish flippancy in addition to her customary rudeness.
That's why I don't see why people were having trouble understanding
Giles' "whipped" attitude around Mrs. Post. He thought he was in
serious danger of losing Buffy. Appeasing this annoying interloper was
the only clear path to keeping her.
:: (Buffy realizes that Angel, as the older, supposedly wiser, of the
:: two of them, bears more than half of the responsibility for keeping
:: control of their encounters.
:
: Which is silly to the extreme.
I think this misses the point. They were both in the wrong for kissing,
but the ultimate jailer for Angelus can only be Angel. Buffy isn't
going to be around to babysit forever. Angel has to be able to resist
all such temptations, not just Buffy, and even if Buffy were coming on
to him as strong as she possibly knew how, he *still* must take whatever
measures necessary to keep the demon locked up.
:: But Angel, even if he is 241, isn't any more in control of himself
:: when he's around her than any other man in love. No matter how old.)
:
: Well, I guess.
I'd guess not. Giles was able to resist what he called "taking
advantage" of Jenny in "The Dark Age," even though the demon possessing
Jenny was practically committing sexual assault on him. (Yes, before
someone pipes up, I mean *before* the demon made himself known.) Giles
is only about one-fifth Angel's age. Oz had fantasized about Willow-
kissage but was able to resist her offer. Oz is less than one-tenth of
Angel's age.
I agree with the poster who said that Angel's relationship with Buffy is
obsessional.
: Even [given their valid grievances], I'm not sure it was right to let
: everyone have a chance to vent [in the intervention].
I thought it went all right up until the substantive issues got
completely lost in the personality conflicts ("Jealous!" "Full of
yourself!" "Don't start with me!"). Willow was right to protest and
Giles was right to end it then.
(As an aside, I wonder if Mark Christensen remembers that I said
I didn't think Willow was really a good choice to lead an AA
meeting. :) )
-Micky
Daniel Solomon
>Spoilers for "Revelations."
>
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>
>:: But Angel, even if he is 241, isn't any more in control of himself
>:: when he's around her than any other man in love. No matter how old.)
>:
>: Well, I guess.
>
>I'd guess not. Giles was able to resist what he called "taking
>advantage" of Jenny in "The Dark Age," even though the demon possessing
>Jenny was practically committing sexual assault on him. (Yes, before
>someone pipes up, I mean *before* the demon made himself known.) Giles
>is only about one-fifth Angel's age. Oz had fantasized about Willow-
>kissage but was able to resist her offer. Oz is less than one-tenth of
>Angel's age.
>
>I agree with the poster who said that Angel's relationship with Buffy is
>obsessional.
That was me. While I recognize that both Angel and Buffy are responsible
to keep things under control, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt
that we don't really know his mental state after however much torture he
had to endure while he was in hell. Buffy has no such excuse.
Jennifer Matthews
<snip>
>
> You Xander-bashers have no justification for this either. Why should
> Xander not have mentioned her murder? Especially while her murderer
> is the topic of conversation, and conversation sneaking towards
> sympathetic?
It is perfectly appropriate to mention Ms. Calendar's murder in a
discussion of the Angel/Angelus problem. I just don't think that
Xander should be the one raising the issue. Maybe he's doing it on
Giles's behalf. If he is, however, I'm not seeing it in that light.
The other problem is that Xander didn't have a relationship with Jenny;
Giles and Willow did. IMO, *they* should be the ones to remind Buffy
of her. On the other hand, Xander could (should he wish to) remind
Buffy that *Kendra* died because of her . . . or, he could remind her of
numerous high school friends that died when Angel began hunting again.
> What's really cavalier and smacks of ulterior motive is the use of
> Giles as some sort of token victim, just to slam Xander. I would
> think Giles should be more aggrieved that Jenny's murder is forgotten
> or swept aside!
I agree with this, but I'm not sure that Giles *wants* to have everyone
talking about Jenny's murder. In the ep. where Angel comes back
initially, there's a conversation between Giles & Buffy where it's
pretty clear that he's mourning Jenny's death deeply. It's just not in
his character, IMO, to just rant about her murder. Maybe he thinks
Buffy should be thinking about it without him having to remind her.
And, he's right. It's a shame no one reminds Buffy of Kendra . . . just
thought I'd say that again now that we're on the subject of murder
victims and whether or not the Scooby Gang should be irate about them.
>
> Where I think that is coming from is that in Xander-bashers' minds,
> Xander is *defined as* bad,
I do not define Xander as "bad." I happen to like Xander under most
circumstances, and think he gets the short end of the writing stick too
often.
It is possible, you know, to disagree with Xander on one point, while
still admiring him on many others. Just as it's possible for me to have
a few nitpicks/issues with the show in general, but still consider
myself a fan.
-Jen, who thinks everyone should also remember that Angelus killed
Willow's fish!
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981121015309...@ng76.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
: dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
:: However, Buffy should be showing much more self-control.
:
: I agree she should, but she's too young to.
This is an argument that she can't be trusted, not that she can, and
besides, it's not true. There are millions of teenagers more
responsible than Buffy, many of them younger than she is. It's easy to
get the impression that Joyce and Hank, despite their good intentions,
have not prepared Buffy for life very well. Apart from the slaying,
Buffy acts sheltered and spoiled. Joyce is now reaping the whirlwind
and Giles is the one who has to somehow find a way to work with the
result.
: And I don't agree that anything other than sexual contact would cause
: Angel to lose his soul.
How do you know? What gives them the right to gamble the world while
finding out?
: They did everything *but* last season. It took intercourse to
: accomplish it. I don't see that anything has changed.
<sigh> I've defended Xander to Xander's own fans and Angel to Angel's
own fans. It looks like I have to defend romanticism to a romantic.
Yes, the characters appear to be assuming it's all about "getting
pelvic," but why would a romantic even *want* to assume this? Angel and
Buffy seemed to be completely post-coital before Angel first started to
feel his soul slipping away. Buffy was so fast asleep that the entire
process took place without disturbing her. Angel seemed to have been
yanked from slumber as well. In keeping with David Tanguay's point that
magic seems to be instantaneous in the Buffyverse, all the evidence
fairly shouts that it wasn't sex that brought Angel his perfect
happiness. It was simply lying next to Buffy *after* she had come to
him. It was feeling unalone and blissfully whole and falling into his
first untroubled sleep in over a hundred years.
It was love. Sex was merely the passionate outward token. Angel now
*knows* Buffy loves him. Neither of them has any way of knowing just
how dangerously they could be flirting with the curse at this point.
Sometimes the finest love walks away.
-Micky
cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net
Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
> "Chris Hart" <cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net> writes:
>
> > I agree again. This is not Xander's best side. He plays the Jenny
> > Calender card a little too readily, both here and in Becoming 1. It does
> > seem extremely insensitive towards Giles to use that in such a cavalier
> > manner.
>
> You Xander-bashers have no justification for this either. Why should
> Xander not have mentioned her murder? Especially while her murderer
> is the topic of conversation, and conversation sneaking towards
> sympathetic?
First of all, I don't consider myself a "Xander-basher." He's not my favorite
character, but he has some good qualities and for the most part I like him.
However, I am not going to say that everything Xander does is okay when I feel
it isn't. Try not to read too much personal dislike for Xander into these
discussions.
As for justification, I think Xander's actions speak for themselves in being
inappropriate. I don't think that this time was quite as bad as when he
brought up Jenny during Becoming 1, but it still isn't right in Revelations,
either.
From Becoming 1:
Giles: Curing Angel seems to have been Jenny's last wish.
Xander: Yeah? Well, Jenny's dead.
Giles: (approaches Xander angrily) Don't you *ever* speak of her in
that tone again!
(taken from www.slayerfanfic.com)
Xander was rude, out of line, and extremely insensitive when he brought up
Jenny in that scene, and the normally reserved Giles thought so as well,
enough to rebuke Xander. It's not like I am making this up out of dislike
for Xander. Xander's bringing up Jenny is insensitive to Giles.
In Revelations Xander obviously hasn't figured that out because he brings her
up again. It simply is not his place to do so. As Jennifer Matthews points
out, Xander did not have the same close relationship with Jenny as did Giles
and Willow. If there is a need to bring up her death at all it should come
from one of them. Besides, it's not like Buffy has forgotten Jenny's death
anyway. Surely she has taken it under consideration without Xander's input.
Buffy may not be thinking clearly in her assessment of Angel, but she still
doesn't need Xander to point out Jenny's death to her other than by simply
reminding her that Angel was a murderer.
> What's really cavalier and smacks of ulterior motive is the use of
> Giles as some sort of token victim, just to slam Xander. I would
> think Giles should be more aggrieved that Jenny's murder is forgotten
> or swept aside!
Jenny's murder is not being swept aside. And even if Giles thought so, it
would be up to him to raise that concern--not Xander.
> --
> Tom Breton
> I use ugh-free spelling. You can too.
I like your sig, by the way.
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hart
cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net
--------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
away." --Philip K. Dick
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jennifer Matthews
>
> Jennifer Matthews wrote...
> >AUNTIELIB wrote:
> >>
> >> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
> >>
> >> s
> >>
> >> p
> >>
> >> o
> >>
> >> i
> >>
> >> l
> >>
> >> e
> >>
> >> r
> >>
> >> s
>
> Ok, my take on this is a bit different from either of yours and may be
> off, but... I see Faith going along so easily with Post because she
> *wants* a strong authority figure.
Well, that could very well be. Certainly it's clear that Faith is
lonely, and that at times being a slayer is scary.
<snip>
>
> >The two situations aren't the same, and I don't like
> >them being linked (unchallenged) in the show.
>
> Does this really need to be challenged? It seems to me this is one of
> those moral judgement questions that the audience can decide for
> itself.
Naturally; although I'm not sure it's necessarly a "moral" judgement.
Willow secretly playing kissy-face with Xander doesn't carry quite the
same life-or-death potential that Buffy playing kissy-face with Angel
does. In essence, Willow is saying that it's okay that Buffy is risking
everyone's lives and not bothering to even warn them, since she's
kissing Xander behind Cordelia's and Oz's back. It's just stupid on
Willow's part, and maybe that's my real objection: I don't like Willow
being stupid. But, it's just a teevee show, so I'll have to let it
go. :)
<snip>
>
> >However, Giles expresses this the best. He should have been the one
> >to talk and I would have been happy.
>
> Yes and no. Xander's confrontation of Buffy was rude and overblown,
> but dramatically the contrast between him and Giles is so striking
> because we get both of them confronting her in different ways.
Very good point. The contrast between the two was very important.
<snip>
>
> I see your point, but I can't agree. Faith did *not* belong in that
> meeting, regardless of whether Mrs. Post was an issue or not. Faith
> may have a place in the Scooby Gang, but she wasn't there when they
> had to deal first-hand with Angelus. This is between Buffy and the
> Scooby Gang, and Faith has no place in that discussion, regardless of
> whether or not it makes her feel left out.
I see your point. However, Faith is a slayer, and if the group is going
to ultimately decide that it's cool to not kill this one vampire over
here, you're going to have to clue Faith in on that. And, you may need
to give her more than just a "because we said so" reason. But, that
conversation would have been the one taking place *after* the
"intervention."
<snip>
> >I guess I'd ask my witchy friend if we can figure out if Angel's
> >still cursed, and whether or not we can do anything about it.
>
> If I am reading you correctly, you are still willing to question
> whether the 'moment of happiness' escape clause still exists in Angels
> current curse.
Ahem. I have such major problems with the "moment of happiness" clause
in the curse that I can't help but question it. This doesn't really
address the point, however, so . . . back to you:
>
> To me this is just another issue much like the Xander's lie issue.
Meaning that it's beside the point, right? If so, to some extent, I
agree, but not completely.
> but it is a complete non-issue with the writers of the show.
Trouble is, it shouldn't be a non-issue for the *characters* on the
show. Look, if you're in Buffy's shoes (or in anyone's shoes who's
pro-Angel) then you have to deal with the question of the curse. Of
course the obvious answer is to have Buffy and Angel each decide that
they won't "do it." Okay, but geez. *I'm* not the one that made a big
deal about Willow's experimentations with magic; it's therefore not *my*
fault that I, as a viewer, think the writers want me to notice it. When
I put on my problem-solving hat, I say to myself: it would make
everyone feel much better if they could be more assured that Angel won't
whack out. If the curse clause could be changed, that would be helpful.
That the writers have no intention of changing it or what have you isn't
an issue for the characters; I can reasonably wonder why they don't
think of it. I'm not asking for it to work; I'm simply saying that it
is potential solution.
> We can fairly safely assume that the current curse works exactly the
> same as the old one, complete with the moment of happiness bit.
Which makes one wonder why Angel's moment of happiness didn't occur when
he realized he was out of hell, but now I'm getting close to just
bitching about the curse in general, so I'll stop.
<snip>
> He told her something to the effect of a friend of his had the glove
> in that mansion at 235 Crawford Street or wherever. <snip>
Wow! I must have been dozing when he said this. I don't remember him
being that specific.
<snip>
>
> I already expressed my (not so humble) opinion on this, but I will add
> that I doubt it is up to Willow to change the spell. Sure Willow can
> cast spells and has some knowledge of witchcraft, but I doubt she has
> the requisite skills or knowledge to modify the curse.
Just to clarify a few things. I don't necessarily disagree with what
you're saying here. I don't demand that the curse be changed. All I'm
asking is for the characters to realize (like I do) that the curse is a
source of their problems, and to at least consider the possibilities of
modifying it. That's really all I'm asking.
-Jen
Chris Hart
Jennifer Matthews wrote in message <36597A...@umich.edu>...
>Chris Hart wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Thoughts on "Revelations", and spoilers down below:
>> >>
>> >> s
>> >>
>> >> p
>> >>
>> >> o
>> >>
>> >> i
>> >>
>> >> l
>> >>
>> >> e
>> >>
>> >> r
>> >>
>> >> s
><snip>
>
Well, then a poor judgment on Willow's part, as you say. I just think it
doesn't need to be brought up directly by the show. Besides, Willow can't
be perfect all the time. :-)
>I see your point. However, Faith is a slayer, and if the group is going
>to ultimately decide that it's cool to not kill this one vampire over
>here, you're going to have to clue Faith in on that. And, you may need
>to give her more than just a "because we said so" reason. But, that
>conversation would have been the one taking place *after* the
>"intervention."
Yes, Faith should have been brought in after the meeting, rather than just
having her run into Xander at the Bronze. And it's perfectly reasonable
to fill her in on why they decided as they did. I just don't think she
had any right to take part in making that particular decision.
>Ahem. I have such major problems with the "moment of happiness" clause
>in the curse that I can't help but question it. This doesn't really
>address the point, however, so . . . back to you:
I have addressed the moment of happiness escape clause at further length
in the 'wasn't Angel cured?' thread, so I won't go too far into that here
other than pointing out that I feel fairly strongly that given the
knowledge that we in the audience and the BtVS characters have, that there
is little or no chance that the current curse is any different from the
original curse or that Willow could do anything to change it.
>> To me this is just another issue much like the Xander's lie issue.
>
>Meaning that it's beside the point, right? If so, to some extent, I
>agree, but not completely.
Right. Although I do feel that this issue is much more significant than
the Xander's lie issue, so it isn't a perfect comparison.
>Trouble is, it shouldn't be a non-issue for the *characters* on the
>show. Look, if you're in Buffy's shoes (or in anyone's shoes who's
>pro-Angel) then you have to deal with the question of the curse. Of
>course the obvious answer is to have Buffy and Angel each decide that
>they won't "do it." Okay, but geez. *I'm* not the one that made a big
>deal about Willow's experimentations with magic; it's therefore not *my*
>fault that I, as a viewer, think the writers want me to notice it. When
>I put on my problem-solving hat, I say to myself: it would make
>everyone feel much better if they could be more assured that Angel won't
>whack out. If the curse clause could be changed, that would be helpful.
Well, even though the writers have brought up the fact that Willow is
dabbling in the magical arts, it is still fairly evident that the curse is
a spell that is out of Willow's league. First of all it has to be a
fairly powerful and obscure spell, as evidenced by the fact that Jenny had
to work so hard to translate the old text rather than just looking it up
in a modern book or something. Also, there is the fact that Willow wasn't
really the one who cast the spell. It would be more accurate to say that
it was cast by whatever took over her body and said the words. With less
than a year of learning and experimentation behind her, Willow really
shouldn't have the ability to do anything to change the curse, and it
probably shouldn't be expected of her by Buffy or anyone else. Also, it
is likely that Willow either knows that the happiness escape clause still
applies, or that she has no knowledge of that question but assumes the
existence of the escape clause in the current curse. Otherwise she would
have spoken up and told everybody that the curse was unbreakable or that
she suspected that it was.
>Which makes one wonder why Angel's moment of happiness didn't occur when
>he realized he was out of hell, but now I'm getting close to just
>bitching about the curse in general, so I'll stop.
I addressed this in another post as well, and my thoughts are that Angel
was too disoriented and feral originally to realize how much better off he
was and to achieve a moment of true happiness. After he gets his wits
together again, he remembers all the nasty things he did to Buffy and her
pals, so he still isn't happy. I don't see any opportunity for Angel to
have become truly happy in the third season.
>> He told her something to the effect of a friend of his had the glove
>> in that mansion at 235 Crawford Street or wherever. <snip>
>
>Wow! I must have been dozing when he said this. I don't remember him
>being that specific.
No, it's my mistake, not yours. Giles did not give an exact street
address; he merely said "the mansion on Crawford Street." (I told you my
memory can't be trusted.)
>Just to clarify a few things. I don't necessarily disagree with what
>you're saying here. I don't demand that the curse be changed. All I'm
>asking is for the characters to realize (like I do) that the curse is a
>source of their problems, and to at least consider the possibilities of
>modifying it. That's really all I'm asking.
>
>-Jen
Okay, despite my thinking it is an impossible task anyway, I have to admit
that it would be nice to see the issue brought up by the characters on the
show. It would be good to have a bit more explicit information on the
curse, since all I am working on now is speculation.
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hart
cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981121015309...@ng76.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
: I see Buffy as human. (I spend a lot of time with one of my nieces
: who is fifteen. She is loud, obnoxious, selfish and has an opinion on
: *everything*. She is also interesting, funny, smart and caring. In
: other words, she is a *teenager*. I'm being realistic.)
I think you're setting the bar too low, as I suspect Joyce and Hank did
with Buffy. Not all teenagers are loud, obnoxious, or selfish. Not all
of them are incapable of walking away from fatal attraction. Now, it's
also true that some adults never manage to walk away from fatal
attraction, which argues that what's at work is not just an immaturity
of years, but also of temperament, but that's all the more reason to be
hard on Buffy, not easier, while she is still young.
: But you did a good job of pointing out that Buffy and Xander are both
: acting out of self-interest.
In "Revelations"? I think lots of dead people actually constitutes a
damned good reason of Xander's. Why do we have to reject decent
behavior and look for ulterior motives in the absence of any reason to
do so? Completely irrespective of whatever feelings Xander may or may
not have for Buffy, when has he ever given us reason to believe that he
was *acting* selfishly when the lives of others were at stake? He's
done some dumb and even selfish things when the pressure's off, but he's
at least responsible enough to keep his priorities straight in a crisis.
Credit where credit is due.
: (I think, being a woman, and a romantic, heterosexual woman at that, I
: see Buffy's motivation more clearly than I do Xander's.)
And where does being a heterosexual woman who wants to see people do
right by one another put me?
: I agree that Giles was probably hurt at her not coming to see him
: after his torture, but I don't think it is that big an issue with him
: now.
"The emotional marathon man"?
: Giles is a grownup.
And a fine example of the species.
: He understood that she had other things on her mind.
Yes, but understanding and forgiving do not mean that one has to excuse
nor even that one should excuse. It does not mean that one is made of
wood, nor does it even mean that one should pretend to be made of wood.
It's not in *Buffy's* best interests to shove these things aside, much
less in his own.
: I think her hiding Angel brought back the hurt, but I also think he
: was bringing up those feelings to shame her, as a good mentor would,
: into doing the right thing. He was using it as an opportunity for her
: to grow and learn.
As if being painfully honest about how you feel isn't the best way to
ask that the other person take you and what they're doing to you
seriously.
Do you honestly think Giles would manipulatively trot out his having
been *tortured* as some sort of emotional training exercise for the
Slayer? That would be so low ...
: I still maintain, however, that her not understanding his hurt doesn't
: come from lack of respect. It comes from lack of maturity and
: experience. (And, yes, from selfishness.) But not disrespect. She
: knows and appreciates most of what he does for her.
This needs a whole separate post, as you seem think it's merely a matter
of different biases causing people to see different things.
: It's just that she feels his meddling in what she sees as her personal
: life is not in his job description.
If that's what's going through her mind then she's a right little bitca
indeed. When has Giles EVER meddled in her private life when it wasn't
relevant to their work? That is one of the many ways in which he is
very unlike a father to her.
-Micky
Maureen Goldman
The Man with No Serotonin
> Spoilers for "Becoming," pt.2 and "Revelations."
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> In article <19981121015309...@ng76.aol.com>,
> aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
>
> : It's just that she feels his meddling in what she sees as her personal
> : life is not in his job description.
>
> If that's what's going through her mind then she's a right little bitca
> indeed. When has Giles EVER meddled in her private life when it wasn't
> relevant to their work? That is one of the many ways in which he is very
> unlike a father to her.
Well, first of all the return of and the nature of her current relationship
with Angel don't count as her "private life," for obvious reasons, although
Buffy might prefer to ignore that.
But you have an even lower opinion of fathers than I do if you think
unmotivated "meddling" in daughters' private lives is part of the job
description, at least if we're talking about normative or ideal fathers.
Yes, it happens, but it's not a requirement for the role.
Giles does occasionally get invited into Buffy's private, or at least
non-Slayer, life, and performs splendidly when he gets those opportunities.
My favorite moment in Band Candy, one that goes to the heart of why I think
BtVS is one of the best TV shows ever, is her exchange with Giles at the
end:
Buffy: "It was just too much to deal with. It was like nothing made sense
anymore. The things that I thought I understood were gone. I just felt so
alone."
Giles: "Was that the math or the verbal?"
Buffy: "Mostly the math."
At first it seems she's talking about the night before. But for her, the
confusion and isolation of the night before are an awful lot like taking the
SAT's. The horrors of adolescence are, to adolescents, truly horrors (that's
one of the things, maybe the main thing, adolescents need to outgrow in
order to become adults). That's why I don't think one can separate as neatly
as you do Giles's role as Watcher and the other kinds of support and
guidance that he gives Buffy.
*When she lets him,* which is not nearly as often as she should.
John Hogan
Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981119035019...@ng140.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
: A spot of tea can smooth over any situation, but Mrs. Post has brought
: her own tea fixin's and removes Giles' teabag from her cup. (They may
: have a slight problem.)
That was hilarious. It was a somewhat Americanized way of serving tea,
but only a snobby traditionalist would be so rude as to pull out her own
tea ball and tea when she's a guest in someone's house. To hear the
traditionalists tell it, the English only make tea one way: loose, in
the teapot, "One for me, one for thee, and one for the pot." But don't
let anyone tell you that the English never use tea bags. They're all
over the place over there, particularly among the working class.
Either Tony Head is getting script input on these little details or else
someone on the _Buffy_ supervisory staff has spent time in the U.K., and
I don't just mean on vacation. The way Giles and Mrs. Post did the
entire tea scene without a word of explanation of the English subtext
bespeaks of watching the English interact amongst themselves in their
native habitat.
-Micky
Daniel Solomon
>Xander was rude, out of line, and extremely insensitive when he brought up
>Jenny in that scene, and the normally reserved Giles thought so as well,
>enough to rebuke Xander. It's not like I am making this up out of dislike
>for Xander. Xander's bringing up Jenny is insensitive to Giles.
>
>In Revelations Xander obviously hasn't figured that out because he brings her
>up again. It simply is not his place to do so. As Jennifer Matthews points
>out, Xander did not have the same close relationship with Jenny as did Giles
>and Willow. If there is a need to bring up her death at all it should come
>from one of them. Besides, it's not like Buffy has forgotten Jenny's death
>anyway. Surely she has taken it under consideration without Xander's input.
>Buffy may not be thinking clearly in her assessment of Angel, but she still
>doesn't need Xander to point out Jenny's death to her other than by simply
>reminding her that Angel was a murderer.
You are forgetting one detail. While it is true that Xander did not have
a relationship with Jenny like Giles or Willow did, there is one fact that
does make it relevant for Xander to mention her death. Jenny was killed
because she was attempting to restore Angel's soul.
Willow: Looks like Ms. Calendar was trying to replicate the original
curse. To restore Angel's soul again.
Giles: (takes the printout, stares at it) She said it couldn't be done.
Buffy: Well, she tried anyway. And it looks like it might have worked.
Xander: So he killed her... before she could tell anyone about it. What
a prince, huh? (looks away)
This fact makes her death more than just a personal matter for Giles, and
makes it completely valid to bring it up during a discussion regarding any
attempt at restoring Angel's soul. While it was less appropriate this
time around, it was completely relevant in Becoming.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981119035019...@ng140.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
: Willow and Buffy have a very healthy friendship. It doesn't take long
: before they are on their way to forgiving and moving on.
: (Willow's own secret is giving her a push in the right direction.)
No, it's giving her a push in the wrong direction, and that's bad for
their relationship, not "healthy." Willow's starting from a false
premise: she doesn't want to be blamed for her secret, so she fails to
blame Buffy for Buffy's secret.
The correct answer is that they both should be blamed. It's not doing
either of them any favors to let them off the hook.
: What I liked best was that most of the issues that have been festering
: below the surface since last season's finale have now been, to some
: extent, dealt with. They have a way to go, but I feel that certain
: chapters are now closed.
I don't suppose you'd like to lay a little money on that? >:^)
-Micky
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net writes:
: In article <m367c8f...@world.std.com>,
: Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
:: You Xander-bashers have no justification for this either. Why should
:: Xander not have mentioned [Jenny's] murder?
: [snip]
: As for justification, I think Xander's actions speak for themselves in
: being inappropriate.
Yes, they speak for themselves if you look beyond the mere
mention of Jenny's name.
: I don't think that this time was quite as bad as when he brought up
: Jenny during Becoming 1, but it still isn't right in Revelations,
: either.
:
: From Becoming 1:
:
: Giles: Curing Angel seems to have been Jenny's last wish.
:
: Xander: Yeah? Well, Jenny's dead.
:
: Giles: (approaches Xander angrily) Don't you *ever* speak of her in
: that tone again!
:
: (taken from www.slayerfanfic.com)
:
: Xander was rude, out of line, and extremely insensitive when he brought
: up Jenny in that scene, and the normally reserved Giles thought so as
: well, enough to rebuke Xander.
Yes, Xander was out of line.
: In Revelations Xander obviously hasn't figured that out because he
: brings her up again.
There's a key difference between his two mentions of her name.
In the passage quoted, Xander was saying that what Jenny wanted
didn't matter anymore because she was dead. I'm sure he didn't
mean it this way (quite the opposite, in fact, since he could
have been suggesting that staking Angel would have been a more
fitting tribute to Jenny than curing her murderer), but he was
so brusque, he practically made it sound like Jenny herself
didn't matter because she was dead.
In "Revelations," Xander only brought Jenny up to point out how
Buffy's difficulty in dealing with Angel cost Jenny her life.
That mention contained the implicit assumption that Jenny very
much did matter, and I see no reason why Giles would have
objected to it.
: Besides, it's not like Buffy has forgotten Jenny's death anyway. Surely
: she has taken it under consideration without Xander's input. Buffy may
: not be thinking clearly in her assessment of Angel, but she still
: doesn't need Xander to point out Jenny's death to her other than by
: simply reminding her that Angel was a murderer.
The whole intervention proceeded on the assumption that Buffy
was in denial about what she had done. And she was.
-Micky
Vincent G. Macek
what happens when someone tries to rehabilitate a vampire. Angel killed
Jenny; why wouldn't he kill anyone else in the group? This could be
interpreted as X's holding up a warning to the rest of them (And it
probably has been interpreted like that in this very thread; there's no
way I could plow through all these posts to see)
VMacek
Tom Vallejos
>
> aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Buffy: "It was wrong, okay, I know that. And I know that it can't happen
> >again. But you guys have to believe me I would never put you in any
> >danger. If I thought for a second that Angel was gonna hurt anyone..."
> >Xander: "You would stop him. Like you did last time with Miss
> >Calendar."
> >anything Buffy knowingly did. She feels enough guilt about it as it is.
>
> I must respectfully disagree. In "Innocence", after she blew the Judge
> to smithereens, Buffy beat Angel in one-on-one combat and had a perfect
> opportunity to stake him. She let him go.
>
> She may not have been knowingly responsible for his losing his soul,
> but she could not stop Angel. I think Xander's spot on.
>
It's hard for almost anyone to kill a loved who is on the opposite side,
in say, a war, especially at the first time they meet in battle. See the
movie "Gettysburg" if you disagree. Buffy was in love with him when he
turned evil, and heck, she still is 17.
> >This whole "demons anonymous" intervention scene bothered me. On
> >one level, it was good to get everything out into the open, but knowing
> >what Angel is like now, I have trouble sympathizing with anyone but
> >Buffy here.
>
> And I have a whole lot of trouble sympathizing with Buffy here. Sure,
> Angel is cured now. Angel was also cured when they met. There's
> nothing even approaching a guarantee that Angel will remain this way.
> We, the viewers, all know Angel's due his own series,
No David Boreanaz (sp?) is. he plays angel. :-)
snip
> Even if he avoids being happy --
> heck, even if that clause isn't in this new curse -- what's to say an
> enterprising vampire doesn't find a way to reverse the curse? Miss
> Calendar and her computer helped bring Angel back. Why can't Mr. Trick
> and his computer bring Angelus back?
Trick probably wants the world as it is. Angelus after a century away
from the killing fields wanted to make up for lost time.
---
Tom Breton
> In article <m367c8f...@world.std.com>,
> Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
> > "Chris Hart" <cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net> writes:
> >
>
> > > I agree again. This is not Xander's best side. He plays the Jenny
> > > Calender card a little too readily, both here and in Becoming 1. It does
> > > seem extremely insensitive towards Giles to use that in such a cavalier
> > > manner.
> >
> > You Xander-bashers have no justification for this either. Why should
> > Xander not have mentioned her murder? Especially while her murderer
> > is the topic of conversation, and conversation sneaking towards
> > sympathetic?
>
> First of all, I don't consider myself a "Xander-basher." He's not my favorite
> character, but he has some good qualities and for the most part I like him.
> However, I am not going to say that everything Xander does is okay when I feel
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This makes me not believe you. If you don't hate Xander, why do you
phrase the above in that snide way?
> it isn't. Try not to read too much personal dislike for Xander into these
> discussions.
Oh, rite, there's little or no personal dislike for Xander floating
around in these discussions. The double-standard Xander-bash has a
huge hold on this ng and everyone can see it. I'm not reading it in.
> As for justification, I think Xander's actions speak for themselves in being
> inappropriate. I don't think that this time was quite as bad as when he
> brought up Jenny during Becoming 1, but it still isn't right in Revelations,
> either.
That's not an argument. You just repeated your position, as if
repeating it would make me accept it.
> From Becoming 1:
>
> Giles: Curing Angel seems to have been Jenny's last wish.
>
> Xander: Yeah? Well, Jenny's dead.
>
> Giles: (approaches Xander angrily) Don't you *ever* speak of her in
> that tone again!
>
> (taken from www.slayerfanfic.com)
So basically, you *are* going to use Giles as a token victim with
which to bash Xander.
Yes, you intuit that Giles has the victim hi-ground, but nothing else
about that slam adds up. I don't think that line even means what you
have turned it into. He reproaches Xander's tone... so what?
Besides, we see in IOHEFY that Giles is uncharacteristically
irrational where Jenny's death is concerned. (Which is understandable
but is a separate topic)
I get the feeling you don't care whether that line makes sense as a
moral judgement, or whether Giles is out of line, or what the line is
about at all. I think you just like that it slams Xander from an
apparent victim-hi-ground.
> Xander was rude, out of line, and extremely insensitive when he brought up
> Jenny in that scene,
You still haven't supported any of this. You're still repeating your
opinions as if repitition should convince me.
> and the normally reserved Giles thought so as well,
> enough to rebuke Xander.
Again, the show makes it clear that Giles is uncharacteristically
irrational where Jenny's death is concerned. You ignore that. But
Giles line makes no sense as a moral judgement. You can't think Giles
is demanding that Jenny's death be ignored; even if he did he'd be
wrong. So your argument doesn't work.
> It's not like I am making this up out of dislike
> for Xander.
I think you are, all except the literal line.
> Xander's bringing up Jenny is insensitive to Giles.
Again, you're still repeating your opinions as if repitition should
convince me.
> In Revelations Xander obviously hasn't figured that out because he brings her
> up again. It simply is not his place to do so.
Just like I said: Xander-bashers don't like it just because *Xander*
says it. The line is called insensitive because *Xander* says it.
> As Jennifer Matthews points
> out, Xander did not have the same close relationship with Jenny as did Giles
> and Willow.
WTF? No-one can mention someone's death unless they had a close
relationship with them? What nonsense!
> If there is a need to bring up her death at all it should come
> from one of them. Besides, it's not like Buffy has forgotten Jenny's death
> anyway.
Meaning what? Yeah, I'm sure she won't accidentally say "Hey Giles,
have you seen Miss Calendar around?". I'm not going to slam Buffy,
but beyond her not *literally* forgetting, there's nothing.
> Surely she has taken it under consideration without Xander's
> input.
Look at the divergent standards here. Xander's attacked for
mentioning a murder that everyone else is ignoring. But Buffy's so
sensitive that even mentioning it to her is out-of-line because
"surely" she has taken it under consideration. Xander-bashers will
take this as Buffy-bashing, because their emotions have the better of
them, but literates will notice I've not slammed her.
Who besides Xander would be slammed for mentioning a murder because
"surely" everybody (not just Buffy) who's saying nothing about it
"must have" actually taken it under consideration?
> I like your sig, by the way.
Thanks.
Chris Hart
Tom Breton wrote in message ...
>cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net writes:
>
>> In article <m367c8f...@world.std.com>,
>> Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You Xander-bashers have no justification for this either. Why should
>> > Xander not have mentioned her murder? Especially while her murderer
>> > is the topic of conversation, and conversation sneaking towards
>> > sympathetic?
>>
>> First of all, I don't consider myself a "Xander-basher." He's not my
favorite
>> character, but he has some good qualities and for the most part I like
him.
>> However, I am not going to say that everything Xander does is okay when
I feel
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This makes me not believe you. If you don't hate Xander, why do you
>phrase the above in that snide way?
You do realize that it is difficult to discuss something with a person who
can't believe what I say, don't you? Now that comment was rude. First of
all I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. There is no subtext in
my message, so you get no points for catching my lie or whatever.
Yet, for some reason I feel the need to further defend myself. <shrug>
Ok, here's an example. I think Xander is wrong on this particular issue,
granted. However I don't always think he is always wrong. For instance I
made a total of one post to the Xander's lie subject and it was in favor
of Xander. I think he thought for himself and made a good decision. How
exactly can I be a Xander-basher when I agree with him on that
controversial issue? Obviously you are reading your own personal opinions
of me into this discussion when you don't even know me. You really need
to get over yourself. Okay enough of that...
>> As for justification, I think Xander's actions speak for themselves in
being
>> inappropriate. I don't think that this time was quite as bad as when he
>> brought up Jenny during Becoming 1, but it still isn't right in
Revelations,
>> either.
>
>That's not an argument. You just repeated your position, as if
>repeating it would make me accept it.
You are probably right that I am not going about debating this very well,
so your point is taken, thank you. (And don't bother reading sarcasm into
that either...)
>> From Becoming 1:
>>
>> Giles: Curing Angel seems to have been Jenny's last wish.
>>
>> Xander: Yeah? Well, Jenny's dead.
>>
>> Giles: (approaches Xander angrily) Don't you *ever* speak of her in
>> that tone again!
>>
>> (taken from www.slayerfanfic.com)
>
>So basically, you *are* going to use Giles as a token victim with
>which to bash Xander.
I am at a loss here. I'm using Giles as a token victim? What exactly
does that mean? My whole point is that Xander acts insensitively towards
Giles when casually bringing up Jenny. That quote was meant as an example
of my point, showing that Giles felt the same way.
>Yes, you intuit that Giles has the victim hi-ground, but nothing else
>about that slam adds up. I don't think that line even means what you
>have turned it into. He reproaches Xander's tone... so what?
>Besides, we see in IOHEFY that Giles is uncharacteristically
>irrational where Jenny's death is concerned. (Which is understandable
>but is a separate topic)
First of all it doesn't matter whether or not Giles is irrational about
Jenny's death. It has nothing to do with the point I have been making.
My whole point is that Xander is rude to Giles. If Giles is irrational
for rebuking Xander, that is beside the point. And the line shows exactly
what I am talking about. Yes, Giles reproaches Xander's tone, because
that tone was not appropriate. Xander brought up Jenny's death in a fit
of hatred (well deserved hatred) toward Angel. He isn't bringing up
Jenny's death to console Giles or to calmly discuss the ramifications of
her death, but rather he is mentioning her in order to get a cheap shot
against Angel. That's my problem with Xander, is that he brings Jenny up
too casually in order to make his point, without considering the fact that
Giles is standing right there listening.
>I get the feeling you don't care whether that line makes sense as a
>moral judgement, or whether Giles is out of line, or what the line is
>about at all. I think you just like that it slams Xander from an
>apparent victim-hi-ground.
I am not trying to slam Xander from a "victim-hi-ground." I am simply
saying that Xander was rude to Giles. The fact that Giles is a victim
here is what makes it a rude statement. Even so, I don't really think
that Giles needs to be defended from Xander or anything of the sort. I
just feel that Xander is out of line. (I realize that I am repeating
myself here, but you seem to have a really hard time taking me at my word,
so perhaps one of these days you will actually try to read what I am
writing here without putting your own interpretation on it.)
>> Xander was rude, out of line, and extremely insensitive when he brought
up
>> Jenny in that scene,
>
>You still haven't supported any of this. You're still repeating your
>opinions as if repitition should convince me.
I brought up the quote to defend my position. Otherwise, yes it is mostly
my opinion, based on my views of human interaction. You on the other hand
have said nothing to contradict my opinion other than saying that I am a
Xander-basher and only hold my position out of loathing for Xander. That
sort of ad hominem attack does little to disprove my point, especially
since it is untrue.
>> and the normally reserved Giles thought so as well,
>> enough to rebuke Xander.
>
>Again, the show makes it clear that Giles is uncharacteristically
>irrational where Jenny's death is concerned. You ignore that. But
>Giles line makes no sense as a moral judgement. You can't think Giles
>is demanding that Jenny's death be ignored; even if he did he'd be
>wrong. So your argument doesn't work.
Like I said, Giles' irrationality in this case is completely irrelevant.
It has no bearing on the question of whether Xander's comment was rude to
him. I don't think that Giles wants Jenny's death to be ignored. Neither
do I think it should be ignored. However there is a big difference in who
brings it up and whether it should be brought up at all. Not explicitly
mentioning Jenny does not mean that her death is being ignored or
marginalized.
>> It's not like I am making this up out of dislike
>> for Xander.
>
>I think you are, all except the literal line.
Uh huh, that's nice.
>> In Revelations Xander obviously hasn't figured that out because he
brings her
>> up again. It simply is not his place to do so.
>
>Just like I said: Xander-bashers don't like it just because *Xander*
>says it. The line is called insensitive because *Xander* says it.
I don't seem to be the only one repeating myself. :-)
>> As Jennifer Matthews points
>> out, Xander did not have the same close relationship with Jenny as did
Giles
>> and Willow.
>
>WTF? No-one can mention someone's death unless they had a close
>relationship with them? What nonsense!
Well, that's not exactly what I meant; allow me to clarify. Nobody should
mention the death of someone in order to make a point when another person
who had a much closer relationship is standing right there. I wouldn't
have as much of a problem with Xander bringing up Jenny if he did it to
Buffy in private without Giles around. In that case I would not perceive
any rudeness towards Giles. I might still think it a bit unnecessary (see
below), but I wouldn't argue over it.
>> If there is a need to bring up her death at all it should come
>> from one of them. Besides, it's not like Buffy has forgotten Jenny's
death
>> anyway.
>
>Meaning what? Yeah, I'm sure she won't accidentally say "Hey Giles,
>have you seen Miss Calendar around?". I'm not going to slam Buffy,
>but beyond her not *literally* forgetting, there's nothing.
Well there you go. Buffy hasn't forgotten Jenny's murder. Now Buffy does
seem to have problems with too easily dismissing Angel's murders, and she
is a bit too quick to forgive. However, that could be pointed out to her
without bringing up Jenny's name.
>> Surely she has taken it under consideration without Xander's
>> input.
>
>Look at the divergent standards here. Xander's attacked for
>mentioning a murder that everyone else is ignoring. But Buffy's so
>sensitive that even mentioning it to her is out-of-line because
>"surely" she has taken it under consideration. Xander-bashers will
>take this as Buffy-bashing, because their emotions have the better of
>them, but literates will notice I've not slammed her.
>
>Who besides Xander would be slammed for mentioning a murder because
>"surely" everybody (not just Buffy) who's saying nothing about it
>"must have" actually taken it under consideration?
I can't speak for everybody in this newsgroup, but in this case your
perception of divergent standards is a figment of your imagination. First
of all Buffy is not the issue at all here; it is between Xander and Giles.
Although I feel Xander was a bit too harsh towards Buffy, he had a very
good point and he was essentially correct. Buffy can't see straight when
it comes to Angel, and Xander and the others have a right to know what is
going on with Angel. The only thing I see as truly wrong is the way
Xander handled the discussion, particularly in bringing up Jenny. This is
not a matter of bashing Xander. I think Buffy was completely wrong and
rude when she told Xander that he was merely jealous; however, that is not
Buffy-bashing either.
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hart
cjh...@peachnet.campus.mci.net
Micky DuPree
"Revelations."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981120041123...@ng139.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
: Giles' little speech [after the intervention in "Revelations"] really
: brought home to [Buffy] the fact that her lack of trust has hurt him
: deeply.
Based on what evidence?
: Her reaction showed that.
Her reaction showed that she was unhappy. Where is there any indication
that she was concerned with how what she had done had hurt Giles or
anyone else, as opposed to how *she* was being affected by *them*?
: (And I don't think Micky is right that she was merely annoyed at
: getting caught. The scene was played on a much deeper level than
: that.)
I'm pretty comfortably sure I didn't characterize her reaction as "mere
annoyance." She was definitely unhappy at the fact that the others were
unhappy with her. That still doesn't indicate that she's accepted
responsibility for causing their unhappiness, merely that she would now
like to find some way to duck out of the unpleasantness and get things
back to the way they were before.
: She already had some idea of how her deception would hurt him [....]
How do we know this? And if she did, it only makes her hurting him
colder and more calculated rather than thoughtless and self-absorbed.
: [Buffy's] running away had little to do with [Xander], outside of what
: he *chose* to make of it so, again, under normal circumstances, he
: should be moving on.
Xander was Buffy's cavalry. Evidently, that counts for nothing with
her. O.K., he was a frightened guy with a rock, but he stood up with
her and got her Watcher to safety when she had her hands full. Buffy
leaving them behind to worry (and slay) without a word of explanation or
even letting them know she was all right affected them all. Xander was
just the boldest (and most unnecessarily abrasive) about voicing it in
"Dead Man's Party."
: We all have our issues on this newsgroup. [....] Micky has a problem
: with the way Buffy treats Giles and what she sees as Buffy's lack of
: regard for and trust in him.
On the subject of problems, well, I'm reminded of the famous Kuleshov
experiment. Kuleshov was a Soviet silent filmmaker and theorist. His
classic experiment was to take a shot of a man with a completely neutral
expression and edit it together with different shots of other things,
such as a child playing, a dead woman in a coffin, and a bowl of soup.
He'd show these different strips of footage to audiences. Invariably
the audience would praise the sensitive acting of the man. They'd rave
about how happy he was in the scene with the child, how sad he was in
the scene with the dead woman, and how hungry he was in the scene with
the soup.
Of course, it was the exact same neutral expression all three times.
This is still one of the elementary principles of montage editing used
today. The audience interpolates the reaction and infers the mental
state of the character that they feel are appropriate to the
juxtaposition. I'd take it one step further, however. The audience is
most likely to connect together motivations, expressions, tone of voice,
and even actions with either what they most desire or else what they
most fear, regardless of what's actually up on the screen.
On the subject of my own personal "problems": I'm not looking for what I
desire in _Buffy_ half so much as I'm looking for evidence of what I
desire. There's a difference. If I need to establish my credibility on
this matter, then run a keyword search on the word "trust" in my
a.t.b-v-s articles on Deja News starting at around the middle of
October. I've been saying this would be an issue in the story for some
time.
I'm not trying to beat up Buffy to make her suffer, or to come to the
defense of "my beloved Giles" (to quote one Giles fan). It doesn't
please me to see Buffy suffer, and she, in addition to the others, is
suffering because of her behavior. I'm not painting her in a negative
light because it pleases me to see her in a negative light, but because
she behaves in a negative way and I'd prefer to see her in a positive
light. She's the hero of the story, and if the hero can't muster what
it takes to Do the Right Thing before the story is over, then the story
takes on tones of the pathetic that I frankly am not watching _Buffy_ to
see.
I've been waiting and hoping for Buffy to grow up since the very first
episode. It's been very slow going. It isn't just Giles that she
sometimes fails to respect (he's just the one that she most consistently
fails to appreciate). It's an entire M.O. with Buffy. When she wrongs
people, she doesn't own up to it unless she gets caught. She doesn't
make amends, she just appeases and waits for the anger to blow over.
The only two times I can remember her making deeply meaningful apologies
are 1) to Giles at the end of "Passion" for not killing Angelus when she
had the chance, and 2) to Willow at the end of "Dead Man's Party" for
running out. *Maybe* she's managed to put all the rest of the good
stuff into the few episodes I haven't seen yet, but somehow I suspect
not.
One thing that discussing TV shows has taught me is that memory will
play you false. There are no exceptions, including myself. However,
I've been watching for an awakening of deeper consideration of others in
Buffy. I've been hoping for it. I was especially hoping for it in
"Dead Man's Party," and once again after Giles' rebuke in "Revelations."
But she was silent at the exact moment when she should have spoken up.
I listened and watched for indications that she at least was pondering
Giles' feelings (and the feelings of the others) more than her own
throughout the rest of "Revelations." Since the transcript isn't up
yet, I'll do my own homework. Chapter and verse, this is all Buffy says
on the subject after the rebuke:
Buffy: [To Willow] So on a scale of one to a million, how much are
you hating me right now?
Buffy: [To Willow] I'm going to try and kill this Lagos guy. Peace
offering to Giles.
Buffy: [To Willow] Look, if you're feeling any demon-ophobia,
please, splitting is totally an option. You're not the one
in trouble with Giles.
Willow: That's true.
Buffy: How long do you think he can stay angry at me anyway?
Willow: The emotional marathon man?
Buffy: Yeah. I can't really blame him. It's weird, though. Now
that my secret ... Angel ... it's all out in the open, I feel
better.
Buffy: [Shoulders the ax. To Willow.] C'mon. Let's go bring Giles
some happiness.
Buffy: [To Willow] Giles is going to be psyched that we showed up
stuffy old Mrs. Post.
Buffy: [To Xander] Are we cool?
Buffy: [To the others, before going to see Faith] Well, I better
go. Little more damage control.
It's *all* "damage control," all appeasement, all about making the
negative feelings towards *her* stop, no acknowledgement at all of what
she's done to *them*. At worst, she treats the damage she does as if
it's the result of other people's irrationality and meanness towards her
rather than something she's to blame for. At best, she treats the
damage she does as necessary since her feelings must always come first.
Her giving a "peace offering" instead of an apology reminds me of a
cheating husband who buys his wife flowers instead of saying he's sorry.
After every screwup, Buffy just wants things back the way they used to
be as if she never screwed up. She's wanted things back the way they
used to be, as if she's done nothing to hurt them, ever since she
returned to Sunnydale.
And as long as we're on the subject of trust, I wonder how Joyce is
going to react to the news that Angel's back. I wonder if both Buffy
and Giles are going to keep the information from her, and if that's
going to drag up the whole "secret life behind her back" issue again.
-Micky
LRL94
>"Revelations."
>
And "Innocence", and a little for "Lovers Walk".
I'd say based on the look on her face. She's completely crushed, much more so
than she would be if she were just thinking "Oh, boy, how do I get out of this
one?"
>: Her reaction showed that.
>
>Her reaction showed that she was unhappy. Where is there any indication
>that she was concerned with how what she had done had hurt Giles or
>anyone else, as opposed to how *she* was being affected by *them*?
See above.
>
>: (And I don't think Micky is right that she was merely annoyed at
>: getting caught. The scene was played on a much deeper level than
>: that.)
>
>I'm pretty comfortably sure I didn't characterize her reaction as "mere
>annoyance." She was definitely unhappy at the fact that the others were
>unhappy with her. That still doesn't indicate that she's accepted
>responsibility for causing their unhappiness, merely that she would now
>like to find some way to duck out of the unpleasantness and get things
>back to the way they were before.
Of course, she wants things as they were before. Who wouldn't? But if you're
determined to portray her as a heartless, emotionless brat who doesn't care
about her friends, I guess you won't see anything else.
>: She already had some idea of how her deception would hurt him [....]
>
>How do we know this? And if she did, it only makes her hurting him
>colder and more calculated rather than thoughtless and self-absorbed.
She probably knew it would hurt him, and she was afraid of his response. One
thing Buffy does not handle well is confrontation - the only thing she handles
worse is the thought that Giles might be angry at or disappointed in her.
That's been evidenced several times throughout the series ("Innocence", "I Only
Have Eyes For You", "Dead Man's Party", for starters).
The difference here is that Kuleshov was conducting an *experiment*. On
"Buffy", the directors and actors deliberately shoot certain character
reactions in order to advance the themes and developments on the show.
Different people will certainly interpret those things differently, but to
compare them to "neutral" expressions doesn't stand up. The makers of the show
clearly want us to see certain things in the characters' reactions.
>On the subject of my own personal "problems": I'm not looking for what I
>desire in _Buffy_ half so much as I'm looking for evidence of what I
>desire. There's a difference.
Please clarify. It still sounds like you're looking for what you want to see,
rather than what's there.
If I need to establish my credibility on
>this matter, then run a keyword search on the word "trust" in my
>a.t.b-v-s articles on Deja News starting at around the middle of
>October. I've been saying this would be an issue in the story for some
>time.
It is an issue - I think everyone agrees on that. But does Buffy deserve to be
vilified like this?
>I'm not trying to beat up Buffy to make her suffer, or to come to the
>defense of "my beloved Giles" (to quote one Giles fan). It doesn't
>please me to see Buffy suffer, and she, in addition to the others, is
>suffering because of her behavior. I'm not painting her in a negative
>light because it pleases me to see her in a negative light, but because
>she behaves in a negative way and I'd prefer to see her in a positive
>light. She's the hero of the story, and if the hero can't muster what
>it takes to Do the Right Thing before the story is over, then the story
>takes on tones of the pathetic that I frankly am not watching _Buffy_ to
>see.
She's a flawed character - they all are. That's what makes the show so good.
But to paint her as a totally selfish, thoughtless bitch completely ignores the
countless times when she's been anything but.
I, too, think she was wrong in not telling Giles about Angel, and I think she's
been wrong other times, too. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore
her good qualities. Why watch the show if you dislike the main character so
much, anyway?
>I've been waiting and hoping for Buffy to grow up since the very first
>episode. It's been very slow going.
How many 17-year-olds do you know that have completely grown up? Besides, she
has grown up a lot since the first episode.
It isn't just Giles that she
>sometimes fails to respect (he's just the one that she most consistently
>fails to appreciate). It's an entire M.O. with Buffy. When she wrongs
>people, she doesn't own up to it unless she gets caught. She doesn't
>make amends, she just appeases and waits for the anger to blow over.
As most kids do. And assuming that she never feels ashamed or contrite is,
again, portraying her in a much more negative light than she deserves.
>The only two times I can remember her making deeply meaningful apologies
>are 1) to Giles at the end of "Passion" for not killing Angelus when she
>had the chance
And "Passion" provides good examples of her thinking of others. She intervenes
with Jenny on Giles' behalf, even though Jenny has hurt all of them, because
she knows that Giles is lonely and she wants him to have this relationship. At
the end of the show, after she rescues him from the factory, she embraces him
and tells him how much she needs him. That's as heartfelt as anything I've
seen on the show.
>2) to Willow at the end of "Dead Man's Party" for
>running out. *Maybe* she's managed to put all the rest of the good
>stuff into the few episodes I haven't seen yet, but somehow I suspect
>not.
You are really ignoring a *lot* of stuff here, to insist that there have only
been these two examples. In "Innocence", she feels terrible about "turning"
Angel and not killing him when she could, and she is most concerned that Giles
will be disappointed in her. In "I Only Have Eyes For You", she's still
beating herself up about the Angel thing *and* Jenny's death. Obviously a lot
of guilt there. And her efforts to make amends to Giles in "Revelations" are
the actions of someone who doesn't communicate her feelings very well, but who
wants very much to make things right with someone she cares about. She may not
go around with a placard that reads "I Respect Giles", but she has shown in
countless small ways that she does. The above are just a few examples. There
are others, but I suppose if you're determined not to see them, you won't.
>One thing that discussing TV shows has taught me is that memory will
>play you false. There are no exceptions, including myself. However,
>I've been watching for an awakening of deeper consideration of others in
>Buffy. I've been hoping for it. I was especially hoping for it in
>"Dead Man's Party," and once again after Giles' rebuke in "Revelations."
>But she was silent at the exact moment when she should have spoken up.
What could she have said? He was obviously pissed, had already told her to be
quiet, and had turned his back on her. Besides, if someone spoke to me that
way, I doubt I'd be ready with an eloquent reply, especially if that person's
opinion of me mattered as much as Giles' opinion does to Buffy.
I've already discussed the "peace offering" thing - this is not a girl who does
deep personal discussions well. The fact that she wishes to make such a
gesture at all indicates at least some geniune personal concern. Would she be
so worried about her relationships with her friends if she didn't care for or
respect them at all? If they mean so little to her, why not dump them and look
for other friends? Or go off on her own, which she's tried to do and realized
she couldn't? She needs these people, and not just to use them for her own
selfish ends, as you seem to indicate.
>And as long as we're on the subject of trust, I wonder how Joyce is
>going to react to the news that Angel's back. I wonder if both Buffy
>and Giles are going to keep the information from her, and if that's
>going to drag up the whole "secret life behind her back" issue again.
>-Micky
She'll find out, and I'm sure the aftermath will be interesting. Given Joyce's
reaction to Buffy's slaying, however, I can kind of understand why they
wouldn't tell her.
Basically, I don't think Buffy's perfect either, but if I harbored as much
dislike for her as you seem to - I wouldn't bother watching the show, that's
for sure.
Loey
Micky DuPree
"Surprise," "Innocence, and "Faith, Hope, and Trick" onward.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <3659A390...@oyez.law.upenn.edu>, The Man with No
Serotonin <jho...@oyez.law.upenn.edu> writes:
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: In article <19981121015309...@ng76.aol.com>,
:: aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
::
::: It's just that [Buffy] feels [Giles'] meddling in what she sees as
::: her personal life is not in his job description.
::
:: If that's what's going through her mind then she's a right little
:: bitca indeed. When has Giles EVER meddled in her private life when
:: it wasn't relevant to their work? That is one of the many ways in
:: which he is very unlike a father to her.
:
: Well, first of all the return of and the nature of her current
: relationship with Angel don't count as her "private life," for obvious
: reasons, although Buffy might prefer to ignore that.
I assume that's what Elizabeth meant: that from Buffy's point of view,
her relationship with Angel was strictly a private matter even though in
"Revelations" the others tried to impress upon her the fact that its
repercussions were far from private. Second, that leads to what I
meant: since Giles has never meddled in Buffy's personal life before,
the fact that he's speaking up now should indicate to her not that he
has crossed a line, but that she has.
As an aside, that's why it wasn't unfair for all five of them to gang up
on her. If they had approached her singly, she could have dismissed any
one individual as being motivated by jealousy, or as being wrong-
headed, or irrationally alarmist. But since all five were unanimous,
including Willow, who is usually sympathetic to Buffy's romantic
adventures, and Giles, who usually refrains from commenting on Buffy's
romantic adventures, it was time for a reality check. She wasn't going
to find any validation for what she was doing in the usual avenues and
would not be able to play one off against the other.
: But you have an even lower opinion of fathers than I do if you think
: unmotivated "meddling" in daughters' private lives is part of the job
: description, at least if we're talking about normative or ideal
: fathers. Yes, it happens, but it's not a requirement for the role.
It's more of a case of me being hoisted on my own parallelism. I like
to use the same language from the argument I'm refuting for maximum
effect, but in this case, you're right: the definition of the word
'meddling' doesn't really extend that far.
But I have made the same basic point before, only without such extreme
language. Giles does not even *supervise* Buffy's private life -- which
is properly under the purview of a responsible parent -- as long as he
doesn't think it's going to interfere with their work. He doesn't ask
who her friends are; he doesn't caution her about boyfriends unless he
thinks they have the potential to turn into literal monsters. He
doesn't check up on her whereabouts unless there's a conflict with
slaying or training (or he thinks she's lied). That which is strictly
personal he leaves entirely alone as not being "part of his job
description," as you put it, whereas a proper parent would be taking at
least a supervisory and, if necessary, advisory role in these matters to
make sure she wasn't falling in with the wrong crowd. (Buffy has stuck
her nose into Giles' private life far more than the other way around.)
Can you imagine Joyce finally being brought up to speed and rounding on
Giles by saying, "Never mind the fact that he was a vampire. You LET
her date a 200-year-old guy?!?" Even with something as off the wall as
that, Giles did no more than comment to Angel about how a vampire in
love with a Slayer was poetic (if maudlin). Until Angel lost his soul,
Giles kept his nose out of that whole relationship (and he showed far
more restraint than I would have in his shoes).
: Giles does occasionally get invited into Buffy's private, or at least
: non-Slayer, life, and performs splendidly when he gets those
: opportunities.
Yes, he does, such as at the end of "Innocence."
: My favorite moment in Band Candy, one that goes to the heart of why I
: think BtVS is one of the best TV shows ever, is her exchange with
: Giles at the end:
:
: Buffy: "It was just too much to deal with. It was like nothing made
: sense anymore. The things that I thought I understood were gone. I
: just felt so alone."
:
: Giles: "Was that the math or the verbal?"
:
: Buffy: "Mostly the math."
:
: At first it seems she's talking about the night before. But for her,
: the confusion and isolation of the night before are an awful lot like
: taking the SAT's.
Or even that the SATs were worse. :) But the question isn't Buffy's
frame of mind, but Giles', and I think that from his extremely educated
point of view, a Slayer shouldn't pass up a chance at higher education,
preferably in the occult, I'm sure, since he was so impressed with
Kendra's conversancy. (Of course, that leaves hanging the entire
question of what he feels his responsibilities towards high-school
dropout Faith are. People have made a point of Giles playing favorites
with Buffy over the Slayerettes, but I think it's far worse that he's
playing favorites with Buffy over Faith, who needs him more right now.)
: The horrors of adolescence are, to adolescents, truly horrors (that's
: one of the things, maybe the main thing, adolescents need to outgrow
: in order to become adults). That's why I don't think one can separate
: as neatly as you do Giles's role as Watcher and the other kinds of
: support and guidance that he gives Buffy.
:
: *When she lets him,* which is not nearly as often as she should.
"When she lets him" is precisely the key. He's perfectly willing to be
used as a resource, but unless it's work related, he waits to be asked,
as a friend would. Parents have duties and responsibilities towards
offspring who are minors that extend beyond waiting to be asked;
sometimes especially when they haven't been asked.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Vincent G. Macek" <vma...@mindspring.com> writes:
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: cjh...@peachnet.campuscw.net writes:
[much other talk snipped]
::: From Becoming 1:
:::
::: Giles: Curing Angel seems to have been Jenny's last wish.
:::
::: Xander: Yeah? Well, Jenny's dead.
:::
::: Giles: (approaches Xander angrily) Don't you *ever* speak of her in
::: that tone again!
:::
::: (taken from www.slayerfanfic.com)
:: In the passage quoted, Xander was saying that what Jenny wanted
:: didn't matter anymore because she was dead. I'm sure he didn't
:: mean it this way (quite the opposite, in fact, since he could
:: have been suggesting that staking Angel would have been a more
:: fitting tribute to Jenny than curing her murderer), but he was
:: so brusque, he practically made it sound like Jenny herself
:: didn't matter because she was dead.
: My take on Xanders' exchange in 'Becoming' was that he was pointing out
: what happens when someone tries to rehabilitate a vampire. Angel
: killed Jenny; why wouldn't he kill anyone else in the group? This
: could be interpreted as X's holding up a warning to the rest of them
I can take this either of two ways. The more literal way would
seem to be that you mean that Xander was saying that as long as
they didn't try to cure Angel, they'd be safe, unlike Jenny.
Since that seems patently absurd, I'll take it to mean instead
that Xander was basically saying, "You don't try to tame a wolf.
It may seem friendly and wag its tail for a while, but it'll
never be a dog. It'll always be a wolf, and sooner or later,
it'll turn on you."
It's certainly consistent with his earlier attitude of, "At the
end of the day, I pretty much think you're a vampire," but if
that's the way Xander meant for it to be taken, he missed the
mark with both Giles and me. I took it as dismissive of Jenny's
last wish (which Xander manifestly did not want to honor), and
however you want to interpret Giles' reaction, he seemed to take
the mention of Jenny as more than a mere cautionary tale.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
"Becoming," pt.1, "Dead Man's Party," "Beauty and the Beasts,"
"Homecoming," "Revelations," "Lovers Walk."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981124174428...@ng95.aol.com>, lr...@aol.com
(LRL94) writes:
: [Micky DuPree wrote:]
:: In article <19981120041123...@ng139.aol.com>,
:: aunt...@aol.com (AUNTIELIB) writes:
::
::: Giles' little speech [after the intervention in "Revelations"]
::: really brought home to [Buffy] the fact that her lack of trust has
::: hurt him deeply.
::
:: Based on what evidence?
:
: I'd say based on the look on her face. She's completely crushed, much
: more so than she would be if she were just thinking "Oh, boy, how do I
: get out of this one?"
Facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice are simultaneously
among the richest and yet most ambiguous aspects of dramatic
presentation.
::: (And I don't think Micky is right that she was merely annoyed at
::: getting caught. The scene was played on a much deeper level than
::: that.)
::
:: I'm pretty comfortably sure I didn't characterize her reaction as
:: "mere annoyance." She was definitely unhappy at the fact that the
:: others were unhappy with her. That still doesn't indicate that she's
:: accepted responsibility for causing their unhappiness, merely that
:: she would now like to find some way to duck out of the unpleasantness
:: and get things back to the way they were before.
:
: Of course, she wants things as they were before. Who wouldn't?
I'm not saying she's wrong to want things back the way they were. But I
am saying she's wrong for making that a higher priority than making
amends to the ones she's injured.
: But if you're determined to portray her as a heartless, emotionless
: brat who doesn't care about her friends, I guess you won't see
: anything else.
If you're determined to take stringent criticism of Buffy's lapses in
priorities as saying she has no redeeming qualities, then I guess you
won't see anything else.
::: She already had some idea of how her deception would hurt him [....]
::
:: How do we know this? And if she did, it only makes her hurting him
:: colder and more calculated rather than thoughtless and self-absorbed.
:
: She probably knew it would hurt him, and she was afraid of his
: response. One thing Buffy does not handle well is confrontation - the
: only thing she handles worse is the thought that Giles might be angry
: at or disappointed in her.
You're not doing a very good job of arguing against me here. Being
worried that Giles is angry at *her*, i.e., being worried about how
*others* are going to affect *her*, is not the same thing as being
worried that *she* has hurt *others*.
: That's been evidenced several times throughout the series
: ("Innocence", "I Only Have Eyes For You", "Dead Man's Party", for
: starters).
I don't suppose you could be more specific? I don't have time to read
the entire transcripts looking for scenes. In "Innocence," I recall
Buffy saying something like, "You must be so disappointed in me," in
Giles' car near the end, but I don't recall her saying anything along
the lines of, "I'm sorry, I must have hurt you terribly." In "Dead
Man's Party," I recall her saying something like, "But what if he's mad
at me?" when they all went to knock on Giles' door, but nothing even in
the general vicinity of, "How can I face him after I've hurt him?"
Offhand I'm drawing a blank on "I Only Have Eyes for You."
:: On the subject of problems, well, I'm reminded of the famous Kuleshov
:: experiment.
:: This is still one of the elementary principles of montage editing
:: used today. The audience interpolates the reaction and infers the
:: mental state of the character that they feel are appropriate to the
:: juxtaposition. I'd take it one step further, however. The audience
:: is most likely to connect together motivations, expressions, tone of
:: voice, and even actions with either what they most desire or else
:: what they most fear, regardless of what's actually up on the screen.
:
: The difference here is that Kuleshov was conducting an *experiment*.
And a most enlightening one it was too. Or should have been.
: On "Buffy", the directors and actors deliberately shoot certain
: character reactions in order to advance the themes and developments on
: the show. Different people will certainly interpret those things
: differently, but to compare them to "neutral" expressions doesn't
: stand up. The makers of the show clearly want us to see certain
: things in the characters' reactions.
I take it you mean to prove that the makers of the show "clearly" want
us to see your interpretations of the characters' reactions rather than
mine?
Facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice can indicate
emotion, but not motivation or thought per se. The audience must infer
anything more complex than basic emotion, and therein lies the stumbling
block. Instead of the viewer using other indications in the text itself
to "connect the dots," potentially ambiguous things such as facial
expression often become instead the vessel into which the viewer pours
his own desires, fears, and suppositions irrespective of anything to
support it in the text (or sometimes because there's too *much*
"connecting the dots" going on).
It's demonstrably happened numerous times on this newsgroup. Have you
been around for any of that? Do you remember people saying that Giles
*had* to know that Angel was back when Buffy questioned him about demon
dimensions in "Beauty and the Beasts"? And of course we just *knew*
this from his facial expression and his tone of voice. Well, we didn't
know any such thing, and that's just one of the more clear-cut examples
of people getting carried away with inference. A more recent debate has
flared up anew about just what did Xander's tone of voice mean when he
said, "Well, Jenny's dead," in "Becoming," pt.1, and there's far from a
consensus on the subject.
:: On the subject of my own personal "problems": I'm not looking for
:: what I desire in _Buffy_ half so much as I'm looking for evidence of
:: what I desire. There's a difference.
:
: Please clarify. It still sounds like you're looking for what you want
: to see, rather than what's there.
I mean that people who are simply looking for what they desire will find
it whether there's any solid evidence of it or not. If they want to see
a Buffy who's taking responsibility for her actions, they will interpret
her unhappy facial expression in Giles' office in "Revelations" as
meaning she's unhappy she's hurt Giles, without waiting to see if
there's anything else to support that interpretation. If her outward
behavior contradicts that interpretation, they insist that she
nevertheless does feel that way on the inside, she just doesn't show it.
By "looking for evidence of what I desire," I mean that I'm looking for
that supporting proof of her inner state of mind before coming to
conclusions about it. It means that whereas you'd probably interpret
the line, "How long do you think he can stay mad at me?" as meaning,
"I'm sorry I hurt him," I interpret it pretty much at face value,
meaning, "I hate it when people are mad at me and I wish it would all
blow over." I'm still looking for that evidence of what you're pretty
much taking on faith. I *want* to find it but I'm not willing to come
to that conclusion without it.
You see, Buffy herself is almost invariably happier when she does the
right thing. Not only is it the right thing to do, but when she shares
secrets that aren't really hers to keep alone, when she says she's
sorry, she's usually relieved afterwards, like a weight's been taken off
of her. I'm not trying to punish Buffy. In fact, I want to see her
stop suffering so much. However, this is not usually something that
anyone else can do for her. It usually requires biting the bullet in
the short term in order get the long term to work out more smoothly.
Biting the bullet seems to be one of those difficult lessons to learn as
one gets more mature.
:: If I need to establish my credibility on this matter, then run a
:: keyword search on the word "trust" in my a.t.b-v-s articles on Deja
:: News starting at around the middle of October. I've been saying this
:: would be an issue in the story for some time.
:
: It is an issue - I think everyone agrees on that. But does Buffy
: deserve to be vilified like this?
Explain "vilified." I've pointed out evidence that she's primarily
concerned with how things affect her, not with how she's affecting
others. I'm still waiting to hear evidence to the contrary apart from
inference/supposition/surmise/guesswork from facial expression, tone of
voice, etc., and the two examples that I brought up.
: But to paint her as a totally selfish, thoughtless bitch completely
: ignores the countless times when she's been anything but.
And to say that I've painted her as a totally selfish, thoughtless bitch
completely ignores the mitigating arguments that I've made on Buffy's
behalf both in this line of argument and in other discussions. This is
not professional wrestling. I have not come here just to cheer and boo.
If the nuance in my argument is lost on you, why should I trust any
interpretation you might make of Buffy's innermost thoughts, especially
since she hasn't deigned to share them with us (much less with the other
characters)?
: I, too, think she was wrong in not telling Giles about Angel, and I
: think she's been wrong other times, too. But that doesn't mean I'm
: just going to ignore her good qualities. Why watch the show if you
: dislike the main character so much, anyway?
Buffy is my third favorite character after Giles and Willow (and she's
been gaining on Willow throughout the third season). If you can't tell
that I like Buffy when I've explicitly said so in the past, why should I
trust your judgment as to what's running through Buffy's mind based
purely on speculation from facial expression?
:: I've been waiting and hoping for Buffy to grow up since the very
:: first episode. It's been very slow going.
:
: How many 17-year-olds do you know that have completely grown up?
You don't have to be completely grown up to factor in the impact of your
actions on others before you act. Look at Xander and Willow. They've
screwed up big-time recently, but at least the consequences to others
weighed heavily upon them. All the way back in "Homecoming," for
example, when they were sitting around miserable at the dance, they
talked about how Oz wrote that song for Willow, and Xander said
something about, "He's a great guy, Oz," all the while pulling this
really long face. Oh, they knew what they had done all right, and since
they had no fear of discovery at that point, they were feeling miserable
about what they had done to Oz and Cordelia, not about how the others
were going to treat them.
: Besides, she has grown up a lot since the first episode.
Some. Isn't it great? Did you see the end of "Lovers Walk"? She seems
to be going over some things in her mind and finally accepting harsh
truths. (Unfortunately, His Angelicness still seems to be the poster
boy for Unclear on the Concept, which is scary since he's the one who
most needs the self-control.)
Someone said that there's an episode coming up called "Amends." I can
dream. It would be so like Buffy to resist outside pressure to do the
right thing, and then finally, once the pressure's off, to turn around
and do it. Just out of the blue, drop it into the conversation. She'll
be talking with Giles about training or weapons or something mundane
(for them), and then just go on to say, "You were right. I'm sorry."
Believe me, I've far from written her off. The story isn't even quite
half over yet.
: And assuming that she never feels ashamed or contrite is, again,
: portraying her in a much more negative light than she deserves.
And acting like I've never noted any exceptions whatsoever portrays my
argument as much more extreme than it is.
:: The only two times I can remember her making deeply meaningful
:: apologies are 1) to Giles at the end of "Passion" for not killing
:: Angelus when she had the chance ...
: And "Passion" provides good examples of her thinking of others. She
: intervenes with Jenny on Giles' behalf, even though Jenny has hurt all
: of them, because she knows that Giles is lonely and she wants him to
: have this relationship.
Excuse me? Can you point to anywhere I ever said that Buffy wants
people to be unhappy? The above is not an example of Buffy being
concerned about the impact of her *own* actions on others. It was a
wonderful gesture on Buffy's part, but the primary repercussions were
from Jenny's actions.
: At the end of the show, after she rescues him from the factory, she
: embraces him and tells him how much she needs him. That's as
: heartfelt as anything I've seen on the show.
It was very moving, but exactly how does, "I need you," demonstrate that
she's considering the feelings of *others* when deciding her own course
of action? What it really indicates was that Giles made a rare lapse by
not considering the impact of his actions on Buffy. A much better
example of Buffy's consideration of him is the one that I gave: she
actually apologized to Giles at Jenny's graveside.
:: ... [and when she apologized] to Willow at the end of "Dead Man's
:: Party" for running out. *Maybe* she's managed to put all the rest of
:: the good stuff into the few episodes I haven't seen yet, but somehow
:: I suspect not.
:
: You are really ignoring a *lot* of stuff here, to insist that there
: have only been these two examples. In "Innocence", she feels terrible
: about "turning" Angel and not killing him when she could ...
I never said that she couldn't feel bad about something, but sheesh,
Giles was right: she *wasn't* to blame for what happened to Angel. No
one can live their life afraid of secret curse clauses they don't even
know are there.
: ... and she is most concerned that Giles will be disappointed in her.
This is different from being concerned that *she* hurt *Giles*. Do you
even see the difference? One frame of mind is worried about how others
will affect her. The other frame of mind is worried about how she will
affect others.
: In "I Only Have Eyes For You", she's still beating herself up about
: the Angel thing *and* Jenny's death. Obviously a lot of guilt there.
Mm-hm. And where exactly did I say Buffy never felt guilty or bad about
anything? By all means, point it out to me so that I may retract it
posthaste.
: And her efforts to make amends to Giles in "Revelations" are the
: actions of someone who doesn't communicate her feelings very well, but
: who wants very much to make things right with someone she cares about.
You haven't shown me a single thing that runs counter to my
interpretation. In fact, it sounds like you're rationalizing her
behavior to make it sound better than it actually is. As John Hogan so
pertinently pointed out, the way you overtly treat people is part and
parcel of respect. If you keep it all to yourself, it's not really
respect.
: She may not go around with a placard that reads "I Respect Giles", but
: she has shown in countless small ways that she does. The above are
: just a few examples. There are others, but I suppose if you're
: determined not to see them, you won't.
If you can't point any out that aren't just as good if not better
examples of my interpretation, what am I supposed to think?
:: I've been watching for an awakening of deeper consideration of others
:: in Buffy. I've been hoping for it. I was especially hoping for it
:: in "Dead Man's Party," and once again after Giles' rebuke in
:: "Revelations." But she was silent at the exact moment when she
:: should have spoken up.
:
: What could she have said?
"I'm sorry." There was much else she could have said as well, but those
two words constituted the worst omission by far. No, in general, an
apology can't erase what has happened and in many cases, the injured
party is too wrapped up in their hurt to pay attention, but that's their
lookout. The injuring party still owes that first acknowledgement that
the injury was committed and that it was wrong.
Besides, five'll get you ten Giles would have softened at those two
little words. Making Buffy unhappy isn't high on his list of fun things
to do either.
: Would she be so worried about her relationships with her friends if
: she didn't care for or respect them at all? If they mean so little to
: her, why not dump them and look for other friends? Or go off on her
: own, which she's tried to do and realized she couldn't? She needs
: these people, and not just to use them for her own selfish ends, as
: you seem to indicate.
You're not paying attention. Yes, she needs these people, and it's not
merely a matter of using them with no regard for their feelings. But
look at her priorities. She never specifically wants to hurt any of
them (unless they hurt her first, and then she may lash out in anger,
but that's a special case). However, if a conflict arises between what
Buffy wants and hurting others in the process, what Buffy wants almost
always comes first. She never says to herself, "Good, they deserve to
be hurt," or, "Oh, well, they don't matter." But she does rationalize
it away, saying to herself, "Well, I won't get caught," or (as she said
to Faith), "I had no choice," when she damn well did have a choice. She
just didn't *want* to choose any other way.
That's not respect.
-Micky
LRL94
>"Becoming," pt.1, "Dead Man's Party," "Beauty and the Beasts,"
>"Homecoming," "Revelations," "Lovers Walk."
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>: more so than she would be if she were just thinking "Oh, boy, how do I
>: get out of this one?"
>
>Facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice are simultaneously
>among the richest and yet most ambiguous aspects of dramatic
>presentation.
>
They're rarely that ambiguous in this show, especially with such expressive
actors. And, again unlike Kuleshov, the creative people on this show *intend*
to convey specific emotional responses. That's the nature of narrative drama.
If we weren't supposed to infer certain responses, why would they be shown at
all?
>: Of course, she wants things as they were before. Who wouldn't?
>
>I'm not saying she's wrong to want things back the way they were. But I
>am saying she's wrong for making that a higher priority than making
>amends to the ones she's injured.
>
Things *won't* be the same if everyone is angry with her. Getting things back
the way they were would imply doing whatever it takes to make things right with
her friends again. In some instances, that may include making amends, although
Giles is the only one who really seems that hurt by what she's done. The
others were mostly worried, and are dealing with it.
>: But if you're determined to portray her as a heartless, emotionless
>: brat who doesn't care about her friends, I guess you won't see
>: anything else.
>
>If you're determined to take stringent criticism of Buffy's lapses in
>priorities as saying she has no redeeming qualities, then I guess you
>won't see anything else.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I think you have been, too, at least in this
thread. I haven't seen anything from you on this topic that *isn't* an attack
on Buffy's character.
>: She probably knew it would hurt him, and she was afraid of his
>: response. One thing Buffy does not handle well is confrontation - the
>: only thing she handles worse is the thought that Giles might be angry
>: at or disappointed in her.
>
>You're not doing a very good job of arguing against me here. Being
>worried that Giles is angry at *her*, i.e., being worried about how
>*others* are going to affect *her*, is not the same thing as being
>worried that *she* has hurt *others*.
>
And I'll reiterate - if she didn't care about *them*, why would she care about
their opinion of her? Besides, my argument is that she feared Giles' overall
reaction to Angel's reappearance (that he'd "freak", as she told Platt).
That's not necessarily a reflection on her, but a concern that Giles (and the
others) couldn't handle the information and might do something to Angel (which
a couple of them tried).
>: That's been evidenced several times throughout the series
>: ("Innocence", "I Only Have Eyes For You", "Dead Man's Party", for
>: starters).
>
>I don't suppose you could be more specific? I don't have time to read
>the entire transcripts looking for scenes. In "Innocence," I recall
>Buffy saying something like, "You must be so disappointed in me," in
>Giles' car near the end, but I don't recall her saying anything along
>the lines of, "I'm sorry, I must have hurt you terribly." In "Dead
>Man's Party," I recall her saying something like, "But what if he's mad
>at me?" when they all went to knock on Giles' door, but nothing even in
>the general vicinity of, "How can I face him after I've hurt him?"
>Offhand I'm drawing a blank on "I Only Have Eyes for You."
Those were the scenes I was talking about. Again, if she didn't care about
him, why would his opinion of her matter so much?
>:
>: The difference here is that Kuleshov was conducting an *experiment*.
>
>And a most enlightening one it was too. Or should have been.
Indeed. But it's not the same as shooting specific reactions for the purposes
of narrative fiction. Certain responses have to be intended - otherwise
there's no point in trying to tell the story a certain way.
>: On "Buffy", the directors and actors deliberately shoot certain
>: character reactions in order to advance the themes and developments on
>: the show. Different people will certainly interpret those things
>: differently, but to compare them to "neutral" expressions doesn't
>: stand up. The makers of the show clearly want us to see certain
>: things in the characters' reactions.
>
>I take it you mean to prove that the makers of the show "clearly" want
>us to see your interpretations of the characters' reactions rather than
>mine?
>Facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice can indicate
>emotion, but not motivation or thought per se. The audience must infer
>anything more complex than basic emotion, and therein lies the stumbling
>block. Instead of the viewer using other indications in the text itself
>to "connect the dots," potentially ambiguous things such as facial
>expression often become instead the vessel into which the viewer pours
>his own desires, fears, and suppositions irrespective of anything to
>support it in the text (or sometimes because there's too *much*
>"connecting the dots" going on).
>
I'm using indications in the text itself. Of course, the text includes obvious
facial expressions, lines of dialogue, and vocal inflections from all the
episodes. You're supposed to "connect the dots". If you don't, you may as
well come into every episode with no knowledge of the characters.
>It's demonstrably happened numerous times on this newsgroup. Have you
>been around for any of that? Do you remember people saying that Giles
>*had* to know that Angel was back when Buffy questioned him about demon
>dimensions in "Beauty and the Beasts"? And of course we just *knew*
>this from his facial expression and his tone of voice. Well, we didn't
>know any such thing, and that's just one of the more clear-cut examples
>of people getting carried away with inference.
I still think he suspected, or at least was concerned about the possibility.
Gile's reaction would not have been shot the way it was if we weren't supposed
to infer something from it. Of course, later episodes may reveal a totally
different reason for his reaction. I'm just going by what was on the screen.
A more recent debate has
>flared up anew about just what did Xander's tone of voice mean when he
>said, "Well, Jenny's dead," in "Becoming," pt.1, and there's far from a
>consensus on the subject.
>
He didn't think they should bother restoring Angel's soul (him being a
heartless murderer and all), and used Jenny's death as a cheap shot means of
making his point. Just like he did in "Revelations". Nice parallels in the
script, BTW.
>:: On the subject of my own personal "problems": I'm not looking for
>:: what I desire in _Buffy_ half so much as I'm looking for evidence of
>:: what I desire. There's a difference.
>:
>: Please clarify. It still sounds like you're looking for what you want
>: to see, rather than what's there.
>
>I mean that people who are simply looking for what they desire will find
>it whether there's any solid evidence of it or not. If they want to see
>a Buffy who's taking responsibility for her actions, they will interpret
>her unhappy facial expression in Giles' office in "Revelations" as
>meaning she's unhappy she's hurt Giles, without waiting to see if
>there's anything else to support that interpretation. If her outward
>behavior contradicts that interpretation, they insist that she
>nevertheless does feel that way on the inside, she just doesn't show it.
>
I'm not saying that Buffy is taking full responsibility for her actions - just
that she didn't realize how much her deception would hurt Giles, and feels
badly that it has.
>By "looking for evidence of what I desire," I mean that I'm looking for
>that supporting proof of her inner state of mind before coming to
>conclusions about it. It means that whereas you'd probably interpret
>the line, "How long do you think he can stay mad at me?" as meaning,
>"I'm sorry I hurt him," I interpret it pretty much at face value,
>meaning, "I hate it when people are mad at me and I wish it would all
>blow over." I'm still looking for that evidence of what you're pretty
>much taking on faith. I *want* to find it but I'm not willing to come
>to that conclusion without it.
It just seems to me that you aren't interested at looking at the show's
subtexts - that if it isn't obvious and spelled out, it doesn't count. And I
didn't interpret that line as "I'm sorry I hurt him." I interpreted it as "I
don't want him to be angry at me". You may see that as purely selfish - I
don't. I don't think the show, up to this point, has portrayed her as purely
selfish in her motivations, so there's no reason to assume that she is.
>You see, Buffy herself is almost invariably happier when she does the
>right thing. Not only is it the right thing to do, but when she shares
>secrets that aren't really hers to keep alone, when she says she's
>sorry, she's usually relieved afterwards, like a weight's been taken off
>of her. I'm not trying to punish Buffy. In fact, I want to see her
>stop suffering so much. However, this is not usually something that
>anyone else can do for her. It usually requires biting the bullet in
>the short term in order get the long term to work out more smoothly.
>Biting the bullet seems to be one of those difficult lessons to learn as
>one gets more mature.
>
Finally, we agree on something :-) I think Buffy needs to learn to trust her
friends more and stop being so secretive. But I understand why she has such a
hard time with this, especially where Angel is concerned. There have been
several lines where she has expressed concern about her friends' reactions (or
overreactions, as the case may be), and she was clearly confused about their
relationship until the end of Lovers Walk. I think she was wrong in not
telling Giles, but I don't think it indicates a lack of concern or respect.
>: It is an issue - I think everyone agrees on that. But does Buffy
>: deserve to be vilified like this?
>
>Explain "vilified."
Put down, attacked, denigrated. That's what your posts on this subject have
looked like to me.
>I've pointed out evidence that she's primarily
>concerned with how things affect her, not with how she's affecting
>others. I'm still waiting to hear evidence to the contrary apart from
>inference/supposition/surmise/guesswork from facial expression, tone of
>voice, etc., and the two examples that I brought up.
>
Facial expression and tone of voice are part of the show's text. If we can't
infer anything from them, then all we have left are things we get hit over the
head with. Boring.
>
>: But to paint her as a totally selfish, thoughtless bitch completely
>: ignores the countless times when she's been anything but.
>
>And to say that I've painted her as a totally selfish, thoughtless bitch
>completely ignores the mitigating arguments that I've made on Buffy's
>behalf both in this line of argument and in other discussions. This is
>not professional wrestling. I have not come here just to cheer and boo.
>If the nuance in my argument is lost on you, why should I trust any
>interpretation you might make of Buffy's innermost thoughts, especially
>since she hasn't deigned to share them with us (much less with the other
>characters)?
>
Sorry, but I haven't seen many mitigating arguments in this thread. You've
painted her as selfish and thoughtless, unconcerned for how her behavior
affects others and lacking respect for her friends. Mitigating arguments have
been followed by "but" statements detailing how awful she's being, and denials
that anything else can be found in the text or subtext of the show.
>: I, too, think she was wrong in not telling Giles about Angel, and I
>: think she's been wrong other times, too. But that doesn't mean I'm
>: just going to ignore her good qualities. Why watch the show if you
>: dislike the main character so much, anyway?
>
>Buffy is my third favorite character after Giles and Willow (and she's
>been gaining on Willow throughout the third season). If you can't tell
>that I like Buffy when I've explicitly said so in the past, why should I
>trust your judgment as to what's running through Buffy's mind based
>purely on speculation from facial expression?
>
You certainly haven't said much good about her in this thread (which is what
I'm responding to). Why should I trust your claim that you like Buffy if
you've just spend several posts attacking her?
>:: I've been waiting and hoping for Buffy to grow up since the very
>:: first episode. It's been very slow going.
>:
>: How many 17-year-olds do you know that have completely grown up?
>
>You don't have to be completely grown up to factor in the impact of your
>actions on others before you act. Look at Xander and Willow. They've
>screwed up big-time recently, but at least the consequences to others
>weighed heavily upon them. All the way back in "Homecoming," for
>example, when they were sitting around miserable at the dance, they
>talked about how Oz wrote that song for Willow, and Xander said
>something about, "He's a great guy, Oz," all the while pulling this
>really long face. Oh, they knew what they had done all right, and since
>they had no fear of discovery at that point, they were feeling miserable
>about what they had done to Oz and Cordelia, not about how the others
>were going to treat them.
>
>: Besides, she has grown up a lot since the first episode.
>
>Some. Isn't it great? Did you see the end of "Lovers Walk"? She seems
>to be going over some things in her mind and finally accepting harsh
>truths. (Unfortunately, His Angelicness still seems to be the poster
>boy for Unclear on the Concept, which is scary since he's the one who
>most needs the self-control.)
>
Yes, I was very impressed with her in Lovers Walk. She finally seems to
realize that it's too dangerous for her and Angel to be around each other. His
reaction could indeed by scary, though, which should be interesting.
>Someone said that there's an episode coming up called "Amends." I can
>dream. It would be so like Buffy to resist outside pressure to do the
>right thing, and then finally, once the pressure's off, to turn around
>and do it. Just out of the blue, drop it into the conversation. She'll
>be talking with Giles about training or weapons or something mundane
>(for them), and then just go on to say, "You were right. I'm sorry."
>Believe me, I've far from written her off. The story isn't even quite
>half over yet.
>
>
Exactly. I don't think the writers are dropping this issue, but I'm not
expecting a big emotional scene, either. If she does something *besides*
outright apologize, though, will you notice or accept it?
>: And assuming that she never feels ashamed or contrite is, again,
>: portraying her in a much more negative light than she deserves.
>
>And acting like I've never noted any exceptions whatsoever portrays my
>argument as much more extreme than it is.
>
>
I'm just going by what you've posted to this thread. It sounded like a pretty
direct attack to me. Then again, I don't have facial expressions or vocal
inflections to help me understand your feelings :-) Just the words. So sorry
if I misinterpreted your statements, but that's how they looked.
>:: The only two times I can remember her making deeply meaningful
>:: apologies are 1) to Giles at the end of "Passion" for not killing
>:: Angelus when she had the chance ...
>
>: And "Passion" provides good examples of her thinking of others. She
>: intervenes with Jenny on Giles' behalf, even though Jenny has hurt all
>: of them, because she knows that Giles is lonely and she wants him to
>: have this relationship.
>
>Excuse me? Can you point to anywhere I ever said that Buffy wants
>people to be unhappy? The above is not an example of Buffy being
>concerned about the impact of her *own* actions on others. It was a
>wonderful gesture on Buffy's part, but the primary repercussions were
>from Jenny's actions.
>
And still shows concern for her friends and their happiness. Which was my
point.
And I still contend that she would not be so concerned about his opinion of her
if she did not care about him and, yes, respect him.
>: In "I Only Have Eyes For You", she's still beating herself up about
>: the Angel thing *and* Jenny's death. Obviously a lot of guilt there.
>
>Mm-hm. And where exactly did I say Buffy never felt guilty or bad about
>anything? By all means, point it out to me so that I may retract it
>posthaste.
>
>
You've accused her of being selfish and unconcerned about others. People who
exhibit those personality traits that strongly usually don't feel too badly
about things they do wrong.
>: And her efforts to make amends to Giles in "Revelations" are the
>: actions of someone who doesn't communicate her feelings very well, but
>: who wants very much to make things right with someone she cares about.
>
>You haven't shown me a single thing that runs counter to my
>interpretation. In fact, it sounds like you're rationalizing her
>behavior to make it sound better than it actually is. As John Hogan so
>pertinently pointed out, the way you overtly treat people is part and
>parcel of respect. If you keep it all to yourself, it's not really
>respect.
>
Of course, you can also *say* that you respect someone when you really don't.
People don't always make their true feelings known in great big neon letters.
I take Buffy's behavior at other times as indications that she does respect
Giles. You don't.
>: She may not go around with a placard that reads "I Respect Giles", but
>: she has shown in countless small ways that she does. The above are
>: just a few examples. There are others, but I suppose if you're
>: determined not to see them, you won't.
>
>If you can't point any out that aren't just as good if not better
>examples of my interpretation, what am I supposed to think?
>
And it all boils down to interepretation. You interpret these things
differently than I do.
>:: I've been watching for an awakening of deeper consideration of others
>:: in Buffy. I've been hoping for it. I was especially hoping for it
>:: in "Dead Man's Party," and once again after Giles' rebuke in
>:: "Revelations." But she was silent at the exact moment when she
>:: should have spoken up.
>:
>: What could she have said?
>
>"I'm sorry." There was much else she could have said as well, but those
>two words constituted the worst omission by far. No, in general, an
>apology can't erase what has happened and in many cases, the injured
>party is too wrapped up in their hurt to pay attention, but that's their
>lookout. The injuring party still owes that first acknowledgement that
>the injury was committed and that it was wrong.
>
>Besides, five'll get you ten Giles would have softened at those two
>little words. Making Buffy unhappy isn't high on his list of fun things
>to do either.
>
As I pointed out before, Giles had told her to be quiet and had turned his back
on her. She was obviously not expecting the rebuke, either (I think even you
would "infer" this much from her reaction). A quick verbal response from her
would have been unlikely. Besides, if she had just said "I'm sorry" at that
moment, would you have accused her of damage control again? She said "I'm
sorry" at the end of Reptile Boy too - do you think she really was, or was she
just trying to get out of trouble?
>: Would she be so worried about her relationships with her friends if
>: she didn't care for or respect them at all? If they mean so little to
>: her, why not dump them and look for other friends? Or go off on her
>: own, which she's tried to do and realized she couldn't? She needs
>: these people, and not just to use them for her own selfish ends, as
>: you seem to indicate.
>
>You're not paying attention. Yes, she needs these people, and it's not
>merely a matter of using them with no regard for their feelings. But
>look at her priorities. She never specifically wants to hurt any of
>them (unless they hurt her first, and then she may lash out in anger,
>but that's a special case). However, if a conflict arises between what
>Buffy wants and hurting others in the process, what Buffy wants almost
>always comes first. She never says to herself, "Good, they deserve to
>be hurt," or, "Oh, well, they don't matter." But she does rationalize
>it away, saying to herself, "Well, I won't get caught," or (as she said
>to Faith), "I had no choice," when she damn well did have a choice. She
>just didn't *want* to choose any other way.
>
>That's not respect.
Unless of course she actually thought that she didn't have a choice. She
didn't know how they'd react, and was clearly concerned about them "freaking
out". Considering the way they responded (at least Xander and Faith), she had
a point. Buffy always has her reasons for what she does, and they make perfect
sense to her. They may not be right, but they're not totally selfish either.
They're just what she thinks she has to do. I don't read disrespect into that.
Just a kid who's trying to make decisions she's not mature enough to make by
herself. If anything, *that's* her biggest personality flaw.
God, this thread is giving me a headache. We obviously see Buffy's character
in totally different lights. Agree to disagree?
Loey
Daniel Solomon
>>Spoilers for "Innocence," "Passion," "I Only Have Eyes for You,"
>>"Becoming," pt.1, "Dead Man's Party," "Beauty and the Beasts,"
>>"Homecoming," "Revelations," "Lovers Walk."
>>
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>
>
>their opinion of her? Besides, my argument is that she feared Giles' overall
>reaction to Angel's reappearance (that he'd "freak", as she told Platt).
>That's not necessarily a reflection on her, but a concern that Giles (and the
>others) couldn't handle the information and might do something to Angel (which
>a couple of them tried).
>
>
>didn't know how they'd react, and was clearly concerned about them "freaking
>out". Considering the way they responded (at least Xander and Faith), she had
>a point. Buffy always has her reasons for what she does, and they make perfect
>sense to her. They may not be right, but they're not totally selfish either.
>They're just what she thinks she has to do. I don't read disrespect into that.
> Just a kid who's trying to make decisions she's not mature enough to make by
>herself. If anything, *that's* her biggest personality flaw.
You are taking the situation out of context. You say she was justified in
her actions because everyone responded exactly the way that she thought
they would. However, the biggest factor in why they reacted in the way
they did was because not only did she get found out inadvertantly, but at
the time she was engaged in extrememly irresponsible behavior. By hiding
important information, she made everyone's reactions far worse than they
would have been if she had come to Giles first, told him, and then the two
of them told the others. It is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Like
you say, Buffy is "just a kid who's trying to make decisions she's not
mature enough to make by herself." Apparently, she isn't mature enough to
ask others for help, either. This is very glaring with Giles, because it
is *his* sacred duty to help her make these decisions. He is more than a
card catalog/punching bag.
LRL94
>her actions because everyone responded exactly the way that she thought
>they would.
I never said she was justified. I said she *thought* she was justified. And
Xander (and probably Faith) would most likely have reacted badly no matter when
they found out.
> However, the biggest factor in why they reacted in the way
>they did was because not only did she get found out inadvertantly, but at
>the time she was engaged in extrememly irresponsible behavior.
True. But Buffy's fear was that they'd freak not matter when or how they
learned of Angel's return.
>By hiding
>important information, she made everyone's reactions far worse than they
>would have been if she had come to Giles first, told him, and then the two
>of them told the others.
Buffy's fear was that they'd react badly if they found out *period.* This
isn't about what I think she should have done - it's about what she thought she
had to do.
>It is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Like
>you say, Buffy is "just a kid who's trying to make decisions she's not
>mature enough to make by herself." Apparently, she isn't mature enough to
>ask others for help, either.
Exactly my point. She should trust the others and seek their help, but she's
often afraid to or thinks she has to handle things alone. That's a problem she
has.
>This is very glaring with Giles, because it
>is *his* sacred duty to help her make these decisions. He is more than a
>card catalog/punching bag.
>
I agree. Buffy has a really hard time opening up to people and trusting them
to help her, which is a sometimes near-fatal personality flaw. I'm hoping that
this experience with Angel gets her to wake up - her "breaking up" with him in
Lovers Walk is a step in the right direction. In time, perhaps she'll realize
that she doesn't have to be the Slayer alone.
At any rate, what I was responding to were Micky's interpretations of what is
motivating Buffy's behavior. Micky thinks it's selfishness and lack of
respect. I think it's trying to take on more than she can handle and being
unnecessarily afraid to trust the people she can depend on.
Loey
Daniel Solomon
>>By hiding
>>important information, she made everyone's reactions far worse than they
>>would have been if she had come to Giles first, told him, and then the two
>>of them told the others.
>
>
>Buffy's fear was that they'd react badly if they found out *period.* This
>isn't about what I think she should have done - it's about what she thought she
>had to do.
And along the same vein, Xander's fear was that Angel could turn evil
again. If we are going to give Buffy this sort of latitude, then Xander
deserves it as well, especially since Xander's fear is based on previous
experiences that they all had.
The Man with No Serotonin
> At any rate, what I was responding to were Micky's interpretations of what is
> motivating Buffy's behavior. Micky thinks it's selfishness and lack of respect.
> I think it's trying to take on more than she can handle and being
> unnecessarily afraid to trust the people she can depend on.
Maybe this is getting narrowed down to "two ways of saying the same thing." Buffy's
lack of trust in Giles *is* a lack of respect; and in large part it's a lack of
trust that Giles will do what she wants done, whether what she wants is right or
not. The mistrust is closely related to her wanting her own way above all. Yes, as
human failings go it's fairly common and (when you're not in the business of saving
the world) usually not all that harmful. But just waving it off, as you seem to be
doing, washes out a good deal of the show's moral drama.
LRL94
>>isn't about what I think she should have done - it's about what she thought
>she
>>had to do.
>
>And along the same vein, Xander's fear was that Angel could turn evil
>again. If we are going to give Buffy this sort of latitude, then Xander
>deserves it as well, especially since Xander's fear is based on previous
>experiences that they all had.
>
> - Dan Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
I don't have any problem giving Xander the same latitude. While his comments
about Jenny were low blows, argument-wise, he had a point and was right to be
at least somewhat concerned. I'm not sure he should have reacted with such
vehemence, since it showed *his* lack of trust in Buffy, but I understand why
he did.
Again, it's not about what characters *should* do, but what they seem to
believe they should do. That's what makes such a well-written show so
interesting - the characters are realistic enough to have complex motivations
and to be both right and wrong at the same time.
Loey
LRL94
>
>> At any rate, what I was responding to were Micky's interpretations of what
>is
>> motivating Buffy's behavior. Micky thinks it's selfishness and lack of
>respect.
>> I think it's trying to take on more than she can handle and being
>> unnecessarily afraid to trust the people she can depend on.
>
>Maybe this is getting narrowed down to "two ways of saying the same thing."
Oh, I don't think we're saying the same thing at all.
>Buffy's
>lack of trust in Giles *is* a lack of respect;
Or a belief that she has to handle things on her own and a fear that he will
hurt Angel.
and in large part it's a lack
>of
>trust that Giles will do what she wants done, whether what she wants is right
>or
>not. The mistrust is closely related to her wanting her own way above all.
>Yes, as
>human failings go it's fairly common and (when you're not in the business of
>saving
>the world) usually not all that harmful.
You see her behavior as selfish and a desire to "have her own way". I don't.
We're *definitely* saying two different things here.
But just waving it off, as you seem
>to be
>doing, washes out a good deal of the show's moral drama.
>
I'm waving it off because I don't think it's an accurate assessment. The
show's moral drama would be useless to me if I thought the main character were
acting merely out of selfishness and a lack of respect for others. Frankly, I
wouldn't want to watch a show like that.
I don't really want to continue arguing this ad nauseam - we're starting to
repeat ourselves. So I'll just summarize, one last time, what *I* think
Buffy's motivations are.
1. Fear: She's afraid of how people will react to important events
(Revelations, probably Innocence), she's afraid of losing her friends (When She
Was Bad, Dead Man's Party), she's sometimes afraid of what being a Slayer
entails (Prophecy Girl, Anne).
2. Misguided sense of responsibility: She thinks (often wrongly, I'll admit)
that she has to carry the weight of being the Slayer on her own, especially
when she feels that she's directly causing harm to others. (Let's see, there
are a bunch of examples for this one - When She Was Bad, Ted, Killed By Death,
I Only Have Eyes For You, Anne, even the hiding-Angel story arc has elements of
this).
That's my final .02 on the subject. Unless I just can't resist posting again
:-)
Loey
Scott
>
> >>Buffy's fear was that they'd react badly if they found out *period.* This
> >>isn't about what I think she should have done - it's about what she thought
> >she
> >>had to do.
> >
> >And along the same vein, Xander's fear was that Angel could turn evil
> >again. If we are going to give Buffy this sort of latitude, then Xander
> >deserves it as well, especially since Xander's fear is based on previous
> >experiences that they all had.
> >
> > - Dan Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
>
> I don't have any problem giving Xander the same latitude. While his comments
> about Jenny were low blows, argument-wise, he had a point and was right to be
> at least somewhat concerned. I'm not sure he should have reacted with such
> vehemence, since it showed *his* lack of trust in Buffy, but I understand why
> he did.
Xander has every right to distrust Buffy. She had plenty of chances to
kill bad Angel, but she didn't, allowing Angel to kill Jenny and her
uncle, and probably many others. It wasn't until the fate of the world
was at stake that she finally killed Angel, and somewhat reluctantly
too.
Scott
LilyRei
>>Xander has every right to distrust Buffy. She had plenty of chances to kill
bad Angel, but she didn't, allowing Angel to kill Jenny and her uncle, and
probably many others. It wasn't until the fate of the world was at stake that
she finally killed Angel, and somewhat reluctantly
too.<<
I really wasn't going to say anything about this, but I find that *sigh* I
can't keep my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers off the keyboard) again.
I'm not even going to touch the Xander portion of this, but Buffy didn't
*allow* Angel to kill Jenny and her uncle.
Honestly, I think they played a major part in their own demise (albeit
indirectly). Their tribe put a curse on the demon without any thought to
anything other than REVENGE. I think it was a wonderful and ironic payback
that their desire for revenge was visited on them twofold. Do you really think
there was no animosity between the demon and the Romani for that little stunt?
Since it didn't matter to Jenny's uncle who died because the spell unraveled,
then its no big deal that he and his niece went down in a sea of blood.
Payback IS a bitch.
bwahaha . . .
LilyRei
http://hotslayer.com
Those that *can* DO, those that *can't* bitch and complain
Don Sample
(LRL94) wrote:
>>>Buffy's fear was that they'd react badly if they found out *period.* This
>>>isn't about what I think she should have done - it's about what she thought
>>she
>>>had to do.
>>
>>And along the same vein, Xander's fear was that Angel could turn evil
>>again. If we are going to give Buffy this sort of latitude, then Xander
>>deserves it as well, especially since Xander's fear is based on previous
>>experiences that they all had.
>>
>> - Dan Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
>
>
>I don't have any problem giving Xander the same latitude. While his comments
>about Jenny were low blows, argument-wise, he had a point and was right to be
>at least somewhat concerned. I'm not sure he should have reacted with such
>vehemence, since it showed *his* lack of trust in Buffy, but I understand why
>he did.
>
>Again, it's not about what characters *should* do, but what they seem to
>believe they should do. That's what makes such a well-written show so
>interesting - the characters are realistic enough to have complex motivations
>and to be both right and wrong at the same time.
>
>Loey
I think that the character who will be most sympathetic to Xander's POV re
the restored Angel is Angel himself. I want to see Xander give vent to his
opinion of Angel to Angel's face, and then have Angel agree with him.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Montgomery
> LRL94 wrote:
> >
> > >>Buffy's fear was that they'd react badly if they found out *period.* This
> > >>isn't about what I think she should have done - it's about what she thought
> > >she
> > >>had to do.
> > >
> > >And along the same vein, Xander's fear was that Angel could turn evil
> > >again. If we are going to give Buffy this sort of latitude, then Xander
> > >deserves it as well, especially since Xander's fear is based on previous
> > >experiences that they all had.
> > >
> > > - Dan Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
> >
> > I don't have any problem giving Xander the same latitude. While his comments
> > about Jenny were low blows, argument-wise, he had a point and was right to be
> > at least somewhat concerned. I'm not sure he should have reacted with such
> > vehemence, since it showed *his* lack of trust in Buffy, but I understand why
> > he did.
> Xander has every right to distrust Buffy. She had plenty of chances to
> kill bad Angel, but she didn't, allowing Angel to kill Jenny and her
> uncle, and probably many others. It wasn't until the fate of the world
> was at stake that she finally killed Angel, and somewhat reluctantly
> too.
> Scott
Angel also threatened the life of Willow(Xander's best friend),
Cordelia(Xander's girlfriend), and Xander himself several times. I'd be
pissed off too.
Scott
>
> Scott <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Xander has every right to distrust Buffy. She had plenty of chances to kill
> bad Angel, but she didn't, allowing Angel to kill Jenny and her uncle, and
> probably many others. It wasn't until the fate of the world was at stake that
> she finally killed Angel, and somewhat reluctantly
> too.<<
>
> can't keep my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers off the keyboard) again.
> I'm not even going to touch the Xander portion of this, but Buffy didn't
Buffy had plenty of chances to kill Angel before. She didn't. Because
of this Angel was alive to kill who ever he wanted.
Scott
AUNTIELIB
>Buffy had plenty of chances to kill Angel before. She didn't. Because
>of this Angel was alive to kill who ever he wanted.
Please define "plenty". As far as I can see, she had exactly *one* opportunity
which most everyone agrees she blew. When she kicked him in the balls at the
end of "Innocence". The important point, storywise, is that *Buffy* feels
responsible for not taking that chance when it was offered. But I am giving
her the benefit of the doubt. Sure, a kick in the crotch smarts, but if she
had chosen that moment to attack him, he would've forgotten his pain and
concentrated on that stake in a second.
Every time they have fought since then, they have fought to a standstill. He
is more than a match for her. One of the few vampires who is.
Buffy, in effect, "killed" Angel by sleeping with him. That is as far as her
guilt ought to go. (And *that's* what "I Only Have Eyes For You" is really
about. So there.)
elizabeth
Scott
I don't remember her actively pursuing Angel to kill him. I remember
that she did have a chance to kill him in the mall, but she let him go.
Was this Innocence? It's the episode where she destroys the Judge. Also
I don't think that they fought to a standstill because Buffy couldn't
beat him, but that Buffy didn't want to kill Angel.
Scott
Daniel Solomon
> Scott <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Buffy had plenty of chances to kill Angel before. She didn't. Because
>>of this Angel was alive to kill who ever he wanted.
>
>Please define "plenty". As far as I can see, she had exactly *one* opportunity
>which most everyone agrees she blew. When she kicked him in the balls at the
>end of "Innocence". The important point, storywise, is that *Buffy* feels
>responsible for not taking that chance when it was offered. But I am giving
>her the benefit of the doubt. Sure, a kick in the crotch smarts, but if she
>had chosen that moment to attack him, he would've forgotten his pain and
>concentrated on that stake in a second.
>
>Every time they have fought since then, they have fought to a standstill. He
>is more than a match for her. One of the few vampires who is.
He is only a match for her because she keeps pulling her punches. She
had him beat in Innocence. She had him beat in Passion, only to be
distracted by having to save Giles. She was ill in Killed By Death, so
that doesn't count. She was not trying to kill him in Becoming I, so that
doesn't count, and she was just about to give the killing blow when his
soul was restored. For those keeping score at home, Buffy was 2-1-2
against Angel, with her only loss when she was only "half a slayer". I
firmly believe that Buffy would have defeated Angel in either Passion or
Becoming I if the fight went to the death. Those two fights were not
fought to a standstill because Buffy left both of those fights before the
finish.
LRL94
>that she did have a chance to kill him in the mall, but she let him go.
>Was this Innocence? It's the episode where she destroys the Judge.
Yep, that's "Innocence". The one time she had an obvious chance to kill Angel
and didn't take it because she couldn't bring herself to do it (this was all of
about one day after he turned bad, so it's not hard to understand).
Also
>I don't think that they fought to a standstill because Buffy couldn't
>beat him, but that Buffy didn't want to kill Angel.
>
She did fight him afterward, but was stopped by outside events. In "Killed By
Death" she can't fight because she's physically ill and exhausted. In
"Passion" she fights him in the factory, but has to stop so she can rescue
Giles from the fire. There really aren't that many episodes between
"Innocence" and "Becoming" (5 or 6, I think), so to say she had "plenty" of
opportunities isn't really accurate.
Loey
Scott
>
> >I don't remember her actively pursuing Angel to kill him. I remember
> >that she did have a chance to kill him in the mall, but she let him go.
> >Was this Innocence? It's the episode where she destroys the Judge.
>
> Yep, that's "Innocence". The one time she had an obvious chance to kill Angel
> and didn't take it because she couldn't bring herself to do it (this was all of
> about one day after he turned bad, so it's not hard to understand).
Yes it was a mistake, but understandable. Buffy's not perfect, which is
basically my point.
> Also
> >I don't think that they fought to a standstill because Buffy couldn't
> >beat him, but that Buffy didn't want to kill Angel.
> >
>
> She did fight him afterward, but was stopped by outside events. In "Killed By
> Death" she can't fight because she's physically ill and exhausted. In
> "Passion" she fights him in the factory, but has to stop so she can rescue
> Giles from the fire. There really aren't that many episodes between
> "Innocence" and "Becoming" (5 or 6, I think), so to say she had "plenty" of
> opportunities isn't really accurate.
>
> Loey
True, but did she really actively pursue Angel for the purpose of
killing him? I think that was only at the end, when she stuck a sword
through him and sent him to hell. And even then she did so reluctantly.
It was like it was the hardest decision of her life; choosing between
killing Angel or hell on Earth.
Scott
Don Sample
>LilyRei wrote:
>>
>> Scott <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Xander has every right to distrust Buffy. She had plenty of chances to
>> kill bad Angel, but she didn't, allowing Angel to kill Jenny and her uncle,
>> and probably many others. It wasn't until the fate of the world was at stake
>> that she finally killed Angel, and somewhat reluctantly
>> too.<<
>>
>> I really wasn't going to say anything about this, but I find that *sigh* I
>> can't keep my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers off the keyboard).
>> again I'm not even going to touch the Xander portion of this, but Buffy
>> didn't *allow* Angel to kill Jenny and her uncle.
>
>Buffy had plenty of chances to kill Angel before. She didn't. Because
>of this Angel was alive to kill who ever he wanted.
>
>Scott
Name two.
Scott
There was the fight in the mall. She clearly had Angel beat, but she
let him go.
There wasn't any other specific time that I can think of, I haven't seen
Passion.
I don't remember her ever going out to fight Angel with the sole purpose
of killing him until the very end when she had no choice. Even then, as
I said before, she didn't want to do it.
Why do people make excuses for Buffy? She is the Slayer. She slays.
Angel is a vampire. He was killing people. Buffy's first priority
should have been to find him and kill him. The only time she did this
was when the fate of the world was at stake. Before then Angel was
pretty much free to kill whoever he wanted. This was obviously a
mistake on Buffy's part.
Is there anyone else on this newsgroup who thinks that there is too much
Xander bashing and not enough criticism of Buffy? I can't be the only
one.
Scott
LilyRei
>>Is there anyone else on this newsgroup who thinks that there is too much
Xander bashing and not enough criticism of Buffy? I can't be the only one.<<
Probably not; however, I'm not one of them. Besides, the show is about Buffy
the Vampire Slayer, not Xander the wannabe [fill in the blank]. And Buffy
does get her fair share of criticism.
LRL94
>> >I don't think that they fought to a standstill because Buffy couldn't
>> >beat him, but that Buffy didn't want to kill Angel.
>> >
>>
>> She did fight him afterward, but was stopped by outside events. In "Killed
>By
>> Death" she can't fight because she's physically ill and exhausted. In
>> "Passion" she fights him in the factory, but has to stop so she can rescue
>> Giles from the fire. There really aren't that many episodes between
>> "Innocence" and "Becoming" (5 or 6, I think), so to say she had "plenty" of
>> opportunities isn't really accurate.
>>
>> Loey
>
>True, but did she really actively pursue Angel for the purpose of
>killing him? I think that was only at the end, when she stuck a sword
>through him and sent him to hell. And even then she did so reluctantly.
>It was like it was the hardest decision of her life; choosing between
>killing Angel or hell on Earth.
>
>Scott
>
>
You're right that she didn't actively pursue Angel, and I sometimes wondered
why not. I guess it just plays up the tragic romance thing - killing him *was*
the hardest thing she ever had to do, and now we're seeing her try to walk away
now that he's back. Should be interesting.
I think those episodes also highlight the tremendous burden that she carries as
the Slayer. Her guilt over not killing Angel gave us some of the best scenes
in "Innocence" and "Passion, and it is the driving theme of "I Only Have Eyes
For You". Not a fun way to spend your teenage years, but a great story arc for
a brilliant show :-)
Loey
Scott
Exactly my point. Buffy isn't perfect. That is what makes the show
interesting, at least to me.
Scott
LRL94
>Angel is a vampire. He was killing people. Buffy's first priority
>should have been to find him and kill him. The only time she did this
>was when the fate of the world was at stake. Before then Angel was
>pretty much free to kill whoever he wanted. This was obviously a
>mistake on Buffy's part.
>
>Xander bashing and not enough criticism of Buffy? I can't be the only
>one.
>
>
Buffy was in *love* with Angel, who was a good guy for a season and a 1/2.
Then, literally overnight, he turns into a demonic killer. It's not like she
could suddenly just forget all that had happened between them before. And she
feels tremendous guilt about not being able to kill him, even though her
reluctance isn't hard to understand, under the circumstances. Besides, there
weren't many situations where she had a good chance to kill him, at least when
she wasn't called away by something else (like saving her friends' lives).
I personally don't like the bashing of Buffy *or* Xander. Their actions need
to be taken in context, and their flaws shouldn't be magnified beyond reason,
as they often are here. They're complex characters - all the characters on the
show are - and that's what makes them interesting. They should get a little
slack.
Loey
Daniel Solomon
>
>Buffy was in *love* with Angel, who was a good guy for a season and a 1/2.
>Then, literally overnight, he turns into a demonic killer. It's not like she
>could suddenly just forget all that had happened between them before. And she
>feels tremendous guilt about not being able to kill him, even though her
>reluctance isn't hard to understand, under the circumstances. Besides, there
>weren't many situations where she had a good chance to kill him, at least when
>she wasn't called away by something else (like saving her friends' lives).
Actually I got the impression that she felt more guilt over causing Angel
to lose his soul than over the deaths of the people that Angel killed. As
someone pointed out, that's what IOHEFY was all about. Personally I think
her perspective in this whole issue was screwed up from the point that she
found out he was a vampire. When they found out about the curse they
should have done as much research as they could to find out anything they
could about it. Buffy was far too willing to blindly leap into the whole
situation without knowing what she could possibly be getting herself into.
H.G. Hettinger
>I don't remember her ever going out to fight Angel with the sole purpose
>of killing him until the very end when she had no choice. Even then, as
>I said before, she didn't want to do it.
>
I am not sure exactly which episode it was in, but I remember her
going on patroll with Xander and killing a vamp, and then trying to
send another one with a message to Angel that she was looking for him.
the vamp kept attacking, she dusted him and said "nevermind, I'll tell
him myself". ( Angel was actually watching her from the bushes) then
Xander said something like "That's what? five Vamps in three Days?"
and buffy said "But no angel" giving me the impression that she had
been actively hunting for him. I think she later in the same epi
talked about going for another sweep, hoping that angel would show up.
And at the end of Becoming 2 she was quite ready to kill Angelus. A
matter of fact she was about to, when Angel's eyes lit up from willows
spell. Her reluctance stemmed from the fact that he had just regained
his soul, after she had given up all hope of ever seeing the old Angel
again.
and however reluctant, she certainly did kill him (or at least send
him to hell, which might not have hurt angelus, him being purely
demon, but would certainly be torture for Angel with his soul
restored).
People keep saying how hard it is for Xander and the others to look at
the now restored Angel and forget that he is also angelus. I don't
think it was any easier for Buffy to look at angelus and forget that
he used to be angel. A case of your brain telling you one thing and
your gut telling you another.
LilyRei
>to lose his soul than over the deaths of the people that Angel killed.
Finally! You are exactly right.
> When they found out about the curse they
>should have done as much research as they could to find out anything they
>could about it.
I totally agree. So where was Giles in all this? He is her Watcher and I've
always thought it glaringly negligent that he didn't want to know ALL there
was to know about a vampire *with* a soul.
> Buffy was far too willing to blindly leap into the whole
>situation without knowing what she could possibly be getting herself into.
This seems to be a pretty consistent trait in Buffy; however, she didn't react
any worse than anyone else would have once they found themselves in love.
Besides, iIt was pretty easy to forget that Angel was a vampire most times
since he generally didn't act like one.
LRL94
>someone pointed out, that's what IOHEFY was all about.
Well, the two things are pretty closely linked. Angel killed all those people
*because* Buffy caused him to lose his soul. If he had left everyone alone
after losing his soul, she wouldn't have so much guilt. Since it caused him to
become a murderer, though, the guilt was there. Especially after he killed
Jenny, to whom Buffy had an emotional link through Giles.
Personally I think
>her perspective in this whole issue was screwed up from the point that she
>found out he was a vampire. When they found out about the curse they
>should have done as much research as they could to find out anything they
>could about it.
That makes sense in hindsight, but I'm not sure what reasons they would have
had to do such research at the time. Angel was on their side because he had
been cursed with his soul. Why mess with a good thing? I doubt it would have
logically occured to them that they needed to find out much more.
Buffy was far too willing to blindly leap into the whole
>situation without knowing what she could possibly be getting herself into.
>
That I'll agree with - a sixteen-year-old in love isn't the most rational
creature on the planet. And Angel should also have known better, and Giles
should probably have said something. Jenny certainly should have. But if they
had all behaved differently, we wouldn't have the angst of a doomed romance and
the various degrees of guilt and recrimination that have gone along with that
situation. Let's face it, real people often don't do as they should, and
that's where real drama comes from. Same with a well-written TV show.
Loey
DesertRoaz
>Angel killed all those people
>*because* Buffy caused him to lose his soul.
IMO, Buffy didn't cause him to lose his soul. The gypsy curse did. The people
responsible were the people who knew, especially Miss Calendar, who didn't warn
Buffy what could happen if Angel became happy.
DesertRoaz
Micky DuPree
and fetched them off of Deja News. (If your newsreader hasn't informed
you yet, this is a very long article. Caveat lector.)
Spoilers for "Halloween," "Reptile Boy," "Innocence," "Passion,"
"Becoming," pt.1, "Dead Man's Party," "Faith, Hope, and Trick," "Beauty
and the Beasts," "Revelations," "Lovers Walk," and the trailer for
"Amends."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981201225732...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, lr...@aol.com
(LRL94) writes:
: [Micky DuPree wrote to Loey:]
:: Facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice are
:: simultaneously among the richest and yet most ambiguous aspects of
:: dramatic presentation.
:
: They're rarely that ambiguous in this show, especially with such
: expressive actors.
Have you followed any of the other threads or arguments that hinge on
this very question? We may all be able to agree that someone had a
happy expression in one scene, but you can sometimes get as many
different interpretations as to the *motive* for that happy expression
as there are posters in the thread.
At best, motive that is not made explicit can only be implied. At
worst, it is only inferred by the other person. That's why it's so easy
for people to misinterpret one another in real life as well as when
interpreting works of fiction. You're been misinterpreting me all along
here even when I've been putting a fair amount of work into being
explicit. Who knows what you would you take me for if I had to
communicate solely through what the semioticians would call the "open"
signs of facial expression and tone.
: And, again unlike Kuleshov, the creative people on this show *intend*
: to convey specific emotional responses. That's the nature of
: narrative drama.
Actually, sometimes creative people, including even Joss Whedon,
*intend* to be ambiguous, but that's a general point of artistic theory
I thought I should correct you on before we proceed. I don't have it in
mind to apply it to any specific point at this time.
Specifically, conveying an emotional response and conveying the motive
for that response are two different things.
: If we weren't supposed to infer certain responses, why would they be
: shown at all?
Where were you for the recent "what did Xander's tone of voice mean in
'Becoming,' pt.1" disagreement? About all we could agree on was that he
was somewhat hard and agitated. Exactly *why* he was feeling that way
was a whole other kettle of fish. Just as in real life, if you want
there to be no doubt whatsoever of your motivation, you must explain or
demonstrate what that motivation is. Emotion, tone, and body language
alone are not enough. The less the creators choose to do this, the more
they consciously or unconsciously accept a greater degree of ambiguity
in interpretation and therefore of viewer disagreement with them and
with one another over that interpretation.
As an aside, in some circles, a multitude of supportable
interpretations, even mutually exclusive interpretations, is actually
considered a sign of an artistic work's richness and depth. I
personally think it depends on the work, but I thought I'd drop this in
to challenge your perspective.
:: I'm not saying [Buffy's] wrong to want things back the way they were
:: [before "Revelations," or "Dead Man's Party," for that matter]. But
:: I am saying she's wrong for making that a higher priority than making
:: amends to the ones she's injured.
:
: Things *won't* be the same if everyone is angry with her.
However, Buffy is often prepared to merely wait out or appease anger
until it blows over rather than genuinely address it. Besides which,
while I wouldn't be surprised if Giles harbored anger, nevertheless,
anger has not been the primary emotion and concern he has displayed
towards her in either "Dead Man's Party" or "Revelations." *Buffy*
keeps bringing up the idea of anger in association with Giles, but it's
not an accurate reflection of his actual behavior. He was the very
picture of compassion in "Dead Man's Party" and his primary emotion in
"Revelations" was hurt. At least with respect to Giles, the anger is
something she's largely cooking up in her own mind.
: Getting things back the way they were would imply doing whatever it
: takes to make things right with her friends again.
No, not really. In one very important way, after incidents like the
ones Buffy has been taken to task for, things will never be truly the
same again. To pretend that they can be, the way Buffy typically does,
ignores not only the needs of others, but her own long-term needs.
Here, look at it this way. If people trusted you before and you betray
that trust, there are only two basic paths you can take from there, and
neither of them is "getting things back the way they were before." You
can NEVER return to the time when you haven't betrayed the trust. As
Giles so succinctly put it, feeling betrayed is one of the unfortunate
side effects of betrayal. One possible path is to try to act like it
didn't happen, which is Buffy's modus operandi. By refusing to
acknowledge that you've injured others and shouldn't have done it, you
send absolutely *no* reassurances that you won't pull a similar stunt at
some point in the future. The other path is to acknowledge the injury
you've done to others and acknowledge that you shouldn't have done it.
It won't get things back to that innocent time before the betrayal
occurred, but it's the only way to start people on the path to feeling
that you won't do it again and are worthy of a new trust based on that
understanding.
: In some instances, that may include making amends, although Giles is
: the only one who really seems that hurt by what she's done. The
: others were mostly worried, and are dealing with it.
She's badly wounded her own credibility with all of them, though some
more than others. Xander said at the end of "Revelations" that he
trusted her, but presumably that means he merely trusts Buffy not to
"get pelvic" with Angel (and I have to wonder if Angel saving Willow's
life didn't have a lot to do with softening his mood). Buffy's given
none of them any reason to believe that if she had to do it all over
again, she'd do any of it the least bit differently. (She's practically
admitted she wouldn't to Faith.) Nor has she given them any reason to
believe that she won't do something similar sometime in the future.
::: But if you're determined to portray her as a heartless, emotionless
::: brat who doesn't care about her friends, I guess you won't see
::: anything else.
::
:: If you're determined to take stringent criticism of Buffy's lapses in
:: priorities as saying she has no redeeming qualities, then I guess you
:: won't see anything else.
:
: Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I think you have been, too, at least in
: this thread. I haven't seen anything from you on this topic that
: *isn't* an attack on Buffy's character.
I have been harsh. Her behavior has been inexcusable and she has
deserved it. This particular subthread has evolved into being about
certain crucial shortcomings of Buffy's coming to a head recently, so of
course I have underscored those shortcomings and their ramifications. I
am the one, however, who pointed out two times when Buffy made adult,
important, sincere, and meaningful apologies, which I would never have
done if I were "determined to portray her as a heartless, emotionless
brat who doesn't care about her friends."
Beyond that, it's about nuance, shades of gray, and working with the
language used. For example, you go on to characterize my arguments as
being about Buffy's "selfishness," and yet that's not a word I have
chosen to describe Buffy in this thread. In fact, I think it was Dan
who first used the word, and then Elizabeth, one of Buffy's defenders,
used it as well. I disliked the word, but I didn't stop to argue subtle
distinctions of meaning when the broader arguments were being missed.
A better word to describe Buffy would be 'self-absorbed.' 'Selfish' is
far too extreme to me, indicating that *only* Buffy matters to Buffy;
that the concerns of others mean nothing to her. 'Self-absorbed'
indicates instead that she's preoccupied with her own concerns, but not
that the concerns of others can *never* make an impact on her. Again,
it's a matter of priorities. As long as what others want doesn't
conflict with what Buffy wants, she's glad to oblige them. She prefers
to see her friends happy.
I'll try to illustrate. At one extreme, if Buffy were selfish, she
would have walked out of the intervention in "Revelations" at the first
sign of trouble and said, "Screw you." The feelings of the others
simply wouldn't have mattered at all. She didn't do that, so it is not
my position, nor has it ever been my position, that Buffy is selfish,
heartless, emotionless, or uncaring.
At the other extreme is fanatical selflessness, which is a different
sort of problem, involving a lack of *self*-respect, and which doesn't
apply in the case. The happy medium should be reciprocal respect for
the concerns of all parties. I did not see Buffy demonstrate this,
therefore my position is that her behavior falls somewhere between the
extreme of selfishness and the ideal of mutual respect. What I saw her
as saying was, "Well, yes, I would have liked to do as you guys are
asking, but it ran counter to what I wanted, and what I wanted was more
important, so I had no choice. I was the only one who could be
entrusted to make that decision. You didn't have any right to know what
I was doing because I couldn't trust any of you to act responsibly, and
you don't have any right to treat me this way, because you forced me not
to trust you, you forced me to go behind your backs, and you're not
trusting me."
Well, duh. Not trusting someone is one of the unfortunate side effects
of their betraying you.
:: Being worried that Giles is angry at *her*, i.e., being worried about
:: how *others* are going to affect *her*, is not the same thing as
:: being worried that *she* has hurt *others*.
:
: And I'll reiterate - if she didn't care about *them*, why would she
: care about their opinion of her?
There are more positions possible than just the two simple opposite
positions of "Buffy doesn't care about her friends" and "Buffy does care
about her friends." Buffy falls somewhere in between. I've already
explained about her priorities, and a particularly relevant aspect of
her relationship with Giles is that she takes him and what he does for
granted.
Or to use a contrasting example, Cordelia didn't seem to care much about
her courtiers when she was the Queen Bee, and yet she did care about
their opinion of her. People are entirely capable of seeking validation
from others while withholding it from them; of commanding respect but
giving none in return.
Now before you protest, I do *not* think that Buffy treats her friends
the same way Cordelia treated her courtiers, but neither does she give
them their due. Buffy's behavior falls somewhere *in between* these
poles.
: Besides, my argument is that she feared Giles' overall reaction to
: Angel's reappearance (that he'd "freak", as she told Platt). That's
: not necessarily a reflection on her, but a concern that Giles (and the
: others) couldn't handle the information and might do something to
: Angel (which a couple of them tried).
But it is a reflection on Buffy, and "a couple of them" did not include
Giles. I'm quite positive no one's said that Buffy should have run
straight to *Xander* and said, "Angel's back and I trust you not to
freak."
:: In "Innocence," I recall Buffy saying something like, "You must be so
:: disappointed in me," in Giles' car near the end, but I don't recall
:: her saying anything along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I must have hurt
:: you terribly." In "Dead Man's Party," I recall her saying something
:: like, "But what if he's mad at me?" when they all went to knock on
:: Giles' door, but nothing even in the general vicinity of, "How can I
:: face him after I've hurt him?"
: Those were the scenes I was talking about. Again, if she didn't care
: about him, why would his opinion of her matter so much?
It's her emphasis on herself that shortchanges the others and,
ironically, herself. There's more at stake than her fear. Yeah, I know
it's hard to work through fear. Yeah, I know Buffy's had to face more
fearful things than even an adult should have to face, much less a
teenager. But Joss has placed these obstacles in her path, and all my
sympathy won't change what she ought to do now that those obstacles are
there. She can master her fear enough to take on the worst sorts of
monsters, but she can't manage it enough to give her friends the
consideration they deserve?
::: The difference here is that Kuleshov was conducting an *experiment*.
::
:: And a most enlightening one it was too. Or should have been.
:
: Indeed. But it's not the same as shooting specific reactions for the
: purposes of narrative fiction. Certain responses have to be intended
: - otherwise there's no point in trying to tell the story a certain
: way.
And when the audience members disagree on what that "certain way" was --
and this newsgroup alone is rife with examples in which different
viewers come up with different interpretations -- who's right and who's
wrong? Do we ask Joss and take his word as gospel? Narrative criticism
has historically had a love-hate relationship with "authorial intent."
If fanfic is anything to go by, fandom has historically had a
relationship with "authorial intent" that might best be described as one
of occasional points of intersection.
Regardless of what the creators intend, the audience has a tendency to
read into the work their private desires, fears, and expectations, far
beyond anything the creators may have intended, unless the creators were
deliberately intending to be ambiguous and provoke multiple responses.
The audience members run their "personal scripts" on the material (to
borrow David Samuel Barr's phrase from another thread). Joss Whedon has
said that no homoerotic subtext was intended with Faith. Many have
said, "Oh, but it has to be." Who's right?
The one thing we all have in common is the canon. The rest is what we
bring ourselves.
:: It's demonstrably happened numerous times on this newsgroup. Have
:: you been around for any of that? Do you remember people saying that
:: Giles *had* to know that Angel was back when Buffy questioned him
:: about demon dimensions in "Beauty and the Beasts"? And of course we
:: just *knew* this from his facial expression and his tone of voice.
:: Well, we didn't know any such thing, and that's just one of the more
:: clear-cut examples of people getting carried away with inference.
:
: I still think he suspected, or at least was concerned about the
: possibility.
You *still* think he suspected after you've seen his reaction to the
news in "Revelations"?
: Gile's reaction would not have been shot the way it was if we weren't
: supposed to infer something from it. Of course, later episodes may
: reveal a totally different reason for his reaction. I'm just going by
: what was on the screen.
So was I. While many were certain that Giles was intently reading Buffy
like an open book, I said he went from focusing on Buffy to being lost
in himself.
"I do agree that Giles was abnormally preoccupied with his own
thoughts during the 'demon dimensions' and 'types of monster'
conversation in 'Beauty and the Beasts.' I have vague
expectations of snippets of that conversation being used as the
'Previously, on _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_' prelude to an
episode explaining just why Giles would be so absorbed in a
discussion about returning from Hell and the redemption of
monsters."
-- Micky DuPree, 25 Oct 1998, article <F1DEn...@world.std.com>
I can see emotional states in real life as well, and people do mean
something by them, but I don't fancy that I can reliably know the
motivations behind those emotional states without some form of
corroboration. I draw inferences and come up with working hypotheses
just like everyone else, but I call them guesswork and look for proof to
go with them. Otherwise I could end up off on a tangent somewhere
running my "personal script" while the real meaning gets left behind.
"Steph" <is...@planet.net>:
: [...] isn't it possible that Giles, rather than being intuitive
: about Angel's return is really being more personally
: reflective in his thoughts -- kinda "been there, done that."
Micky DuPree:
It did cross my mind. I can't shake the feeling that Giles was
lying at some point in that conversation [in BatB], but as with
a conventional polygraph, I'm better at detecting stress than at
pinpointing its cause. The simplest explanation is that either
Giles, someone he knew, or both have returned from a demon
dimension. The most literal interpretation might be that both
Ethan and Giles have returned from a demon dimension. Giles is
the monster who wanted redemption and Ethan is the one who
didn't.
Or it could be none of the above.
-- 30 Oct 1998, article <F1n4L...@world.std.com>
(I'm not usually given to saying, "I told you so," but if the above
theory turns out to be true, I'm going to use it as a Subject line. ;) )
We can't read the minds of people in everyday life nor of the creators
of fictitious characters. We may all be able to agree that a smile
means happy and a frown means unhappy (although there's still wiggle
room for sarcasm and irony), and we can go on from there to guess why
they're happy or unhappy, but we can't actually *know* the motivations
behind their emotions unless the characters say something to confirm
them or do something to demonstrate them. That's why I say that the
canon is something we all have in common, whereas there's no compelling
reason for you to accept my "personal script," nor I yours.
:: A more recent debate has flared up anew about just what did Xander's
:: tone of voice mean when he said, "Well, Jenny's dead," in "Becoming,"
:: pt.1, and there's far from a consensus on the subject.
:
: He didn't think they should bother restoring Angel's soul (him being a
: heartless murderer and all), and used Jenny's death as a cheap shot
: means of making his point. Just like he did in "Revelations". Nice
: parallels in the script, BTW.
"Parallels"? So what do you make of the fact that the normally reserved
Giles nearly bit Xander's head off in "Becoming" but didn't let out so
much as a peep in "Revelations"? Can you explain it? Not only wasn't
there a parallel, there was an almost opposite reaction. Many agree
with you, but I say that in the context of the conversation in
"Becoming," Xander was indicating that Jenny's last wish didn't matter,
whereas in the context of the conversation in "Revelations," he was
indicating that Jenny very much did matter. Hence the radically
different responses from Giles.
Which of our interpretations is right? And why?
: I'm not saying that Buffy is taking full responsibility for her
: actions [in "Revelations"] - just that she didn't realize how much her
: deception would hurt Giles, and feels badly that it has.
I honestly think she didn't expect to ever get caught, and in that
manner she felt like no one was getting hurt, which completely ignored
the issue of lying, trust, and abrogation of rights. (I never claimed
that she *wanted* to hurt them.) Her reaction to getting caught was to
challenge them, as though they were the ones in the wrong: "I don't need
an intervention"; "You were *spying* on me??"
:: By "looking for evidence of what I desire," I mean that I'm looking
:: for that supporting proof of her inner state of mind before coming to
:: conclusions about it. It means that whereas you'd probably interpret
:: the line, "How long do you think he can stay mad at me?" as meaning,
:: "I'm sorry I hurt him," I interpret it pretty much at face value,
:: meaning, "I hate it when people are mad at me and I wish it would all
:: blow over." I'm still looking for that evidence of what you're
:: pretty much taking on faith. I *want* to find it but I'm not willing
:: to come to that conclusion without it.
:
: It just seems to me that you aren't interested at looking at the
: show's subtexts - that if it isn't obvious and spelled out, it doesn't
: count.
Oh, the myriad possible subtexts fascinate me, but without
corroboration, I can't see how we can treat them as fact rather than as
theory or hypothesis. I'm also one of the biggest proponents of
interpreting _Buffy_ allegorically, but fortunately Joss has been
sparing of explicit indicators that this is what he's up to (the most
blatant of which probably being Ethan in "Halloween," " ... the very
embodiment of, 'Be careful what you wish for'"). However, there's a
pretty consistent pattern to point to in that regard.
There's another classic experiment, only this time in the field of
cognitive/optical perception. If you hide a number or an object in a
seemingly random pattern of shapes or colors and get a subject to stare
at it long enough, what usually happens is that eventually the brain
will sort out what the hidden object is even if the subject isn't really
trying to. But what freaked out the experimenters was the control
group, who were told to stare at what turned out to be a genuinely
random pattern of shapes or colors with nothing hidden in them. After a
while, almost all of the control group would report having spotted
something as well.
The human brain is extremely well geared to spot patterns. So well
geared, in fact, that it tends to spot patterns even when there aren't
any. How do we tell the difference between when our brains are
connecting dots that are supposed to be connected and when our brains
are sticking the wrong dots together?
: And I didn't interpret that line as "I'm sorry I hurt him." I
: interpreted it as "I don't want him to be angry at me". You may see
: that as purely selfish - I don't. I don't think the show, up to this
: point, has portrayed her as purely selfish in her motivations, so
: there's no reason to assume that she is.
There's that word 'selfish,' not a word of my choosing (and it's coupled
with the word 'purely,' an extremity that I have avoided). It's a
matter of Buffy's priorities. It's not that she doesn't care about him
or the others, but that she's allowing her fears to hurt all of them,
herself included. The word that comes to mind instead is 'self-
absorbed.'
There's also the matter of just what constitutes respect. That's not an
issue that's really dependent on Buffy or any of the others. A lot of
people on the newsgroup seem perfectly willing to treat 'respect' as
synonymous with 'love' or 'affection.' However, in the context that
Giles used the word, it means giving others the same consideration that
you expect from them. It means giving them their due. It means
consulting them on matters that concern them, giving due consideration
to their personal and professional involvement in the matter, and
acknowledging their commitment to doing the right thing. It means
treating them as moral agents who not only can but also should be
allowed to decide the matters that concern them for themselves, and not
treating them as irresponsible children who must be kept in the dark.
It means considering their feelings as equal to (not above or below)
your own.
Manifestly, Buffy did not do this. She was angry and upset that the
others were not showing her their complete, blind, and *unquestioning*
trust in both her motivations and her judgment in "Revelations" despite
the fact that she had already proven that she had given them none of the
same in return, and throughout the episode she gave no indication that
she had learned her lesson and would trust them in any similar
situations in the future.
That's not respect. Giles wasn't just blowing off steam or being
spiteful. (What *did* you think Giles was doing in that scene?) He was
basically summing up what he had just seen take place. Buffy expected
all the trust to flow towards her, but didn't feel obligated to send any
back towards them.
Now, while I trust Xander's motives, I do not always trust his judgment,
so I can cut Buffy some slack there, but even if you eliminate everyone
else from the equation, there is still Giles to account for; Giles, who,
when questioned about what would someone who returned from a demon
dimension be like, gave that quiet, sober speech about redemption and
monsters who responded to love or reason. What more reassurance did she
want?
:: I've pointed out evidence that she's primarily concerned with how
:: things affect her, not with how she's affecting others. I'm still
:: waiting to hear evidence to the contrary apart from inference/
:: supposition/surmise/guesswork from facial expression, tone of voice,
:: etc., and the two examples that I brought up.
:
: Facial expression and tone of voice are part of the show's text. If
: we can't infer anything from them, then all we have left are things we
: get hit over the head with. Boring.
There's also pattern, consistency. If you think that a facial
expression has one and only one meaning, and that you (and only you)
understand that meaning perfectly every time regardless of what else
gets said or done, then my hat's off to the first genuine telepath I've
come across.
:: If the nuance in my argument is lost on you, why should I trust any
:: interpretation you might make of Buffy's innermost thoughts,
:: especially since she hasn't deigned to share them with us (much less
:: with the other characters)?
:
: Sorry, but I haven't seen many mitigating arguments in this thread.
: You've painted her as selfish and thoughtless, unconcerned for how her
: behavior affects others and lacking respect for her friends.
: Mitigating arguments have been followed by "but" statements detailing
: how awful she's being, and denials that anything else can be found in
: the text or subtext of the show.
There's that word 'selfish' again. I've been pretty patient with having
my arguments repeatedly mischaracterized, but it's wearing thin. As I
said, you've missed the nuance in my argument. You're seeing it only in
terms of black and white. That doesn't reassure me that you can read
facial expressions, which are a great deal more ambiguous, any more
accurately than that.
:: Buffy is my third favorite character after Giles and Willow (and
:: she's been gaining on Willow throughout the third season). If you
:: can't tell that I like Buffy when I've explicitly said so in the
:: past, why should I trust your judgment as to what's running through
:: Buffy's mind based purely on speculation from facial expression?
:
: You certainly haven't said much good about her in this thread (which
: is what I'm responding to).
I've had many good things to say about Buffy elsewhere, but this
particular subthread *has* been concentrating on the things Giles took
her to task for in "Revelations." Giles didn't have a whole hell of a
lot good to say about her there either. Why don't you attack *him* for
"vilifying" Buffy?
Do you think Giles was in the wrong?
: Why should I trust your claim that you like Buffy if you've just spend
: several posts attacking her?
O.K., maybe you've just showed up on the newsgroup, in which case, I
apologize for my tone re 'vilification.' But there is an ongoing loose
sort of continuity, or at least "gestalt memory," to newsgroup
discussion. Just because we focus on one thing in one character in one
thread (in this case, the issues that *Giles* raised in "Revelations")
doesn't mean we're exhausting everything we think about that character,
nor does it even exhaust everything any single one of us thinks about
that character. In fact, it would get a bit clumsy if in order to
praise or blame a character, we were first required to blame or praise
him, respectively, so as to keep from being labeled a "basher" or "blind
apologist" of that character.
Buffy is essentially brave, smart, funny, and morally decent.
"Essentially" means that I trust her motivations at their core. She
would rather do right by people than not. However, she often takes the
easy way out, or what at least seems to be the easy way out at first
glance. Therefore I frequently do not trust her judgment or her
priorities. She's better at facing the external monsters of the
Buffyverse than the inner demons of fear and desire (although after the
end of "Lovers Walk," I'm more willing to see her as having come around
on the issue of desire). And yet, in the end, self-mastery is the most
important battle. Her lapses would be a lot easier to excuse if they
only involved her, but they almost always involve others, something that
she often either denies or refuses to face, as if the fact that others
care about her and want her trust is their problem and has nothing to do
with her.
Sometimes you have to test your priorities. You have to choose which is
more important to you: nursing your fear or considering the feelings of
others. It looks like a tough call on the outside, but really, it's no
contest, and I'm actually pretty confidant that Buffy will come through
before the final reel. Joss knows what he's doing. The only question
in my mind, really, is whether he's going to resort to chaining two
characters together in order to get the job done. :) ("Cerebus and Lord
Julius locked in a closet: the dialogue would write itself." -- Dave
Sim, before he actually did it.)
:: Isn't it great? Did you see the end of "Lovers Walk"? She seems to
:: be going over some things in her mind and finally accepting harsh
:: truths. (Unfortunately, His Angelicness still seems to be the poster
:: boy for Unclear on the Concept, which is scary since he's the one who
:: most needs the self-control.)
:
: Yes, I was very impressed with her in Lovers Walk. She finally seems
: to realize that it's too dangerous for her and Angel to be around each
: other.
I think she may come around on other matters as well. She seems to let
things stew and soak in for a while before acting on them. In
confrontation, she draws me-vs-them lines and mans the battlements out
of insecurity or fear, but sometimes her brain keeps working on what was
said once the pressure's off, like apologizing to Willow at the end of
"Dead Man's Party" or finally coughing up the truth about sending Angel
to Hell in "Faith, Hope, and Trick."
In a way, I think that's what happened with Spike. Buffy doesn't have
to give an account of herself to Spike. She may lie to him, but in the
end, he can't bring any pressure to bear on her private relationship
with Angel (that he isn't already bringing to bear in a more general
way). That's why she finally let his words sink in when she resisted
all pressure from her own friends.
:: Someone said that there's an episode coming up called "Amends." I
:: can dream. It would be so like Buffy to resist outside pressure to
:: do the right thing, and then finally, once the pressure's off, to
:: turn around and do it. Just out of the blue, drop it into the
:: conversation. She'll be talking with Giles about training or weapons
:: or something mundane (for them), and then just go on to say, "You
:: were right. I'm sorry." Believe me, I've far from written her off.
:: The story isn't even quite half over yet.
:
: Exactly. I don't think the writers are dropping this issue, but I'm
: not expecting a big emotional scene, either.
One of Joss Whedon's shining virtues is his horrible allergy to sappy
sentimentality. If someone feels something, they feel it, period. They
don't dribble and endlessly moan about it. (Well, exceptions gladly
made for Spike. He has a talent for it. ;) ) They don't get all huggy,
touchy, feely. There are no *perfect* understandings like you get at
the end of American sitcoms where everyone's reached a state of Zen
sharing and forgiveness, just as there are no perfect understandings in
real life.
: If she does something *besides* outright apologize, though, will you
: notice or accept it?
It depends entirely on what it is, the context surrounding it, and the
effect it has on the other characters. If she just smiles
affectionately at Giles while his back is turned, that's not "amends."
Frankly, while she could have gotten away with implicit tokens at
earlier stages of the game, at this point it's gone on for so long that
an explicit apology is overdue. The question isn't nearly so much
whether *I* will notice or accept whatever she does, but will the
others? You don't become "cool" with someone by just silently and
inconspicuously changing your own mindset. After what Giles said to her
in particular, he's entitled to some form of reassurance above and
beyond business as usual. He's been honest with her about how he feels
without being petty, spiteful, or vengeful about it, and without doing
it in front of the others. It's up to her to respond in such a manner
as to address that. Going off somewhere to feel bad about it doesn't do
him *or* her a bit of good, and if she thinks that guilt or punishment
was what his speech was all about then she has completely missed the
point in her absorption in her own feelings.
Unfortunately, from the promo, it looks like "Amends" is going to be
Angel's big spotlight story, not Buffy's. Oh, well. I suppose from a
practical standpoint, his needs are more pressing, but I did have other
hopes for that title.
::: And assuming that she never feels ashamed or contrite is, again,
::: portraying her in a much more negative light than she deserves.
::
:: And acting like I've never noted any exceptions whatsoever portrays
:: my argument as much more extreme than it is.
:
: I'm just going by what you've posted to this thread.
I noted two times when she made apologies, and I did *not* make them out
to be trivial or dismissible instances. But you said "never," painting
what I said in all black or white terms. I've also been discussing
conflicting relative priorities, i.e., her feelings vs. the feelings of
others, whereas you argue in absolutes, i.e., Buffy's feelings alone, as
if that's the argument I have made.
::: And "Passion" provides good examples of her thinking of others. She
::: intervenes with Jenny on Giles' behalf, even though Jenny has hurt
::: all of them, because she knows that Giles is lonely and she wants
::: him to have this relationship.
::
:: Excuse me? Can you point to anywhere I ever said that Buffy wants
:: people to be unhappy? The above is not an example of Buffy being
:: concerned about the impact of her *own* actions on others. It was a
:: wonderful gesture on Buffy's part, but the primary repercussions were
:: from Jenny's actions.
:
: And still shows concern for her friends and their happiness. Which
: was my point.
But it in no way addresses what has been my argument all along: Buffy's
competing priorities. You're arguing against arguments I've never made,
as though I've made them, which is a mischaracterization of my position.
:: Mm-hm. And where exactly did I say Buffy never felt guilty or bad
:: about anything? By all means, point it out to me so that I may
:: retract it posthaste.
:
: You've accused her of being selfish and unconcerned about others.
All right, now I have lost patience. Either quote where I did that, in
which case I will retract it, or else you retract this.
I have taken a certain amount of care to make a complex, nuanced
argument to reflect what I feel is a complex, nuanced aspect of the
story. I'm not saying that means you have to agree with me, but when
words get thrown at me that I have not chosen, when shades of gray get
painted completely black, when degrees of feeling get turned into all or
nothing, when the higher priority of A over B gets turned into 'A is the
only thing that ever matters and B means nothing,' then I start to be
the one who's feeling vilified. You could at least do me the courtesy
of disagreeing with the argument I've made rather than putting another
argument in my mouth and disagreeing with that.
: People who exhibit those personality traits that strongly usually
: don't feel too badly about things they do wrong.
And if I had painted Buffy that strongly I might begin to agree with
you.
:: As John Hogan so pertinently pointed out, the way you overtly treat
:: people is part and parcel of respect. If you keep it all to
:: yourself, it's not really respect.
:
: Of course, you can also *say* that you respect someone when you really
: don't.
True, but Giles wasn't saying, "You never tell me you respect me."
There's more to the way you treat people than words. Buffy
*manifestly*, by her overt (and covert) behavior, didn't trust Giles.
That's not respect.
: People don't always make their true feelings known in great big neon
: letters. I take Buffy's behavior at other times as indications that
: she does respect Giles. You don't.
Can you give me some examples? I can give you one in which she doesn't.
He honestly let her know he was hurt. So far as we've seen, she's done
nothing to address that. She's given him no reassurance that she
regrets what she's done to him and that it won't happen again.
: As I pointed out before, Giles had told her to be quiet and had turned
: his back on her. She was obviously not expecting the rebuke, either
: (I think even you would "infer" this much from her reaction).
I'm on record as saying she didn't expect it. I believe Elizabeth was
the one who said Buffy was trying to forestall a lecture she knew was
coming. By contrast, I was the one who said that since Buffy was
launching into spin-control on the subject of Angel's usefulness, she
was acting as if whether or not this was indeed good-Angel was the only
substantive issue. It wasn't.
: A quick verbal response from her would have been unlikely.
I'm not sure whether you mean at the beginning, when he said, "Be
quiet," or after he had finished speaking his piece. I think she was
right to let him speak his piece without interruption, but she shouldn't
have left what he said hanging without an apology.
: Besides, if she had just said "I'm sorry" at that moment, would you
: have accused her of damage control again?
No. Or to be more accurate, I would have gone on the assumption that
she meant it unless she did something to blatantly counteract the
impression of sincerity. Buffy wouldn't have done any such thing (like,
oh hell, I can't think of anything quickly, or how about smiling evilly
after leaving his office), so yes, I would have accepted it at face
value. I don't just assume that the characters (the good guys at any
rate) are going around lying to one another willy-nilly unless their
behavior undercuts their words. They've all kept some kind of secret at
one time or another, but none of them have proven themselves to be
pathological liars, so why should I assume a given utterance to be a lie
without corroboration or countervailing motivation?
On the other hand, if Buffy had said, "I'm sorry," and then went behind
his back all over again, then I'd be strongly inclined to regard the
apology as mere appeasement or damage control. In that case she would
not be giving the impression of understanding what it was she was
claiming to be sorry for; she'd be giving the impression that she was
just saying whatever she thought he wanted to hear.
: She said "I'm sorry" at the end of Reptile Boy too - do you think she
: really was, or was she just trying to get out of trouble?
Oh, that one. Heh. I think she very sincerely regretted having done
what she did in that case, but not because she had lied to Giles. She
was sorry because it had all turned out so horribly. The example hadn't
occurred to me because I don't think she conceived of it in terms of her
having been in the wrong because she lied. Willow was the one who spoke
Buffy's viewpoint in that episode in her (admittedly bracing and fun)
dressing down of Giles and Angel: it was really all their fault that
Buffy had lied.
From the standpoint of whether or not Buffy was sorry she had gotten in
that mess and had to have the cavalry come to her side, yes, she meant
it. She was sorry they had to be dragged into it. But was she really
sorry on general principle that she had lied to Giles, went behind his
back, and didn't trust him? No. If there had been no monster, I think
she would have felt that what she did was completely in the right. Why
do I think this? Simple: because she's done it again since then. She
has once more blamed the people she's lied to for her lying. She has
once more brushed aside the lying and the lack of trust and treated the
matter as if it only came down to whether or not there was any danger.
The irony is that Buffy pretty much wields an adult's power to do as she
pleases at this point. She's thrown it in Giles' face more than once,
and now she's reminded her mother twice that I can remember that the
option of living on her own is always there even if she chooses not to
take it. Since they can't stop her from doing what she wants to do,
it's only one small but important step from there to telling them what
she's going to do. Problem is, she's still acting like a little kid.
Since they can't stop her from doing what she wants, the only thing
she's avoiding by lying is dealing with their feelings when they
disagree with her. She has the power, but doesn't want the
responsibility that comes with it.
::: [...] look at [Buffy's] priorities. She never specifically wants to
::: hurt any of them (unless they hurt her first, and then she may lash
::: out in anger, but that's a special case). However, if a conflict
::: arises between what Buffy wants and hurting others in the process,
::: what Buffy wants almost always comes first. She never says to
::: herself, "Good, they deserve to be hurt," or, "Oh, well, they don't
::: matter." But she does rationalize it away, saying to herself,
::: "Well, I won't get caught," or (as she said to Faith), "I had no
::: choice," when she damn well did have a choice. She just didn't
::: *want* to choose any other way.
::
:: That's not respect.
:
: Unless of course she actually thought that she didn't have a choice.
: She didn't know how they'd react, and was clearly concerned about them
: "freaking out". Considering the way they responded (at least Xander
: and Faith), she had a point.
She did not have a point since they were freaking over 1) the lie and 2)
the kiss, both of which were her fault, not theirs. But leaving that
aside, I don't recall Giles saying, "You should have run straight to
Xander and Faith and told them," do you? If she had gotten Giles,
Willow, and Oz on her side (in that order), she would have had their
help in dealing with any opposition posed by Faith, Xander, and Cordelia
(in that order). Put yourself in Giles' place and realize that you've
been treated with as little trust as Xander. Did he really deserve
that? (I'm not even convinced Xander deserved that, but Giles?)
Buffy didn't trust Giles not to "freak." O.K., no human being is 100%
reliable, but if she can't bring herself to take a chance on Giles, just
whom is she holding out for? Exactly who does she think is worth taking
a chance on, if not Giles? Who has given more to their common cause?
If she's not going to trust Giles, is she ever going to trust anybody at
all? Is it going to be, "Only Buffy knows best," and, "Only Buffy has
the right to make these decisions for everyone," for the rest of her
life?
That's not respect.
Buffy had a claim to the moral high ground only at the very beginning of
discovering Angel. You may not have been around long enough to
remember, but I'm one of the ones who's argued that in the absence of
metaphysical disclosures to the contrary, good-Angel should be given a
chance to demonstrate that he belongs in the category of "monsters who
want redemption." If Buffy was genuinely concerned that the Slayerettes
would have destroyed a being who wanted to redeem himself before he had
a chance to recover from his trauma and prove himself redeemable, then
she had a moral claim to hiding Angel (so long as she protected others
from him).
However, once Angel had recovered enough to be verbal and no longer
needed to be chained up in order to not be a danger, Buffy lost all her
excuses to keep the secret to herself. Depending on how much Angel
remembered, arguably he lost all his excuses for hiding out as well and
should have insisted to Buffy, over her protests, that it was time for a
meeting. It was time for Angel to account for himself and his
intentions for his continued existence in the world. As the warden of
the demon within, he owed this to the world.
: God, this thread is giving me a headache. We obviously see Buffy's
: character in totally different lights. Agree to disagree?
Sorry. Too many uses of the word 'selfish' spuriously attached to my
name. I'm not walking away.
-Micky
Daniel Solomon
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>..
>
>In article <19981201225732...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, lr...@aol.com
>(LRL94) writes:
>
>Beyond that, it's about nuance, shades of gray, and working with the
>language used. For example, you go on to characterize my arguments as
>being about Buffy's "selfishness," and yet that's not a word I have
>chosen to describe Buffy in this thread. In fact, I think it was Dan
>who first used the word, and then Elizabeth, one of Buffy's defenders,
>used it as well. I disliked the word, but I didn't stop to argue subtle
>distinctions of meaning when the broader arguments were being missed.
>
>A better word to describe Buffy would be 'self-absorbed.' 'Selfish' is
>far too extreme to me, indicating that *only* Buffy matters to Buffy;
>that the concerns of others mean nothing to her.
I did use selfish as a word to describe Buffy, but I was using it more as
a parallel to the criticism of Xander, whose motive always seem to be
characterized as selfish, even in the face of overwhelming factors to the
contrary. I will agree that in Buffy's case, self-absorbed is a much more
accurate description. As for Xander, his problem has much more to do
with a hero complex than with outright selfishness.
>Buffy is essentially brave, smart, funny, and morally decent.
>"Essentially" means that I trust her motivations at their core. She
>would rather do right by people than not. However, she often takes the
>easy way out, or what at least seems to be the easy way out at first
>glance. Therefore I frequently do not trust her judgment or her
>priorities. She's better at facing the external monsters of the
>Buffyverse than the inner demons of fear and desire (although after the
>end of "Lovers Walk," I'm more willing to see her as having come around
>on the issue of desire). And yet, in the end, self-mastery is the most
>important battle. Her lapses would be a lot easier to excuse if they
>only involved her, but they almost always involve others, something that
>she often either denies or refuses to face, as if the fact that others
>care about her and want her trust is their problem and has nothing to do
>with her.
>: Unless of course she actually thought that she didn't have a choice.
>: She didn't know how they'd react, and was clearly concerned about them
>: "freaking out". Considering the way they responded (at least Xander
>: and Faith), she had a point.
>
>She did not have a point since they were freaking over 1) the lie and 2)
>the kiss, both of which were her fault, not theirs. But leaving that
>aside, I don't recall Giles saying, "You should have run straight to
>Xander and Faith and told them," do you? If she had gotten Giles,
>Willow, and Oz on her side (in that order), she would have had their
>help in dealing with any opposition posed by Faith, Xander, and Cordelia
>(in that order). Put yourself in Giles' place and realize that you've
>been treated with as little trust as Xander. Did he really deserve
>that? (I'm not even convinced Xander deserved that, but Giles?)
>
>Buffy didn't trust Giles not to "freak." O.K., no human being is 100%
>reliable, but if she can't bring herself to take a chance on Giles, just
>whom is she holding out for? Exactly who does she think is worth taking
>a chance on, if not Giles? Who has given more to their common cause?
>If she's not going to trust Giles, is she ever going to trust anybody at
>all? Is it going to be, "Only Buffy knows best," and, "Only Buffy has
>the right to make these decisions for everyone," for the rest of her
>life?
>
>That's not respect.
I decided to cut out all but the most telling analysis. All in all a
brilliant post.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981205142548...@ng142.aol.com>,
lil...@aol.com (LilyRei) writes:
: dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
:: When they found out about the curse they should have done as much
:: research as they could to find out anything they could about it.
:
: I totally agree. So where was Giles in all this? He is her Watcher
: and I've always thought it glaringly negligent that he didn't want to
: know ALL there was to know about a vampire *with* a soul.
There practically wasn't anything to know about a vampire with a soul
except the firsthand reports of Angel and those few who knew his secret.
Angel's situation so far seems to have been unique in the history of
vampires. In "Angel," Giles hit the books after Buffy told him Angel
was a vampire. Giles said it was unheard of that a vampire could be
"halfway" between human and true vampire. Giles said there was "nothing
in the texts," and the Watchers' Diaries only described Angel's outward
behavior: evil for a while and then strangely and harmlessly reclusive
thereafter. The Diaries were unable to account for the change.
In "Innocence," Jenny said the curse was lost even to the people who had
used it. It took her some effort to find it again, and I seem to recall
she found it online, not in books, and the net is Giles' weak point.
I don't see it as particularly negligent. There just wasn't any hard-
copy documentation (they had to hear the story of the curse from Angel
himself), and I can't see Willow plugging Romany phrases into a search
engine. I think Giles and Willow probably did all they knew how to do.
If Angel and the gypsies didn't talk or write about the curse, there
would be nothing out there to research short of finding the gypsies and
interviewing them.
Look at it from the creators' point of view. There are no Watchers'
Diaries in real life, no genuine arcana. There's always just as much
supernatural documentation as makes for a taut story. The information
Buffy requires is always as difficult to uncover as is necessary to
create the most drama. People keep insisting that not enough research
has been done on curses, because they want a different story, one in
which there's a curse out there without a happiness clause just waiting
to be found, one in which Giles applies himself harder so that Buffy
finds out about the happiness clause before it's too late, etc. But
there are no other types of soul-restoration curses or information about
such curses unless Joss wants the story to go that way. It's not like
this stuff is out there somewhere and the characters just aren't trying
hard enough to find it. The types of curses and the amount of
documentation about them are tailored to produce the story we're
getting.
:: Buffy was far too willing to blindly leap into the whole situation
:: without knowing what she could possibly be getting herself into.
:
: This seems to be a pretty consistent trait in Buffy; however, she
: didn't react any worse than anyone else would have once they found
: themselves in love.
I don't think that's entirely true. I tend to look at it instead from
the standpoint of first love being the most naive love, because there is
no personal experience against which to compare it for what you really
want, for what works and doesn't work. Having seen your boyfriend lose
his soul once should be a pretty compelling argument that there's no
such thing as safe sex, however.
It wasn't the research that I think Giles was negligent on. It was
knowing that a 16-year-old was dating a vampire almost entirely without
adult supervision and advice. He made it a rule to stay out of Buffy's
private life, and yet he had to know that this was one area where Joyce
couldn't supervise. Simply because there were no other candidates
available, there was a need for him to take a closer look at what was
going on.
-Micky
LRL94
I was thinking more of Buffy's POV. I agree, it wasn't really her fault - how
could she have known? - but she thought it was her fault. That's where the
guilt comes from.
Loey
DesertRoaz
>knowing that a 16-year-old was dating a vampire almost entirely without
>adult supervision and advice. He made it a rule to stay out of Buffy's
>private life, and yet he had to know that this was one area where Joyce
>couldn't supervise. Simply because there were no other candidates
>available, there was a need for him to take a closer look at what was
>going on.
>
>-Micky
>
>
If we are going to hold Giles accountable, IMO we'd have to start with the fact
that he'd have any part of encouraging a teenage girl to fulfill a calling
which seems destined to get her killed before she hits age 20. If we were to
apply the real world rules to Giles that some do to Angel....there would be no
punishment stiff enough for him. One more reason I gotta go with the
Buffyverse and leave Realverse behind...
DesertRoaz
Alex Darke
> If we are going to hold Giles accountable, IMO we'd have to start with the fact
> that he'd have any part of encouraging a teenage girl to fulfill a calling
> which seems destined to get her killed before she hits age 20. If we were to
> apply the real world rules to Giles that some do to Angel....there would be no
> punishment stiff enough for him. One more reason I gotta go with the
> Buffyverse and leave Realverse behind...
But, the fact remains. In life some things can not be avoided, so Giles
had a choice. Let Buffy fend for herself against all the wee nasties that
would want a shot at an unprepared slayer, or help her. Because either
choice he makes, she IS the slayer. The only wrong choice to make is to
let her make her own way, rather than help her.
(although, just once I'd like Buffy to get her ass kicked by Giles in
combat....intuitive knowledge of weaponry is one thing, repeatedly
defeating someone who has spent years training with said weapons is
another...minor nitpick)
--
[ Alexander Darke ]-----------------[ al...@darke.net ]
John Schilling
>>It wasn't the research that I think Giles was negligent on. It was
>>knowing that a 16-year-old was dating a vampire almost entirely without
>>adult supervision and advice. He made it a rule to stay out of Buffy's
>>private life, and yet he had to know that this was one area where Joyce
>>couldn't supervise. Simply because there were no other candidates
>>available, there was a need for him to take a closer look at what was
>>going on.
>>-Micky
>If we are going to hold Giles accountable, IMO we'd have to start with the
>fact that he'd have any part of encouraging a teenage girl to fulfill a
>calling which seems destined to get her killed before she hits age 20.
>If we were to apply the real world rules to Giles that some do to Angel,
>there would be no punishment stiff enough for him.
Except that we now know what Sunnydale would be like if Giles (or the
Watchers generally) *didn't* encourage Buffy to take up residence as the
local slayer. Under the circumstances, the violent death of one teenage
girl is almost certainly the lesser of two evils, even presuming that it
is the Watchers' encouragment rather than metaphysical destiny that puts
Buffy at risk.
As for real-world rules, IIRC the California Penal Code accepts necessity,
i.e. the prevention of greater harm, as a defense against any charge save
that of outright murder. So long as Giles tries to help Buffy survive the
risks he encourages her to accept, and doesn't send her out to face certain
death, he's on the right side of the law.
The entity that should be held accountable for inappropriately encouraging
a teenage girl to fulfill a calling which seems destined to get her killed
before she hits age 20, is the unfortunately unreachable MFFG.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
AUNTIELIB
>>If we are going to hold Giles accountable, IMO we'd have to start with the
>>fact that he'd have any part of encouraging a teenage girl to fulfill a
>>calling which seems destined to get her killed before she hits age 20.
>>If we were to apply the real world rules to Giles that some do to Angel,
>>there would be no punishment stiff enough for him.
>
>Except that we now know what Sunnydale would be like if Giles (or the
>Watchers generally) *didn't* encourage Buffy to take up residence as the
>local slayer. Under the circumstances, the violent death of one teenage
>girl is almost certainly the lesser of two evils, even presuming that it
>is the Watchers' encouragment rather than metaphysical destiny that puts
>Buffy at risk.
Which is why it always amuses me when people start harping that "a 17-year-old
girl should never have had sex in the first place!" Young girls shouldn't be
wandering around graveyards late at night prepared for mortal combat with
demons, either. But Buffy is. She is not an ordinary teenage girl. Special
rules apply for her. (Not "six-year-old court" though.)
elizabeth
The Man with No Serotonin
> Which is why it always amuses me when people start harping that "a 17-year-old
> girl should never have had sex in the first place!" Young girls shouldn't be
> wandering around graveyards late at night prepared for mortal combat with
> demons, either. But Buffy is. She is not an ordinary teenage girl. Special
> rules apply for her.
And the first rule, indeed kind of her raison d'etre as Spike would say, is
"Slayers slay vampires." Period. Paragraph. To the extent that Buffy's involvement
with Angel interferes with following that rule (and it manifestly has), she's
breaking not only "real world" rules, but her own special rules.
Montague/Capulet was a different kind of thing and therefore a bad analogy. (Yeah,
this is from another thread. Stake if you must this old grey head.) No one even
remembered why that feud was going on; it had more to do with the fun of feuding
than with any real issues. It could have been called off at any time (and in fact
it was at the end of the play). The feud between slayers and vampires has a lot
more substance to it than that. And once you're in it, you're in it to stay. Once
a Slayer, always a Slayer; once a vampire, always a vampire. Fair? Of course not.
But those are the rules.
John Hogan
Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
AUNTIELIB
>And the first rule, indeed kind of her raison d'etre as Spike would say, is
>"Slayers slay vampires." Period. Paragraph. To the extent that Buffy's
>involvement with Angel interferes with following that rule (and
>it manifestly has), she's breaking not only "real world" rules, but her
>own special rules.
But Angel isn't an ordinary vampire. Or even really a "vampire" at all. (If
you take it to mean a dead person with a demon walking around inside him.) He
has his human soul. So special rules apply to him, as well. They have from
the start. Which is why the love affair, while it lasted, was not against "the
rules."
elizabeth
DesertRoaz
>
>Montague/Capulet was a different kind of thing and therefore a bad analogy.
>(Yeah,
>this is from another thread. Stake if you must this old grey head.) No one
>even
>remembered why that feud was going on; it had more to do with the fun of
>feuding
>than with any real issues. It could have been called off at any time (and in
>fact
>it was at the end of the play). The feud between slayers and vampires has a
>lot
>more substance to it than that. And once you're in it, you're in it to stay.
>Once
>a Slayer, always a Slayer; once a vampire, always a vampire. Fair? Of course
>not.
>But those are the rules.
>
>John Hogan
>Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
>
>
Nobody wrote a rule for what to do about a vampire with a soul. Once a vampire
has a soul, it is no longer an it, it is a who. It is a being with the ability
to reason, to love, to know right from wrong. Killing Angel, even in the
Buffyverse, would be murder, though killing Angelus would not.
DesertRoaz
DesertRoaz
>
>But, the fact remains. In life some things can not be avoided, so Giles
>had a choice. Let Buffy fend for herself against all the wee nasties that
>would want a shot at an unprepared slayer, or help her. Because either
>choice he makes, she IS the slayer. The only wrong choice to make is to
>let her make her own way, rather than help her.
>
Buffy could have chosen not to bother being the slayer...she has free will. In
any case, I don't think Giles' behavior is wrong in the Buffyverse, but it
would be reprehensible in the real world. I am only judging him by real world
standards because others here were judging Angel by real world standards, which
got me thinking along those lines.
It could be argued, tho, that even in the Buffyverse, it is reprehensible for
Giles to tolerate the particaption of kids who are *not* slayers in the slaying
process. They have no destiny to fulfill. But I don't sweat it, because the
TV show is a fantasy. When I watch, real world parallels sneak into my
consciousness and I think "Giles shouldn't encourage Willow and Xander to get
involved" or "Angel is too old to sleep with Buffy" but I dismiss it and go on
to enjoy the episode.
Even in the Buffyverse, it seems the characters are punished for violating real
world rules...Giles has been tormented by his own conscience for his
involvement in Buffy's dangerous trade, and Angel suffered a horrendous fate
for his union with a teenage girl. That satisfies any prickings of conscience
I might have for entertaining friendly feelings toward characters who do
naughty things. ;-)
DesertRoaz
The Man with No Serotonin
> J Hogan said:
>
> The feud between slayers and vampires has a
> >lot
> >more substance to it than that. And once you're in it, you're in it to stay.
> >Once
> >a Slayer, always a Slayer; once a vampire, always a vampire. Fair? Of course
> >not.
> >But those are the rules.
> Nobody wrote a rule for what to do about a vampire with a soul. Once a vampire
> has a soul, it is no longer an it, it is a who. It is a being with the ability
> to reason, to love, to know right from wrong. Killing Angel, even in the
> Buffyverse, would be murder, though killing Angelus would not.
And she didn't kill either of them. But leaving that aside, in the absence of an
explicit rule it's not left up to Slayers to unilaterally write new ones, such as
"If the vampire has a soul, not only is it OK not to kill him, it's OK to sleep
with him." Watchers aren't there just to translate the Latin.
Micky DuPree
writes:
: just once I'd like Buffy to get her ass kicked by Giles in
: combat....intuitive knowledge of weaponry is one thing, repeatedly
: defeating someone who has spent years training with said weapons is
: another...minor nitpick)
In the earlier seasons I would have agreed with you. It was a funny
joke for Buffy to always pick up a weapon for the first time and use it
perfectly, much to Giles' consternation, but they almost made it seem
like she didn't even need to train, which strikes me as a way to excuse
laziness in the character. Now that she's had front-line experience in
slaying for a few years, though, it kind of makes sense that she's
completely passed Giles in just about anything he can throw at her. I
think at this stage only Faith and Buffy can really pose a challenge to
each other.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <19981212042627...@ng38.aol.com>,
deser...@aol.comdefyspam (DesertRoaz) writes:
: Alexander said:
:: But, the fact remains. In life some things can not be avoided, so
:: Giles had a choice. Let Buffy fend for herself against all the wee
:: nasties that would want a shot at an unprepared slayer, or help her.
:: Because either choice he makes, she IS the slayer. The only wrong
:: choice to make is to let her make her own way, rather than help her.
:
: Buffy could have chosen not to bother being the slayer...she has free
: will.
True, but trouble seems to have a habit of finding her anyway, e.g.,
vampires at Hemery and despair demons in "Anne."
: In any case, I don't think Giles' behavior is wrong in the Buffyverse,
: but it would be reprehensible in the real world.
You make it sound like Buffy's choices are between a dangerous life of
slaying on the one hand and the perfectly safe suburban life of a normal
white middle-class American teenager on the other. But if Buffy decided
not to answer her calling it would not make the vampires and other
assorted demons go away. Sunnydale has a deceptively pleasant and
commonplace exterior. Guerilla war is going on there and has been going
on there for some time. Despite the localized nature of the skirmishes
and the necessarily symbolic nature of carrying on cosmic battles on a
low budget, we are reasonably given to understand that what happens in
Sunnydale affects the entire world.
A better real-world analogy for Buffy's situation would be a teenager in
a guerilla war zone, with all the dire exigencies that war imposes. The
Allies in World War II never got around to drafting 15-year-olds for
regular military service, but the French Resistance, the Belgian escape
line, and many partisan movements used teens in key roles, many of them
dangerous, and they were sometimes recruited because they just happened
to be in a position to best hurt the enemy. We judge the morality of
those situations differently from the morality of encouraging a teenager
in peacetime to engage in some gratuitously dangerous activity.
In "The Wish" we had a hint of how bad things would get all over even if
Buffy still followed her calling and yet didn't go to Sunnydale. How
much worse would things get if Buffy simply never slew at all? (As long
as Buffy's alive, no new Slayer will be called.) Arguably since she
would still have her Slayer powers, Buffy personally could survive
longer than those around her by trying to avoid close encounters with
the supernatural, but a normal life would simply not be an option
because without Buffy to slay, Sunnydale, America, and the entire world
start to fight a losing battle. If Buffy just tried to protect those
close to her (such as Joyce, and if they moved to Sunnydale, Willow and
Xander), how far would she get without the benefit of a Watcher's
knowledge, training, and support? Buffy is in a war situation and the
mysterious (some say malevolent) Mystical Force for Good just happens to
have put her in the best position to hurt the enemy.
A somewhat similar rationale holds for the teen Slayerettes, in that the
supernatural skirmishes that go on in Sunnydale affect their lives too.
(It's hard not to be affected by the world getting sucked into Hell.)
Neither Giles nor the other Watchers drafted them. Ideally, they'd be a
group of highly trained adults, like maybe the California National Guard
all decked out and checked out with crossbows, but if you buy into one
of the main premises of the story, which is that the population at large
needs to be kept in the dark about supernatural threats (and if you
don't buy into it, none of the story can really sustain a suspension of
disbelief), then the reason why the kids are in on the slaying while the
National Guard isn't is because the kids stumbled onto the truth and
they have voluntarily thrown themselves into the fray.
If you check out the beginning of "Anne," you'll notice Giles'
ambivalent attitude towards the Substitute Slayers' activities sans
Buffy. He says he appreciates their efforts, implying that they've
picked up Buffy's slack on their *own* initiative, but he's anxious
about the risk to them. Even if he disapproved completely, he could no
more stop them in the end than he could stop Buffy from doing something
she had decided to do.
: Even in the Buffyverse, it seems the characters are punished for
: violating real world rules...
Indeed they are. Do you think that's a coincidence?
: Giles has been tormented by his own conscience for his involvement in
: Buffy's dangerous trade ...
Giles' torment usually takes the form of feeling like he hasn't trained
and prepared Buffy well enough, which is almost the opposite of feeling
like he never should have been involved with her at all.
-Micky
DesertRoaz
>
>: In any case, I don't think Giles' behavior is wrong in the Buffyverse,
>: but it would be reprehensible in the real world.
>
Then Micky said:
>You make it sound like Buffy's choices are between a dangerous life of
>slaying on the one hand and the perfectly safe suburban life of a normal
>white middle-class American teenager on the other.
I don't think the suburban life of a normal white middle-class American
teenager is perfectly safe. I was one. It wasn't safe for me, or most of my
friends. But anyhoo....like I said, Giles' behavior vis a vis Buffy isn't
wrong in the Buffyverse.
>But if Buffy decided
>not to answer her calling it would not make the vampires and other
>assorted demons go away.
True.
Sunnydale has a deceptively pleasant and
>commonplace exterior. Guerilla war is going on there and has been going
>on there for some time. Despite the localized nature of the skirmishes
>and the necessarily symbolic nature of carrying on cosmic battles on a
>low budget, we are reasonably given to understand that what happens in
>Sunnydale affects the entire world.
>
Yup.
>A better real-world analogy for Buffy's situation would be a teenager in
>a guerilla war zone, with all the dire exigencies that war imposes.
Yes...and her mother would know what was going on, and her trainer/ leader
would not be a weird librarian. I hope. ;-)
>
>In "The Wish" we had a hint of how bad things would get all over even if
>Buffy still followed her calling and yet didn't go to Sunnydale. How
>much worse would things get if Buffy simply never slew at all?
We will never know. Unless there is another "It's a Buffyful Life" episode.
(As long
>as Buffy's alive, no new Slayer will be called.)
Unless she dies and comes back to life. She could lose consciousness in a
swimming pool, be resusitated, and bam! new slayer. <g>
>
>A somewhat similar rationale holds for the teen Slayerettes, in that the
>supernatural skirmishes that go on in Sunnydale affect their lives too.
>(It's hard not to be affected by the world getting sucked into Hell.)
>Neither Giles nor the other Watchers drafted them.
Yes, but he lets them join in without the consent of their parents or
guardians, and they are not cosmically appointed Slayers. IMO, Giles is flat
wrong to encourage them to join Buffy in her vampire games.
Ideally, they'd be a
>group of highly trained adults, like maybe the California National Guard
>all decked out and checked out with crossbows, but if you buy into one
>of the main premises of the story, which is that the population at large
>needs to be kept in the dark about supernatural threats (and if you
>don't buy into it, none of the story can really sustain a suspension of
>disbelief), then the reason why the kids are in on the slaying while the
>National Guard isn't is because the kids stumbled onto the truth and
>they have voluntarily thrown themselves into the fray.
Like kids sometimes voluntarily have sex with adults? Adults who, if they take
advantage of this volunteering, are (rightly) guilty of statutory rape? I
simply can't join in with your approval of Giles letting Xander and friends
come along for the ride. If I took this show extremely seriously, I would
have to hope that he be thrown in the clink for this transgression. But I
don't, it's a fantasy to a large degree, so I cut Gilesie some slack.
>
>If you check out the beginning of "Anne," you'll notice Giles'
>ambivalent attitude towards the Substitute Slayers' activities sans
>Buffy. He says he appreciates their efforts, implying that they've
>picked up Buffy's slack on their *own* initiative, but he's anxious
>about the risk to them. Even if he disapproved completely, he could no
>more stop them in the end than he could stop Buffy from doing something
>she had decided to do.
>
Yes, Giles does have attacks of conscience and concern. Maybe he couldn't stop
them even if he tried, but he doesn't try very hard, and he often encourages
them. Giles is no saint, IMHO.
>
>: Even in the Buffyverse, it seems the characters are punished for
>: violating real world rules...
>
>Indeed they are. Do you think that's a coincidence?
>
No I don't. To the extent that BtVS is a metaphor for the real world, the
characters suffer for real world transgressions. Buffy gets expelled for her
violent and illegal activity, Giles suffers from guilt and is haunted by old
friends from his creepy past and his girlfriend is killed (perhaps that's not
karma but maybe it is?), Angel loses his soul, etc. For this reason, we in the
viewing audience need not feel concerned that the show seemingly promotes
antisocial behavior like B&E and stat rape, and we can sit back and enjoy the
fantasy and/or the mythical elements, and/or the literary symbolism.
This all started when someone...I don't recall who...expressed dismay that so
many posters are not concerned about the stat rape issue. Though stat rape is
a big concern of mine in the real world, I don't focus on it when watching
Buffy because I don't see Angel as a literal figure, and to the degree that he
can be seen in a real world context, I need not feel uncomfortable because he
was punished with the utmost cosmic severity.
I then compared the feelings that some have about Angel to my feelings about
Giles....who, when I try to hold him to real world standards, does not hold up
well -- yet in the Buffyverse is a pretty good guy. Sinister, nonetheless.
Can't explain it. He just gives me the willies.
DesertRoaz
James1709
>>supernatural skirmishes that go on in Sunnydale affect their lives too.
>>(It's hard not to be affected by the world getting sucked into Hell.)
>>Neither Giles nor the other Watchers drafted them.
>
>Yes, but he lets them join in without the consent of their parents or
>guardians, and they are not cosmically appointed Slayers. IMO, Giles is flat
>wrong to encourage them to join Buffy in her vampire games.
The idea that a 15-16 year old is incompetent to make these decisiions is
cultural not biological. About 91 years ago when my great grandfather died my
grandfather became the head of the household at 14. He quit school, got a
job, and became a bookkeeper sometime after that. He wasn't horribly scarred
and my father and aunt are normal well adjusted people.
My other grandfather was raised in a rural area where everyone was trained to
use a gun from an early age because of real threats from both people and wild
animals. This was not a poor backward area. They were above average in income
and wealthy enough to send all 5 children to college. It was simply normal for
them to know how to protect themselves at that time.
It is our culture that has said that a minor (or even a 21 year old intern) in
not capable of handling significant responsibility and making important
decisions. In a less affluent age with fewer do-gooders telling us how to live
children grew up faster in this area and looking at my own family I don't see
how they suffered for it.
DesertRoaz
>The idea that a 15-16 year old is incompetent to make these decisiions is
>cultural not biological. About 91 years ago when my great grandfather died
>my
>grandfather became the head of the household at 14. He quit school, got a
>job, and became a bookkeeper sometime after that.
Nothing wrong with that, in my mind. I have always felt that teenagers should
be allowed to work and pursue careers much earlier, and even leave school
pretty early to learn a trade if they are not academically inclined. My
problem with Giles has nothing to do with that. :-)
>My other grandfather was raised in a rural area where everyone was trained to
>use a gun from an early age because of real threats from both people and wild
>animals. This was not a poor backward area. They were above average in
>income
>and wealthy enough to send all 5 children to college. It was simply normal
>for
>them to know how to protect themselves at that time.
>
I bet your grandfather was taught to use a gun by his family, or with their
consent and supervision. That it was his parents who helped decide when he was
old enough to handle a gun and have more responsibility, and that they were by
his side to guide him. I bet that he wasn't taught by a school teacher or
librarian to use a gun, behind his parents backs, without their knowledge and
consent. I bet if your grandfather's parents found out that a teacher or
librarian was allowing/ encouraging him to do something they disapproved of,
and condoning his deceit and going behind their backs, they would come down
pretty hard on that teacher or librarian.
DesertRoaz
James1709
>librarian was allowing/ encouraging him to do something they disapproved of,
>and condoning his deceit and going behind their backs, they would come down
>pretty hard on that teacher or librarian.
Agreed, point taken.
K.B.Lamke
DesertRoaz wrote:
>
>
> I bet your grandfather was taught to use a gun by his family, or with their
> consent and supervision. That it was his parents who helped decide when he was
> old enough to handle a gun and have more responsibility, and that they were by
> his side to guide him. I bet that he wasn't taught by a school teacher or
> librarian to use a gun, behind his parents backs, without their knowledge and
> consent. I bet if your grandfather's parents found out that a teacher or
> librarian was allowing/ encouraging him to do something they disapproved of,
> and condoning his deceit and going behind their backs, they would come down
> pretty hard on that teacher or librarian.
>
> DesertRoaz
The problem with this is that is sometimes not as cut and dry as what you
describe. Even someone who is considered a child by society And their parents
sometimes have to make decisions that could be against there parents or society's
wishes. A kid going against their parents to get medical help because there
parent's religion forbids it, is an example.Charisma Carpenter's "trap" of the
serial rapest in California might be considered another.
Because of the implicit reality in BtVS, Buffy had to not tell her Mom what was
really happenning because telling her would possibly get her locked up, as well as
Giles + co. in deep trouble. That is no longer the case because her mother
believes. But Buffy not telling Mom was reasonably justified.
K.B.Lamke
DesertRoaz
> Because of the implicit reality in BtVS, Buffy had to not tell her Mom what
>was
>really happenning because telling her would possibly get her locked up, as
>well as
>Giles + co. in deep trouble. That is no longer the case because her mother
>believes. But Buffy not telling Mom was reasonably justified.
>
>
> K.B.Lamke
>
></PRE></HTML>
Yeah, but I was talking about Giles condoning the involvement of Willow, Xander
and Cordelia, not Buffy. :-)
DesertRoaz