I hate Willow. ("Tough Love" spoilers)
Sarah Trombley
Guess
this
is
our
last
goodbye,
and
you
don't
care
so
I
won't
cry...
Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
--Sarah T.
EGK
wrote:
Is it just me or is Alyson Hannigan's acting going south right along with
the character? I used to think she was the best actor on the show but that
was back when she was playing a real person.
The scoobies, and even Buffy herself, used to be real people caught up in
these extraordinary circumstances. Now that Willow is Super witch, she's
just a cartoon and difficult to relate to.. I'm waiting for Xander to
mistakenly find the Hammer of Thor while rummaging through some old
carpentry tools so he too can be a super hero. :)
It's that James Bond syndrome. The need the writers have to keep making
more and more powerful enemies has made it harder and harder to suspend
belief. Glory said something in tonight's episode that I've been thinking
for half the season. Buffy only has so many friends. Glory can just go
through them one at a time till she finds what she wants. Who's gonna stop
her?
Kudos for Amber Benson in this ep. Playing the brain-drained victim she had
some good acting moments. Much better then the Tara one-note character the
writers have given her to work with up to this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
Cap'n Fool
Trombley) wrote:
>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>
>Guess
>this
>is
>our
>last
>goodbye,
>and
>you
>don't
>care
>so
>I
>won't
>cry...
>
>Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight.
That means they got it right. :) I think this sort of thing is
consistent with the character. The same insecurities that manifest in
the sleepy-voiced cute Willow can produce some whiny, even weaselly
behavior as well (but you knew that). Looking back, and not meaning
to be callous, I see the argument mainly as a setup.
>And then to throw
>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
Cap'n Fool
Peter Meilinger
: "Tough Love" spoilers...
: Guess
: this
: is
: our
: last
: goodbye,
: and
: you
: don't
: care
: so
: I
: won't
: cry...
: Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
: the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
: bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight.
The fight pissed me off for another reason - I thought we were
finally (FINALLY!) going to get someone standing up to Willow
for the reckless way she approaches magic. That's definitely
where Tara was headed with that speech. Then out of nowhere
it becomes about Tara not trusting that Willow really loves
her? What the hell was that? It seemed like the writers wanted
to do whatever they could to make sure Willow wasn't the one in
the wrong during the fight.
: And then to throw
: the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
Ayep.
: I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
: I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
: not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
: continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
I was more than a little annoyed at the fact that there were
absolutely no repercussions from the gang for what she did,
but there are two mitigating circumstances:
1) No one's gonna want to rip into Willow after what happened
to Tara.
2) Christ, everyone else has gone off half-cocked and almost
gotten themselves and other people killed, why not Willow?
Giles did it in Passions, Buffy's done it more than once,
I guess it was Willow's turn.
Idiocy, though, there I definitely agree.
Pete
johndiem
I say "Yay Willow!" Especially on bringing out the big guns.
It's about time someone on this show just stopped taking it and tried
to do something. Sure, we all know that there's no defeating Glory
allowed for another few episodes, but Will doesn't. Yeah, something
possibly could have backfired. But there's no 'possible' in whether
Glory will continue sucking people's brains out, with a particular
taste for Buffy's friends. Willow played the percentages. Well,
okay, she probably wasn't thinking in those terms when she started
levitating and hurling knives and insults at a god, but it's sound
reasoning.
And the argument? Come on. It's not like anybody got on a
helicopter. Having only one fight in over a year has to be some sort
of record, especially for a young couple. In fact, it might be
unhealthy to get along that well. It signals a lack of passion, which
certainly comes across on the show at times. Anyway, they
unquestionably would have made up, they're both way too willing to
listen and compromise, especially Tara. Tara was always reasonable.
The irony.
But again, I can't express just how much I respect Willow for
attacking Glory. No more being the victim, or revolving around what
Buffy wants. I won't even touch on B's hypocrisy. Willow is the only
character who actually *wants* to be a capital-C Champion. That's
what the magic and constantly pushing her limits is all about. Yeah,
if Buffy doesn't show up that might have been the end of her. But
that was Willow's choice, on her own terms. Spike of all people
understood that.
Willow failed. This time. Whatever doesn't kill her will only
make her stronger.
-Diem
Daniel Solomon
<9cnn7c$pgf$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>:
>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>
>Guess
>this
>is
>our
>last
>goodbye,
>and
>you
>don't
>care
>so
>I
>won't
>cry...
>
>Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
I can't imagine what the writer was thinking, having Willow toss out the
lesbian/experimentation argument out of nowhere. I was hoping that the
writer was intentionally having Willow change the topic because she is in
denial about her magic use. But then Tara confirmed it. So what exactly
frightened Tara? At the beginning of the argument, I was so sure that they
were finally going to address the whole issue of Willow's magic use. But
it really seems that Tara was afraid of Willow leaving her, and that's it.
>I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
>I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
I am more disgusted by the apparent free pass that Willow got from the
writer of the episode. They even had Willow stealing powerful evil magic
tomes, and calling upon pretty powerful magic. But there was no mention of
it, and apparently no aftereffects either. Oh, and by the way, Giles...?
PUT AWAY THE DAMN BOOKS!!!
--
Daniel Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
"No amount of planning will ever replace dumb luck."
XFDragon1
finally...
sure, it's hopeless - Willow knows that and it was pretty unlikely she'd
discover The Big Gap In Glory's Armor; but still you gotta give the woman
credit for just breaking out and going for it...
shrug... damned if you do...
;-)
Sarah Trombley
To be fair, she had _horrible_ dialogue tonight. That fight was like
Non Sequitur Theater, leaping awkwardly from point to point. It was like
bad fanfic.
>The scoobies, and even Buffy herself, used to be real people caught up in
>these extraordinary circumstances. Now that Willow is Super witch, she's
>just a cartoon and difficult to relate to..
The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends? Secondly,
right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?) that made this
episode the one in which "Buffy" finally lost all mooring in anything like
a recognizable reality. They might as well just set it in ancient Greece
and have knights ride through town...oh, wait, that's next week.
>It's that James Bond syndrome. The need the writers have to keep making
>more and more powerful enemies has made it harder and harder to suspend
>belief. Glory said something in tonight's episode that I've been thinking
>for half the season. Buffy only has so many friends. Glory can just go
>through them one at a time till she finds what she wants. Who's gonna stop
>her?
More to the point, given that she's told us OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
that she's on a tight schedule, why the hell did she wait til now to
start?
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
Well, of course it was a setup. Doesn't mean I still can't stand her.
For a long time, I've just found her annoying, and hoped she would return
to the days of relative likeability, but she crossed the Rubicon with me
this week.
>>And then to throw
>>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
>
>She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
>understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
>Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
>spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the possible
exception of the soul-summoning.
As a great man once said, "On Earth, it is considered ill-mannered to kill
your friends while committing suicide."
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
Yes. That was bizarre. The train jumped tracks mid-argument.
>: I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
>: I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
>: not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>: continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
>
>I was more than a little annoyed at the fact that there were
>absolutely no repercussions from the gang for what she did,
>but there are two mitigating circumstances:
>
>1) No one's gonna want to rip into Willow after what happened
>to Tara.
I think that's part of what bothers me. Any guilt Willow may feel
is going to be treated as unfounded now--it will just be more fodder
for _sympathy_ for her. So, she (a) acts like a _total_ bitch and then
(b) plays around with dangerous magic, and the issues are never going
to be addressed.
>2) Christ, everyone else has gone off half-cocked and almost
>gotten themselves and other people killed, why not Willow?
>Giles did it in Passions, Buffy's done it more than once,
>I guess it was Willow's turn.
Yes, but this was much more dangerous. The only real comparison is
to Buffy's feeding herself to Angel in GD2. If Willow wanted to throw
away her life against Glory, that's one thing. But casually indulging
in those magics? That threatened _everyone's_ life. What was she
going to do if she accidentally opened a portal that sucked the world
into hell? Bake cookies and detail Giles's car?
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
No, it's not. Willow has consistently shown problems in handling even
weaker spells than what she was trying that night. 'Backfired' is a nice
word to use. So is 'destroyed Sunnydale.' And it has been well-established
that invoking the dark powers can have lasting and dangerous effects on
the caster, even after the spell is over.
>certainly comes across on the show at times. Anyway, they
>unquestionably would have made up, they're both way too willing to
>listen and compromise, especially Tara. Tara was always reasonable.
>The irony.
It's not the fight itself. It's the words and the tone she used. She
was hyper-defensive, bitchy, self-righteous, and unbelievably cruel to
Tara. Grrrr.
>Buffy wants. I won't even touch on B's hypocrisy. Willow is the only
>character who actually *wants* to be a capital-C Champion. That's
>what the magic and constantly pushing her limits is all about.
Well, spare me the capital-C champions if they haven't got another C-word
backing them up: Competence.
--Sarah T.
Robert A Black
"Cap'n Fool" <not...@the.moment> wrote in message
news:B03E779FCD710850.2BB3094E...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> >Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
> >the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
> >bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight.
>
> That means they got it right. :) I think this sort of thing is
> consistent with the character. The same insecurities that manifest in
> the sleepy-voiced cute Willow can produce some whiny, even weaselly
> behavior as well (but you knew that).
Exactly. This is the same Willow she has always been. I've been calling
her "the angriest of the Scoobies" since her dream in "Restless." Doesn't
mean I don't like her, though. I'm quite attached to her.
> Looking back, and not meaning
> to be callous, I see the argument mainly as a setup.
It also gave Joss a chance to fling a few choice words at the audience
members who have doubted the sincerity of Willow's conversion.
BB
Ian J. Ball
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters.
I must protest!
I'm *not* a Willow "hater".
I'm a Willow *loather*! ;)
--
Ian J. Ball | "What's not to understand? You think you're the first guy
TV lover, and | who ever rolled over, saw what was lyin' next to him,
Usenet slacker | and went 'Gueeeyah!'" - The Host, from "Angel"
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Andy00
Initiative, and Willow turned to black magic in vengeance would be great?
What changed?
"I have been a word in a book."
The Song of Taliesin
"If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand that
fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with bodies and
heartbeats."
Richard Bach -- "Illusions"
Sarah Trombley
Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>Sarah? Aren't you the same one who thought a story where Oz got killed by the
>Initiative, and Willow turned to black magic in vengeance would be great?
>
>What changed?
The execution. I wanted Willow to go dark, very dark, and have that
fully acknowledged by the story. I wanted Tara to get killed trying to
drag her back from the brink. I wanted her to emerge chastened and saddened
and wiser about her magic use.
I guess it's still possible that some of this could happen, but that's
not the feel I got from the ending of the episode.
--Sarah T.
Don Sample
<trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In article <hjquet8b6h0is927m...@4ax.com>,
> EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>"Tough Love" spoilers...
> >>
> >>Guess
> >>this
> >>is
> >>our
> >>last
> >>goodbye,
> >>and
> >>you
> >>don't
> >>care
> >>so
> >>I
> >>won't
> >>cry...
> >>
> >Is it just me or is Alyson Hannigan's acting going south right along with
> >the character? I used to think she was the best actor on the show but that
> >was back when she was playing a real person.
>
> To be fair, she had _horrible_ dialogue tonight. That fight was like
> Non Sequitur Theater, leaping awkwardly from point to point. It was like
> bad fanfic.
Actually, it was like a fight. If you see your going to lose on topic
A, switch topics and make it about something else.
Like we've never seen anything like that happen here?
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Andy00
>Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>>Sarah? Aren't you the same one who thought a story where Oz got killed
>by the
>>Initiative, and Willow turned to black magic in vengeance would be great?
>>
>>What changed?
>
>The execution. I wanted Willow to go dark, very dark, and have that
>fully acknowledged by the story. I wanted Tara to get killed trying to
>drag her back from the brink. I wanted her to emerge chastened and saddened
>and wiser about her magic use.
You think there won't be consequencs? Wait to see later eps before you
complain.
Besides, we've continously seen everyone do this. Hell, Xander controlled
women's minds in an attempt to control Cordy, and he got a slap on the wrist.
As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people. Cool.
>
>I guess it's still possible that some of this could happen, but that's
>not the feel I got from the ending of the episode.
We'll see.
BTR1701
> : I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
> : I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
> : not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
> : continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
>
> I was more than a little annoyed at the fact that there were
> absolutely no repercussions from the gang for what she did,
How about pissing off Glory enough that she came and tracked them down
and found out who the Key really was?
That seems like a pretty big repercussion.
BTR1701
<B03E779FCD710850.2BB3094E...@lp.airnews.net>,
Agreed. It never seemed like she was incompetent or that she didn't know
what she was doing. The spells worked just fine. The problem was that
she was merely a witch and Glory is a god.
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
> >understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
> >Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
> >spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
>
> We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the possible
> exception of the soul-summoning.
And now we have. She's obviously gotten better, something Tara has been
underlining at every opportunity lately.
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
> in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
> releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends?
Tara is hardly a psychotic. She's delusional but not psychotic.
> Secondly,
> right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
> person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
> school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
>
> Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
> Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
> called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?
Who says they didn't call the police? It's not like the cops would have
found him considering he was walking around with his Glory face on.
And I would think that an intern that didn't show up for 2 weeks without
explanation (even when he showed up again, he wouldn't explain himself)
would indeed be let go.
> that made this
> episode the one in which "Buffy" finally lost all mooring in anything
> like a recognizable reality. They might as well just set it in ancient Greece
> and have knights ride through town...oh, wait, that's next week.
That happened on Angel's season premiere this year and I didn't see
anyone complaining. ;-)
Daniel Solomon
<20010501230741...@ng-fc1.aol.com>:
>Sarah Trombley sez...
>
>>Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>>>Sarah? Aren't you the same one who thought a story where Oz got
>>>killed
>>by the
>>>Initiative, and Willow turned to black magic in vengeance would be
>>>great?
>>>
>>>What changed?
>>
>>The execution. I wanted Willow to go dark, very dark, and have that
>>fully acknowledged by the story. I wanted Tara to get killed trying to
>>drag her back from the brink. I wanted her to emerge chastened and
>>saddened and wiser about her magic use.
>
>You think there won't be consequencs? Wait to see later eps before you
>complain.
>
>Besides, we've continously seen everyone do this. Hell, Xander
>controlled women's minds in an attempt to control Cordy, and he got a
>slap on the wrist.
What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not trying
to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to hurt Cordelia
and blackmailing Amy. She was the one who cast the spell, and screwed it
up. And even if Xander only got a "slap on the wrist" as you put it, at
least it was acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and he felt bad about
it afterwards. There has been no ackowledgement of the wrongness of
Willow's actions, and I doubt Willow will be showing any remorse. Buffy's
darkness frightens her. Willow isn't even aware of her own darkness, or
doesn't care.
Sarah Trombley
Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>Sarah Trombley sez...
>
>>Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>>>Sarah? Aren't you the same one who thought a story where Oz got killed
>>by the
>>>Initiative, and Willow turned to black magic in vengeance would be great?
>>>
>>>What changed?
>>
>>The execution. I wanted Willow to go dark, very dark, and have that
>>fully acknowledged by the story. I wanted Tara to get killed trying to
>>drag her back from the brink. I wanted her to emerge chastened and saddened
>>and wiser about her magic use.
>
>You think there won't be consequencs? Wait to see later eps before you
>complain.
There sure weren't in this episode. She was the Brave Little Toaster
at the end. Aw, poor Willow. Not.
>As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people. Cool.
*rolls eyes* Oh, yes, you got me, I'm a homophobe.
Next!
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <9cnqol$r5l$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> >She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
>> >understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
>> >Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
>> >spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
>>
>> We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the possible
>> exception of the soul-summoning.
>
>And now we have. She's obviously gotten better,
And yet we've seen her screw up spells even this season.
She is not an experienced practitioner of the dark arts. She got lucky.
Well, isn't that special?
--Sarah T.
Andy00
>What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not trying
>
>to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to hurt Cordelia
>
>and blackmailing Amy.
More than just "hurt" Cordelia. No, he was trying to force Cordelia to love
him. To magically reach into her skull and heart, and take away her free will.
If you really think about it, that's far, far worse than Willow zapping the
evil Hell-Goddess.
Will there be complications to Willows actions? Undoubtedly.
But you guy's rather biased judgements fail to impress me.
Cap'n Fool
wrote:
>It occurs to me that no late convert to Buffy can get the same thrills
>out of it that we since ep 1 have had.
I'm sure that's true, but it's still by far the best hour on TV for
this season 5 newbie with basic cable.
Cap'n Fool
Andy00
>>As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people. Cool.
>
>*rolls eyes* Oh, yes, you got me, I'm a homophobe.
Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in peoples minds.
Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end, it's the innocent little
lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a horrible death that isn't her fault.
I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as ingrained as
this. I adore even more when people get hung up on it.
Homophobia? No. Deeply-ingrained typecasting? Yes.
Daniel Solomon
<20010501233428...@ng-fc1.aol.com>:
>Daniel Solomon sez...
>
>>What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not
>>trying
>>
>>to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to hurt
>>Cordelia
>>
>>and blackmailing Amy.
>
>More than just "hurt" Cordelia. No, he was trying to force Cordelia to
>love him. To magically reach into her skull and heart, and take away
>her free will.
>
>If you really think about it, that's far, far worse than Willow zapping
>the evil Hell-Goddess.
Or her almost cursing Oz?
>Will there be complications to Willows actions? Undoubtedly.
>
>But you guy's rather biased judgements fail to impress me.
There have yet to be any consequences for Willow's actions in the past, and
this episode set things up so that there won't be any consequences for her
this time around. She didn't even have a bloody nose.
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> In article <btr1702-891AE7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <9cnqol$r5l$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >
> >> >She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
> >> >understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
> >> >Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
> >> >spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
> >>
> >> We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the
> >> possible
> >> exception of the soul-summoning.
> >
> >And now we have. She's obviously gotten better,
>
> And yet we've seen her screw up spells even this season.
Even Babe Ruth struck out occasionally. Didn't make him a bad or
incompetent baseball player.
Brat
Trombley) wrote:
>Thanks, Willow, for
>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
Yeah, Willow is pretty bumbling with her spells and its a miracle she
didn't accidently destroy the world in this ep. Willow is basically
an early twenties version of that whacky, inept elderly witch aunt on
the old "Bewitched" series. The one with the stammer.
Remove SERPENT to reply via email
EGK
>> >Is it just me or is Alyson Hannigan's acting going south right along with
>> >the character? I used to think she was the best actor on the show but that
>> >was back when she was playing a real person.
>>
>> To be fair, she had _horrible_ dialogue tonight. That fight was like
>> Non Sequitur Theater, leaping awkwardly from point to point. It was like
>> bad fanfic.
>
>Actually, it was like a fight. If you see your going to lose on topic
>A, switch topics and make it about something else.
>
>Like we've never seen anything like that happen here?
hehe, very true and lots of people on here end up hating and carrying
grudges forever over it too. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
BTR1701
<Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> And why haven't I read any cheers for Amber B. Someone said no tension
> in the Glory/Tara confrontation? I must have seen a different show. It
> was particularly scary. The crunched hand, Tara's pain, Tara's refusal
> to give up the Key, Tara's partial face contorted in agony glimpsed in
> the quick cuts as Willow ran through the crowd (or so it looked to
> me). I thought the scene was masterful story telling.
>
> Some of you might want to consider not expressing quite so much
> projecting, or is it projectile, venom--maybe you should just focus on
> your personal hair care treatments for the next three weeks or so and
> let us to whom the show still speaks enjoy our twisting in the wind
> suspense until JW puts us out of our agony on 5/22. Just a friendly
> thought.
LOL! Very well said. I also thought the bench scene with Glory was very
well done. Amber Benson and Clare Kramer did a fine job.
Sarah Trombley
Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>Trombley sez...
>
>>>As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people. Cool.
>>
>>*rolls eyes* Oh, yes, you got me, I'm a homophobe.
>
>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
>
>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in peoples minds.
>Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end, it's the innocent little
>lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a horrible death that isn't her fault.
>
>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as ingrained as
>this.
Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <9cnqev$qud$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
>> in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
>> releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends?
>
>Tara is hardly a psychotic. She's delusional but not psychotic.
That's what psychotics are: they have delusions, hallucinations, disorganized
speech patterns.
>> Secondly,
>> right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
>> person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
>> school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
>>
>> Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
>> Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
>> called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?
>
>Who says they didn't call the police? It's not like the cops would have
>found him considering he was walking around with his Glory face on.
His boss did not treat him like someone he considered to be missing; he
treated him like someone who had been slacking off for two weeks.
>And I would think that an intern that didn't show up for 2 weeks without
>explanation (even when he showed up again, he wouldn't explain himself)
>would indeed be let go.
J. Random Doctor couldn't fire him, though.
>> that made this
>> episode the one in which "Buffy" finally lost all mooring in anything
>> like a recognizable reality. They might as well just set it in ancient Greece
>> and have knights ride through town...oh, wait, that's next week.
>
>That happened on Angel's season premiere this year and I didn't see
>anyone complaining. ;-)
I guess you missed my voice. ;)
--Sarah T.
BTR1701
Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <btr1702-893C11...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> I was more than a little annoyed at the fact that there were
> >> absolutely no repercussions from the gang for what she did,
> >How about pissing off Glory enough that she came and tracked them down
> >and found out who the Key really was?
> >
> >That seems like a pretty big repercussion.
>
> But the only reason that Glory didn't do it before was 'plot device'.
> There's no in-story reason why Glory wouldn't have done it before, so Willow
> really didn't change anything.
Glory seems to be a very vain god (imagine that! sounds like a few other
god concepts I've been exposed to) and Willow's temerity in confronting
her spurred her on to come after them.
I don't deny that there's some question as to what Glory has been
waiting for considering her deadline, but Glory *has* come after them
before. She came to Buffy's house to threaten her. This time however,
she arrived in time to see Tara recognize the Key, something that
wouldn't have happened before. And it was because Willow pissed her off.
BTR1701
dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
> What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not
> trying to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to hurt
> Cordelia and blackmailing Amy. She was the one who cast the spell, and screwed it
> up. And even if Xander only got a "slap on the wrist" as you put it, at
> least it was acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and he felt bad
> about it afterwards. There has been no ackowledgement of the wrongness of
> Willow's actions, and I doubt Willow will be showing any remorse.
> Buffy's darkness frightens her. Willow isn't even aware of her own darkness, or
> doesn't care.
I don't think that what Willow did was wrong. She seemed fully in
control of the magick she was wielding and she was endangering no one
but herself, a choice she was free to make and one that we have seen
Buffy make repeatedly.
Willow was right when she questioned why it is that they can only fight
when Buffy says so. Since when is Buffy the dictator of their little
group?
Samuel Lubell
noticed that on Tue, 01 May 2001 22:01:30 -0400, EGK <e...@hotmail.com>
sent via passenger pigeon:
>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>wrote:
>
>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>>
>>Guess
>>this
>>is
>>our
>>last
>>goodbye,
>>and
>>you
>>don't
>>care
>>so
>>I
>>won't
>>cry...
>>
>>Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
>>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
>>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
>>
>>I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
>>I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
>>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
>
>Is it just me or is Alyson Hannigan's acting going south right along with
>the character? I used to think she was the best actor on the show but that
>was back when she was playing a real person.
>The scoobies, and even Buffy herself, used to be real people caught up in
>these extraordinary circumstances. Now that Willow is Super witch, she's
>just a cartoon and difficult to relate to.. I'm waiting for Xander to
>mistakenly find the Hammer of Thor while rummaging through some old
>carpentry tools so he too can be a super hero. :)
>
>It's that James Bond syndrome. The need the writers have to keep making
>more and more powerful enemies has made it harder and harder to suspend
>belief. Glory said something in tonight's episode that I've been thinking
>for half the season. Buffy only has so many friends. Glory can just go
>through them one at a time till she finds what she wants. Who's gonna stop
>her?
She had no reason to think any of them other than Buffy knew. (Now
why she didn't torture them to make Buffy tell is a different
question, fortunately Glory is being portrayed as a not-smart ditz.)
Cap'n Fool
Trombley) wrote:
>And yet we've seen her screw up spells even this season.
I dunno - she screwed up before, she didn't tonight. Seems like a
logical progression to me. I'm a better touch-typist tonight than I
was earlier in the season (really).
>She is not an experienced practitioner of the dark arts. She got lucky.
>Well, isn't that special?
I think we're supposed to understand that there's stuff going on in
the Buffyverse when we're not around to watch. Looked to me like
maybe Willow *is* becoming an experienced practitioner. Tara's fear
of her power seemed to underline this, as someone else pointed out.
Willow's progress does seem somewhat abrupt or compressed, but there's
only so much you can do in an hour a week.
Cap'n Fool
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> In article <btr1702-EA447C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <9cnqev$qud$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >
> >> The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
> >> in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
> >> releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends?
> >
> >Tara is hardly a psychotic. She's delusional but not psychotic.
>
> That's what psychotics are: they have delusions, hallucinations,
> disorganized speech patterns.
Delusions are a *symptom* of psychosis but they do not define it.
>
> >> Secondly,
> >> right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
> >> person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
> >> school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
> >>
> >> Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
> >> Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
> >> called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?
> >
> >Who says they didn't call the police? It's not like the cops would have
> >found him considering he was walking around with his Glory face on.
>
> His boss did not treat him like someone he considered to be missing; he
> treated him like someone who had been slacking off for two weeks.
>
> >And I would think that an intern that didn't show up for 2 weeks without
> >explanation (even when he showed up again, he wouldn't explain himself)
> >would indeed be let go.
>
> J. Random Doctor couldn't fire him, though.
How do you know he was a "random" doctor? Perhaps he was the doctor in
charge of the interns? You make an awful lot of assumptions in order to
paint the continuity of the episode in the worst light possible.
Sarah Trombley
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <9cnudr$t7j$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> In article <btr1702-891AE7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >In article <9cnqol$r5l$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
>> >> >understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
>> >> >Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
>> >> >spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
>> >>
>> >> We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the
>> >> possible
>> >> exception of the soul-summoning.
>> >
>> >And now we have. She's obviously gotten better,
>>
>> And yet we've seen her screw up spells even this season.
>
>Even Babe Ruth struck out occasionally. Didn't make him a bad or
>incompetent baseball player.
You are kidding me, right? I mean, there are whole _episodes_ devoted
to the messes Willow has made with her spellcasting.
And if New York City ran a serious risk of being destroyed every time
a batter struck out, I wouldn't want even a .400 hitter stepping up
to the plate.
--Sarah T.
johndiem
Trombley) wrote:
>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>>>
>>>Guess
>>>this
>>>is
>>>our
>>>last
>>>goodbye,
>>>and
>>>you
>>>don't
>>>care
>>>so
>>>I
>>>won't
>>>cry...
>>>
>>>Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
>>>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>>>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
>>>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
>>>
>>>I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
>>>I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
>>>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>>>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
>>
>>It's about time someone on this show just stopped taking it and tried
>>to do something. Sure, we all know that there's no defeating Glory
>>allowed for another few episodes, but Will doesn't. Yeah, something
>>possibly could have backfired. But there's no 'possible' in whether
>>Glory will continue sucking people's brains out, with a particular
>>taste for Buffy's friends. Willow played the percentages. Well,
>>okay, she probably wasn't thinking in those terms when she started
>>levitating and hurling knives and insults at a god, but it's sound
>>reasoning.
>
>No, it's not. Willow has consistently shown problems in handling even
>weaker spells than what she was trying that night. 'Backfired' is a nice
>word to use. So is 'destroyed Sunnydale.' And it has been well-established
>that invoking the dark powers can have lasting and dangerous effects on
>the caster, even after the spell is over.
I think you're being overly paranoid about witchcraft. Well,
heh, let me rephrase that. I think in the context of the Buffyverse,
there's a limit on how badly a spell can go wrong. Between BtVS and
AtS we've seen dozens of people casting spells. Willow seems to be
the only person in the entire world who screws them up. Amy's love
spell backfired, but that's supposedly notoriously tricky. Willow
probably makes more mistakes because she pushes her limits the
furthest, but judging from Tara's comments she can't be just
incompetent because Willow's completely surpassed her in a very brief
amount of time. I also have to think that Willow isn't the first
person in history to attempt a spell beyond her ability. If the world
could be destroyed by a single irresponsible witch, it would have been
destroyed already. And other than her dealings with Anya, who is
Willow's personal kryptonite, the only time her spellcraft has had a
negative effect on people other than herself was in "Something Blue,"
which was Willow's personal low point on many levels. She's backed
off when someone other than herself was at risk, such as in "New Moon
Rising" or when Buffy asked her to try to cure her mother's cancer.
>>certainly comes across on the show at times. Anyway, they
>>unquestionably would have made up, they're both way too willing to
>>listen and compromise, especially Tara. Tara was always reasonable.
>>The irony.
>
>It's not the fight itself. It's the words and the tone she used. She
>was hyper-defensive, bitchy, self-righteous, and unbelievably cruel to
>Tara. Grrrr.
I don't have the precise dialogue handy, but I didn't think it
was unbelievably cruel or even unusual. They're supposed to be in
love. People in love get emotional, defensive, and just irrational.
If they didn't, we'd have to throw out half the literature of western
civilization, and almost all of the country music. Which might seem
like a good idea at first, but that's beside the point.
Things we know about Willow: any putdown of her interest in
witchcraft strikes a nerve with her. We've seen her bristle about
that with Buffy in the past, such as in "Yoko Factor." She has alot
of her self-worth bound up in this. It's one of her character flaws,
as all good characters have. Things we know about Tara: not the
poster girl for self-confidence. She will always (present condition
excluded) be worried about losing her grip on Willow. She began the
romance by giving Willow a blank check on her heart, so she (thinks
she) has nothing left to offer as the relationship matures. Willow
leaving Tara in the dust in magic ability has to leave Tara feeling
like that's a major link between them being severred. Sort of like if
you had a friend who became so good at skiing that she's doing the
triple diamond route while you've just gotten off the bunny slope.
You still share an interest, but you can't share it together anymore..
Thus it's hard for Tara to resist trying to hold Willow back
on the magic issue. Granted, that's her M.O. anyway, what with her
being a very thoughtful and careful person, although that didn't stop
her from screwing up the blinding spell or interrupting Willow's
demon-finding spell halfway through. But I don't think Tara's
motivations are purely about Willow's safety. Willow knows Tara well
enough to pick up on her insecurity. Tara knows Willow well enough to
instantly recognize that the argument was hopeless once she put Willow
on the defensive about her witchcraft. Nevertheless, they had to
fight, because that's what people in intimate relationships do, even
when they know better.
>>Buffy wants. I won't even touch on B's hypocrisy. Willow is the only
>>character who actually *wants* to be a capital-C Champion. That's
>>what the magic and constantly pushing her limits is all about.
>
>Well, spare me the capital-C champions if they haven't got another C-word
>backing them up: Competence.
Buffy wasn't instantly competent, although we were spared that
transition in the TV series. But she had to try to fight, so she did.
And she was handed most of her advantages. Willow's had to work at
hers, and she hasn't had time to do it wearing regulation helmet and
elbow pads. There is, after all, a Goddess from HELL residing in her
hometown, and racking up a decent bodycount. And what's the Chosen
One been doing all this time? Buffy can't be bothered to protect the
world from evil unless it's directly attacking her sister or mother,
or doing consentual but yucky things with her boyfriend. So what's
Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out? Wait
for Buffy's little world to be threatened first and then help her
protect it? Giles did, and it cost him Jenny. And he, for all his
maturity and restraint and sense of responsibility, did the exact same
thing Willow did.
Willow's mistake wasn't attacking Glory with her magicks, it was
failing to attack her brutally enough.
-Diem
Andy00
>>>What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not
>>>trying
>>>
>>>to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to hurt
>>>Cordelia
>>>
>>>and blackmailing Amy.
>>
>>More than just "hurt" Cordelia. No, he was trying to force Cordelia to
>>love him. To magically reach into her skull and heart, and take away
>>her free will.
>>
>>If you really think about it, that's far, far worse than Willow zapping
>>the evil Hell-Goddess.
>
>Or her almost cursing Oz?
Key word "almost."
However, in other words, you're dropping how horrible what Xander wanted to do
was?
Simply being bitched at at the end of the ep, and nevermore mentioned. Ooh.
>
>>Will there be complications to Willows actions? Undoubtedly.
>>
>>But you guy's rather biased judgements fail to impress me.
>
>There have yet to be any consequences for Willow's actions in the past,
And Xanders? And Buffy's? And Giles'?
>and
>this episode set things up so that there won't be any consequences for her
>
>this time around. She didn't even have a bloody nose.
And what do you want? What is a proportional punishment for her taking the
risk herself? One person suggested that Tara die. (Oh yes, that's
proportional.)
Buffy: Yes, Tara is insane, and now Glory not only knows who Dawn is, but is
after us all, but first we have to rag on you, Willow.
Considering you guys hate her, I'll reiterate. I'm not impressed.
Andy00
>>>>As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people.
> Cool.
>>>
>>>*rolls eyes* Oh, yes, you got me, I'm a homophobe.
>>
>>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
>>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
>>
>>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in peoples
>minds.
>>Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end, it's the innocent little
>>lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a horrible death that isn't her fault.
>
>>
>>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as ingrained
>as
>>this.
>
>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
>herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
>herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
You mean who stood up to torture and refused to give Dawn away? Who
_survived?_ Who will likely be healed within 4 eps? Yes. (I didn't say she'd
be immune to suffering. Merely that she wouldn't be erased.)
You apparently haven't paid attention to the official Buffy board where _still_
people are dissapointed she isn't dead.
jere7my tho?rpe
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
*To be fair, she had _horrible_ dialogue tonight. That fight was like
*Non Sequitur Theater, leaping awkwardly from point to point. It was like
*bad fanfic.
Hmm...have you ever been in a relationship where the two of you
were nice to each other all the time, where everything was happy perfect
chirping birds, where you each treated the other with silk-lined kid
gloves? Have you ever had that first argument, when all of the little
things that were simmering for months because you couldn't bear to let
them into the open finally spring out and scamper around the room like
bunnies on fire?
Personally, I thought it was the best depiction of a "nice-person"
argument I've seen on TV. It's easy to show a lot of shouting and
crying and breaking crockery; it's pretty hard to show two extremely
tentative, passive lovers trying to express their anger. This was
spot-on, IMHO.
----j7y
--
*********************************** <*> ***********************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "Oh, yeah. Old guys becoming pandas --
c/o kesh...@umich.edu _that's_ the future." Mike Nelson, MST3K
Sarah Trombley
Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>Sarah Trombley sez...
>
>>>>>As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people.
>> Cool.
>>>>
>>>>*rolls eyes* Oh, yes, you got me, I'm a homophobe.
>>>
>>>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
>>>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
>>>
>>>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in peoples
>>minds.
>>>Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end, it's the innocent little
>>>lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a horrible death that isn't her fault.
>>
>>>
>>>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as ingrained
>>as
>>>this.
>>
>>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
>>herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>
>>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
>>herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>
>You mean who stood up to torture and refused to give Dawn away?
I rather imagine that falls under the stereotype, too. Can't be noble
if you give away the secret.
> Who
>_survived?_
Through no action of her own. I repeat: she's been reduced to a delusional
child who can't even feed herself. Hell, death would have been kinder.
She couldn't have been more 'innocent pathetic lesbian victim' if she
had it tattooed on her forehead.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2 May 2001 02:29:24 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>Trombley) wrote:
>>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>>>>
>>>>Guess
>>>>this
>>>>is
>>>>our
>>>>last
>>>>goodbye,
>>>>and
>>>>you
>>>>don't
>>>>care
>>>>so
>>>>I
>>>>won't
>>>>cry...
>>>>
>>>It's about time someone on this show just stopped taking it and tried
>>>to do something. Sure, we all know that there's no defeating Glory
>>>allowed for another few episodes, but Will doesn't. Yeah, something
>>>possibly could have backfired. But there's no 'possible' in whether
>>>Glory will continue sucking people's brains out, with a particular
>>>taste for Buffy's friends. Willow played the percentages. Well,
>>>okay, she probably wasn't thinking in those terms when she started
>>>levitating and hurling knives and insults at a god, but it's sound
>>>reasoning.
>>
>>No, it's not. Willow has consistently shown problems in handling even
>>weaker spells than what she was trying that night. 'Backfired' is a nice
>>word to use. So is 'destroyed Sunnydale.' And it has been well-established
>>that invoking the dark powers can have lasting and dangerous effects on
>>the caster, even after the spell is over.
>
> I think you're being overly paranoid about witchcraft.
She pulled open a book called _Darkest Magicks_. That wasn't any
teeny glamour she was casting.
> Well,
>heh, let me rephrase that. I think in the context of the Buffyverse,
>there's a limit on how badly a spell can go wrong.
Why, yes. You could summon a demon, have it possess someone, and have
it try to kill all your friends. For example.
>amount of time. I also have to think that Willow isn't the first
>person in history to attempt a spell beyond her ability. If the world
>could be destroyed by a single irresponsible witch, it would have been
>destroyed already.
True. But Willow is (a) powerful (b) given access to powerful magic
and (c) living on the Hellmouth. The three together are an explosive
combination.
> Things we know about Willow: any putdown of her interest in
>witchcraft strikes a nerve with her. We've seen her bristle about
>that with Buffy in the past, such as in "Yoko Factor." She has alot
>of her self-worth bound up in this. It's one of her character flaws,
>as all good characters have.
The fact that she couldn't even understand why anyone might be disturbed
at her witchcraft tells me all I need to know, really.
>>Well, spare me the capital-C champions if they haven't got another C-word
>>backing them up: Competence.
>
> Buffy wasn't instantly competent, although we were spared that
>transition in the TV series. But she had to try to fight, so she did.
'Had to.' Willow didn't have to. And Buffy's failure would just have
meant Buffy's death.
>And she was handed most of her advantages. Willow's had to work at
>hers, and she hasn't had time to do it wearing regulation helmet and
>elbow pads.
Actually, no. The thing I hate most about Willow's witchcraft is the
way that it was used to give her a big powerup without the heartache
that has always attended special powers in the Buffyverse. She's become
potentially much stronger than the Slayer herself, but without the
inescapable tragic destiny.
> There is, after all, a Goddess from HELL residing in her
>hometown, and racking up a decent bodycount. And what's the Chosen
>One been doing all this time? Buffy can't be bothered to protect the
>world from evil unless it's directly attacking her sister or mother,
>or doing consentual but yucky things with her boyfriend.
OK, maybe you missed the part where Glory has been defined as invulnerable
and has kicked Buffy's ass on multiple occasions. Buffy has been, as
she said, waiting until she actually had a chance to do some good before
throwing her life away.
> So what's
>Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out?
How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
wait to get her vengeance?
--Sarah T.
Mark Jones
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) spake thusly:
>>>Guess
>>>this
>>>is
>>>our
>>>last
>>>goodbye,
>>>and
>>>you
>>>don't
>>>care
>>>so
>>>I
>>>won't
>>>cry...
>The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
>in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
>releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends? Secondly,
>right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
>person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
>school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
Well, it should be child's play for a Mistress of Darkest Magics
(tm) to conjure up roomsful of gold. So income is no problem. And
working spells to, uh, "convince" the authorities to hand over her
girlfriend to her would be trivial.
>Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
>Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
>called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?)
The only saving grace in this is that it gives me a hook (however
fragile) on which to hang my suspension of disbelief. Why hasn't
Glory been terrorizing, torturing, maiming and killing Buffy's
friends to squeeze the secret of the Key from the Slayer since day
one? Because she spends large chunks of her limited time submerged
in Ben. It's not much, but it's all I've got.
>More to the point, given that she's told us OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
>that she's on a tight schedule, why the hell did she wait til now to
>start?
See above. Not that I think that that's the ME story--but it could
serve.
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
Willow has endangered to people around her twice:
Once when she was at the lowest emotional point in her life and once
when Anya actively interfered with the spell. The troll was as much
Anya's fault as Willow's.
Neither situation applied here. And I really think you're vastly
over-inflating the danger risk here. If one witch screwing up a spell
could erase New York City or end the world, it would have already
happened a long, long time ago. It's not Willow and Tara are the only
witches in history.
I Am Not Omar
>Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
>a recognizable reality.
Buffy being enjoyable because its mythology is firmly implanted in the real
world aside, this has to be the most moronic example of nitpick justification
I've ever seen. If such tiny, little things annoy you so much, stop watching
television and start counting the holes in your ceiling. Please.
>They might as well just set it in ancient Greece
>and have knights ride through town...oh, wait, that's next week.
Thanks for capping off your idiocy by prejudging a show you haven't see yet.
Not to mention that there's already been a knight order preestablished.
>More to the point, given that she's told us OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
>that she's on a tight schedule, why the hell did she wait til now to
>start?
Because she's a moron? Although I know she's been portrayed as a brilliant
tactician in the past.
Don Sample
<trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In article <20010502004708...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
> >Sarah Trombley sez...
> >
> >>>
> >>>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
> >>>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
> >>>
> >>>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in
> >>>peoples minds. Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end,
> >>>it's the innocent little lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a
> >>>horrible death that isn't her fault.
> >>>
> >>>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as
> >>>ingrained as this.
> >>
> >>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even
> >>feed herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
> >
> >You mean who stood up to torture and refused to give Dawn away?
>
> I rather imagine that falls under the stereotype, too. Can't be noble
> if you give away the secret.
So if Tara gives in to the torture she a stereotypical weak willed gay
person who can't be trusted, and if she resists the torture she's a
stereotypical noble sufferer gay person?
Seems to me no matter what they did with a gay person you wouldn't like
it.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Sarah Trombley
I Am Not Omar <iamno...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
>>Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
>>called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?) that made this
>>episode the one in which "Buffy" finally lost all mooring in anything like
>>a recognizable reality.
>
>Buffy being enjoyable because its mythology is firmly implanted in the real
>world aside, this has to be the most moronic example of nitpick justification
>I've ever seen. If such tiny, little things annoy you so much, stop watching
>television and start counting the holes in your ceiling. Please.
Embrace the concept of the killfile, my friend.
>Thanks for capping off your idiocy by prejudging a show you haven't see yet.
>Not to mention that there's already been a knight order preestablished.
>
>>More to the point, given that she's told us OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
>>that she's on a tight schedule, why the hell did she wait til now to
>>start?
>
>Because she's a moron? Although I know she's been portrayed as a brilliant
>tactician in the past.
So you like shows in which the good guys survive by dint of the bad guy's
being utterly incompetent? Gosh, how can I have failed to see how great
those are? I feel humbled and shamed.
--Sarah T.
Andy00
>Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>>Sarah Trombley sez...
>>
>>>>>>As for Tara not being killed....:laughing: That really bugs people.
>>> Cool.
>>>>>
>>>>>*rolls eyes* Oh, yes, you got me, I'm a homophobe.
>>>>
>>>>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
>>>>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
>>>>
>>>>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in peoples
>>>minds.
>>>>Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end, it's the innocent little
>>>>lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a horrible death that isn't her fault.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as ingrained
>>>as
>>>>this.
>>>
>>>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
>>>herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>>
>>>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even feed
>>>herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>>
>>You mean who stood up to torture and refused to give Dawn away?
>
>I rather imagine that falls under the stereotype, too. Can't be noble
>if you give away the secret.
<g> The point is she survived. And that drives people batty. You, for
example were disappointed.
>
>> Who
>>_survived?_
>
>Through no action of her own. I repeat: she's been reduced to a delusional
>child who can't even feed herself. Hell, death would have been kinder.
>She couldn't have been more 'innocent pathetic lesbian victim' if she
>had it tattooed on her forehead.
Like Cordy? Like Giles? Like Spike? She stepped up to the plate. I didn't
say she was immune to Sunnydaleitis.
The _point_ of innocent sacrificial lesbian is to get rid of her. Tara's still
around.
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to show how she was risking anyone's life but
her own. The episode very clearly showed that she was in complete
control of her magick and the spells were working as cast. They just
weren't powerful enough to phase a god.
You may *want* Willow to be incompetent because it feeds in to your
"Willow is risking everyone's lives" scenario but the show itself
portrayed her as very competent in working those magicks.
Sarah Trombley
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>In article <9co3u4$uia$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Sarah Trombley
><trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <20010502004708...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
>> Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>> >Sarah Trombley sez...
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
>> >>>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
>> >>>
>> >>>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in
>> >>>peoples minds. Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end,
>> >>>it's the innocent little lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a
>> >>>horrible death that isn't her fault.
>> >>>
>> >>>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as
>> >>>ingrained as this.
>> >>
>> >>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even
>> >>feed herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>> >
>> >You mean who stood up to torture and refused to give Dawn away?
>>
>> I rather imagine that falls under the stereotype, too. Can't be noble
>> if you give away the secret.
>
>So if Tara gives in to the torture she a stereotypical weak willed gay
>person who can't be trusted, and if she resists the torture she's a
>stereotypical noble sufferer gay person?
Actually, Don, it was Andy (whoever) who brought up the whole issue of
the stereotype. I, personally, don't care much either way, but claiming
that an episode which shows an utterly helpless lesbian being reduced to
a babbling child who literally has to be spoon-fed her lunch is a brilliant
subversion of the 'innocent sacrificial lesbian' stereotype is a bit much
for me to swallow.
>Seems to me no matter what they did with a gay person you wouldn't like
>it.
I just want them to treat them like normal people. No kid gloves for
fear of 'sending the wrong message.'
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>Sarah Tromblet sez...
>
><g> The point is she survived. And that drives people batty. You, for
>example were disappointed.
Really? Where did I say that? I only said that in the version that I
had concocted, she did die. Not that I was unhappy that she didn't
die here.
You've also been making a lot of claims about people's double standards
for Willow, yet I don't believe I've said a word recently about Xander's
spell-casting (in my judgment, really unpleasant and inappropriate)
and I _know_ what position I've taken on Giles's inappropriate spell-
casting (verging on evil). I also know what position I took on Buffy's
GD1 frolics (extremely wrong).
I know it's more convenient to invent your opponents' position for them,
but it doesn't get the discussion very far.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <9co3o4$uc4$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> In article <3aef7994...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>> johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > So what's
>> >Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out?
>>
>> How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
>> wait to get her vengeance?
>
>I'm still waiting for you to show how she was risking anyone's life but
>her own. The episode very clearly showed that she was in complete
>control of her magick and the spells were working as cast.
Yes. Because she was lucky.
Willow is not an infallible spellcaster, shown over and over again.
Willow has never been shown to be using anything like a 'darkest magicks'
book before.
Willow could by no means be assumed to have competence in this area.
>You may *want* Willow to be incompetent because it feeds in to your
>"Willow is risking everyone's lives" scenario but the show itself
>portrayed her as very competent in working those magicks.
In order for Willow to be justified in using such potent magic, she
would have to have reasonable grounds for a firm confidence both that
the spells would work properly and that there would be no later
consequences (i.e., debt to an evil entity) to fear. There is no
evidence that she had good reason to believe either.
If someone gives me a machine gun and I shoot into a room filled with
hostages and bad guys, and the bad guys die and the hostages live, that
doesn't mean my firing the gun was a good idea.
--Sarah T.
DesertRoaz
>From: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>Date: 5/1/2001 6:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9cnn7c$pgf$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>
>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>
>Guess
>this
>is
>our
>last
>goodbye,
>and
>you
>don't
>care
>so
>I
>won't
>cry...
>
>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
>
>I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
>I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
>
>
I love GreyWillow. Loved her in S4, loved her in this ep. I was so bored with
poopsie-woopsie Willow of S5 I was starting to hope they'd kill her off.
DR
"Why do I do anything? For women." George Costanza
Alexander Darke
Trombley) wrote:
>How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
>wait to get her vengeance?
While he didn't risk everyone else's life, you MAY be being a bit too
hard on Willow here. After all, even *Giles* succumbed to the need for
vengence poorly thought out (PASSION) in a similar situation.
DesertRoaz
>From: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>Date: 5/1/2001 7:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9cnqev$qud$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>
>In article <hjquet8b6h0is927m...@4ax.com>,
>EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>>>
>>>Guess
>>>this
>>>is
>>>our
>>>last
>>>goodbye,
>>>and
>>>you
>>>don't
>>>care
>>>so
>>>I
>>>won't
>>>cry...
>>>
>>>Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
>>>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>>>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
>>>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
>>>
>>>I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
>>>I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
>>>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
>>>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
>>
>>the character? I used to think she was the best actor on the show but that
>>was back when she was playing a real person.
>
>
>>The scoobies, and even Buffy herself, used to be real people caught up in
>>these extraordinary circumstances. Now that Willow is Super witch, she's
>>just a cartoon and difficult to relate to..
>
>in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
>releasing psychotics into the care of their >teenaged girlfriends?
A mental hospital can't hold a patient unless he is a threat to himself or
others... Tara appeared to be neither. They could have kept her for 72 hour
observation before a court hearing would be necessary.
Insurance companies are not terribly forthcoming with monies to pay for
psychiatric care. God only knows if Tara had health insurance at all. That
one night in the hospital probably cost her a cool grand.
> Secondly,
>right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
>person for the rest of your life.
Willow will need help. But someone's gotta take care of Tara and it's
commendable that Willow wants to try. Finding affordable care isn't as easy as
it seems. See: large numbers of schizophrenic homeless. Tara could end up
among those very easily.
DesertRoaz
>Date: 5/1/2001 7:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9cns9e$r4l$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>
>"Cap'n Fool" <not...@the.moment> wrote in message
>news:B03E779FCD710850.2BB3094E...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>>
>>
>> >Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
>> >the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
>> >bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight.
>>
>> consistent with the character. The same insecurities that manifest in
>> the sleepy-voiced cute Willow can produce some whiny, even weaselly
>> behavior as well (but you knew that).
>
>Exactly. This is the same Willow she has always been. I've been calling
>her "the angriest of the Scoobies" since her dream in "Restless." Doesn't
>mean I don't like her, though. I'm quite attached to her.
>
>> Looking back, and not meaning
>> to be callous, I see the argument mainly as a setup.
>
>It also gave Joss a chance to fling a few choice words at the audience
>members who have doubted the sincerity of Willow's conversion.
>
The use of the word "conversion" -- in that, that the show almost encourages us
to use that word -- is troublesome. You don't *convert* to homosexuality.
RobGl...@webtv.net
"Well heellllooo Mr. Fancy Pants. I got news for you pal, you ain`t
leading but two things now, jack and s**t. And jack left town."...Ash
"You dance with the devil, the devil don`t change. The devil changes
you...."8MM
H. McDaniel
> In article <Xns9094E6F11sol...@207.172.3.55>,
> dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
>
> > What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not
> > trying to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to hurt
> > Cordelia and blackmailing Amy. She was the one who cast the spell, and screwed it
> > up. And even if Xander only got a "slap on the wrist" as you put it, at
> > least it was acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and he felt bad
> > about it afterwards. There has been no ackowledgement of the wrongness of
> > Willow's actions, and I doubt Willow will be showing any remorse.
> > Buffy's darkness frightens her. Willow isn't even aware of her own darkness, or
> > doesn't care.
>
> I don't think that what Willow did was wrong. She seemed fully in
> control of the magick she was wielding and she was endangering no one
> but herself, a choice she was free to make and one that we have seen
> Buffy make repeatedly.
But Willow was wrong for lying to Buffy. She couldn't know that she would survive the
encounter with Gloria or what the full consequences should be so at the very least she
should have told Buffy what she was going to do. Even if it only amounted to calling
Buffy from a telephone shortly before doing it.
> Willow was right when she questioned why it is that they can only fight
> when Buffy says so. Since when is Buffy the dictator of their little
> group?
If you love someone you tend to encourage them not to do stupid things. Buffy loves
WIllow. She wouldn't be a friend if she didn't say, "don't be stupid and get yourself
killed" (to paraphrase massively.) Willow was selfish not to consider the effect her
own death would have on Buffy and everyone else who loves her. You can be the bravest
person in the world but something is wrong if the concerns of your loved ones doesn't
give you pause. Willow lied to Buffy. That's not good... A lot of people in Buffy's
position would decide (if only subconsiously) that getting too close to Willow is a
sure way to get hurt so don't get too attached. I see lots of pouting and
recriminations in their relationship very soon.
-McDaniel
Don Sample
<RobGl...@webtv.net> wrote:
> So why can`t she turn Amy back?
What Willow was unleashing on Glory was a whole lot of destructive
power, without much concern about collateral damage to Glory's
apartment or minions. If a spell didn't work exactly the way she
wanted it to there was still a good chance it would do some damage to
Glory.
It isn't the sort of thing you want to do when you've got a couple of
friends in the neighbourhood.
Sarah Trombley
The stupid kamikaze action itself, I can forgive, actually. It _is_
understandable. But Willow has special powers. They make her all cool
'n' stuff, but they also mean she has to be held to a higher standard,
because _her_ lack of impulse control is much more dangerous to those
around her than Giles's was.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
If they actually _do_ anything with it, I will like the storyline. Heck,
I was advocating something similar myself last year. However, the way
this episode, at least, was constructed, it looks as if they'll be letting
her off the hook again.
Nothing against a Dark Willow, but I don't want to see a Dark Willow treated
as regular Willow.
--Sarah T.
H. McDaniel
This isn't the best argument because it could very easily be said in
Buffyverse that all past civilizations, all of the world's greatest Empires
ended because of some event like a poorly cast spell. Over the course of
human history a *lot* of civilizations have failed. Some quite
mysteriously. And there might very well be civilizations that vanished
without leaving a single hair of evidence that they ever even existed. We
could say that the chance of Willow nuking NYC seems remote. But we can't
say it's impossible. Because "it" may well have happened "a long, long time
ago" on multiple occasions. Heck, if I were writing for BtVS it'd be pretty
easy to use that kind of thing to describe the failure of early european
colonies in the americas: Everybody starved in a settlement? A ha, a witch
did it. Settlement completely vanished leaving only a few dried potatoes?
A ha, a witch did it. It's not so difficult.
BUT even if Willow caused something massively destructive it's not like she
(or others) couldn't put the broken pieces back together with another
spell. If we say you can have a spell that destructive it might be
countered with an equally powerul corrective spell. Assuming there's
somebody around 1.) aware of the problem and 2.) interested in fixing it ;)
I'd say the risk is greater than you think but the damage isn't irreversible
so *shrug* -- I think both of you are partially correct.
There is one other thing I'd consider: the motivation of the spell caster.
It could be that in prior times the witches were less prone to cast the
kinds of spells Willow is for the reasons she's doing it
-McDaniel
Jennifer
Sarah Trombley wrote:
>
> In article <hjquet8b6h0is927m...@4ax.com>,
> EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>"Tough Love" spoilers...
> >>
> >>Guess
> >>this
> >>is
> >>our
> >>last
> >>goodbye,
> >>and
> >>you
> >>don't
> >>care
> >>so
> >>I
> >>won't
> >>cry...
> >>
> >>Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
> >>the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
> >>bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
> >>the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
> >>
> >>I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
> >>I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
> >>not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
> >>continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
> >
> >Is it just me or is Alyson Hannigan's acting going south right along with
> >the character? I used to think she was the best actor on the show but that
> >was back when she was playing a real person.
>
> To be fair, she had _horrible_ dialogue tonight. That fight was like
> Non Sequitur Theater, leaping awkwardly from point to point. It was like
> bad fanfic.
What *was* that all about? I was so confused, thinking I must have
missed something...maybe a page of the script fell on the floor or
something. I couldn't fathom how the conversation even got to where it
ended up. What kind of real argument would have followed the path
Tara's and Willow's did? Seeming strange.
> >The scoobies, and even Buffy herself, used to be real people caught up in
> >these extraordinary circumstances. Now that Willow is Super witch, she's
> >just a cartoon and difficult to relate to..
Willow has definitely become a caricature. The fumbling dialogue used
to work for me, but now that she's older and presumably more
sophisticated (at least more powerful), I do wish she'd assert herself.
I don't hate her now, only b/c I was never one who loved her. She's
just more into the bleah range with me than she was prior to the college
years.
> The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
> in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
> releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends? Secondly,
> right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
> person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
> school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
I liked, "She's my girl," b/c it was romantic and sweet, and it was
imaginable that a SO would say that. But to make some comment about
doing it forever...c'mon! I doubt Willow would even put that horrific
thought into words. It was too out there a comment. We really *don't*
need to be smashed on the head with the obvious.
> Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
> Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
> called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?) that made this
> episode the one in which "Buffy" finally lost all mooring in anything like
> a recognizable reality. They might as well just set it in ancient Greece
> and have knights ride through town...oh, wait, that's next week.
>
> >It's that James Bond syndrome. The need the writers have to keep making
> >more and more powerful enemies has made it harder and harder to suspend
> >belief. Glory said something in tonight's episode that I've been thinking
> >for half the season. Buffy only has so many friends. Glory can just go
> >through them one at a time till she finds what she wants. Who's gonna stop
> >her?
>
> More to the point, given that she's told us OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
> that she's on a tight schedule, why the hell did she wait til now to
> start?
I can't understand why she doesn't just round up all the friends and,
since she can evidently discern the key from some blood sipping, do a
little hand crush and taste on each potential candidate.
Jennifer
Jennifer
Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
> Sarah Trombley <trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> : "Tough Love" spoilers...
>
> : Guess
> : this
> : is
> : our
> : last
> : goodbye,
> : and
> : you
> : don't
> : care
> : so
> : I
> : won't
> : cry...
>
> : Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
> : the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
> : bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight.
>
> The fight pissed me off for another reason - I thought we were
> finally (FINALLY!) going to get someone standing up to Willow
> for the reckless way she approaches magic. That's definitely
> where Tara was headed with that speech. Then out of nowhere
> it becomes about Tara not trusting that Willow really loves
> her? What the hell was that?
That's it--I was anticipating hearing what Tara had to say about
Willow's growing knowledge and power. After all, Tara's been the one
who's spent the most time with Willow this past season. We could have
learned all sorts of tidbits in a clever bit of exposition. But the
ball was completely dropped!
Jennifer
Nick Rheinwald
news:9co849$32$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> In article <20010502020056...@ng-ma1.aol.com>,
> DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> >>Subject: I hate Willow. ("Tough Love" spoilers)
> >>From: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
> >>Date: 5/1/2001 6:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: <9cnn7c$pgf$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
> >>
> >>"Tough Love" spoilers...
> >>
> >>Guess
> >>this
> >>is
> >>our
> >>last
> >>goodbye,
> >>and
> >>you
> >>don't
> >>care
> >>so
> >>I
> >>won't
> >>cry...
> >>
> as regular Willow.
Dark Giles was treated as regular Giles after Passion, wasn't he?
--Nick
Tim Bruening
Sarah Trombley wrote:
> "Tough Love" spoilers...
>
> Guess
> this
> is
> our
> last
> goodbye,
> and
> you
> don't
> care
> so
> I
> won't
> cry...
>
> Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
> the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
> bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight. And then to throw
> the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
>
> I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
> I couldn't. I was too far lost in Willow-hatred. Thanks, Willow, for
> not accidentally summoning a demon or ripping a hole in the spacetime
> continuum or anything else fun like that. Really.
It's too bad Willow didn't happen to tear a hole in the spacetime continuum
and throw Glory though it.
Sarah Trombley
Willow going after Glory with a flaming baseball bat wouldn't be Dark Willow.
However, if you think I'd _object_ to an in-character Dark Giles storyarc,
you are deeply mistaken, my friend.
--Sarah T.
nob...@nowhere.org
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>>
>>> We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the possible
>>> exception of the soul-summoning.
>>
>>And now we have. She's obviously gotten better,
> And yet we've seen her screw up spells even this season.
We have repeatedly seen her have success, as well.
The only time I remember her screwing up spells this season was in
"Triangle," when she was either interrupted by Anya, or desparately
trying to stop the troll with an unprepared and unpracticed spell.
This time, she did her homework read the book on "Darkest Magick."
Dave
Allan Mac Donald
partying. question answereed.
--
---
When subjective feelings arrange your effort,
and activity is obsessed with objects, the
matter of yourself is neglected; not believing
in true universal knowledge in oneself, you'll
never attain true awakening.
Chen-Ching
"Sarah Trombley" <trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9cnv5u$sk1$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> In article <btr1702-EA447C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <9cnqev$qud$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >
> >> The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
> >> in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
> >> releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends?
> >
> >Tara is hardly a psychotic. She's delusional but not psychotic.
>
> That's what psychotics are: they have delusions, hallucinations,
disorganized
> speech patterns.
>
> >> Secondly,
> >> right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
> >> person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
> >> school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
> >>
> >> Combined with the ludicrous Dawn Guardianship Follies and the bizarre
> >> Ben goings-on (you don't just fire an intern, and, geez, no one even
> >> called the police after Ben missed work for two weeks?
> >
> >Who says they didn't call the police? It's not like the cops would have
> >found him considering he was walking around with his Glory face on.
>
> His boss did not treat him like someone he considered to be missing; he
> treated him like someone who had been slacking off for two weeks.
>
> >And I would think that an intern that didn't show up for 2 weeks without
> >explanation (even when he showed up again, he wouldn't explain himself)
> >would indeed be let go.
>
> J. Random Doctor couldn't fire him, though.
>
> >> that made this
> >> episode the one in which "Buffy" finally lost all mooring in anything
> >> like a recognizable reality. They might as well just set it in
ancient Greece
> >> and have knights ride through town...oh, wait, that's next week.
> >
> >That happened on Angel's season premiere this year and I didn't see
> >anyone complaining. ;-)
>
> I guess you missed my voice. ;)
>
>
> --Sarah T.
>
>
michelle levin
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
I'm very confused here. What in the world does Tara's being a lesbian
have to do with what happened to her???? And what message is it sending
about lesbianism? Seems to me it's the same thing that happens a lot to
couples on this show, they fight and/or take each other for granted
until one of them is hurt or in danger of being hurt, then the other one
realizes how important they are to each other. I don't think the choice
of Tara as Glory's victim had anything to do with her being a lesbian.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.designbyluna.com
Allan Mac Donald
news:3AEFABE6...@my-deja.com...
Fights go like that. Especially when there are other issues that are
simmering under the surface. Willows insecurity at being "new" at the whole
gay/witch/death thing. Taras fear of Willows powers. All of the stuff
mentioned. One thing knocks other things into the fight like a domino
effect.
>
> > >The scoobies, and even Buffy herself, used to be real people caught up
in
> > >these extraordinary circumstances. Now that Willow is Super witch,
she's
> > >just a cartoon and difficult to relate to..
>
> Willow has definitely become a caricature. The fumbling dialogue used
> to work for me, but now that she's older and presumably more
> sophisticated (at least more powerful), I do wish she'd assert herself.
> I don't hate her now, only b/c I was never one who loved her. She's
> just more into the bleah range with me than she was prior to the college
> years.
i too think that she is reverting to childish behavior too much. although
im pretty sure the cutesy act is a defense mechanism for when she feels
insecure.
>
> > The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
> > in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
> > releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends?
Secondly,
> > right, Willow, you're just going to care for a completely delusional
> > person for the rest of your life. Because you needn't work, or go to
> > school, or any of that. Because she's your girl.
>
> I liked, "She's my girl," b/c it was romantic and sweet, and it was
> imaginable that a SO would say that. But to make some comment about
> doing it forever...c'mon! I doubt Willow would even put that horrific
> thought into words. It was too out there a comment. We really *don't*
> need to be smashed on the head with the obvious.
She is in love. Deeply and feels guilty and in pain. Anyone would say
forever.
One thing that Glory hasnt displayed. She is not intelligent or insightful.
She is a ditz with godlike power. end of sentence. Even her toadies are
idiots. (i really wanted Ripper to torture that one in the magic shop.)
Allan Mac Donald
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-5D2CF9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> In article <pcuuet0kgfgmel7f9...@4ax.com>, KenM47> > >In article <9cnqol$r5l$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> > >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> > >
> > >> >She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
> > >> >understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual
Darkest
> > >> >Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
> > >> >spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
> > >>
> > >> possible
> > >> exception of the soul-summoning.
> > >
> > >underlining at every opportunity lately.
> >
> > And why haven't I read any cheers for Amber B. Someone said no tension
> > in the Glory/Tara confrontation? I must have seen a different show. It
> > was particularly scary. The crunched hand, Tara's pain, Tara's refusal
> > to give up the Key, Tara's partial face contorted in agony glimpsed in
> > the quick cuts as Willow ran through the crowd (or so it looked to
> > me). I thought the scene was masterful story telling.
> >
> > Some of you might want to consider not expressing quite so much
> > projecting, or is it projectile, venom--maybe you should just focus on
> > your personal hair care treatments for the next three weeks or so and
> > let us to whom the show still speaks enjoy our twisting in the wind
> > suspense until JW puts us out of our agony on 5/22. Just a friendly
> > thought.
>
> LOL! Very well said. I also thought the bench scene with Glory was very
> well done. Amber Benson and Clare Kramer did a fine job.
Yes they did an excellent job.
Allan Mac Donald
> In article <btr1702-891AE7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <9cnqol$r5l$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >
> >> >She definitely let her emotions get the better of her. Maybe
> >> >understandable, in this case. But when it came to the actual Darkest
> >> >Magick, it seemed to me like she had a pretty good handle on the
> >> >spells she was casting, but they just weren't strong enough.
> >>
> >> We have _never_ seen her cast spells like that before, with the
possible
> >> exception of the soul-summoning.
> >
> >And now we have. She's obviously gotten better,
>
>
> Well, isn't that special?
>
>
> --Sarah T.
Well not really so lucky. The spells she was using were really dangerous
and destructive. It is easier to use the dark side of the force as yoda
would say.
Allan Mac Donald
> In article <3aef7994...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2 May 2001 02:29:24 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
> >Trombley) wrote:
> >>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
> >>>Trombley) wrote:
> >>>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
> >>>>
> >>>>Guess
> >>>>this
> >>>>is
> >>>>our
> >>>>last
> >>>>goodbye,
> >>>>and
> >>>>you
> >>>>don't
> >>>>care
> >>>>so
> >>>>I
> >>>>won't
> >>>>cry...
> >>>>
> >>>It's about time someone on this show just stopped taking it and tried
> >>>to do something. Sure, we all know that there's no defeating Glory
> >>>allowed for another few episodes, but Will doesn't. Yeah, something
> >>>possibly could have backfired. But there's no 'possible' in whether
> >>>Glory will continue sucking people's brains out, with a particular
> >>>taste for Buffy's friends. Willow played the percentages. Well,
> >>>okay, she probably wasn't thinking in those terms when she started
> >>>levitating and hurling knives and insults at a god, but it's sound
> >>>reasoning.
> >>
> >>No, it's not. Willow has consistently shown problems in handling even
> >>weaker spells than what she was trying that night. 'Backfired' is a
nice
> >>word to use. So is 'destroyed Sunnydale.' And it has been
well-established
> >>that invoking the dark powers can have lasting and dangerous effects on
> >>the caster, even after the spell is over.
> >
> > I think you're being overly paranoid about witchcraft.
>
> She pulled open a book called _Darkest Magicks_. That wasn't any
> teeny glamour she was casting.
A lot of magical texts were written or translated by christian monks and
witch finders. They would use such texts as "signs of" Also from the
commercial quality of the book And this powerful magic would be viewed as
Darkest magicks.
William George Ferguson
Trombley) wrote:
>In article <9cnqdv$ng6$1...@news3.bu.edu>,
>Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>Sarah Trombley <trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>: "Tough Love" spoilers...
>>
>>: Guess
>>: this
>>: is
>>: our
>>: last
>>: goodbye,
>>: and
>>: you
>>: don't
>>: care
>>: so
>>: I
>>: won't
>>: cry...
>>
>>The fight pissed me off for another reason - I thought we were
>>finally (FINALLY!) going to get someone standing up to Willow
>>for the reckless way she approaches magic. That's definitely
>>where Tara was headed with that speech. Then out of nowhere
>>it becomes about Tara not trusting that Willow really loves
>>her? What the hell was that? It seemed like the writers wanted
>>to do whatever they could to make sure Willow wasn't the one in
>>the wrong during the fight.
>
>Yes. That was bizarre. The train jumped tracks mid-argument.
That was actually very good characterization for both Willow and Tara.
Tara not trusting Willow's lack of caution was where Tara was clearly
going, but Willow derailed it. As Don S. observed upthread, Willow
controlled the argument, she's just better at arguing than Tara.
Since we have never seen Tara argue on a personal level and the one
or two examples which approached that threw her into full
stutter-mode, while we have seen examples that Willow is very good at
shifting the point of attack from her to the other person going back
to season one, that shouldn't be a surprise.
--
"If someone had told me beforehand that there'd be a Willow/Tara kiss
scene followed by an Angel/Kate shower scene, I'd have had completely
different expectations." - johndiem, alt.tv.angel
Sarah Trombley
>>
>> She pulled open a book called _Darkest Magicks_. That wasn't any
>> teeny glamour she was casting.
>
>
>A lot of magical texts were written or translated by christian monks and
>witch finders. They would use such texts as "signs of" Also from the
>commercial quality of the book And this powerful magic would be viewed as
>Darkest magicks.
This was a book that was kept hidden in the back of the Dangerous Stuff
Loft, kept locked with a lock that had to be smashed, and had enough power
in itself to flip its own pages.
I don't think there was a lot of ambiguity there.
--Sarah T.
johndiem
Trombley) wrote:
>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2 May 2001 02:29:24 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>>>>>
>>>>>Guess
>>>>>this
>>>>>is
>>>>>our
>>>>>last
>>>>>goodbye,
>>>>>and
>>>>>you
>>>>>don't
>>>>>care
>>>>>so
>>>>>I
>>>>>won't
>>>>>cry...
>>>>>
>>>weaker spells than what she was trying that night. 'Backfired' is a nice
>>>word to use. So is 'destroyed Sunnydale.' And it has been well-established
>>>that invoking the dark powers can have lasting and dangerous effects on
>>>the caster, even after the spell is over.
>>
>
>She pulled open a book called _Darkest Magicks_. That wasn't any
>teeny glamour she was casting.
I personally expected a bit more from "Darkest Magicks." I mean,
as far as I could tell she wasn't sacrificing babies, or even
summoning up demons. And really, who names a book "Darkest Magicks"?
That's like keeping a baggie labelled "Very Illegal Narcotics" around
your apartment. The author must have chosen that title to stir up
publicity. I question his or her authority as a practitioner.
>> Well,
>>heh, let me rephrase that. I think in the context of the Buffyverse,
>>there's a limit on how badly a spell can go wrong.
>
>Why, yes. You could summon a demon, have it possess someone, and have
>it try to kill all your friends. For example.
Yep, but nothing on the level of Armageddon. And the world's
supposedly already full of demons and vampires but manages to function
in blissful ignorance for the most part.
Also, in a sense summoning a demon is what Willow-Giles-Xander did in
"Primeval." They decided it was worth the risk. It ended up having
consequences, but overall they ended up in the plus column. Hard to
imagine that they wouldn't do it all over again, or that they could
have succeeded by playing it safe.
>>amount of time. I also have to think that Willow isn't the first
>>person in history to attempt a spell beyond her ability. If the world
>>could be destroyed by a single irresponsible witch, it would have been
>>destroyed already.
>
>True. But Willow is (a) powerful (b) given access to powerful magic
>and (c) living on the Hellmouth. The three together are an explosive
>combination.
Possibly. But it'd have to be a pretty specific screw-up, I
think. They've got some other powerful spellcasting types in the
area, such as that necromancer in "Forever." He was supposed to be
the best in the business, and had access to knowledge that Giles
clearly didn't have. He nevertheless figured it was okay to turn Dawn
loose with one of his better spells ready-to-cast. He didn't claim he
was ever 100% successful. Again, I think Willow would need to be
singularly unusual in the course of human history to mistakenly affect
a change that no other witch managed to botch.
>> Things we know about Willow: any putdown of her interest in
>>witchcraft strikes a nerve with her. We've seen her bristle about
>>that with Buffy in the past, such as in "Yoko Factor." She has alot
>>of her self-worth bound up in this. It's one of her character flaws,
>>as all good characters have.
>
>The fact that she couldn't even understand why anyone might be disturbed
>at her witchcraft tells me all I need to know, really.
I think she understands, she just won't admit it, and it's
secondary to her goal of becoming something more than a sidekick. To
herself, she can justify singeing off her friends' hair now if it
means keeping their heads attached to their necks later. The worst
thing you can accuse her of is having too much self-confidence, which
doesn't really sound like Willow.
>>>Well, spare me the capital-C champions if they haven't got another C-word
>>>backing them up: Competence.
>>
>> Buffy wasn't instantly competent, although we were spared that
>>transition in the TV series. But she had to try to fight, so she did.
>
>'Had to.' Willow didn't have to. And Buffy's failure would just have
>meant Buffy's death.
Again, this goes to the witchcraft=bad attitude. Nothing in
this episode indicated that anyone but Willow was in danger, unless
you think that every spell inherently involves a cosmic game of
yahtzee, and if the dice roll wrong, random chaos occurs. I don't
think this fantasy-world-view is consistent with the fantasy world in
BtVS.
And Willow was plenty justified in thinking she was the one who
had to do something. She at least has had one prior successful
encounter with Glory. She wasn't buying Buffy's argument that if
Buffy couldn't fight Glory, she couldn't either. And Buffy hasn't
exactly displayed much initiative at hunting down evil since freeing
the world from the threat of vampires who suck on her boyfriend for
money. Willow's spells worked before, so she took another shot.
>>And she was handed most of her advantages. Willow's had to work at
>>hers, and she hasn't had time to do it wearing regulation helmet and
>>elbow pads.
>
>Actually, no. The thing I hate most about Willow's witchcraft is the
>way that it was used to give her a big powerup without the heartache
>that has always attended special powers in the Buffyverse. She's become
>potentially much stronger than the Slayer herself, but without the
>inescapable tragic destiny.
What's inescapable about the Slayer's destiny, other than being a
permanent target? If Willow's intent is to be a superhero figure,
she'll be just as much a target. That she would do so by choice
rather than by being chosen just means she's not permitted to whine or
complain about its fairness. And she's had this attitude since long
before learning witchcraft. She's felt obligated to help fight the
good fight since the second episode, with no real ulterior motive. If
Willow had been Chosen instead of Kendra, would her attitude or
outlook be any different? I can't imagine so. She'd just have built
her confidence on being a Slayer instead of on magic. Heartache for
Willow would be in *not* having any special powers or skills to aid
Buffy with (per her thoughts in "Earshot").
And anyway, what's the message if Willow, not matter how good
and selfless her intentions, is punished for attempting to attain the
power necessary to protect people? "Remember kids, never try to be
more than what you are. Learn to accept your fate, and let the Powers
That Be handle the higher matters." Not that BtVS is supposed to be
an After School Special, but why is there an assumption that if Willow
uses magick there *must* be a comeuppance? Is she cheating? Must the
Good Guys adhere to the laws of physics, or become characters in a
greek tragedy? And it's not like she didn't earn her powers.
Granted, three years of training isn't much in reality, but in
television seasons it's an eternity. It's not like popping steroids.
That rightfully resulted in a comeuppance in at least two episodes.
>> There is, after all, a Goddess from HELL residing in her
>>hometown, and racking up a decent bodycount. And what's the Chosen
>>One been doing all this time? Buffy can't be bothered to protect the
>>world from evil unless it's directly attacking her sister or mother,
>>or doing consentual but yucky things with her boyfriend.
>
>OK, maybe you missed the part where Glory has been defined as invulnerable
>and has kicked Buffy's ass on multiple occasions.
But Willow managed to work a teleportation spell on Glory. The
only thing Glory appears to be invulnerable to is physical damage.
The same as the Mayor, if the Mayor could throw someone through a
wall.
> Buffy has been, as she said, waiting until she actually had a chance to do some good before
>throwing her life away.
Buffy's been in her own world. Granted, she has a good excuse.
And Buffy's not at all above risking her life for her own personal
interests. In the wee hours of the morning of the Apocalypse, she put
saving her boyfriend ahead of making sure she'd be there to protect
everyone from the Mayor. Besides, if I'm Willow and have been
around for the first four seasons, I know the pattern. Buffy's a
procrastinator. She always puts off the final confrontation until the
end of days is upon them. The Scoobs have presumeably researched
every book they have by now. They called in the Council of Watchers.
They got nuthin'. Best they've managed so far is Willow drop-kicking
her into the stratosphere.
>> So what's
>>Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out?
>
>How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
>wait to get her vengeance?
Why should she wait? She doesn't know there's still three more
episodes to go. Or that the name of the show isn't Willow the
Kamikaze Sorceress.
-Diem
Allan Mac Donald
The line I am trying to draw is that the magic in that book was simply
powerful magic not "sell your soul" magic.
Darth Republican
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> "Tough Love" spoilers...
>
> Guess
> this
> is
> our
> last
> goodbye,
> and
> you
> don't
> care
> so
> I
> won't
> cry...
>
> Greetings, Ian J. Ball. Hello, all other Willow-haters. I have _joined
> the flock_. I've never had much invested in Tara, but I was ready to
> bitchslap Willow into next week during their fight.
The fight really disturbed me. The "lezbo street cred" line was red
herring. Willow was being deliberately cruel and manipulative with
Tara.
> And then to throw
> the darkest magic around so casually? Good Lord.
Not being the hateful person you and Ian are :-) I was able to realize
that Willow acted out of blind rage, rather than carelessness, so I
was willing to cut her a little slack.
>
> I know we're supposed to feel sorry for her at the end, but I didn't.
I don't know that we were "supposed" to feel sorry for anyone but Tara
(which I did). A lot of Willow-haters have complained that Willow
never gets exposed to the consequences of her actions, well she just
got exposed to a big heaping spoonful of consequences.
Still, this is the first time that Willow has really gone over the
edge and I don't think learned a damn thing.
--
I breathed in, like a quart of vampire dust. That
can't be good.
-- Anya
Roberto Castillo
cast...@enteract.com
http://www.enteract.com/~castillo
Sarah Trombley
johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2 May 2001 04:51:16 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>Trombley) wrote:
>>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 2 May 2001 02:29:24 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>>johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2 May 2001 01:17:32 GMT, trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>>>>"Tough Love" spoilers...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Guess
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>our
>>>>>>last
>>>>>>goodbye,
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>care
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>won't
>>>>>>cry...
>>>>>>
>>teeny glamour she was casting.
>
> I personally expected a bit more from "Darkest Magicks." I mean,
>as far as I could tell she wasn't sacrificing babies, or even
>summoning up demons. And really, who names a book "Darkest Magicks"?
>That's like keeping a baggie labelled "Very Illegal Narcotics" around
>your apartment. The author must have chosen that title to stir up
>publicity. I question his or her authority as a practitioner.
Okay, heh. ;)
>>> Well,
>>>heh, let me rephrase that. I think in the context of the Buffyverse,
>>>there's a limit on how badly a spell can go wrong.
>>
>>Why, yes. You could summon a demon, have it possess someone, and have
>>it try to kill all your friends. For example.
>
>Yep, but nothing on the level of Armageddon.
Actually, we have canonical evidence that there are demons capable of
causing Armageddon. "Oh, look, it's Acathla! Hi, Acathla! We've really
missed you!"
>>True. But Willow is (a) powerful (b) given access to powerful magic
>>and (c) living on the Hellmouth. The three together are an explosive
>>combination.
>
> Possibly. But it'd have to be a pretty specific screw-up, I
>think. They've got some other powerful spellcasting types in the
>area, such as that necromancer in "Forever." He was supposed to be
>the best in the business, and had access to knowledge that Giles
>clearly didn't have. He nevertheless figured it was okay to turn Dawn
>loose with one of his better spells ready-to-cast. He didn't claim he
>was ever 100% successful.
Did you get the impression that he actually cared what the outcome
of the spell was? Because I didn't.
> Again, I think Willow would need to be
>singularly unusual in the course of human history to mistakenly affect
>a change that no other witch managed to botch.
We don't know that no witches have ever caused massive local destruction.
Given the massive reality-warping powers of spells (see: "Halloween,"
"Superstar"), it's hard to believe they couldn't. Why...they could've
ended up in the world without prawns!
>>The fact that she couldn't even understand why anyone might be disturbed
>>at her witchcraft tells me all I need to know, really.
>
> I think she understands, she just won't admit it,
Then she's an irresponsible idiot who doesn't deserve to be doing magic
at all. Willow's been a witch for three years now. She's in college.
She's supposed to be intelligent. It's past time for her to clue in.
>means keeping their heads attached to their necks later. The worst
>thing you can accuse her of is having too much self-confidence, which
>doesn't really sound like Willow.
Willow does have too much self-confidence. It's a nasty, sneaky kind
that hides itself behind baby-talk and passive-aggressiveness, but it's
there. Give me a loud, arrogant person like me any day. At least I
won't play all helpless and sad and then run off behind your back and
require you to rescue me.
>>'Had to.' Willow didn't have to. And Buffy's failure would just have
>>meant Buffy's death.
>
> Again, this goes to the witchcraft=bad attitude.
No, pulling spells unprepared from a book of powerful black magic, spells
so dark they turn your eyes black, is bad.
> Nothing in
>this episode indicated that anyone but Willow was in danger, unless
>you think that every spell inherently involves a cosmic game of
>yahtzee, and if the dice roll wrong, random chaos occurs. I don't
>think this fantasy-world-view is consistent with the fantasy world in
>BtVS.
This is the Hellmouth. Exactly _how_ many spells have we seen go wrong?
> And Willow was plenty justified in thinking she was the one who
>had to do something. She at least has had one prior successful
>encounter with Glory. She wasn't buying Buffy's argument that if
>Buffy couldn't fight Glory, she couldn't either.
All she did before was send Glory away. If she had tried a more refined
version of that spell, I would've been all for it. Instead, she...threw
physical items at Glory. This is a plan worth mentioning?
>>Actually, no. The thing I hate most about Willow's witchcraft is the
>>way that it was used to give her a big powerup without the heartache
>>that has always attended special powers in the Buffyverse. She's become
>>potentially much stronger than the Slayer herself, but without the
>>inescapable tragic destiny.
>
>What's inescapable about the Slayer's destiny, other than being a
>permanent target?
Buffy can't walk away from her job. She's isolated from the world. Heck,
she may have demonic roots. Willow's just as powerful as she wants to be,
and has to do only what she feels like doing.
> And anyway, what's the message if Willow, not matter how good
>and selfless her intentions, is punished for attempting to attain the
>power necessary to protect people?
That power is inherently dangerous, some power requires such terrible
sacrifices to achieve it that it isn't worth it, and wielding power in
a hasty, careless, irresponsible fashion can have terrible consequences.
Maybe I'm just old and cynical, but those seem to me like awfully valuable
lessons.
>>OK, maybe you missed the part where Glory has been defined as invulnerable
>>and has kicked Buffy's ass on multiple occasions.
>
> But Willow managed to work a teleportation spell on Glory. The
>only thing Glory appears to be invulnerable to is physical damage.
...And so Willow waltzed in and assaulted her...physically.
>> Buffy has been, as she said, waiting until she actually had a chance to do some good before
>>throwing her life away.
>
> Buffy's been in her own world.
Even if this is true, it's irrelevant. Point me to _any_ evidence that
Buffy's had a viable chance of defeating Glory and has ignored it. She's
been doing her best to protect Dawn and figure out what she can do about
this hellbeast. Heck, she even put up with _Quentin Travers_ to try and
find out, which makes her a martyr in my book.
>every book they have by now. They called in the Council of Watchers.
>They got nuthin'. Best they've managed so far is Willow drop-kicking
>her into the stratosphere.
And exactly how is this supposed to justify Willow's half-assed _physical_
attack?
>>> So what's
>>>Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out?
>>
>>How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
>>wait to get her vengeance?
>
> Why should she wait?
For an actual chance at success? For a time when her attack won't endanger
everyone around her?
--Sarah T.
S. Norlock
> In article <btr1702-EA447C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <9cnqev$qud$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >
> >> The most unrealistic moment was at the end, when they were camped out
> >> in...wherever the heck they were. First of all, since when are they
> >> releasing psychotics into the care of their teenaged girlfriends?
> >
>
> That's what psychotics are: they have delusions, hallucinations,
disorganized
> speech patterns.
>
I don't know about California, but in my jurisdiction, unless there's some
likelyhood of the patient attacking someone, they are released. Often into
the street. Rooming houses and shelters around here are filled with
ex-psych's who forget to take their meds and call 911 because there's aliens
in the toilet.
Steve
Andy00
>><g> The point is she survived. And that drives people batty. You, for
>>example were disappointed.
>
>Really? Where did I say that? I only said that in the version that I
>had concocted, she did die. Not that I was unhappy that she didn't
>die here.
I merely included that because you happened to have both of the typecast in the
same scenario.
>
>You've also been making a lot of claims about people's double standards
>for Willow, yet I don't believe I've said a word recently about Xander's
>spell-casting (in my judgment, really unpleasant and inappropriate)
>and I _know_ what position I've taken on Giles's inappropriate spell-
>casting (verging on evil). I also know what position I took on Buffy's
>GD1 frolics (extremely wrong).
>
>I know it's more convenient to invent your opponents' position for them,
>but it doesn't get the discussion very fa
My point is that apparently, because you hate Willow, it's far more important
for her to have negative consequences. When others have done the same, worse,
but have resulted in less venom.
"I have been a word in a book."
The Song of Taliesin
"If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand that
fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with bodies and
heartbeats."
Richard Bach -- "Illusions"
Andy00
>>> >>>Stop being such a martyr. I swear, you and EGK _love_ to play the
>>> >>>"reverse-reverse discrimination" card.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>It amuses me far more because it's such a cliche that rules in
>>> >>>peoples minds. Next to the dark dyke who gets hers in the end,
>>> >>>it's the innocent little lesbian sacrificial lamb who dies a
>>> >>>horrible death that isn't her fault.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I adore Joss for how he avoids such cliches, especially one as
>>> >>>ingrained as this.
>>> >>
>>> >>Right. Because reducing Tara to a babbling idiot who can't even
>>> >>feed herself...that's a bold, bold challenge to that cliche.
>>> >
>>> >You mean who stood up to torture and refused to give Dawn away?
>>>
>>> I rather imagine that falls under the stereotype, too. Can't be noble
>>> if you give away the secret.
>>
>>So if Tara gives in to the torture she a stereotypical weak willed gay
>>person who can't be trusted, and if she resists the torture she's a
>>stereotypical noble sufferer gay person?
>
>Actually, Don, it was Andy (whoever) who brought up the whole issue of
>the stereotype. I, personally, don't care much either way, but claiming
>that an episode which shows an utterly helpless lesbian being reduced to
>a babbling child who literally has to be spoon-fed her lunch is a brilliant
>subversion of the 'innocent sacrificial lesbian' stereotype is a bit much
>for me to swallow.
And you're refusing to understand my point. The point of ISL is to get rid of
said lesbian. Either by "She goes too far and gets hers" or "she's innocent,
but violence takes her."
>
>>Seems to me no matter what they did with a gay person you wouldn't like
>>it.
>
>I just want them to treat them like normal people. No kid gloves for
>fear of 'sending the wrong message.'
Now here's where you're being contradictory. You want them to be treated the
same, (through typical fictional cliches) yet you demand greater reprecussions
for their actions as opposed to other scoobies.
First you counter by saying "They don't suffer consequences" then you counter
by saying "Yeah? She's crazy now, looks like she and Willow not immune to harm
so fear of this cliche ain't it."
Andy00
>> > What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not
>> > trying to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to
>hurt
>> > Cordelia and blackmailing Amy. She was the one who cast the spell,
>and screwed it
>> > up. And even if Xander only got a "slap on the wrist" as you put it,
>at
>> > least it was acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and he felt bad
>> > about it afterwards. There has been no ackowledgement of the wrongness
>of
>> > Willow's actions, and I doubt Willow will be showing any remorse.
>> > Buffy's darkness frightens her. Willow isn't even aware of her own
>darkness, or
>> > doesn't care.
>>
>> I don't think that what Willow did was wrong. She seemed fully in
>> control of the magick she was wielding and she was endangering no one
>> but herself, a choice she was free to make and one that we have seen
>> Buffy make repeatedly.
>
>But Willow was wrong for lying to Buffy. She couldn't know that she would
>survive the
>encounter with Gloria or what the full consequences should be so at the
>very least she
>should have told Buffy what she was going to do.
She wasn't exactly thinking rationally, as Spike pointed out.
Even if it only amounted
>to calling
>Buffy from a telephone shortly before doing it.
"Hiya Buffy! Gonna take on a Goddess with dangerous 'darkest' magicks! Loves
and kisses!"
>
>> Willow was right when she questioned why it is that they can only fight
>> when Buffy says so. Since when is Buffy the dictator of their little
>> group?
>
>If you love someone you tend to encourage them not to do stupid things.
> Buffy loves
>WIllow. She wouldn't be a friend if she didn't say, "don't be stupid and
>get yourself
>killed" (to paraphrase massively.) Willow was selfish not to consider the
>effect her
>own death would have on Buffy and everyone else who loves her. You can
>be the bravest
>person in the world but something is wrong if the concerns of your loved
>ones doesn't
>give you pause. Willow lied to Buffy. That's not good... A lot of people
>in Buffy's
>position would decide (if only subconsiously) that getting too close to
>Willow is a
>sure way to get hurt so don't get too attached. I see lots of pouting and
>recriminations in their relationship very soon.
I'd like to point out again how this conversation originated with the argument
that Xander trying to control Cordelia's mind compared to Willow's actions.
Kamikaze moves are common in the Buffyverse. Buffy's done it enough times, so
has Giles. Buffy is gonna understand.
Abby Powers
Sarah Trombley <trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <btr1702-BE859C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <9co3o4$uc4$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>>> In article <3aef7994...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
>>> johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > So what's
>>> >Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out?
>>> How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
>>> wait to get her vengeance?
>>I'm still waiting for you to show how she was risking anyone's life but
>>her own. The episode very clearly showed that she was in complete
>>control of her magick and the spells were working as cast.
>Yes. Because she was lucky.
No. Because she's good.
>Willow is not an infallible spellcaster, shown over and over again.
>Willow has never been shown to be using anything like a 'darkest magicks'
>book before.
>Willow could by no means be assumed to have competence in this area.
Until now. Now, we can assume she's competent in this area. Tara's been
filling us in on her progress for quite a while now.
>>You may *want* Willow to be incompetent because it feeds in to your
>>"Willow is risking everyone's lives" scenario but the show itself
>>portrayed her as very competent in working those magicks.
>In order for Willow to be justified in using such potent magic, she
>would have to have reasonable grounds for a firm confidence both that
>the spells would work properly and that there would be no later
>consequences (i.e., debt to an evil entity) to fear. There is no
>evidence that she had good reason to believe either.
Well, of course she wasn't "justified" in using such dark magic. But then,
Willow doesn't have any qualms about the dark side, and doesn't worry very
much about undesirable consequences of using power. This has been one
of the threads running through the whole season. I can understand why
you might hate her for it. But her amoral approach to her power is, to my
mind, one of the more fascinating developing storylines in the show.
Her behavior was dangerous, reckless, inappropriate, and entirely in
character.
-Jim
BTR1701
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> In article <btr1702-BE859C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <9co3o4$uc4$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3aef7994...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> >> johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > So what's
> >> >Willow supposed to do when her lover's brains are sucked out?
> >>
> >> How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
> >> wait to get her vengeance?
> >
> >I'm still waiting for you to show how she was risking anyone's life but
> >her own. The episode very clearly showed that she was in complete
> >control of her magick and the spells were working as cast.
>
> Yes. Because she was lucky.
>
> Willow is not an infallible spellcaster, shown over and over again.
> Willow has never been shown to be using anything like a 'darkest magicks'
> book before. Willow could by no means be assumed to have competence in this area.
Willow has never been shown using the toilet either but we assume that
she does from time to time.
Through various dialogue over the last several episodes it is quite
clear that Willow has gotten much better very quickly. Have they shown
it on screen? No. Is it a reasonable inference? Absolutely.
>
> >You may *want* Willow to be incompetent because it feeds in to your
> >"Willow is risking everyone's lives" scenario but the show itself
> >portrayed her as very competent in working those magicks.
>
> In order for Willow to be justified in using such potent magic, she
> would have to have reasonable grounds for a firm confidence both that
> the spells would work properly and that there would be no later
> consequences (i.e., debt to an evil entity) to fear.
Apparently she had that confidence and apparently it was justified.
> There is no evidence that she had good reason to believe either.
I disagree. Tara's incessant comments about her being a magickal prodigy
are evidence enough.
>
> If someone gives me a machine gun and I shoot into a room filled with
> hostages and bad guys, and the bad guys die and the hostages live, that
> doesn't mean my firing the gun was a good idea.
It does if you are a trained member of the Delta Force hostage rescue
team. Not only is it a good idea, they are trained to do just that very
thing.
Willow has progressed to the point where she can handle that type of
power and she decided to use it. Her only "transgression" was not
getting Buffy's permission first and I would assert that she doesn't
need it.
BTR1701
<henry_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9094E6F11sol...@207.172.3.55>,
> > dsol...@enteract.com (Daniel Solomon) wrote:
> >
> > > What Willow did was far worse than what Xander did. Xander was not
> > > trying to control everyone's minds. Xander's mistake was wanting to
> > > hurt
> > > Cordelia and blackmailing Amy. She was the one who cast the spell,
> > > and screwed it
> > > up. And even if Xander only got a "slap on the wrist" as you put it,
> > > at
> > > least it was acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and he felt bad
> > > about it afterwards. There has been no ackowledgement of the
> > > wrongness of
> > > Willow's actions, and I doubt Willow will be showing any remorse.
> > > Buffy's darkness frightens her. Willow isn't even aware of her own
> > > darkness, or
> > > doesn't care.
> >
> > I don't think that what Willow did was wrong. She seemed fully in
> > control of the magick she was wielding and she was endangering no one
> > but herself, a choice she was free to make and one that we have seen
> > Buffy make repeatedly.
>
> But Willow was wrong for lying to Buffy. She couldn't know that she
> would survive the encounter with Gloria or what the full consequences should be so at the
> very least she should have told Buffy what she was going to do. Even if it only
> amounted to calling Buffy from a telephone shortly before doing it.
>
> > Willow was right when she questioned why it is that they can only fight
> > when Buffy says so. Since when is Buffy the dictator of their little
> > group?
>
> If you love someone you tend to encourage them not to do stupid things.
> Buffy loves WIllow. She wouldn't be a friend if she didn't say, "don't be stupid and
> get yourself killed" (to paraphrase massively.) Willow was selfish not to consider
> the effect her own death would have on Buffy and everyone else who loves her.
Buffy does this ALL the time. Why is Willow selfish for risking her life
and Buffy not selfish when she risks hers?
In fact, Spike underlined this when he asked Buffy "what if it had been
Dawn instead of Tara?" Buffy immediately realized she would have done
the SAME thing.
And one minor nit that bugs me to no end (I know, I should get a life!):
it's Glory, not Gloria.
Tante Joan
>>Actually, Don, it was Andy (whoever) who brought up the whole issue of
>>the stereotype. I, personally, don't care much either way, but claiming
>>that an episode which shows an utterly helpless lesbian being reduced to
>>a babbling child who literally has to be spoon-fed her lunch is a brilliant
>>subversion of the 'innocent sacrificial lesbian' stereotype is a bit much
>>for me to swallow.
>
>And you're refusing to understand my point. The point of ISL is to get rid of
>said lesbian. Either by "She goes too far and gets hers" or "she's innocent,
>but violence takes her."
>
>>
>>>Seems to me no matter what they did with a gay person you wouldn't like
>>>it.
>>
>>I just want them to treat them like normal people. No kid gloves for
>>fear of 'sending the wrong message.'
>
>Now here's where you're being contradictory. You want them to be treated the
>same, (through typical fictional cliches) yet you demand greater reprecussions
>for their actions as opposed to other scoobies.
>
>First you counter by saying "They don't suffer consequences" then you counter
>by saying "Yeah? She's crazy now, looks like she and Willow not immune to harm
>so fear of this cliche ain't it."
And let's not forget the immediate outcome of Tara's reduction to
Babbling Brooke Girl -- if folks felt cheated that Willow and Tara had
no love scenes beyond some pre-funeral comfort-taking, it's fair to
say that there will be no future smoochfests in store for these
trouble-tossed friends of Dorothy. Willow is still a Good Girl, and
good girls don't make passes at lovers with diminished (or
nonexistent) mental capacities.
--TJ
[posted and probably emailed to all and sundry, especially Sundry.
Who he? He helps me shave my legs with Occam's Razor.]
Peter Meilinger
: In article <9co3o4$uc4$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
:> How about not risk the lives of everyone around her because she can't
:> wait to get her vengeance?
: I'm still waiting for you to show how she was risking anyone's life but
: her own.
How about all the other people who presumably live in Glory's
apartment building? Sheer luck and a low special effects budget
are the only reasons the fight with the incredibly powerful,
enraged god didn't cause a lot more property damage, which
could very well have injured or killed innocent people.
Happens in the comic books all the time - when a fight starts
in an inhabited area, Our Hero's first concern is to minimize
the danger to others. Willow didn't seem to give a damn.
: The episode very clearly showed that she was in complete
: control of her magick and the spells were working as cast. They just
: weren't powerful enough to phase a god.
Which she really should have realized before going off half cocked.
Knives? She threw fucking KNIVES at Glory? What is she, an idiot?
: You may *want* Willow to be incompetent because it feeds in to your
: "Willow is risking everyone's lives" scenario but the show itself
: portrayed her as very competent in working those magicks.
Yes, which makes it all the more worrisome, to me at least.
That level of competence combined with her often-shown tendency
to go beyond her limits should come back to haunt her one of
these days. But unfortunately, I have absolutely no faith that
the writers will go that way.
Pete
Don Bentley
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:56:15 -0400, KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It occurs to me that no late convert to Buffy can get the same thrills
> >out of it that we since ep 1 have had.
>
> I'm sure that's true, but it's still by far the best hour on TV for
> this season 5 newbie with basic cable.
>
> Cap'n Fool
Seconded.
Don
--
Where there is no honour, there is no grief.
DesertRoaz
>
> I personally expected a bit more from "Darkest Magicks." I mean,
>as far as I could tell she wasn't sacrificing babies, or even
>summoning up demons. And really, who names a book "Darkest Magicks"?
>That's like keeping a baggie labelled "Very Illegal Narcotics" around
>your apartment.
That made me laugh -- that title was so campy. I thought they should have
called the book X-TREEM MAGICK!!
DR
"Why do I do anything? For women." George Costanza
Sarah Trombley
>>the stereotype. I, personally, don't care much either way, but claiming
>>that an episode which shows an utterly helpless lesbian being reduced to
>>a babbling child who literally has to be spoon-fed her lunch is a brilliant
>>subversion of the 'innocent sacrificial lesbian' stereotype is a bit much
>>for me to swallow.
>
>And you're refusing to understand my point. The point of ISL is to get rid of
>said lesbian. Either by "She goes too far and gets hers" or "she's innocent,
>but violence takes her."
Violence _didn't_ take her? Did I miss something? Yes, technically her
body is still on the show. But she's less alive than the Buffybot.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
>
>>><g> The point is she survived. And that drives people batty. You, for
>>>example were disappointed.
>>
>>Really? Where did I say that? I only said that in the version that I
>>had concocted, she did die. Not that I was unhappy that she didn't
>>die here.
>
>I merely included that because you happened to have both of the typecast in
> the
>same scenario.
And they're not the same thing.
>>for Willow, yet I don't believe I've said a word recently about Xander's
>>spell-casting (in my judgment, really unpleasant and inappropriate)
>>and I _know_ what position I've taken on Giles's inappropriate spell-
>>casting (verging on evil). I also know what position I took on Buffy's
>>GD1 frolics (extremely wrong).
>>
>>I know it's more convenient to invent your opponents' position for them,
>>but it doesn't get the discussion very fa
>
>My point is that apparently, because you hate Willow, it's far more important
>for her to have negative consequences. When others have done the same, worse,
>but have resulted in less venom.
Did you even _read_ that paragraph up there? Half of the "others" you
can't have read my opinion on, and the other half I _have_ criticized.
If you're going to decide I'm holding a double standard without even
having the evidence to determine that a second standard exists, I can't
stop you, but I'm sure not going to bother arguing with you.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <9co71o$vpp$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> In article <btr1702-BE859C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >In article <9co3o4$uc4$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>> >trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>> >
>> Willow is not an infallible spellcaster, shown over and over again.
>> Willow has never been shown to be using anything like a 'darkest magicks'
>> book before. Willow could by no means be assumed to have competence in this area.
>
>Willow has never been shown using the toilet either but we assume that
>she does from time to time.
So, you think she's been spending months practicing her grasp of the
darkest arts? Secretly?
That's not really a defense of her character, you know.
--Sarah T.
Arctos
[massive snip]
>People in love get emotional, defensive, and just irrational.
>If they didn't, we'd have to throw out half the literature of western
>civilization, and almost all of the country music. Which might seem
>like a good idea at first, but that's beside the point.
ROFL! Can I sig that, please?
--
"Usually when I have this dream I'm wearing pink taffeta."
- Jane, "Daria"
EGK
wrote:
>In article <20010502013451...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
>Andy00 <and...@aol.com.net.com> wrote:
>>Sarah Tromblet sez...
>>
>><g> The point is she survived. And that drives people batty. You, for
>>example were disappointed.
>
>Really? Where did I say that? I only said that in the version that I
>had concocted, she did die. Not that I was unhappy that she didn't
>die here.
>
>You've also been making a lot of claims about people's double standards
>for Willow, yet I don't believe I've said a word recently about Xander's
>spell-casting (in my judgment, really unpleasant and inappropriate)
>and I _know_ what position I've taken on Giles's inappropriate spell-
>casting (verging on evil). I also know what position I took on Buffy's
>GD1 frolics (extremely wrong).
>
>I know it's more convenient to invent your opponents' position for them,
>but it doesn't get the discussion very far.
That's Andy's stock in trade when arguing. He creates a strawman for people
regardless of what someone actually said. He's been successful once again
in turning another thread about Willow in to one about Willow and Tara's
lesbianism and how "you people are disappointed Tara's not dead.. blah,
blah, blah".
I actually like Tara better then I do Willow anymore but that doesn't fit in
with Andy's well-worn strawman he keeps trying to create then tear down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)