A Second Look: BTVS S2D5
Arbitrar Of Quality
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 17: "Passion"
Writer: Ty King
Director: Michael Gershman
And now we (momentarily) get down to the big stuff, building to
another climax a few shows after "Innocence." "Passion" is one of
those relatively few episodes whose impact didn't decrease with
familiarity. The first thing one thinks of is character death ZOMG,
but it actually keeps getting better and more intense to the end. I'm
impressed with the staging of pretty much everything. Scenes are
composed particularly well this week - highlights include the opening
montage with the friends being friends while doom approaches, Angel
doing another of his characters whilst menacing Joyce towards the
door, Calendar's extended death sequence, Giles on the war-path, and
the climax-end with the factory burning and Buffy's response to
Giles's recklessness. The rock-solid quality allows one to ignore the
fact that it's one of BTVS's forays into pretty straight conventional
horror and conventional melodrama; it tends to save that for special
occasions and do it stylishly at such times. Oh, this is also one
where I got some grief from the more rabid faithful about not loving
it gushingly "enough" - well, such is life. And I did end up deciding
to upgrade the stupid rating now, so hopefully such agitators will be
satisfied.
Rating: Excellent (up from Good)
Season Two, Episode 18: "Killed By Death"
Writers: Dean Batali and Rob Des Hotel
Director: Deran Sarafian
And then we have this. I understand the use of protracting an arc by
taking a sick day, but it doesn't do much to change my opinion that
Season Two has pacing issues. (Someone who cares about the episode
can handle any analysis about what it means for Buffy to fight "death"
at this point, but my stance is that any contribution to the emotional
arc is vague at best and pointless at worst.) KBD do what it do.
Even without knowing that it's a recycled script from a more innocent
era of the show, it feels like it should be a S1 episode. Main plot
is blah, screaming kids are annoying, bad medico-babble is annoying
(this is my first of several admonitions to the writers to stop
setting episodes in hospitals until they get some accuracy consultants
or something), but it's decorated throughout with enough good
character moments to keep it watchable. Other than Angel hanging like
a cloud over the story, not much I'll remember tomorrow. It's always
been at the very edges of the Weak/Decent boundary, and I think I'm
feeling generous today.
Rating: Decent
Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
Writer: Marti Noxon
Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
tremendous deal of sense to me. Nor does how having her kiss and wake
up with her eyes closed, quietly breathing "Angel..." represents
understanding what has to be done, or whatever. So, failure on that
count; I mostly watch IOHEFY as just an unusual ghost story with a few
of our stars playing against type a little. Fortunately, said ghost
story is done well enough to hold one's interest, by a comfortable
margin. Despite interesting things going on throughout, including the
first mention of the Mayor and a look into a shaken Giles not on his
analytical game, it's very much an act-four episode. The deserted
school pulsating with mystical insects or whatever is one of the
nicest visual backdrops in the series, particularly when the extremely
tender denouement is set against it. Contrary to later statements,
this episode contains Willow's first spell.
Rating: Good
Season Two, Episode 20: "Go Fish"
Writers: David Fury and Elin Hampton
Director: David Semel
Oh, yes, Season Two has pacing issues. Presumably intended as one
last bit of bubbly fun before the show gets its dark on, "Go Fish"
seems very poorly placed from a character continuity standpoint.
After "Innocence" kicked the second half of the year into high gear,
"Passion" elevated it beyond recourse, and IOHEFY moved us
(theoretically) into finale territory, do we want an over-the-top
wacky school story involving Buffy trying to get comfortable around
guys again and Xnader and Cordy exploring their feelings? Not
really. Okay, enough space on that. Because if one works to put that
aside, "Go Fish" is a delightful little episode. It doesn't go for
laugh-out-loud funny so much as low-key absurdity, from the blatant
movie homage to the rampaging stock characters to a steroid metaphor
that's "Beer Bad"-caliber in its blunt (intentional) stupidity. Then
it throws in a distinctly dark edge too; the sexual harassment angle
totally "should" clash horribly with the tone of the story but somehow
doesn't. As far as simple episodes about the Scoobies fighting as a
team (go Xander!) while wisecracking like mad go, this is a nice one.
Those who don't find it funny just aren't team players. BTW, as a
microcosm for the feel-good aspects of the series, how about Buffy
having her way with the guy who doesn't want her leaving his car?
Rating: Good
Additional thoughts on S2D5: That Angel[us] is kind of a dick, huh?
Also, Season Two has pacing issues.
Thoughts?
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Season Two, Episode 17: "Passion"
> Writer: Ty King
> Director: Michael Gershman
one of the things ive noticed is you have angelus doing this running commentary
about the importance of feeling emotions
and we watch our humans laughing fighting doing all those emotions
and most of the shots of the angelus watching the humans from the outside
only reacting when the humans react
angelus is not only a blood parasite but also a emotion parasite
unable to create any passion by himself within his dead soulless existence
he can feel by feeding off the feelings of others
> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
> as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
> who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
> turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
> tremendous deal of sense to me. Nor does how having her kiss and wake
the episode appears to present the typical male violence on female
and buffy is very much on the party line of no mercy
and while giles is droning on and on in the background
that the situation may be more subtle than that
buffy is having none of that
and it also reflected on buffys own situation
that she is being abused by the bad exboyfriend angelus
but then its the abusive male that locks on to buffy
as the person closest to him
reversing the notion of who is the victim and who is abuser
from that buffy realizes that she blames herself for killing angel
and she can sort out her own issues
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
burt...@hotmail.com
> Additional thoughts on S2D5: That Angel[us] is kind of a dick, huh?
> Also, Season Two has pacing issues.
Well, in the same place as "Killed by Death" and "Go Fish," season 3
has "Earshot" and "The Prom," neither of which have anything to do
with the Mayor's Ascension storyline. So, if season 2 has pacing
issues, doesn't season 3 have exactly the same kind of pacing issues?
Michael Ikeda
news:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Or everyone can start agitating for you to up the rating to
Superlative...
One interesting little scene (which I may have mentioned the first
time around) is when Buffy receives the call about Jenny. Buffy just
silently implodes. And so Joyce tries to comfort the more visibly
upset Willow.
>
> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much
> "subtle" as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed
> by a dead kid who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy
> forgive herself for turning Angel dark and/or not killing him
> still doesn't make a tremendous deal of sense to me.
What it does is force her to confront an issue that she's been
avoiding: that she HASN'T forgiven herself and that she needs to.
> Nor does
> how having her kiss and wake up with her eyes closed, quietly
> breathing "Angel..." represents understanding what has to be
> done, or whatever.
It's not a matter of understanding anything. It's Buffy reacting to
the kiss etc., almost feeling for a moment as if she has Angel back.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Arbitrar Of Quality
Not at all. Having to do with the main threat-arc isn't the only way
to be relevant to the story of the season. I'll leave off "Earshot"
for the moment, since I have issues with it (TBD in another half-dozen
of these posts), except to say that I do think it fits thematically
into S3, at least more so than KBD does for S2. That's even more true
of "The Prom," as out heroes leave high school behind and assess who
they've become after the identity-shaping events of Season Three and
the series as a whole. The episode is in large part about Buffy
receiving the Class Protector award, and all the symbolism that goes
with it, which the season has been setting up. Even the lightweight
tone of TP makes sense from an arc perspective, since the Mayor's
quietly being invincible until Ascension, and the kids have
consciously chosen to treat the Prom as one last night to celebrate
being alive before the final march to Graduation Day and its
accompanying shit-storm. By contrast, as much as I like "Go Fish" (in
some ways, although not all, it's a better individual episode than
"The Prom"), it's in large part about swimmers turning into fish.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Nothing much to add to that. (I also rate it Excellent.) I do want to note
the guilt piled onto Buffy here. Largely internally applied - Buffy feels
guilty for creating Angelus, failing to kill him & for everything he does as
a result. But while that's true initially, Jenny's death also spreads the
consequences of Angelus to Buffy's circle of friends, who sometimes also
harbor the thought that Buffy shares blame. This will be a particular bone
of contention for Xander, though it will also effect Giles and generally
hang over Buffy's relationships deep into S3. One presumes that it will
forever be a defining moment for all of our heroes.
> Season Two, Episode 18: "Killed By Death"
> Writers: Dean Batali and Rob Des Hotel
> Director: Deran Sarafian
>
> And then we have this. I understand the use of protracting an arc by
> taking a sick day, but it doesn't do much to change my opinion that
> Season Two has pacing issues. (Someone who cares about the episode
> can handle any analysis about what it means for Buffy to fight "death"
> at this point, but my stance is that any contribution to the emotional
> arc is vague at best and pointless at worst.) KBD do what it do.
> Even without knowing that it's a recycled script from a more innocent
> era of the show, it feels like it should be a S1 episode. Main plot
> is blah, screaming kids are annoying, bad medico-babble is annoying
> (this is my first of several admonitions to the writers to stop
> setting episodes in hospitals until they get some accuracy consultants
> or something), but it's decorated throughout with enough good
> character moments to keep it watchable. Other than Angel hanging like
> a cloud over the story, not much I'll remember tomorrow. It's always
> been at the very edges of the Weak/Decent boundary, and I think I'm
> feeling generous today.
> Rating: Decent
I think I like the monster story better than you, but I'm not going to
expend effort on that. I still rate it a Decent.
The most interesting part for me is Xander. While he doesn't have much to
do with the A story, I sense that the episode is a great deal about him.
His ballsy standing up to Angel is impressive any way that you look at it.
While he doesn't overtly rescue Buffy this episode as he did in Phases, he
does participate in a group effort to save Buffy at the start, chases off
Angel in the middle, and helps Buffy out at the end, while standing watch
ceaselessly in between. Add to this the private moments between himself and
Buffy the last few episodes and one can see a rapidly growing obsession.
But it's not quite the same love sick obsession from the end of S1, though I
think he himself hasn't been certain about that. I think Cordelia serves to
clear that up. She pretty much accuses Xander of wanting Buffy more than
her, yet somehow ends us seeming to commit herself to Xander more thoroughly
than ever. The subtext around this gets a bit blurry, but I tend to take it
as Cordy realizing that it's more than Xander's hormones at work and that
his determined dedication is kind of attractive and worthy. (Cordy's part
seems to
involve some maturing on her part and letting go of jealousies and so on.)
Likewise I sense that his exchanges with Cordelia help him distinguish the
girlfriend (a role adequately filled by Cordy) from the duty. What really
kicks in this episode for Xander is his sense of responsibility for
protecting Buffy.
He does that very well here. It's impressive and kind of sweet. But it's
also obsessive. The seeds are planted for that to become destructive.
Which it will.
The curious thing is that Buffy doesn't know about any of this. She was too
sick
to really comprehend how she had been saved at the start, and Xander's hall
watch and confrontation with Angelus are out of her sight.
> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
> as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
> who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
> turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
> tremendous deal of sense to me.
I went back and read the old review and comments again - including my own.
And, you know, it does get confusing. Indeed, I'm now not certain that it's
widely understood. What you briefly reference above is in the episode, but
I believe you've missed the biggest guilt.
The guilt of killing Angel.
Which, of course, hasn't happened yet. But it's what Buffy fears she will
have to do and she's already consumed with a kind of advance guilt.
In keeping with the season long theme I referred to as the trouble with
killing, death gets revisited one last time, this time with Buffy killing
Angel just as she fears. Then from Angel's own mouth she gets forgiveness.
Angelus: Shhh. I'm the one who should be sorry, James. You thought I
stopped loving you. But I never did. I loved you with my last breath.
Change "James" to "Buffy" and you have the emotional heart of the
experience.
Whatever Buffy has to do, Angel would understand and forgive her because he
genuinely loved her. Believing that, Buffy can forgive herself and move on.
> Nor does how having her kiss and wake
> up with her eyes closed, quietly breathing "Angel..." represents
> understanding what has to be done, or whatever.
I wasn't aware that it was supposed to. For me, that part is mostly
foreshadowing.
Nor does the experience in general offer any clarity as to what must be
done. She's known for quite a while that, barring a miracle, she's going to
have to kill Angelus. Her problem has been a kind of paralysis. Her sense
of guilt has been part of that. Releasing it makes it easier to act. When
we get to Becoming we will see Buffy quite focused on getting Angelus, which
suggests that this little exercise helped.
> So, failure on that
> count; I mostly watch IOHEFY as just an unusual ghost story with a few
> of our stars playing against type a little. Fortunately, said ghost
> story is done well enough to hold one's interest, by a comfortable
> margin. Despite interesting things going on throughout, including the
> first mention of the Mayor and a look into a shaken Giles not on his
> analytical game, it's very much an act-four episode. The deserted
> school pulsating with mystical insects or whatever is one of the
> nicest visual backdrops in the series, particularly when the extremely
> tender denouement is set against it. Contrary to later statements,
> this episode contains Willow's first spell.
> Rating: Good
The problem with the forgiveness angle - the bitter truth - is that it
doesn't work in the end. The aftermath of killing Angel (as she thought she
had done) will nearly destroy Buffy. Several things will contribute to
that, but her guilt and shame over the killing will be a big part.
There *are* other things about this episode. The ghost story itself is
fucking great. One of the best BtVS will offer. The haunting music. The
really clever solution to breaking the death cycle. The gender swap. I
loved the locker monster grabbing Xander. It pretty much all works.
Then there's Giles. It's so sad to see him still so consumed - haunted
even - by Jenny's memory. Here it takes away his ability to be an effective
watcher. Alas, it proves much worse as a portent for things to come.
Jenny's memory is his weakness that will be exploited to devastating effect
in Becoming. BtVS emphasizes how Buffy's calling prevents her from having
normal relationships. But it's not just her. Everybody around her suffers
some of the same. Most especially Giles - and for very much the same
reasons as Buffy. He's deadly to be around. Attachments interfere with his
ability to be watcher.
Willow hints at having looked deeper into the dark arts than previously
realized. Though I'm not sure that an exorcism counts as a spell. And it
should be noted that she didn't cast it any more than the other three did.
Hell, Buffy was at the focal point.
As James/Grace and Buffy/Angel overlay each other in the scene they play
act, their stories overlay with a neat mix of past present and future common
grounds. I especially like the following three times repeated line.
Buffy: No. A person doesn't just wake up and stop loving somebody! Love is
forever.
It directly points to the Innocence experience. It also points to the
obsessive and naively romantic view of love that fills the whole Buffy/Angel
story. This episode foreshadows Buffy sending Angel to hell, but it also
foreshadows the long breakup in S3 where Angel ultimately leaves Buffy.
From The Prom:
Joyce: ...when it comes to you, Angel, she's just like any other young woman
in love. You're all she can see of tomorrow.
Angelus this episode has a traumatic experience, being violated with love
and all. He had actually indicated earlier on that he was getting tired of
the Buffy drama and was finally ready to finish her off. Well, that didn't
work so well. Next stop apocalypse. It's periodically suggested that
Angelus is going mad. That his own obsession with Buffy just curdles within
him rather than thrilling him like it's supposed to. (As with Drusilla.)
So he goes postal instead and tries to destroy the world. I don't know.
Maybe. I think the series just hadn't worked out the nuances of monster and
vampire motivation yet and was still a little too much in love with evil for
evil's sake. Fortunately Spike will start offering an alternative viewpoint
in a couple of episodes.
Which leaves us with Spike in a great Bwa-ha-ha conclusion. One of the
little fun things to do has been watching Spike gradually healing these past
several episodes without anybody seeming to notice. And here he is in full
peroxide beauty. Has there ever been a pretty boy quite like Spike.
I adore this episode - it's my second favorite of the season and one of the
great ones in the BtVS pantheon.
> Season Two, Episode 20: "Go Fish"
> Writers: David Fury and Elin Hampton
> Director: David Semel
>
> Oh, yes, Season Two has pacing issues. Presumably intended as one
> last bit of bubbly fun before the show gets its dark on, "Go Fish"
> seems very poorly placed from a character continuity standpoint.
> After "Innocence" kicked the second half of the year into high gear,
> "Passion" elevated it beyond recourse, and IOHEFY moved us
> (theoretically) into finale territory, do we want an over-the-top
> wacky school story involving Buffy trying to get comfortable around
> guys again and Xnader and Cordy exploring their feelings? Not
> really. Okay, enough space on that. Because if one works to put that
> aside, "Go Fish" is a delightful little episode. It doesn't go for
> laugh-out-loud funny so much as low-key absurdity, from the blatant
> movie homage to the rampaging stock characters to a steroid metaphor
> that's "Beer Bad"-caliber in its blunt (intentional) stupidity.
So the stupidity of the following is intentional?
Coach Marin: After the fall of the Soviet Union, documents came into light
detailing experiments with fish DNA on their Olympic swimmers.
I don't know. Maybe it is intentionally over the top even though I struggle
to see the intentional part. But either way, at least Beer Bad made me
giggle a lot.
> Then
> it throws in a distinctly dark edge too; the sexual harassment angle
> totally "should" clash horribly with the tone of the story but somehow
> doesn't. As far as simple episodes about the Scoobies fighting as a
> team (go Xander!) while wisecracking like mad go, this is a nice one.
> Those who don't find it funny just aren't team players. BTW, as a
> microcosm for the feel-good aspects of the series, how about Buffy
> having her way with the guy who doesn't want her leaving his car?
> Rating: Good
Though it never occurred to me to consider the episode Good, I was
previously more or less in line with your thoughts of it not being so bad if
only it were placed somewhere else in the season.
This watching, however, the episode just stuck in my craw with its
annoying stupidity and abuse of characters. A part of me wants
to trash it all and give the episode my first and only Bad rating in the
BtVS run. But a few redeeming moments - Speedo Xander (which earns a
genuine howl of laughter), Willow cracking Jonathan, and an assortment of
little moments like Xander pondering grape soda or orange - limit the damage
to a mere Weak rating. Still, right now Go Fish has fallen below Bad Eggs
to become the worst BtVS episode ever by my personal ratings.
So I guess I haven't taken in enough aroma therapy to be a proper team
player. But I can't help it if I think I might have muttered an objection
to being locked up in the library cage and can't quite convince myself that
the little mild humor offered makes up for putting Cordelia so out of
character when she offers to keep dating the fish. And, oh yeah, there's
that pacing thing you've been harping on. Worst placed episode evah!
OBS
David L. Burkhead
For me the most poignant part of the episode was not Jenny's death, but the
tableau Angelus (I generally use the convention more or less set up in the
"Angel" TV series where "Angelus" is the one without the soul and "Angel" is
the one with the soul) set up for Giles. Seeing Giles walk through the
house, his own anticipation of a romantic evening heightening while I knew
(having seen Jenny's death) what he was going to actually find that made it
almost too painful to watch. But it was an "empathy with the characters"
kind of pain. I'm too new to the group here to get a feel for the "break
points" of your rating system, but I consider this maybe one of the top five
episodes of the whole series, certainly in the top ten.
One thing I have always wondered is if the "Ritual of Restoration" that
Jennie was researching really was the same spell as the curse originally
placed on Angel with the same "escape clause." When Angel comes back later,
everyone assumes that it is (and may well be right to so assume even if the
spell is different--given the consequences of guessing wrong, better to be
cautious than risk it) but none of the living characters have any firsthand
knowledge of the original curse so that assumption could well be wrong.
Nothing I've seen yet (I've only got as far as "Redefinition" in the Angel
series) really confirms the issue one way or the other.
> Season Two, Episode 18: "Killed By Death"
> Writers: Dean Batali and Rob Des Hotel
> Director: Deran Sarafian
>
> And then we have this. I understand the use of protracting an arc by
> taking a sick day, but it doesn't do much to change my opinion that
> Season Two has pacing issues. (Someone who cares about the episode
> can handle any analysis about what it means for Buffy to fight "death"
> at this point, but my stance is that any contribution to the emotional
> arc is vague at best and pointless at worst.) KBD do what it do.
> Even without knowing that it's a recycled script from a more innocent
> era of the show, it feels like it should be a S1 episode. Main plot
> is blah, screaming kids are annoying, bad medico-babble is annoying
> (this is my first of several admonitions to the writers to stop
> setting episodes in hospitals until they get some accuracy consultants
> or something), but it's decorated throughout with enough good
> character moments to keep it watchable. Other than Angel hanging like
> a cloud over the story, not much I'll remember tomorrow. It's always
> been at the very edges of the Weak/Decent boundary, and I think I'm
> feeling generous today.
> Rating: Decent
I'd put this one a bit higher, mainly for Xander's standing up to
Angelus. I also like the way that Cordelia walked out on Xander but later
came back and supported him. It showed a _lot_ of growth on her part (and
is part of the reason I absolutely detest her treatment in Season 3, which,
I assume, we'll get to in due course).
> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
> as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
> who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
> turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
> tremendous deal of sense to me. Nor does how having her kiss and wake
> up with her eyes closed, quietly breathing "Angel..." represents
> understanding what has to be done, or whatever. So, failure on that
> count; I mostly watch IOHEFY as just an unusual ghost story with a few
> of our stars playing against type a little. Fortunately, said ghost
> story is done well enough to hold one's interest, by a comfortable
> margin. Despite interesting things going on throughout, including the
> first mention of the Mayor and a look into a shaken Giles not on his
> analytical game, it's very much an act-four episode. The deserted
> school pulsating with mystical insects or whatever is one of the
> nicest visual backdrops in the series, particularly when the extremely
> tender denouement is set against it. Contrary to later statements,
> this episode contains Willow's first spell.
> Rating: Good
Again, I don't know where my feelings about this episode would fall on your
rating scale but I think I may have enjoyed it more than you did. For one
thing, I never interpreted the kiss bit and her reaction to it as having
anything to do with "realizing what she has to do" but rather for that one
moment, she had Angel back--only to "lose" him again an instant later. This
is the second play on that theme with her and Angel, first time, she
"gained" him in Surprise (although I still have a bit of trouble with the
"squick" factor of a 200+ year old vampire having sex with a 17 year old
girl) only to lose him, painfully, in Innocence. And we see it again in
Becoming where, this time, after she regains him (Willow's curse worked),
_she_ is the one who initiates the loss.
> Season Two, Episode 20: "Go Fish"
> Writers: David Fury and Elin Hampton
> Director: David Semel
>
> Oh, yes, Season Two has pacing issues. Presumably intended as one
> last bit of bubbly fun before the show gets its dark on, "Go Fish"
> seems very poorly placed from a character continuity standpoint.
> After "Innocence" kicked the second half of the year into high gear,
> "Passion" elevated it beyond recourse, and IOHEFY moved us
> (theoretically) into finale territory, do we want an over-the-top
> wacky school story involving Buffy trying to get comfortable around
> guys again and Xnader and Cordy exploring their feelings? Not
> really. Okay, enough space on that. Because if one works to put that
> aside, "Go Fish" is a delightful little episode. It doesn't go for
> laugh-out-loud funny so much as low-key absurdity, from the blatant
> movie homage to the rampaging stock characters to a steroid metaphor
> that's "Beer Bad"-caliber in its blunt (intentional) stupidity. Then
> it throws in a distinctly dark edge too; the sexual harassment angle
> totally "should" clash horribly with the tone of the story but somehow
> doesn't. As far as simple episodes about the Scoobies fighting as a
> team (go Xander!) while wisecracking like mad go, this is a nice one.
> Those who don't find it funny just aren't team players. BTW, as a
> microcosm for the feel-good aspects of the series, how about Buffy
> having her way with the guy who doesn't want her leaving his car?
> Rating: Good
In this case, I think you enjoyed this episode more than I did. I consider
it one of the low points of the entire series. Virtually nothing in this
episode "worked" for me. As just one example, if they'd invoked magic as a
reason for the transformations, I would have accepted it, but they invoked
"science" and did it horribly badly (DNA doesn't work that way). While I
enjoyed some of the humor ("just what my reputation needs....") other
attempts at humor fell flat to me. The ending, in particular, left me cold:
do the fish men still retain their minds and souls? If they do, then
they're guilty of the murder of the school nurse and should not be allowed
to go free. If they don't, then the humans they once were are effectively
dead and there's even less excuse to let these monsters/animals go free
after they've already been established as "maneaters." I know we're
supposed to feel sympathy because they didn't ask to feel transformed, and I
do, but that is mitigated by the fact that they were cheaters to begin with
(steroid use is cheating), and had already killed one person. A rabid dog
is also not responsible, but that doesn't change what must be done.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays
Mel
>
>>Season Two, Episode 20: "Go Fish"
>>Writers: David Fury and Elin Hampton
>>Director: David Semel
>
Worst placed episode evah!
>
>
> OBS
>
>
I think that distinction goes to the Rome scenes of "The Girl In Question."
At least "Go Fish" has Wentworth Miller in it.
Mel
One Bit Shy
news:LoCdnR1Udd7F1O7b...@giganews.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> A reminder: These threads are not spoiler-free.
>>
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Two, Episode 17: "Passion"
>> Writer: Ty King
>> Director: Michael Gershman
> For me the most poignant part of the episode was not Jenny's death, but
> the
> tableau Angelus (I generally use the convention more or less set up in the
> "Angel" TV series where "Angelus" is the one without the soul and "Angel"
> is
> the one with the soul) set up for Giles. Seeing Giles walk through the
> house, his own anticipation of a romantic evening heightening while I knew
> (having seen Jenny's death) what he was going to actually find that made
> it
> almost too painful to watch. But it was an "empathy with the characters"
> kind of pain.
That's one of the great moments. The third great one that I can recall off
hand is Buffy and Willow receiving the news. Their reaction (plus the way
Joyce consoles the wailing Willow without yet seeing how crushed Buffy is by
the news) is great in itself, but what makes it exquisite is watching it
through the window along with Angel - experiencing the ecstasy of the moment
that he finds in it. It's a fabulous juxtaposition of emotions.
> I'm too new to the group here to get a feel for the "break
> points" of your rating system, but I consider this maybe one of the top
> five
> episodes of the whole series, certainly in the top ten.
It's a great episode, and in the sense of importance to the series, I think
it's definitely top 10. It's one of those episodes that matters to
everybody for a very long time. Yet most of this episode isn't any better
than quite a few other terrific BtVS episodes. Right now it's only my 6th
favorite of the season - maybe 5th. It's roughly tied with When She Was Bad
in my eyes.
> One thing I have always wondered is if the "Ritual of Restoration" that
> Jennie was researching really was the same spell as the curse originally
> placed on Angel with the same "escape clause." When Angel comes back
> later,
> everyone assumes that it is (and may well be right to so assume even if
> the
> spell is different--given the consequences of guessing wrong, better to be
> cautious than risk it) but none of the living characters have any
> firsthand
> knowledge of the original curse so that assumption could well be wrong.
> Nothing I've seen yet (I've only got as far as "Redefinition" in the Angel
> series) really confirms the issue one way or the other.
As far as I can tell, the continuation of the escape clause is never
questioned. Absent even a hint that it might not be there, I tend to assume
it really must be there.
My personal fanwank about that (and why the clause exists to begin with) is
that Gypsies knew of no other way for the spell to work. (In other words,
they had no choice.) In some fashion the possibility of release is part of
the magic that binds. Such as, perhaps, the agony of perpetual guilt being
the mechanism that binds the soul to his dead body. Without that agony, the
soul is no longer bound and naturally exits the dead body.
However, whatever that story is, Willow probably is not in a position to
know. This isn't a spell she constructed from her own research. It was
just presented to her whole, and she performed it largely by rote without
certainty of what would happen. Personally I think it's important that the
spell be Angel specific and largely beyond Willow's understanding. The
series probably wouldn't want Willow running around willy nilly thrusting
souls back into vampires.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1cidncGshvDZze7b...@uci.net...
I'm one of those strange people that actually kind of liked The Girl In
Question. Gypsies! <spit> We will speak of them no more!
Be that as it may, for purposes of placement, it seeks to settle the Buffy
issue between Spike and Angel before the grand finale. Sort of the last
piece of unfinished business. There's logic to that. I fail to see any in
Go Fish.
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Jennie was researching really was the same spell as the curse originally
> placed on Angel with the same "escape clause." When Angel comes back later,
> everyone assumes that it is (and may well be right to so assume even if the
its the same
angel season four has angelus return after one moment of perfect happiness
and twoo love
> I'd put this one a bit higher, mainly for Xander's standing up to
> Angelus. I also like the way that Cordelia walked out on Xander but later
> came back and supported him. It showed a _lot_ of growth on her part (and
> is part of the reason I absolutely detest her treatment in Season 3, which,
> I assume, we'll get to in due course).
i was also thinking remember that cordelia willow and xander
had been going to school together possibly since kindergarten
and they would know cordy before her queen phase
when she was still a mere spoiled brat
there was onme comment about cordy trying to hard
that never got explained
but it shows a long history of these three before the series beings
> is the second play on that theme with her and Angel, first time, she
> "gained" him in Surprise (although I still have a bit of trouble with the
> "squick" factor of a 200+ year old vampire having sex with a 17 year old
> girl) only to lose him, painfully, in Innocence. And we see it again in
> Becoming where, this time, after she regains him (Willow's curse worked),
> _she_ is the one who initiates the loss.
vampires sort of freeze in time
so its more like liam at the age of his death
which was about 17 for season 1 angel
or late twenties for not fade gently angel
Apteryx
news:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Well it's a start. But the episode is Superlative for me. It's great from
Angel's opening voiceover to Buffy's closing one, but the real highlight (if
you can call it that) is the scene where Giles's discovers Jenny's body, and
his shattered look immediately after when interviewed by the police. Still
makes time to move along the Angel-Dru-Spike story, and just a little
humour, mainly from Willow with her authority anxiety when Jenny asks her to
fill in for her, her associated chaos theory, and 5 hours of lesson
planning. It is my 3rd favourite BtVS episode, best in season 2 (unchanged
since last year).
> Season Two, Episode 18: "Killed By Death"
> Writers: Dean Batali and Rob Des Hotel
> Director: Deran Sarafian
>
> And then we have this. I understand the use of protracting an arc by
> taking a sick day, but it doesn't do much to change my opinion that
> Season Two has pacing issues. (Someone who cares about the episode
> can handle any analysis about what it means for Buffy to fight "death"
> at this point, but my stance is that any contribution to the emotional
> arc is vague at best and pointless at worst.) KBD do what it do.
> Even without knowing that it's a recycled script from a more innocent
> era of the show, it feels like it should be a S1 episode. Main plot
> is blah, screaming kids are annoying, bad medico-babble is annoying
> (this is my first of several admonitions to the writers to stop
> setting episodes in hospitals until they get some accuracy consultants
> or something), but it's decorated throughout with enough good
> character moments to keep it watchable. Other than Angel hanging like
> a cloud over the story, not much I'll remember tomorrow. It's always
> been at the very edges of the Weak/Decent boundary, and I think I'm
> feeling generous today.
> Rating: Decent
Decent for me too, and although it has reasonable clearance from the
Decent/Weak boundary, it is certainly below mid-Decent. It is my 123rd
favourite BtVS episode, 22nd in season 2 (last year was 121st and 22nd -
although it is not permanently locked into last place in the season; I know
when I watched selected episodes last November, it overtook SAR, but got
overtaken again this time around).
> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
> as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
> who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
> turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
> tremendous deal of sense to me. Nor does how having her kiss and wake
> up with her eyes closed, quietly breathing "Angel..." represents
> understanding what has to be done, or whatever. So, failure on that
> count; I mostly watch IOHEFY as just an unusual ghost story with a few
> of our stars playing against type a little. Fortunately, said ghost
> story is done well enough to hold one's interest, by a comfortable
> margin. Despite interesting things going on throughout, including the
> first mention of the Mayor and a look into a shaken Giles not on his
> analytical game, it's very much an act-four episode. The deserted
> school pulsating with mystical insects or whatever is one of the
> nicest visual backdrops in the series, particularly when the extremely
> tender denouement is set against it. Contrary to later statements,
> this episode contains Willow's first spell.
> Rating: Good
Good for me too. And for me the thematic elements, while it is possible to
figure them out to explain the odd way people are behaving, aren't
compelling. It is my 68th favourite BtVS episode, 13th best in season 2
(last year was 69th and 13th, although it did get higher in November).
> Season Two, Episode 20: "Go Fish"
> Writers: David Fury and Elin Hampton
> Director: David Semel
>
> Oh, yes, Season Two has pacing issues. Presumably intended as one
> last bit of bubbly fun before the show gets its dark on, "Go Fish"
> seems very poorly placed from a character continuity standpoint.
> After "Innocence" kicked the second half of the year into high gear,
> "Passion" elevated it beyond recourse, and IOHEFY moved us
> (theoretically) into finale territory, do we want an over-the-top
> wacky school story involving Buffy trying to get comfortable around
> guys again and Xnader and Cordy exploring their feelings? Not
> really. Okay, enough space on that. Because if one works to put that
> aside, "Go Fish" is a delightful little episode. It doesn't go for
> laugh-out-loud funny so much as low-key absurdity, from the blatant
> movie homage to the rampaging stock characters to a steroid metaphor
> that's "Beer Bad"-caliber in its blunt (intentional) stupidity. Then
> it throws in a distinctly dark edge too; the sexual harassment angle
> totally "should" clash horribly with the tone of the story but somehow
> doesn't. As far as simple episodes about the Scoobies fighting as a
> team (go Xander!) while wisecracking like mad go, this is a nice one.
> Those who don't find it funny just aren't team players. BTW, as a
> microcosm for the feel-good aspects of the series, how about Buffy
> having her way with the guy who doesn't want her leaving his car?
> Rating: Good
Only Decent for me. In part perhaps because it is so oddly placed. It is my
111th favourite BtVS episode, 19th best in season 2 (last year it was 111th
overall, and I don't seem to have said where it rated in the season, but
most likely it was also 19th. There has been some movement around it though,
at least with season 1's OOSOOM which I said last year was on place behind
it, has overtaken it to reach 107th place).
--
Apteryx
Don Sample
wrote:
This episode is one of my guilty pleasures. Sure, it has its problems.
It's a MotW episode following grand events, that should have some sort
of grand followup, and the medical talk makes no more sense than Star
Trek techno-babble, but it's got a sick Buffy, rising to conquer a
monster that's targeting children. It's got the wonderful face-off
between Xander and Angel. It's got children who are *not* just sitting
by to be victims: some of them are trying to save themselves. Ryan may
not have come up with the best plan, but he tried. It also has the
quintessential Cordelia line: "Tact is just not saying true stuff...I'll
pass."
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Michael Ikeda
news:1376lkn...@news.supernews.com:
>> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>> A reminder: These threads are not spoiler-free.
>>>
>>>
>>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>> Season Two, Episode 17: "Passion"
>>> Writer: Ty King
>>> Director: Michael Gershman
(Discussion of Angel's curse)
>
> As far as I can tell, the continuation of the escape clause is
> never questioned. Absent even a hint that it might not be
> there, I tend to assume it really must be there.
And "Awakening" definitely suggests that the escape clause remains
similar.
>
> However, whatever that story is, Willow probably is not in a
> position to know. This isn't a spell she constructed from her
> own research. It was just presented to her whole, and she
> performed it largely by rote without certainty of what would
> happen.
And while Jenny DID research the spell, it looks like it was
"presented whole" to her as well. It's something Jenny discovered,
not something she invented herself.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[KBD]
> The most interesting part for me is Xander. While he doesn't have much to
> do with the A story, I sense that the episode is a great deal about him.
> His ballsy standing up to Angel is impressive any way that you look at it.
> While he doesn't overtly rescue Buffy this episode as he did in Phases, he
> does participate in a group effort to save Buffy at the start, chases off
> Angel in the middle, and helps Buffy out at the end, while standing watch
> ceaselessly in between. Add to this the private moments between himself and
> Buffy the last few episodes and one can see a rapidly growing obsession.
>
> But it's not quite the same love sick obsession from the end of S1, though I
> think he himself hasn't been certain about that. I think Cordelia serves to
> clear that up. She pretty much accuses Xander of wanting Buffy more than
> her, yet somehow ends us seeming to commit herself to Xander more thoroughly
> than ever. The subtext around this gets a bit blurry, but I tend to take it
> as Cordy realizing that it's more than Xander's hormones at work and that
> his determined dedication is kind of attractive and worthy. (Cordy's part
> seems to
> involve some maturing on her part and letting go of jealousies and so on.)
> Likewise I sense that his exchanges with Cordelia help him distinguish the
> girlfriend (a role adequately filled by Cordy) from the duty. What really
> kicks in this episode for Xander is his sense of responsibility for
> protecting Buffy.
>
> He does that very well here. It's impressive and kind of sweet. But it's
> also obsessive. The seeds are planted for that to become destructive.
> Which it will.
That's one of the more interesting parts among the character moments
for me too. This whole idea of being a self-appointed guardian goes
back to "The Harvest," but his motivations were always a little mixed
(as they still are through The Lie). What we're seeing in "Phases,"
"Killed By Death," and "Go Fish" (which is a particularly prominent
chance to see woud-be-protector Xander in action) is a mix of just
getting better at knowing where and how he can contribute, and some of
the stuff you summarize above, particularly finding room for both
Buffy and Cordelia in distinct relationships. It's hard to say
exactly when he loses the horniness and where the hero-worship of
later seasons becomes a dominant factor, but the sexual attraction
just gets lost somewhere around here. If it were a cheesier show, "I
love you" to Willow in BecII would be the exact moment at which he
stopped being interested that way in Buffy, but given the nature of
BTVS, we don't really need to assign a specific point.
[IOHEFY]
> > Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
> > as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
> > who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
> > turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
> > tremendous deal of sense to me.
>
> I went back and read the old review and comments again - including my own.
> And, you know, it does get confusing. Indeed, I'm now not certain that it's
> widely understood. What you briefly reference above is in the episode, but
> I believe you've missed the biggest guilt.
>
> The guilt of killing Angel.
>
> Which, of course, hasn't happened yet. But it's what Buffy fears she will
> have to do and she's already consumed with a kind of advance guilt.
Okay, given that no one can even agree on what exactly Buffy needs to
be forgiven for, I'm going to take the strange and outlandish stance
that it's a really confusing message, and one not conveyed
particularly well by IOHEFY. Joss himself uses the past rather than
future tense in his brief comments about the episode on the DVD (i.e.
"Buffy realizes that other people have done what she has...").
That being said, it might be worth thinking about your viewpoint in
the past tense too. One thing touched on several times is the
equivalence in Buffy's mind (and not so wrong, given the characters'
limited information) between taking Angel's soul and killing him. To
her, I'd argue that it has already happened, and each arc episode
serves to make her more convinced that it's permanent. As with James,
it was an accident, but understanding that doesn't immediately let one
forigve oneself.
> > Nor does how having her kiss and wake
> > up with her eyes closed, quietly breathing "Angel..." represents
> > understanding what has to be done, or whatever.
>
> I wasn't aware that it was supposed to. For me, that part is mostly
> foreshadowing.
>
> Nor does the experience in general offer any clarity as to what must be
> done. She's known for quite a while that, barring a miracle, she's going to
> have to kill Angelus. Her problem has been a kind of paralysis. Her sense
> of guilt has been part of that. Releasing it makes it easier to act. When
> we get to Becoming we will see Buffy quite focused on getting Angelus, which
> suggests that this little exercise helped.
[snip]
> The problem with the forgiveness angle - the bitter truth - is that it
> doesn't work in the end. The aftermath of killing Angel (as she thought she
> had done) will nearly destroy Buffy. Several things will contribute to
> that, but her guilt and shame over the killing will be a big part.
So it just helps her put it aside long enough to do what she has to
do? I guess? We'll have to talk about the issue of guilt (as opposed
to simply heartbreak and such) when re-visiting her pseudo-suicide
attempt at the beginning of S3.
> Willow hints at having looked deeper into the dark arts than previously
> realized. Though I'm not sure that an exorcism counts as a spell.
It's got rituals and magic bones. Spell enough for me.
> Angelus this episode has a traumatic experience, being violated with love
> and all. He had actually indicated earlier on that he was getting tired of
> the Buffy drama and was finally ready to finish her off. Well, that didn't
> work so well. Next stop apocalypse. It's periodically suggested that
> Angelus is going mad. That his own obsession with Buffy just curdles within
> him rather than thrilling him like it's supposed to. (As with Drusilla.)
> So he goes postal instead and tries to destroy the world. I don't know.
> Maybe. I think the series just hadn't worked out the nuances of monster and
> vampire motivation yet and was still a little too much in love with evil for
> evil's sake. Fortunately Spike will start offering an alternative viewpoint
> in a couple of episodes.
Possible. One thing that Clairel pointed out that I've always kept in
mind is that Angel here has or develops an annihilistic (ha) streak
that doesn't appear to be part of the version of the Angelus character
we see in flashback. While it's also true that the series was still
working out the vampire motivation, it's possible that the 20th-
century version of Angelus is informed by also being Angel in a way
that pushes him over the edge. And though he hates everything about
his souled self, the intensity of his love/obsession with Buffy is
what the show keeps coming back to. (I'm still not quite sure what
the show was going for with him being the only vampire untainted by
humanity, though.)
["Go Fish"]
> So the stupidity of the following is intentional?
>
> Coach Marin: After the fall of the Soviet Union, documents came into light
> detailing experiments with fish DNA on their Olympic swimmers.
You're gonna think about that later, mister, and you're gonna laugh.
> Though it never occurred to me to consider the episode Good, I was
> previously more or less in line with your thoughts of it not being so bad if
> only it were placed somewhere else in the season.
>
> This watching, however, the episode just stuck in my craw with its
> annoying stupidity and abuse of characters. A part of me wants
> to trash it all and give the episode my first and only Bad rating in the
> BtVS run. But a few redeeming moments - Speedo Xander (which earns a
> genuine howl of laughter), Willow cracking Jonathan, and an assortment of
> little moments like Xander pondering grape soda or orange - limit the damage
> to a mere Weak rating. Still, right now Go Fish has fallen below Bad Eggs
> to become the worst BtVS episode ever by my personal ratings.
Abuse?
Anyway, that comparison raises the question of whether (perceived)
failed attempts at humor (GF) are better or worse than failed attempts
at who-the-hell-knows-what-they-were-trying-for (BE). Reactions to
bad comedy tend to be, as mentioned last thread, disproportionately
intense, maybe because one knows that someone's enjoying it so much.
Sorry about your lack of taste, but then again, I don't expect you to
like my new choice for worst episode of the series either (we'll get
to it), which is one that you rated Excellent.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
COURSE, plan to, yes, David?), let's try to limit the specific
references.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
> On Jun 15, 3:15 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> [KBD]
> If it were a cheesier show, "I
> love you" to Willow in BecII would be the exact moment at which he
> stopped being interested that way in Buffy, but given the nature of
> BTVS, we don't really need to assign a specific point.
Gawd, that Willow moment has enough emotional baggage as it is. Anyway, to
the extent that reflects romantic interest by Xander, it would appear to be
played out as a Willow vs. Cordelia issue.
Oh, I agree that she thinks of herself having destroyed Angel, and feels
guilty about it. There are multiple sources of Buffy guilt at work - all of
which should be affected by this experience. It's just that I believe the
pending kill of Angelus is the biggest. That is, after all, where her
hang-up is. The deed that she's been unable to perform.
Take a look at the construct of this episode. It's a very blatant parallel
to her situation with Angel. The kid fallen (obsessively) for the older
lover. That lover rejecting James/Buffy - denying their love in the
process. The struggle James/Buffy has grasping and accepting that. Then
James does what Buffy has resisted (but will do soon) - he kills his lover.
(If Buffy kills Angelus, is it merely a lover's revenge? We know it's not
that, but wouldn't Buffy fear it?) And then Grace - in Angel's body no
less - forgives James and takes the blame onto herself - for the real kill.
As a parallel it's seriously weakened if the sequence of events - and
emotions - are changed to place Buffy's "symbollic" killing of Angel prior
to his rejection. It becomes far harder for James and Buffy to identify
with each other. It seems clear to me that James and Buffy's stories both
hinge on the actual kill. That's where the real decision occurs. (Buffy
certainly didn't take away Angel's soul by her own volition.) It's what the
whole season has been about. Should Oz be killed? Was Kendra right about
souled Angel? Did Ted earn death? Would it have been right to kill
possessed Jenny? And so on.
This episode is no exception. It's not the rejection that's played over and
over again. It's the kill. That's what consumes James with guilt, and I'm
pretty well convinced that it's the main guilt facing Buffy - the thing most
of all stopping her from acting. She's contemplating killing her lover and
has thus far been unable to go that far.
>> The problem with the forgiveness angle - the bitter truth - is that it
>> doesn't work in the end. The aftermath of killing Angel (as she thought
>> she
>> had done) will nearly destroy Buffy. Several things will contribute to
>> that, but her guilt and shame over the killing will be a big part.
>
> So it just helps her put it aside long enough to do what she has to
> do? I guess? We'll have to talk about the issue of guilt (as opposed
> to simply heartbreak and such) when re-visiting her pseudo-suicide
> attempt at the beginning of S3.
Remember how she avoided telling anybody that Angel had returned before she
skewered him.
>> Willow hints at having looked deeper into the dark arts than previously
>> realized. Though I'm not sure that an exorcism counts as a spell.
>
> It's got rituals and magic bones. Spell enough for me.
OK. I'm not invested in any particular first time. I figure she's been
secretly playing with it for a while anyway.
I appreciate that viewpoint and would really like to go there. I remember
somebody else pointing out the parallel of Angelus remembering what his
souled self had done to Angel remembering the depraved deeds of old Angelus.
They both would be driven - and in some senses warped - by those memories.
It's entirely possible that Angelus could no more return to his old self
than Angel could return to his pre-vampire self. There's a lot of logic to
that and emotional resonance. I could see how Angelus's inability to shake
the presence of Buffy within his own head could send him off the deep end.
But I don't see real consistency in the presentation of such a notion. And
I can't help but note that Spike and Dru were quite ready on their own to go
the apocalyptic route with The Judge. (Albeit a rather slow motion
apocalypse.) I sense the comic book notion of the ultimate bad guy
expression invariably involving world destruction.
> ["Go Fish"]
> Anyway, that comparison raises the question of whether (perceived)
> failed attempts at humor (GF) are better or worse than failed attempts
> at who-the-hell-knows-what-they-were-trying-for (BE). Reactions to
> bad comedy tend to be, as mentioned last thread, disproportionately
> intense, maybe because one knows that someone's enjoying it so much.
> Sorry about your lack of taste, but then again, I don't expect you to
> like my new choice for worst episode of the series either (we'll get
> to it), which is one that you rated Excellent.
I await with baited breath. (No, wait. Let me guess. It has to be the
Yoko Factor.)
Now, see, I actually like fish jokes. "Get in touch with their inner
halibut," and, "I wouldn't break out the tartar sauce just yet," deserve to
be heard. But... something needs to be better about this. It's so damned
irritating.
OBS
Michael Ikeda
news:1378g0q...@news.supernews.com:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1182011979.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 15, 3:15 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>> om...
>>
>
> But I don't see real consistency in the presentation of such a
> notion. And I can't help but note that Spike and Dru were quite
> ready on their own to go the apocalyptic route with The Judge.
> (Albeit a rather slow motion apocalypse.)
Or Dru was ready on her own (but she's been insane since before she
was turned). Spike probably just wanted to please Dru. And may have
figured that it wouldn't actually reach the point of a full
apocalypse.
One Bit Shy
news:tO2dnYrEwp7g_unb...@rcn.net...
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in
> news:1378g0q...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1182011979.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 15, 3:15 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>>>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:1181828221.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>>> om...
>>>
>
>>
>> But I don't see real consistency in the presentation of such a
>> notion. And I can't help but note that Spike and Dru were quite
>> ready on their own to go the apocalyptic route with The Judge.
>> (Albeit a rather slow motion apocalypse.)
>
> Or Dru was ready on her own (but she's been insane since before she
> was turned). Spike probably just wanted to please Dru. And may have
> figured that it wouldn't actually reach the point of a full
> apocalypse.
Again, I'd really like to go there, but I'm struggling to see that in the
actual play of the episodes. Spike's relationship with The Judge seems
mainly to be goading him to start killing people already.
OBS
(Harmony) Watcher
"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-42FF5...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > One thing I have always wondered is if the "Ritual of Restoration" that
> > Jennie was researching really was the same spell as the curse originally
> > placed on Angel with the same "escape clause." When Angel comes back
later,
> > everyone assumes that it is (and may well be right to so assume even if
the
>
> its the same
> angel season four has angelus return after one moment of perfect happiness
> and twoo love
>
> > I'd put this one a bit higher, mainly for Xander's standing up to
> > Angelus. I also like the way that Cordelia walked out on Xander but
later
> > came back and supported him. It showed a _lot_ of growth on her part
(and
> > is part of the reason I absolutely detest her treatment in Season 3,
which,
> > I assume, we'll get to in due course).
>
> i was also thinking remember that cordelia willow and xander
> had been going to school together possibly since kindergarten
> and they would know cordy before her queen phase
> when she was still a mere spoiled brat
>
to the same grade school. Kindly illuminate.
Incidentally Harmony might have gone to the same school as Willow and
Xander, or at least they grew up being close play-pals (until one day Willow
made Harmony's crayons all bendy) ... my own fanfic in parentheses.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Don Sample
Willow had known Harmony for at least 10 years, when they graduated from
high school ("She picked on me for ten years, the vacuous tramp") so
they went back to at least grade 2. (Though I suppose it's possible
that they knew each other from something other than school. Maybe they
were both in the same Brownie troop, or something.)
There was also the whole "We Hate Cordelia Club" of which Xander was the
treasurer. Not really something I can see high school kids forming.
Horace LaBadie
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
Well, Xander, Willow, and Cordy knew each other at least since sixth
grade, as they said in OoMOoS.
Xander: Cordelia, man, she does love titles!
Willow: Oh, God! Remember in sixth grade with the field trip?
Xander: Right! Right! The guy with the antlers on his belt!
Willow: Be my Deputy!
Xander: And remember the...the hat?
Willow: Oh God! The hat!
Buffy: Gee, it's fun that we're speaking in tongues.
George W Harris
wrote:
:Now, see, I actually like fish jokes. "Get in touch with their inner
:halibut," and, "I wouldn't break out the tartar sauce just yet," deserve to
:be heard. But... something needs to be better about this. It's so damned
:irritating.
The funniest bit is "that doesn't make any sense...the
skin's the best part!" "We have to find a demon with high
cholesterol."
:
:OBS
:
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
(Harmony) Watcher
"Horace LaBadie" <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote in message
news:hwlabadiejr-9AFF...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Since Cordy, Willow and Xander all went on a field trip together in grade
six, it does suggest that the three of them all belonged to the same grade
school.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1182011979.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
James didn't mean to shoot Grace either. As with Buffy, he was in
love, went nuts with it (recall that Buffy appears to accept Joyce's
suggestion that sleeping with Angel was irresponsible), and in the
process accidentally caused his lover's death. I continue to fail to
see what's "very clear" about the similarity between unintentionally
popping a bullet in an innocent teacher and having one's vampire
boyfriend turn into a demon, go on a killing spree, and stopping him
in defense of humanity. Where the parallel is weakened by changing
the order of events, it's strengthened by making the kills more
similar - and the kill is the most important part of the construct,
after all.
ANGEL: Don't do this.
BUFFY: But-but I killed you.
ANGEL: It was an accident. It wasn't your fault.
BUFFY: Oh, it *is* my fault. How could I...
(As those familiar with the scene may argue, this is somewhat
selective quoting, but it's necessary to do that either way, because
it's not a very clear parallel in the first place.)
I don't see Buffy seeing too much guilt in killing an unsouled Angel
(after all, Joss realized he could go for way more pain than that in
"Becoming II," and that's not the part of the story she's so reluctant
to share in S3). She couldn't bring herself to do it in "Innocence,"
but I thought part of the point of "Passion" was to make her realize
that it was her duty, and something she'd have to do. At this point
in the show's life, I see Buffy still mostly buying into the dogma
about nothing being left of a person without his soul. It's certainly
what people have been telling her, including the self-proclaimed
experts on the topic:
BUFFY: Angel, there must be some part of you inside that still
remembers who you are.
ANGEL: Dream on, schoolgirl. Your boyfriend is dead. You're all
gonna join him.
- "Innocence"
As far as Buffy knows at this point, the man she loved is dead, any
chance of bringing him back gone with Jenny Calendar, and it was her
actions that killed him.
It's what the
> whole season has been about. Should Oz be killed? Was Kendra right about
> souled Angel? Did Ted earn death? Would it have been right to kill
> possessed Jenny? And so on.
That's true also, but it's generally been expressed on moral terms
rather than emotional ones, so "Passion" seems to hit that side of the
topic much more directly than IOHEFY does.
Those are fair comments. I'm inclined to go with Michael in noting
that it's only when Dru takes over that Spike shows any interest in
apocalyptic stuff, and, being love's bitch, is reluctant to stand up
for the world until her affections are at stake. Part of being a
demon is, according to Spike in "Becoming II," talking the talk about
destroying the world while knowing it can never happen. You're right
that fully developing the idea goes outside of what's shown on
screen. I still think it's good enough to think about, particularly
having seen both shows all the way through, even if the writers hadn't
fully worked it out at this point.
> > Sorry about your lack of taste, but then again, I don't expect you to
> > like my new choice for worst episode of the series either (we'll get
> > to it), which is one that you rated Excellent.
>
> I await with baited breath. (No, wait. Let me guess. It has to be the
> Yoko Factor.)
So much for that bit of suspense. Shouldn't have cast it as a
mystery, perhaps.
-AOQ
~yes, I've got reel issues with TYF, but we'll tackle them another
time~
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> love, went nuts with it (recall that Buffy appears to accept Joyce's
> suggestion that sleeping with Angel was irresponsible), and in the
> process accidentally caused his lover's death. I continue to fail to
> see what's "very clear" about the similarity between unintentionally
> popping a bullet in an innocent teacher and having one's vampire
> boyfriend turn into a demon, go on a killing spree, and stopping him
if you accept the premise of a soul
then when you kill someone you cleave soul and flesh
james killed grace from obession rather than malice
and buffy had already killed angel from love rather than malice
its not about whether she is going to kill angel
she has already done that
what she has to cope with is the permanency of his death
and to deal with burying the animated corpse (angelus) he left behind
through james she recognizes her own feelings of guilt
(whether she deserves to feel guilty is not the issue
she does feel guilty - she does believe she killed angel)
buffy initially identifies with grace
the abused woman victim of an obsessed exlover
and she takes a rather simple moral stance that james must suffer
because thats the obvious lesson-of-the-week from this motw
about male abuse of women (james abusing grace and angelus abusing buffy)
meanwhile giles keeps repeating the real lesson of the week
that justice without mercy is beyond human endurance
then when james possesses buffy
buffy is forced to confront her own guilt and her own need for forgiveness
perhaps liam does briefly return with grace in angeluss body
in any case buffy gets the opportunity to say goodbye to angel
to accept that he is indeed dead
that she can be forgiven for her part in his death
and that she can finally confront angelus
not as her victim or victimizer or her lover
but simply as yet another animated corpse she has to deal with
then willow screws it all up
and this time she really does intentionally kill angel
> that it was her duty, and something she'd have to do. At this point
> in the show's life, I see Buffy still mostly buying into the dogma
> about nothing being left of a person without his soul. It's certainly
dont confuse your beliefs for the premises of the show
i doubt whedon himself believes there is anything like an immortal soul
but one of the premise of the show is jewish-christian notions
are mostly absolutely true
you should evaluate the show based on premises of the story
not on the premises of your own beliefs
there are stories i enjoy that start with the premises
that greek or germanic gods are true
that there really is a god named zeus or odhin
i reject these religions utterly
but that doesnt interfere with my enjoyment of the stories
nor do i have to constantly interpret these stories
with the imposition of my beliefs
i can enjoy these stories with the temporary acceptance of their religions
and not feel contaminated
it seems over and over and over other people cannot cope
with whedons version of the christian concept of the soul
and that to accept that premise for the sake of the show
somehow contaminates them in real life
sarah michelle gellar is not buying into some dogma
nor is buffy not buying into some dogma
she accepting the premises of the series
the reality of her fictional universe
> what people have been telling her, including the self-proclaimed
> experts on the topic:
>
> BUFFY: Angel, there must be some part of you inside that still
> remembers who you are.
> ANGEL: Dream on, schoolgirl. Your boyfriend is dead. You're all
> gonna join him.
this about a grieving person clasping a corpse or coffin
denying the absolute severance of death
you can see it in real life
unfortunately you yourself may someday experience it
the only difference is that in real life the corpse cannot sit up and taunt us
(instead in our dreams and nightmares they stand up and taunt us)
> Those are fair comments. I'm inclined to go with Michael in noting
> that it's only when Dru takes over that Spike shows any interest in
> apocalyptic stuff, and, being love's bitch, is reluctant to stand up
> for the world until her affections are at stake. Part of being a
> demon is, according to Spike in "Becoming II," talking the talk about
also the judge gets a scent of humanity from spike and dru
and leaves open the possibility that his touch might burn them as well
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> six, it does suggest that the three of them all belonged to the same grade
> school.
we also learn that jonath-n also attended kindergarten with xander and willow
so for some of the characters they have been together
for most or all of their lives
warching each other mature and evolve
and buffy is coming into these peoples lives
without knowing their complex histories
much as the audience does
David L. Burkhead
Probably. Angel's actions at the end of "Reunion" really turned me off
and "Redefinition" did nothing to restore my interest. I'll probably return
to it at some time, but right now, where I'm currently at in the story is a
little too painful (partly due to some personal issues I'm going through--I
need something a bit more upbeat right now).
David L. Burkhead
> BUFFY: Angel, there must be some part of you inside that still
> remembers who you are.
> ANGEL: Dream on, schoolgirl. Your boyfriend is dead. You're all
> gonna join him.
> - "Innocence"
>
> As far as Buffy knows at this point, the man she loved is dead, any
> chance of bringing him back gone with Jenny Calendar, and it was her
> actions that killed him.
I don't recall at this point, but did she even know about the chance offered
by Jenny Calendar. As I recall, Jenny wasn't telling anyone and then she
was killed, the computer roasted, and the floppy lost, so there's no reason
Buffy could no there was even that much chance. As far as Buffy knows,
there is no way to bring Angel's soul back.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > As far as Buffy knows at this point, the man she loved is dead, any
> > chance of bringing him back gone with Jenny Calendar, and it was her
> > actions that killed him.
>
> I don't recall at this point, but did she even know about the chance offered
> by Jenny Calendar. As I recall, Jenny wasn't telling anyone and then she
> was killed, the computer roasted, and the floppy lost, so there's no reason
> Buffy could no there was even that much chance. As far as Buffy knows,
> there is no way to bring Angel's soul back.
Yes, you're right.
-AOQ
David L. Burkhead
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> dont confuse your beliefs for the premises of the show
> i doubt whedon himself believes there is anything like an immortal
> soul
> but one of the premise of the show is jewish-christian notions
> are mostly absolutely true
>
> you should evaluate the show based on premises of the story
> not on the premises of your own beliefs
However, the show has been a bit inconsistent in how it treats the soul
and lack thereof. Early on we get (Giles to Xander, regarding vampire
Jesse) "You're not looking at your friend, you're looking at the thing that
killed him" and (Buffy to Ford regarding his plan to become a vampire)
"That's not how it works, you die and a demon takes your body." However, in
Season 4, we get Buffy's soul being taken by demon Kathy and she's still
Buffy--just a more, um, impulsive than normal Buffy, and demon Kathy remains
demon Kathy.
David L. Burkhead
>> Hey, given that he said he hasn't seen all of ATS yet (you do, OF
>> COURSE, plan to, yes, David?), let's try to limit the specific
>> references.
BTW, thanks for the consideration. It is very much appreciated.
Arbitrar Of Quality
anges <mair_fh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> re
> > that it was her duty, and something she'd have to do. At this point
> > in the show's life, I see Buffy still mostly buying into the dogma
> > about nothing being left of a person without his soul. It's certainly
>
> dont confuse your beliefs for the premises of the show
> i doubt whedon himself believes there is anything like an immortal soul
> but one of the premise of the show is jewish-christian notions
> are mostly absolutely true
>
> you should evaluate the show based on premises of the story
> not on the premises of your own beliefs
>
> it seems over and over and over other people cannot cope
> with whedons version of the christian concept of the soul
> and that to accept that premise for the sake of the show
> somehow contaminates them in real life
>
> sarah michelle gellar is not buying into some dogma
> nor is buffy not buying into some dogma
> she accepting the premises of the series
> the reality of her fictional universe
No, that's not the point at all. The "dogma" is the notion that a
vampire looks like the person whose body it's inhabiting, but that
that individual is completely gone along with the soul. It's still
more or less the way Buffy thinks at this point, although the whole
Angel thing may be complicating it.
FORD: I will become immortal.
BUFFY: Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's not
how it works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house,
and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not
you.
- "Lie To Me"
This was part of the initial premise of the series, articulated best
in "The Harvest" and "Angel," and was gradually abandoned as the
writers and the audience got to know Angel and Spike better. It's
often fan-wanked as representing the dogma perpetuated by Watchers and
others, and Buffy learns that things are more complicated as she grows
up.
"What we once were informs *all* that we have become. The same love
will infect our hearts even if they no longer beat. Simple death
won't change that."
- Darla, "The Prodigal"
-AOQ
Don Sample
The soul in the Buffyverse seems to be the source of the Freudian
super-ego. It's the thing that gives you the model for how you think
you *should* behave. It's what gives us our conscience, and morality.
Simply take it away, and you are left with a completely amoral being.
One who has no sense of right or wrong. They are neither good, nor evil.
Vampires have souls, demonic ones, that have their polarity reversed.
Being evil, causing pain, become the right things to do. A vampire
aspires to be more evil.
One Bit Shy
You're looking for too much detail in common. An exact analogy isn't an
analogy - it's the thing itself. There is deliberate vagueness about the
details of James and Grace - especially Grace's motive for forgivenss. But
the general outline is striking in its similarity. The kid kills the older
ex-lover who rejected him/her and is consumed by guilt over it.
There's also the giant demon in the living room not getting its due. Angel
and Buffy literally replace James and Grace in this little play. And Buffy
kills Angel in it. Just as we'll see her do in the finale. It's the big
shock moment of the episode. Buffy shoots Angel. The big release is Angel
forgiving Buffy for doing it. Then, sure enough, next we see them Buffy is
finally set to kill Angel, having received a kind of absolution in advance.
This episode directly links both guilt and forgiveness to the deed of
killing. It directly places Angel and Buffy in the role of killer and
forgiver. It previews the culminating moment of the season in so doing.
And it does this when the only point in contention in the Buffy/Angel story
is whether Buffy is willing to do the deed. I'm sorry, but I really do
think it's clear that this speaks to Buffy's guilt and need for forgiving
for the pending killing of Angelus.
> ANGEL: Don't do this.
> BUFFY: But-but I killed you.
> ANGEL: It was an accident. It wasn't your fault.
> BUFFY: Oh, it *is* my fault. How could I...
>
> (As those familiar with the scene may argue, this is somewhat
> selective quoting, but it's necessary to do that either way, because
> it's not a very clear parallel in the first place.)
Making James shot somewhat an accident (it's only somewhat because his rage
still drove him there with a loaded gun) gives the death some moral
ambiguity - just as there has been through the season. Ted's death, for
example, was accidental, but still born from Buffy's rage. That's important
because you don't want the total contrast of James killing purely from evil
rage while Buffy's pending killing has strong moral grounding. It's not a
perfect analogy of course - none of the season's examples have been. (I
think the issue with Oz was likely the closest.) The common ground is more
general - something to at least sympathize with on both sides of the
kill/don't kill line.
> I don't see Buffy seeing too much guilt in killing an unsouled Angel
> (after all, Joss realized he could go for way more pain than that in
> "Becoming II," and that's not the part of the story she's so reluctant
> to share in S3).
I don't understand what you mean. In Faith, Hope and Trick, the news she
finally let out to Giles and Willow was that Angel's soul had returned
before she killed him.
However, yes, there was a great deal more pain piled into Becoming than just
the guilt. I'm not asserting otherwise. I just think that guilt was an
important part of it. And I would aver that it didn't end in FH&T. Buffy
wouldn't be able to be reasonably at peace with Angel's departure until she
made up for what she had done to Angel in Becoming by willingly offering her
life, her blood to save Angel's life in Graduation Day. That was her
atonement. Only then were the scales balanced.
I believe the guilt was also an influence on Buffy changing her sense of
duty after Becoming so that she would go to extreme ends to avoid
sacrificing those she loved. But that's really moving beyond this episode.
> She couldn't bring herself to do it in "Innocence,"
> but I thought part of the point of "Passion" was to make her realize
> that it was her duty, and something she'd have to do. At this point
> in the show's life, I see Buffy still mostly buying into the dogma
> about nothing being left of a person without his soul. It's certainly
> what people have been telling her, including the self-proclaimed
> experts on the topic:
>
> BUFFY: Angel, there must be some part of you inside that still
> remembers who you are.
> ANGEL: Dream on, schoolgirl. Your boyfriend is dead. You're all
> gonna join him.
> - "Innocence"
>
> As far as Buffy knows at this point, the man she loved is dead, any
> chance of bringing him back gone with Jenny Calendar, and it was her
> actions that killed him.
She knew the duty in Innocence. Passion brings home how serious the duty
is - the consequences of failing to cary it out. The notion of Angelus as
the absence of Angel and there being no chance of retrieving him are the
rationalizations that mitigate the pain. (Though perversely only increasing
the pain when the final truth of a restored Angel is shown.)
But that's all heart-numbing cold logic. Buffy's struggle to kill Angelus
was all emotion. No matter how you put the logic together killing Angelus
would still feel like killing her lover. In the sense of enormous loss. In
the sense of paying him back for rejecting her. In the sense of betraying
her love. There's an unforgivable quality to all those sensations that
Buffy's heart rebels against. And just to twist the knife a little further,
her resistance will be perceived by Xander as selfish clinging to her old
boyfriend, which has just enough truth to it to upset Buffy further. The
logic you speak of above batters away at her resistance by overwhelming it.
That matters a lot, but it's not addressing the problem directly. Forgiving
does.
> It's what the
>> whole season has been about. Should Oz be killed? Was Kendra right
>> about
>> souled Angel? Did Ted earn death? Would it have been right to kill
>> possessed Jenny? And so on.
>
> That's true also, but it's generally been expressed on moral terms
> rather than emotional ones, so "Passion" seems to hit that side of the
> topic much more directly than IOHEFY does.
I so disagree. When Giles didn't want possessed Jenny killed, that was
emotion speaking, not morality. Ted had a huge moral component to it, but
Buffy was moved first by her emotional response to this intruder taking her
mother away from her. Buffy was set to kill the werewolf until she found
out it was Oz. Does Oz hold some natural moral superiority over any other
possible werewolf? (I think that's part of the point of initially focusing
on Larry - to show the illusion of such thinking where even Larry proves
able to be redeemed.) I don't think so. But plans to kill him are
immediately dropped because Oz matters so much to them personally -
emotionally. The point of all the examination of morality is that it's not
enough. That it's always ambiguous. That right and wrong isn't a sharp
divide. What's the point of Lie to Me if the final answer is settled merely
by examining the morality of it?
Passion is indeed a very emotional episode. It takes that level of emotion
to bring home the true meaning of duty to Buffy. Which gets applied
powerfully to the logical and moral decision to take down Angel. But it
still doesn't address the direct emotional connection between Buffy and
Angel. It's still her lover that she's contemplating killing. It's this
episode that directly addresses that. She kills her lover and is forgiven.
Just writing that sentence it seems so blatant that I don't get how there
could be a dispute.
> Those are fair comments. I'm inclined to go with Michael in noting
> that it's only when Dru takes over that Spike shows any interest in
> apocalyptic stuff, and, being love's bitch, is reluctant to stand up
> for the world until her affections are at stake. Part of being a
> demon is, according to Spike in "Becoming II," talking the talk about
> destroying the world while knowing it can never happen. You're right
> that fully developing the idea goes outside of what's shown on
> screen. I still think it's good enough to think about, particularly
> having seen both shows all the way through, even if the writers hadn't
> fully worked it out at this point.
It occurs to me that I really should go along with that analysis since it
further supports the idea that Dru was the true Big Bad. You'll recall that
it was also Dru who brought Alfalfa to Angelus's attention.
OBS
Horace LaBadie
"David L. Burkhead" <dbur...@sff.net> wrote:
> Spoilers for early season 4 in my answer before.
>
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > dont confuse your beliefs for the premises of the show
> > i doubt whedon himself believes there is anything like an immortal
> > soul
> > but one of the premise of the show is jewish-christian notions
> > are mostly absolutely true
> >
> > you should evaluate the show based on premises of the story
> > not on the premises of your own beliefs
>
> However, the show has been a bit inconsistent in how it treats the soul
> and lack thereof. Early on we get (Giles to Xander, regarding vampire
> Jesse) "You're not looking at your friend, you're looking at the thing that
> killed him" and (Buffy to Ford regarding his plan to become a vampire)
> "That's not how it works, you die and a demon takes your body." However, in
> Season 4, we get Buffy's soul being taken by demon Kathy and she's still
> Buffy--just a more, um, impulsive than normal Buffy, and demon Kathy remains
> demon Kathy.
"Living Conditions" presents the notion of a soul that can be removed
gradually, as if one were siphoning it off. Buffy was never soulless.
She was merely running low on soul.
Kathy's race apparently never had souls, so we have no evidence what
effect, if any, the acquisition of a soul might have on her. It might
have no more effect than the stealing of Buffy's class notes.
HWL
One Bit Shy
news:mair_fheal-A1503...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> James didn't mean to shoot Grace either. As with Buffy, he was in
>> love, went nuts with it (recall that Buffy appears to accept Joyce's
>> suggestion that sleeping with Angel was irresponsible), and in the
>> process accidentally caused his lover's death. I continue to fail to
>> see what's "very clear" about the similarity between unintentionally
>> popping a bullet in an innocent teacher and having one's vampire
>> boyfriend turn into a demon, go on a killing spree, and stopping him
>
> if you accept the premise of a soul
> then when you kill someone you cleave soul and flesh
> james killed grace from obession rather than malice
> and buffy had already killed angel from love rather than malice
>
> its not about whether she is going to kill angel
> she has already done that
> what she has to cope with is the permanency of his death
> and to deal with burying the animated corpse (angelus) he left behind
Sorry, I don't buy that - and not because of the premise of believing in a
soul. First of all, it's not true - as will be demonstrated in Becoming.
Angel can very much be returned. Remember that Angel was already dead.
Soul and flesh had already been cleaved. The miracle of Angel from the
start was the impermanence of that state of separation. And Buffy knows
that. She may not know how to restore Angel, and she may be running out of
time to get him back, but that's not because it's impossible. Buffy knows
otherwise. She knows it's possible because it had already been done. So
killing Angelus is more than burying the corpse. It's taking away the
possibility of restoring Angel. And it's giving up on eternal love.
It's also experienced by Buffy as considerably more than the denial of
hanging onto a coffin. This physical emobidment of Angel walks, talks,
looks like Angel *and* remembers everything that Angel did as if he had done
it himself. He's as obsessed with Buffy as Angel was. He actively reminds
Buffy of their relationship in every word. Draws pictures of her. Calls
her "lover". As deeply disturbing as all that is, it's also a very living
intimate connection between the two. A link that's pure Angel.
I don't disagree with observations about Buffy's need to let go of false
hope and accept the reality of Angelus. Nor the need to release her guilt
over destroying Angel and creating Angelus. That and more are parts of the
puzzle of readying her for the final confrontation with Angelus, much of
which are at least somewhat addressed through the forgivenss in this
episode.
But I think it's foolish to imagine that releasing the guilt over the
consequences of her night with Angel would be sufficient to overcome Buffy's
reluctance to finally turn Angelus to dust. It would still feel like
killing her lover. The sense of loss. The sense of vengeance. The sense
of betraying love. They'd all still be there when she actively brings the
final killing blow. She'll need release from that too.
And the episode offers it directly and obviously. Buffy kills Angel. Angel
forgives her.
> meanwhile giles keeps repeating the real lesson of the week
> that justice without mercy is beyond human endurance
That's a great description of his contribution.
OBS
burt...@hotmail.com
Which is an explanation that doesn't have any support in the show.
People can sign on to this explanation for the change if they want to,
but they're just ignoring what it actually is - a retcon.
And, I should note, it's not even a consistent rectcon:
Angel: "No. What I do know is that you love this baby, our baby.
You've bonded with it. You've spent nine months carrying it,
nourishing it..."
Darla: "No. No, I haven't been nourishing it. I haven't given this
baby a thing. I'm dead. It's been nourishing me. These feelings that
I'm having, they're not mine. They're coming from it."
Angel: "You don't know that."
Darla: "Of course I do! We both do. Angel, I don't have a soul. It
does. And right now that soul is inside of me, but soon, it won't be
and then..."
Angel: "Darla..."
Darla: "I won't be able to love it. I won't even be able to remember
that I loved it. (Starts to cry) I want to remember."
>From Angel 3.09, "Lullaby"
> and Buffy learns that things are more complicated as she grows up.
But she doesn't. Not really. All the way up through the end of season
7, Buffy is still staking vampires fresh from the grave
indiscriminately. The message of the show is always "soulless vampire
= evil, stake right away," and the idea that things might be more
complicated than that is never even mentioned, let alone discussed....
EXCEPT in cases where said soulless vampire has a name and some
significant screen time. Then, the rules are different, and we're
expected to think of them in the same way as the rest of the regular
or recurring cast.
It's a pretty nonsensical double standard, when you think about it.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> vampire looks like the person whose body it's inhabiting, but that
> that individual is completely gone along with the soul. It's still
> more or less the way Buffy thinks at this point, although the whole
> Angel thing may be complicating it.
within the series its not contradicted
the vampire inherits the brain wiring with all its memories
but the notion of a soul is the spark (as spike puts it)
that provides the reason the purpose beyond mere survival
its noted that spike is unusual in keeping more of his humanity than usual
but even that without a soul leaves him without morality
and unable to to truly understand human emotions
as seen in the end of season six
> This was part of the initial premise of the series, articulated best
> in "The Harvest" and "Angel," and was gradually abandoned as the
> writers and the audience got to know Angel and Spike better. It's
i never saw it abandoned
look at spike at the end of season six and the beginning of season seven
what did get enlarged was the demons could coexist with humans
but even clem didnt really understand human morality
but had been trained that some behaviors would provoke a response from the slayer
who would let him survive as long as he was not a threat
willow mentions operate conditioning at the beginning of season four
im not sure if that was technobabble or an intentional provocation
one of the assumptions of the scientific method is the universe is mechanical
and that it can be explained without reference to intelligent agents
so when psychology is directed at apparent intelligent agents
can it be a science?
operate conditioning is a presumption that humans lack free will
or anything else that would contradict the axioms of science
but rather human minds are merely a collection of learned and inherited
stimulus-response rules - vastly complex and intricate
but still just an evolvable rule based mechanism
and that humans are no more than biological machines
the whole point of the initiative producing adam and unable to control him
was that there is something about humans and demons
that is beyond science and technology
that it is in magics and religions
so no i never saw anything in the series contradicting what buffy told ford
just a later broader view that a slayer doesnt kill all demons
just those that harm or threaten to harm humans
(similarly in this state we do not routinely hunt mountain lions
we only kill them if they kill humans or they enter human settlements
mountain lions that are conditioned to avoid humans
are left to the chances of the wild)
what i do see are people uncomfortable with the premises of the series
trying to explain away its premises to fit their own beliefs
> "What we once were informs *all* that we have become. The same love
> will infect our hearts even if they no longer beat. Simple death
> won't change that."
its established early on that the vampire inherits the wiring at time of death
and that memories and emotions to some degree
are represented by the wiring of the brain
so yeah a vampire inherits the love of human
but it doesnt mean love means the same thing or provokes the same reactions
angelus was able to express liams anger with his father
but there was nothing to indicate liam was at odds with his sister
whom angelus would later kill
and vampire william expresses human williams love for his mother
by a bit of mere matricide
and the love turns to an obessesion to continue the mothers place in his unlife
it was clearly expressed that liams father loved his son
and his son never expressed hate for his father
but there was a conflict driven by the fathers desire for the best for his son
and possibly the sons desire to establish his own individual idenityt
angelus inherited the sons anger and expressed that by killing the father
perhaps angelus thought that was the whole of the matter
that the anger meant liam wanted his father destroyed
but if liam loved his father as his father loved him
then angelus wouldve inherited that as well
and angelus would continue to carry the wiring
of the unresolvable conflict in his brain
darla wouldve hda time to be aware of the conflicts she had inherited
and the realization that the conflicts would remain as long as they existed
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Spoilers for early season 4 in my answer before.
>
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > dont confuse your beliefs for the premises of the show
> > i doubt whedon himself believes there is anything like an immortal
> > soul
> > but one of the premise of the show is jewish-christian notions
> > are mostly absolutely true
> >
> > you should evaluate the show based on premises of the story
> > not on the premises of your own beliefs
>
> However, the show has been a bit inconsistent in how it treats the soul
> and lack thereof. Early on we get (Giles to Xander, regarding vampire
> Jesse) "You're not looking at your friend, you're looking at the thing that
> killed him" and (Buffy to Ford regarding his plan to become a vampire)
> "That's not how it works, you die and a demon takes your body." However, in
> Season 4, we get Buffy's soul being taken by demon Kathy and she's still
> Buffy--just a more, um, impulsive than normal Buffy, and demon Kathy remains
> demon Kathy.
actually buffy was becoming violent and homocidal
and especially casually homocidal
which is beyond mere impulsiveness
David L. Burkhead
Maybe, but I think the implication was by that time the soul was gone
since the recovery team was already on its way and her words were "they'll
take the one without a soul" (meaning Buffy). Of course, it then appears
that she's trying to repeat the ritual, but note that there were neither
animal blood nor scorpions to hand. Could well be that that final "attempt"
was a bluff to keep Buffy defending against that particular "threat" instead
of breaking loose and getting far away from the college.
Before Buffy could be taken in Kathy's place, of course, Giles' ritual
reversed the process and restored Buffy's soul to her.
> Kathy's race apparently never had souls, so we have no evidence what
> effect, if any, the acquisition of a soul might have on her. It might
> have no more effect than the stealing of Buffy's class notes.
Well, the premise I was working from was that established early in the
series of soul=identity. In addition, that certainly agrees with most of
the religions I am familiar with which use the concept of "a soul." By
having a soul, then, Kathy would have essentially become Buffy--in the same
way that Faith's mind/body switch later in Season 4 puts Buffy (my take on
that being her "soul") in Faith's body and vice versa).
My point merely being that there's some inconsistency in what the soul is
and how it's treated over the course of the series. Acually, I'm okay with
that. There are few stories of longer length in fantastic settings
(SF/Fantasy/Horror) that can hold up to the level of investigation I tend to
give things. (Among other things, I write SF myself and no how really hard
it is to keep every detail consistent.) I tend to let it slide while I'm
enjoying the story. But I also find it fun to think about, poke at, and
generally play with.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@asmicro.com "While we live, let us live."
David L. Burkhead
news:mair_fheal-B8E70...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Actually, I was engaging in understatement as a form of emphasis.
Sorry that wasn't clear. The "um" was supposed to be a clue.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@asmicro.com "While we live, let us live."
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> >> Hey, given that he said he hasn't seen all of ATS yet (you do, OF
> >> COURSE, plan to, yes, David?), let's try to limit the specific
> >> references.
>
> BTW, thanks for the consideration. It is very much appreciated.
The way this talk is shaping up though, I expect ATS spoilers to
generally fly through these A Second Look threads too fast to shield
anyone from...
-AOQ
(Harmony) Watcher
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-2E6FA0...@news.giganews.com...
saw in Buffyverse even if the Joss god declared it so on a meta-level. See
below.
> Vampires have souls, demonic ones, that have their polarity reversed.
> Being evil, causing pain, become the right things to do. A vampire
> aspires to be more evil.
>
This is a point of recurring debates. I see shades of "grey".
I see your "explanation" as an oversimplification most likely espoused by
Watchers who didn't want to be bothered or didn't care to explain to young
naive Slayers or the general public. Harmony, for example, is a
counterexample to that oversimplication.
Harmony resisted as long as she could, trying not to bite Cordy in her LA
bedroom until phantom Dennis woke up Cordy. After a brief talk when Cordy
mistook Harmony's confession as being lesbian urges instead of vampy urges
to feed, Cordy went back to sleep. Harmony had all night to bite Cordy, but
she did not. Was her desperation for a friend so much stronger than her
urges to feed?
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Don Sample
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-2E6FA0...@news.giganews.com...
> > The soul in the Buffyverse seems to be the source of the Freudian
> > super-ego. It's the thing that gives you the model for how you think
> > you *should* behave. It's what gives us our conscience, and morality.
> >
> > Simply take it away, and you are left with a completely amoral being.
> > One who has no sense of right or wrong. They are neither good, nor evil.
> >
> No, I'm not convinced that such a theory can explain every vamp behavior we
> saw in Buffyverse even if the Joss god declared it so on a meta-level. See
> below.
>
> > Vampires have souls, demonic ones, that have their polarity reversed.
> > Being evil, causing pain, become the right things to do. A vampire
> > aspires to be more evil.
> >
> This is a point of recurring debates. I see shades of "grey".
>
> I see your "explanation" as an oversimplification most likely espoused by
> Watchers who didn't want to be bothered or didn't care to explain to young
> naive Slayers or the general public. Harmony, for example, is a
> counterexample to that oversimplication.
>
> Harmony resisted as long as she could, trying not to bite Cordy in her LA
> bedroom until phantom Dennis woke up Cordy. After a brief talk when Cordy
> mistook Harmony's confession as being lesbian urges instead of vampy urges
> to feed, Cordy went back to sleep. Harmony had all night to bite Cordy, but
> she did not. Was her desperation for a friend so much stronger than her
> urges to feed?
Harmony was lonely. As soon as she found some other companionship, she
turned right around and betrayed Cordy and the others.
And just like you can get people with defective human souls like Ted
Bundy or Jeffry Dalmer, from time to time you might get a vampire who
picked up a defective demonic soul.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: These threads are not spoiler-free.
.
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Two, Episode 17: "Passion"
> Writer: Ty King
> Director: Michael Gershman
I'm always a little startled to remember that Passion was not written or
directed by Joss.
This is one of those "there isn't much I can say that hasn't already been
said" situations, so I'll limit myself to my forte: listing a few parts of
the episode that I really liked. One moment that always gives me shivers
is the scene where Giles calls with the news about Jenny, and especially
the satisfied little smile Angel shows after he sees Buffy's reaction.
One moment that always brings a tear to my eye is the confrontation
between Buffy and Giles outside the factory, when Buffy first decks Giles
and then holds onto him like they're both drowning. And one moment that
on first viewing left me with my jaw hanging open, thinking "Holy fuck,
that's brilliant" was the very last shot of Jenny's floppy disk getting
lost.
Passion really works because of the emotional wringer it puts you through,
but there's also a surprising amount of humor in there. Cordy trading
cars with her grandmother because she's afraid Angelus can get into hers
is always worth a laugh -- or rather, Giles's reaction is. (Flash forwrd
to AtS's Spin the Bottle, when teenage-redux Cordy tells the vamp to take
the other girl. "She's all neck!") Even better is Willow thinking that, as
a librarian, Giles might not have realized that Buffy had sex with Angel,
and Giles's reaction to *that*. We also get the "Does this look like a
Barnes & Noble?" gag here. Is there any humor like library humor?
> Rating: Excellent (up from Good)
Excellent, and close enough to the border of SUPERLATIVE that it might
slip across. It's one of the constants in the rotating group of 12 or 15
episodes that I refer to as my top 10.
> Season Two, Episode 18: "Killed By Death"
> Writers: Dean Batali and Rob Des Hotel
> Director: Deran Sarafian
This is one that I've always thought was cruelly underrated. (Making this
one of the few times that conventional wisdom and AOQ agree but I
disagree.) It doesn't have the impact of Passion, of course, and it
doesn't advance the main story arc as much as IOHEFY does, but on its own
I think KBD is one fine episode.
One part that really appeals to me is that KBD explores the idea of Buffy
trying to Slay when her powers are diminished. In the end KBD doesn't do
as much with this idea as it could (that will come in S3), but the teaser
and first post-credits scene are still interesting for showing us our
first good look at a weakened Buffy. Interesting, and for me highly
upsetting, in that good edge-of-my-seat sense of upsetting. Sedated
Buffy's pathetic little "I wanna go home" is heartbreaking. BTW, that
first scene in the emergency room is a nice "oner." We don't see too many
of those in non-Joss episodes, do we?
Unfortunately, KBD fails to use weakened Buffy to its advantage in the
final fight scene. It's an okay scene, with the cuts between Buffy's POV
with the monster visible and Xander's POV when it's invisible to liven
things up a bit, but on the whole it feels routine. It would have been a
lot more interesting if Buffy was more obviously handicapped by the fever
(as she was earlier, staggering around the halls), so that there was more
of a clear tradeoff between being able to see her foe and being able to
fight it, and the audience wasn't quite so blithely certain that Buffy
will defeat it after a few good punches and kicks. This would also have
had the added benefit of paralleling the fight with Angelus in the teaser
(except for the result).
Aside from the sick Buffy theme, I absolutely love some of those "good
character moments" that AOQ mentioned. The best is surely the
Angel-Xander confrontation outside Buffy's room. Note these lines --
Angel: "It must eat you up that I got there first." Xander: "You're gonna
die, and I'm gonna be there." Does Xander mean that he's going to be
there to watch Buffy kill Angel? Or does he mean that he's going to be at
the "there" that Angel got to first? As is true in so many of these
situations, I think the best answer is "C. Both." Much like in Phases,
the shadow of Angelus adds considerable depth to an episode that isn't
directly concerned with the Angelus arc.
Other nice scenes that I'll just mention briefly: Giles and Joyce's
conversation. Xander and Cordy's bickering, followed by the nice wordless
scene where she brings him coffee and donuts. (I like what OBS says about
Cordy's initial jealousy and later understanding.) The first sighting of
the Kindestod. The flashbacks to Buffy at age 8. The security guard who
thinks Dr. Misdirect is a great man because he understands that sometimes,
children die. It's interesting to hear this grim little truth from such a
minor, disposable character. And while Cordy is sometimes a bit
cartoonish, it leads to some nice laughs with Giles, when his polite
manner slips at the prospect of working with Cordy, and when he points out
to her that bringing gifts to the hospitalized is traditional among, well,
people.
> is blah, screaming kids are annoying,
While the screaming is indeed annoying, otherwise the kids are pretty
good, by kid standards. Agreed with Don about it being nice that the kids
actually try to escape (albeit in an age-appropriate way), instead of just
sitting there screaming while waiting to be killed.
> bad medico-babble is annoying
> (this is my first of several admonitions to the writers to stop
> setting episodes in hospitals until they get some accuracy consultants
> or something),
Now you know how I feel almost every time the shows mention a historical
event before about 1970....
> Rating: Decent
Definitely Good for me. I'd call it better than Phases, BBB *and* GF, and
it adds to rather than interrupts late S2's run of wonderfully
heart-wrenching episodes. Admittedly, this is one of those eps that earns
its Good mostly for things other than the main MOTW plotline.
> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
.
>
> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much "subtle"
> as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed by a dead kid
> who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy forgive herself for
> turning Angel dark and/or not killing him still doesn't make a
> tremendous deal of sense to me.
I think it works best if you don't look for direct parallels between the
James/Grace trgedy and Buffy's situation with Angel. Instead, J/G is its
own unique story that also happens to make Buffy take a second look at her
own mental state.
> Nor does how having her kiss and wake
> up with her eyes closed, quietly breathing "Angel..." represents
> understanding what has to be done, or whatever.
I agree with those who argue that the kiss did not lead to any epiphany
for Buffy. It was just a moment when Buffy could almost believe that her
boyfiend was back, a moment exquisitely (and Mutant-Enemyishly) painful
for her, but not the critical moment of the episode for Buffy's
development.
> count; I mostly watch IOHEFY as just an unusual ghost story with a few
> of our stars playing against type a little. Fortunately, said ghost
> story is done well enough to hold one's interest, by a comfortable
> margin.
Agreed there. Even if the emotional subtext for Buffy and Angel was
removed, this would still be a pretty satisfactory MOTW episode.
> analytical game, it's very much an act-four episode. The deserted
> school pulsating with mystical insects or whatever is one of the
> nicest visual backdrops in the series, particularly when the extremely
> tender denouement is set against it.
The mystical wasps are okay, but I really like the cutting between
James/Grace and Buffy/Angel. James: "Don't walk away from me--" Buffy:
"Bitch!"
Interesting that Angel's demon-soul combo can fight off Eyghon in TDA, but
his demon part by itself is helpless against spirit possession in this
episode.
> Rating: Good
Agreed. I'd say IOHEFY is a higher-quality episode than KBD, though I
think I *like* KBD a little better.
> Season Two, Episode 20: "Go Fish"
> Writers: David Fury and Elin Hampton
> Director: David Semel
Here I'm back to agreeing with the conventional wisdom, that GF is fairly
weak, and with AOQ, that GF doesn't feel quite right in this position in
the season's arc. IMO the latter isn't because a lightweight episode
would be inherently wrong for season 2, episode 20, but rather because
*any* episode at this point really should stay better connected to the
Angelus arc than GF does. Phases, BBB and KBD all did a *much* better job
at this.
To me GF feels much more like a season 1 episode than KBD did. I think
it's because the plot's main teen metaphor (steroids bad!, or maybe
over-privileging the jocks bad!) is more of a generic high school lesson
than something of any personal relevance to Buffy and the other main
characters.
> laugh-out-loud funny so much as low-key absurdity, from the blatant
> movie homage
I like to pretend it's actually an homage to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth."
> to the rampaging stock characters to a steroid metaphor
> that's "Beer Bad"-caliber in its blunt (intentional) stupidity.
"Steroids bad!" is at least slightly more intelligent than "beer bad!"
(In my beer-sodden opinion, that is.)
As far as darkness goes, how about the coach throwing Buffy to his boys to
service their "other needs"? Leading to the best line of the episode,
"That's all my reputation needs...." I wonder what the coach's ultimate
fate says about his previous relationship with the boys?
> Rating: Good
I'd only give it a Decent. Definitely more watchable than SAR or BE, but
it's just not that memorable. As mentioned above, more Angelus (or more
serious use of Angleus) could have improved GF quite a lot.
> Additional thoughts on S2D5: That Angel[us] is kind of a dick, huh?
A friend of mine who's really too nice for her own good refers to this as
the period when Angel was "being a jerk," thus raising understatement to
something like a fine art.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
Don Sample
Buffy isn't feeling guilty about what she has to do. She's feeling
guilty about what she has already done. She feels that she already
killed Angel on the night of her seventeenth birthday. That is when he
lost his soul. His body just hasn't lain down and died. It's still
wandering around killing her friends.
"James destroyed the one person he loved the most in a
moment of blind passion. And that's not something you forgive.
No matter why he did what he did. And no matter if he knows
now that it was wrong and selfish and stupid, it is just
something he's going to have to live with."
"He canšt live with it, Buff," says Xander. "He's dead."
Buffy looks around at the rest of them, and walks off into
the kitchen.
"Okay. Over identify much?" asks Cordy.
>
> > ANGEL: Don't do this.
> > BUFFY: But-but I killed you.
> > ANGEL: It was an accident. It wasn't your fault.
> > BUFFY: Oh, it *is* my fault. How could I...
> >
> > (As those familiar with the scene may argue, this is somewhat
> > selective quoting, but it's necessary to do that either way, because
> > it's not a very clear parallel in the first place.)
>
> Making James shot somewhat an accident (it's only somewhat because his rage
> still drove him there with a loaded gun) gives the death some moral
> ambiguity - just as there has been through the season.
Buffy's killing of Angel when they made love was even more of an
accident. James was threatening Grace and waving a loaded gun around,
her death was a logical consequence of his actions. Buffy had no way of
knowing what would happen to Angel when they made love, but she still
blamed herself for it.)
Don Sample
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
99.99999% of the human population are not serial killers.
99.99999% of the vampire population *are* serial killers. Killing vamps
on sight is the sensible thing to do. Waiting around to see if they try
to kill anyone before you stake them is going to end up with a lot more
dead innocents, than just staking all vamps on sight.
Even Harmony, often cited as a vamp that "wasn't that bad" killed
multiple people that we know of.
burt...@hotmail.com
> In article <1182115434.190577.133...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Actually, it's more like 100%. Which means that things *aren't*
actually more complicated than Buffy originally thought. All soulless
vampires are evil, demonic serial killers who should be staked on
sight - just like Buffy believed back in season 1. And this includes
vampires like Spike and Harmony - the only difference is that they
were popular with the writers and/or certain groups of fans, so they
got to stick around.
> Even Harmony, often cited as a vamp that "wasn't that bad" killed
> multiple people that we know of.
And yet Angel and Cordelia just let her walk away even after she tried
to get them killed. And there wasn't even the thin and flimsy excuse
of a pain chip in her case. Complete ridiculousness.
(Harmony) Watcher
vHarmony cared was to have a friend, she could have easily sired Cordy.
There, fed as well as having an eternal friend. Ah, but vHarmony must have
been just too dumb to think of that, right? I don't think so!
Actually, I think our views are more in agreement than otherwise. What we
see differently might be one of degree and dynamics. The scene in front of
Cordy's bed clearly shows an inner struggle inside vHarmony. While you see
it as a struggle between loneliness and hunger, I see it as the result of an
inner struggle between a demon controlled id and the ego and superego of its
former human host.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> cars with her grandmother because she's afraid Angelus can get into hers
> is always worth a laugh -- or rather, Giles's reaction is. (Flash forwrd
also cordy starts hanging garlic from the rearview mirror
Arbitrar Of Quality
> On Jun 17, 9:38 am, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that's not the point at all. The "dogma" is the notion that a
> > vampire looks like the person whose body it's inhabiting, but that
> > that individual is completely gone along with the soul. It's still
> > more or less the way Buffy thinks at this point, although the whole
> > Angel thing may be complicating it.
>
> > FORD: I will become immortal.
> > BUFFY: Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's not
> > how it works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house,
> > and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not
> > you.
> > - "Lie To Me"
>
> > This was part of the initial premise of the series, articulated best
> > in "The Harvest" and "Angel," and was gradually abandoned as the
> > writers and the audience got to know Angel and Spike better. It's
> > often fan-wanked as representing the dogma perpetuated by Watchers and
> > others,
>
> Which is an explanation that doesn't have any support in the show.
> People can sign on to this explanation for the change if they want to,
> but they're just ignoring what it actually is - a retcon.
I have no problem with the occasional retcon when it's such an
improvement over the original story.
[ATS spoilers below]
.
.
.
.
.
> And, I should note, it's not even a consistent rectcon:
>
> Angel: "No. What I do know is that you love this baby, our baby.
> You've bonded with it. You've spent nine months carrying it,
> nourishing it..."
>
> Darla: "No. No, I haven't been nourishing it. I haven't given this
> baby a thing. I'm dead. It's been nourishing me. These feelings that
> I'm having, they're not mine. They're coming from it."
>
> Angel: "You don't know that."
>
> Darla: "Of course I do! We both do. Angel, I don't have a soul. It
> does. And right now that soul is inside of me, but soon, it won't be
> and then..."
>
> Angel: "Darla..."
>
> Darla: "I won't be able to love it. I won't even be able to remember
> that I loved it. (Starts to cry) I want to remember."
I'm not seeing the inconsistency. The notion that vampires can love
and be passionate in a self-serving sort of way, but are unable to
comprehend the entirety of human love is a constant throughout BTVS
and ATS, articulated in "Dear Boy," "Heartthrob," "Lullaby," any
episode featuring your favorite main cast member during BTVS S5 or 6,
and so on. The point relevant to the discussion here is that this
can't be described as a demon having taken up shop inside Darla
without being her. BTVS Darla, resurrected human Darla, re-vamped
Darla, and pseudo-souled pregnant Darla have a continuity of character
also seen with Angel himself - they're the same person.
> > and Buffy learns that things are more complicated as she grows up.
>
> But she doesn't. Not really. All the way up through the end of season
> 7, Buffy is still staking vampires fresh from the grave
> indiscriminately.
Unsouled vampires are still fundamentally evil, even the writers'
favorites. Things are just more complicated. (Insert smiley here or
something.)
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1182063854....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Or, the kid falls for the older lover, is about to be abandoned by him/
her (remember "Surprise?"), gives in to passion in some way, kills him/
her by accident, and is forgiven for it. It kinda works in a vague
way either way.
In another thread, you say:
"Sorry, I don't buy that - and not because of the premise of believing
in a soul. First of all, it's not true - as will be demonstrated in
Becoming.
Angel can very much be returned. Remember that Angel was already
dead. Soul and flesh had already been cleaved. The miracle of Angel
from the
start was the impermanence of that state of separation. And Buffy
knows that. She may not know how to restore Angel, and she may be
running out of
time to get him back, but that's not because it's impossible. Buffy
knows otherwise. She knows it's possible because it had already been
done. So
killing Angelus is more than burying the corpse. It's taking away the
possibility of restoring Angel. And it's giving up on eternal love."
That would explain why "Passion" ends with Buffy saying (and in
voiceover, no less. Characters don't usually hide their feelings in
voiceover) "I can't hold on to the past anymore. Angel has gone.
Nothing's ever gonna bring him back." I'd argue that she does believe
that he's gone, and having the corpse talking and moving around makes
it more hopeless than someone just dying would. The show demonstrates
that Buffy believes that the original person is gone without a soul.
This isn't to contradict the idea that actually killing him represents
taking the final step to giving up love (it does, very much so), just
that it's as big a source of guilt (as opposed to loss) as you think
is so clear.
> > I don't see Buffy seeing too much guilt in killing an unsouled Angel
> > (after all, Joss realized he could go for way more pain than that in
> > "Becoming II," and that's not the part of the story she's so reluctant
> > to share in S3).
>
> I don't understand what you mean. In Faith, Hope and Trick, the news she
> finally let out to Giles and Willow was that Angel's soul had returned
> before she killed him.
>
> However, yes, there was a great deal more pain piled into Becoming than just
> the guilt. I'm not asserting otherwise. I just think that guilt was an
> important part of it.
The point I was trying to make is that I don't see her becoming guilt-
ridden over potentially killing Angelus without the restoration
spell. I'm not suggesting for a minute that it shouldn't be hard for
her, just that I think she'd be capable of doing it anytime
post-"Passion" and moving on. The reason it's more devastating than
that is that Joss goes more for the pain by making sure Angel gets his
soul back (ah, that Willow, always magically making things
better...). That's the part of the story that she keeps to herself
for so long, and the part that drives her over the edge - she
initially tells the others that Angel stayed Angelus, and she killed
him. She hides the fact that it was in fact Angel she had to kill,
innocent of what he'd done and proclaiming his love for her.
> It's still her lover that she's contemplating killing. It's this
> episode that directly addresses that. She kills her lover and is forgiven.
> Just writing that sentence it seems so blatant that I don't get how there
> could be a dispute.
I think it's the guilt thing. You're talking about the rather obscure
notion of pre-emptive guilt. We never actually see her feel guilty
for killing an unsouled Angel, given that that never happens, whereas
we do see her guilt for other things. Buffy feels rationally and
irrationally guilty for damn near everything, and IOHFY suggests that
the actual nature of what one gets forgiven for isn't as important as
how much one needs it. The net effect is that exactly what Buffy
needs absolution for at this particular moment seems to me as clear as
mud, and I'm not particularly invested in teasing it out further
(especially given that it's quite possibly beside the point of what
the episode purports to be about).
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Darla, and pseudo-souled pregnant Darla have a continuity of character
> also seen with Angel himself - they're the same person.
and what exactly is a person?
Mark Myers
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > Hey, given that he said he hasn't seen all of ATS yet (you do, OF
> > COURSE, plan to, yes, David?), let's try to limit the specific
> > references.
>
> and "Redefinition" did nothing to restore my interest. I'll probably return
> to it at some time, but right now, where I'm currently at in the story is a
> little too painful (partly due to some personal issues I'm going through--I
> need something a bit more upbeat right now).
Just my opinion, but the second half of S2 AtS is where the show started
to get very good. I too was thinking of giving it up around the mid-way
point, and I'm glad I didn't.
--
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I have all the specs and diagrams at home.
David L. Burkhead
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:16:06 -0400, David L. Burkhead said...
>> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>> Hey, given that he said he hasn't seen all of ATS yet (you do, OF
>>> COURSE, plan to, yes, David?), let's try to limit the specific
>>> references.
>>
>> Probably. Angel's actions at the end of "Reunion" really turned
>> me off and "Redefinition" did nothing to restore my interest. I'll
>> probably return to it at some time, but right now, where I'm
>> currently at in the story is a little too painful (partly due to
>> some personal issues I'm going through--I need something a bit more
>> upbeat right now).
>
> Just my opinion, but the second half of S2 AtS is where the show
> started
> to get very good. I too was thinking of giving it up around the
> mid-way point, and I'm glad I didn't.
Fair enough. As I said, I'll probably go back to it. It's just in a dark
place right now that I really don't need at this time of my life. I can
rewatch Buffy because the dark times in it are tempered by my having seen
the resolutions later. I don't have that for Angel.
It's not Angel, it's me.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
burt...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 17, 4:23 pm, burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 9:38 am, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, that's not the point at all. The "dogma" is the notion that a
> > > vampire looks like the person whose body it's inhabiting, but that
> > > that individual is completely gone along with the soul. It's still
> > > more or less the way Buffy thinks at this point, although the whole
> > > Angel thing may be complicating it.
>
> > > FORD: I will become immortal.
> > > BUFFY: Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's not
> > > how it works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house,
> > > and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not
> > > you.
> > > - "Lie To Me"
>
> > > This was part of the initial premise of the series, articulated best
> > > in "The Harvest" and "Angel," and was gradually abandoned as the
> > > writers and the audience got to know Angel and Spike better. It's
> > > often fan-wanked as representing the dogma perpetuated by Watchers and
> > > others,
>
> > Which is an explanation that doesn't have any support in the show.
> > People can sign on to this explanation for the change if they want to,
> > but they're just ignoring what it actually is - a retcon.
>
> I have no problem with the occasional retcon when it's such an
> improvement over the original story.
Not everyone agrees that it's an improvement over the original story.
For me, one of the things that initially drew me to BtVS was the way
the show portrayed vampires. Not only did the show not sign on to all
the vampire clichés that tend to run rampant in the genre, it actively
mocked them (see "Lie to Me").
Buffyverse vampires weren't romantic - just brutal and deadly. It was
an interesting and somewhat unique take on them. Meanwhile, Anne Rice
could probably have sued Joss over Spike's characterization from
season 5 onward.
It's just an illustration that the way vampires work changes depending
on which writer you ask on which day of the week. Hell, in Angel's
season 4, Angelus was portrayed as a different entity with completely
different memories than Angel (which went against everything we knew
about Angel up to that point - the whole point of the gypsy curse was
that Angel would remember everything he did while unsouled).
> > > and Buffy learns that things are more complicated as she grows up.
>
> > But she doesn't. Not really. All the way up through the end of season
> > 7, Buffy is still staking vampires fresh from the grave
> > indiscriminately.
>
> Unsouled vampires are still fundamentally evil, even the writers'
> favorites. Things are just more complicated. (Insert smiley here or
> something.)
Again, I'm not seeing the complication. All I see is the writer and/or
fan favorites getting treated differently than all the rest.
Don Sample
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:00 pm, Don Sample <dsam...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > In article <1182115434.190577.133...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > 99.99999% of the human population are not serial killers.
> >
> > 99.99999% of the vampire population *are* serial killers. Killing vamps
> > on sight is the sensible thing to do. Waiting around to see if they try
> > to kill anyone before you stake them is going to end up with a lot more
> > dead innocents, than just staking all vamps on sight.
>
> Actually, it's more like 100%.
We don't have a large enough sample size to say that for sure.
Michael Ikeda
news:EdednZOS6p3jIOjb...@giganews.com:
>
> Maybe, but I think the implication was by that time the soul
> was gone
> since the recovery team was already on its way and her words
> were "they'll take the one without a soul" (meaning Buffy). Of
> course, it then appears that she's trying to repeat the ritual,
> but note that there were neither animal blood nor scorpions to
> hand. Could well be that that final "attempt" was a bluff to
> keep Buffy defending against that particular "threat" instead
> of breaking loose and getting far away from the college.
>
Kathy never manages to take Buffy's entire soul. Near the end of the
fight, Kathy forces Buffy's mouth open and starts to draw the rest of
Buffy's soul out, but Giles finishes the counterspell, the process
reverses and Buffy gets all of her soul back.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
David L. Burkhead
> "David L. Burkhead" <dbur...@sff.net> wrote in
> news:EdednZOS6p3jIOjb...@giganews.com:
>
>
>>
>> Maybe, but I think the implication was by that time the soul
>> was gone
>> since the recovery team was already on its way and her words
>> were "they'll take the one without a soul" (meaning Buffy). Of
>> course, it then appears that she's trying to repeat the ritual,
>> but note that there were neither animal blood nor scorpions to
>> hand. Could well be that that final "attempt" was a bluff to
>> keep Buffy defending against that particular "threat" instead
>> of breaking loose and getting far away from the college.
>>
>
> Kathy never manages to take Buffy's entire soul. Near the end of the
> fight, Kathy forces Buffy's mouth open and starts to draw the rest of
> Buffy's soul out, but Giles finishes the counterspell, the process
> reverses and Buffy gets all of her soul back.
Except, as I mentioned above, she didn't have key ingredients of the ritual.
Neither blood nor scorpion was anywhere to be found. Thus, the most likely
explanation as I see is that she was running a bluff. Buffy's attempts to
defend herself against this bogus ritual attempt disguises the real
threat--simply keeping her there until daddy demon shows up. Or it was just
a blooper--the director, continuity editor, and so forth simply forgot that
they'd established this ritual as involving the forced injestion of animal
blood and scorpions crawling on the victim's belly.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
Michael Ikeda
> Michael Ikeda wrote:
>> "David L. Burkhead" <dbur...@sff.net> wrote in
>> news:EdednZOS6p3jIOjb...@giganews.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, but I think the implication was by that time the
>>> soul was gone
>>> since the recovery team was already on its way and her words
>>> were "they'll take the one without a soul" (meaning Buffy).
>>> Of course, it then appears that she's trying to repeat the
>>> ritual, but note that there were neither animal blood nor
>>> scorpions to hand. Could well be that that final "attempt"
>>> was a bluff to keep Buffy defending against that particular
>>> "threat" instead of breaking loose and getting far away from
>>> the college.
>>>
>>
>> Kathy never manages to take Buffy's entire soul. Near the end
>> of the fight, Kathy forces Buffy's mouth open and starts to
>> draw the rest of Buffy's soul out, but Giles finishes the
>> counterspell, the process reverses and Buffy gets all of her
>> soul back.
(Note that Kathy doesn't actually start to draw Buffy's soul out
because Giles' counterspell finishes just at that moment.)
>
> Except, as I mentioned above, she didn't have key ingredients of
> the ritual. Neither blood nor scorpion was anywhere to be found.
Presumably they simply weren't necessary for the last little bit of
the soul-stealing.
> Thus, the most likely explanation as I see is that she was
> running a bluff. Buffy's attempts to defend herself against
> this bogus ritual attempt disguises the real threat--simply
> keeping her there until daddy demon shows up.
Just rewatched the fight. It seems clear to me that Kathy ISN'T
running a bluff, that she hasn't stolen all of Buffy's soul yet.
She devotes a lot of effort to forcing Buffy's mouth open (and had
previously attempted this at different points in the fight before
she succeeds), and then opens her own mouth and draws a breath.
She's clearly preparing to draw the last bits of Buffy's soul out
when Giles' counterspell kicks in.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Two, Episode 17: "Passion"
> > Writer: Ty King
> > Director: Michael Gershman
>
> I'm always a little startled to remember that Passion was not written or
> directed by Joss.
Ty King's only other credited episode is "Some Assembly Required," I
believe. Talk about your night and day.
> IMO the latter isn't because a lightweight episode
> would be inherently wrong for season 2, episode 20, but rather because
> *any* episode at this point really should stay better connected to the
> Angelus arc than GF does. Phases, BBB and KBD all did a *much* better job
> at this.
No disagreement.
> As far as darkness goes, how about the coach throwing Buffy to his boys to
> service their "other needs"? Leading to the best line of the episode,
> "That's all my reputation needs...."
Not just any episode would be able to get the humor/darkness level
just right to make that line (or the "really love their coach" one)
work. Just saying.
I wonder what the coach's ultimate
> fate says about his previous relationship with the boys?
I don't think it has to say anything in particular.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> On Jun 18, 6:41 am, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with the occasional retcon when it's such an
> > improvement over the original story.
>
> Not everyone agrees that it's an improvement over the original story.
> For me, one of the things that initially drew me to BtVS was the way
> the show portrayed vampires. Not only did the show not sign on to all
> the vampire clichés that tend to run rampant in the genre, it actively
> mocked them (see "Lie to Me").
>
> Buffyverse vampires weren't romantic - just brutal and deadly. It was
> an interesting and somewhat unique take on them. Meanwhile, Anne Rice
> could probably have sued Joss over Spike's characterization from
> season 5 onward.
Yet it was the early seasons, not the Spike years, that had Buffy
actually in love with a vampire...
Your post is interesting because it frames a reaction I had as a first-
timer that I hadn't quite understood. By contrast, I never got into
the animalistic portrayal of the vampires in the early seasons, and I
think I complained about the growling. Maybe it was in fact an
attempt to distance the show from the overly romanticized vampires you
everywhere else. The way I see it, the sexual element is a
fundamental part of most vampire stories (which BTVS soon got into),
so why use vampires at all if you're just going to make them generic
monsters?
(At the same time, the _Buffy_ story always dabbled in the element of
vampire seduction without knowing quite what to do with it. In the
LDM, Rutger Hauer's character, despite his decrepit appearance, has
some of that kind of power over Buffy. The sequence in the Master's
church in "Prophecy Girl" also reminds me of it, although it doesn't
play it in a sexualized way. The series played around with the
concept from time to time: there's the Dracula episode, and a few
Angelus moments, and finally found an evil seducer type with Spike.)
What I think the show needed to last is to have Buffy fight something
more interesting than All Evil, All The Time. That's where the
retconning helps; vampires can be something like human rather than
straight demon. The Buffyverse rarely came up with outright villains
with much depth, but it did start to discover ways to make them
interesting. In S2, that was handled through a mix of raw charisma
and resonance with the main character with the triumvirate of Spike,
Drusilla, and Angel. The entertainment value helps, but what makes
the story really successful is the complication. In this season's
case, it's the fact that Angelus is Angel, so even when there's not
much of a question of morality, there's a reason for the situation to
get emotionally messy for our hero.
>
>
> > [ATS spoilers below]
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> .
.
.
> > The point relevant to the discussion here is that this
> > can't be described as a demon having taken up shop inside Darla
> > without being her. BTVS Darla, resurrected human Darla, re-vamped
> > Darla, and pseudo-souled pregnant Darla have a continuity of character
> > also seen with Angel himself - they're the same person.
>
> It's just an illustration that the way vampires work changes depending
> on which writer you ask on which day of the week. Hell, in Angel's
> season 4, Angelus was portrayed as a different entity with completely
> different memories than Angel (which went against everything we knew
> about Angel up to that point - the whole point of the gypsy curse was
> that Angel would remember everything he did while unsouled).
Joss and company aren't the most consistent of teams. To be fair, in
that example, it's not completely different memories, it's that the
Beast somehow has a different effect with his dimension-wiping thing
on a vampire with a split personality than on everyone else. (This
may or may not have been Cordelia coming up with a story to get them
to desoul Angel, but the others seem to buy into it pretty readily.
Hey, I didn't say it made sense, just that it's not a portrayal of
separate memories in general.)
-AOQ
David L. Burkhead
news:tYKdnb9rUNZsjurb...@rcn.net...
This is at least as much assumption as the "running a bluff hypothesis."
Giles' research said that the blood (at least--I'd have to go back and see
if he'd mentioned the scoprions) was required for this ritual. He did not
say "blood is required for the early parts then not for the latter ones.
> > Thus, the most likely explanation as I see is that she was
> > running a bluff. Buffy's attempts to defend herself against
> > this bogus ritual attempt disguises the real threat--simply
> > keeping her there until daddy demon shows up.
>
> Just rewatched the fight. It seems clear to me that Kathy ISN'T
> running a bluff, that she hasn't stolen all of Buffy's soul yet.
>
> She devotes a lot of effort to forcing Buffy's mouth open (and had
> previously attempted this at different points in the fight before
> she succeeds), and then opens her own mouth and draws a breath.
> She's clearly preparing to draw the last bits of Buffy's soul out
> when Giles' counterspell kicks in.
All things exactly consistent with the running a bluff hypothesis. After
all, to be convincing, it has to look like she's really attempting to
perform the ritual. Note, however, that she only tries to open the mouth by
main muscle rather than the simplest method for getting somebody to open
their mouth--hold their nose. This suggests more an effort to kill time
than to actually get the mouth open.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@asmicro.com "While we live, let us live."
Horace LaBadie
If she had Buffy's soul, the intelligent thing to do would have been to
vacate the premises and leave Buffy to herself. Even in its original
form, the plan would have succeeded only until Kathy's father realized
that he had the wrong girl, which would have taken about two seconds.
(Assuming he survived the pummeling that Buffy would have administered
after he tried to remove the Slayer's face.) But, having lost her
disguise, Kathy is still sticking around to get caught. Why? Because she
thought that even then she had a chance to get Buffy's soul and decamp
with it before her father arrived.
HWL
burt...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 18, 11:51 am, burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:41 am, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have no problem with the occasional retcon when it's such an
> > > improvement over the original story.
>
> > Not everyone agrees that it's an improvement over the original story.
> > For me, one of the things that initially drew me to BtVS was the way
> > the show portrayed vampires. Not only did the show not sign on to all
> > the vampire clichés that tend to run rampant in the genre, it actively
> > mocked them (see "Lie to Me").
>
> > Buffyverse vampires weren't romantic - just brutal and deadly. It was
> > an interesting and somewhat unique take on them. Meanwhile, Anne Rice
> > could probably have sued Joss over Spike's characterization from
> > season 5 onward.
>
> Yet it was the early seasons, not the Spike years, that had Buffy
> actually in love with a vampire...
Yeah, but the later seasons had Buffy in a mutually abusive
relationship with a vampire and featured several scenes of them having
sex. If I have to choose, I'll take the love storyline.
> Your post is interesting because it frames a reaction I had as a first-
> timer that I hadn't quite understood. By contrast, I never got into
> the animalistic portrayal of the vampires in the early seasons, and I
> think I complained about the growling. Maybe it was in fact an
> attempt to distance the show from the overly romanticized vampires you
> everywhere else. The way I see it, the sexual element is a
> fundamental part of most vampire stories (which BTVS soon got into),
> so why use vampires at all if you're just going to make them generic
> monsters?
I saw it as an attempt to subvert that aspect of the genre. Basically,
Joss was saying "Hey, wait a minute. Vampires are serial killers.
That's really not romantic or sexy, when you think about it." I
thought it was a great message - fresh and unique.
I was never into "vampires" before BtVS. I'm still not. I don't like
Anne Rice, I don't think vampires are sexy. I liked them on BtVS
because the show rejected that portrayal of them - at least, up until
a very vocal group of fans decided that a serial killer WAS sexy.
> What I think the show needed to last is to have Buffy fight something
> more interesting than All Evil, All The Time. That's where the
> retconning helps; vampires can be something like human rather than
> straight demon.
But they didn't need to use vampires to do that. They managed a well-
written and compelling redemption story with Faith.
The problem is that "Vampires are completely, irredeemably evil" is
what we're told from day one on the show. It's the moral foundation of
the Buffyverse. And the idea that a vampire without a soul can
genuinely change and seek redemption calls that entire moral
foundation into question. It raises a lot of ethical and moral issues
that the show then never even addressed. Which leads me to believe
that Joss and the rest of the writers were sloppy and didn't think the
ramifications of their retcon through. And that was a big
disappointment to me after what I'd come to expect from the first few
seasons.
David L. Burkhead
news:1182275651.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 18, 4:37 pm, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> Your post is interesting because it frames a reaction I had as a first-
>> timer that I hadn't quite understood. By contrast, I never got into
>> the animalistic portrayal of the vampires in the early seasons, and I
>> think I complained about the growling. Maybe it was in fact an
>> attempt to distance the show from the overly romanticized vampires you
>> everywhere else. The way I see it, the sexual element is a
>> fundamental part of most vampire stories (which BTVS soon got into),
>> so why use vampires at all if you're just going to make them generic
>> monsters?
>
>I saw it as an attempt to subvert that aspect of the genre. Basically,
>Joss was saying "Hey, wait a minute. Vampires are serial killers.
>That's really not romantic or sexy, when you think about it." I
>thought it was a great message - fresh and unique.
Unfortunately, it's neither all that fresh or all that unique. Braham
Stoker's original "Dracula" was an animal. There was nothing really
"romantic" about him. His "seduction" of female characters was about power
and dominance, not sexiness and romance.
More "return to the genre's roots" than "fresh and unique."
burt...@hotmail.com
> <burt1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182275651.9...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Jun 18, 4:37 pm, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >> Your post is interesting because it frames a reaction I had as a first-
> >> timer that I hadn't quite understood. By contrast, I never got into
> >> the animalistic portrayal of the vampires in the early seasons, and I
> >> think I complained about the growling. Maybe it was in fact an
> >> attempt to distance the show from the overly romanticized vampires you
> >> everywhere else. The way I see it, the sexual element is a
> >> fundamental part of most vampire stories (which BTVS soon got into),
> >> so why use vampires at all if you're just going to make them generic
> >> monsters?
>
> >I saw it as an attempt to subvert that aspect of the genre. Basically,
> >Joss was saying "Hey, wait a minute. Vampires are serial killers.
> >That's really not romantic or sexy, when you think about it." I
> >thought it was a great message - fresh and unique.
>
> Unfortunately, it's neither all that fresh or all that unique. Braham
> Stoker's original "Dracula" was an animal. There was nothing really
> "romantic" about him. His "seduction" of female characters was about power
> and dominance, not sexiness and romance.
>
> More "return to the genre's roots" than "fresh and unique."
Well, by today's standards.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > actually in love with a vampire...
>
> Yeah, but the later seasons had Buffy in a mutually abusive
> relationship with a vampire and featured several scenes of them having
> sex. If I have to choose, I'll take the love storyline.
buffy never loved vampires
she loved men who were subletting from demons
but it was their humanity - their soul - that she wanted
something blue was her chance to have a relation with a vampire
the soulless creature of the night she was going to wed
the instant the spell was removed she responded in disgust
and concluded that she was over the whole bad boy thing
> > What I think the show needed to last is to have Buffy fight something
> > more interesting than All Evil, All The Time. That's where the
> > retconning helps; vampires can be something like human rather than
> > straight demon.
>
> But they didn't need to use vampires to do that. They managed a well-
> written and compelling redemption story with Faith.
i dont recall any soulless vampires as being not evil
however as buffy defined her job it was not to slay evil nor to kill humnas
but to deal with demons that were threats to humans
demons that were not threats (like clem or chipped spike) were left alone
harmony was evasive and low enough priority that she got away
what did change as the world expanded was that not all demons are threats
and so buffy would let them live as long as they remained not a threat
David L. Burkhead
>>> Yet it was the early seasons, not the Spike years, that had Buffy
>>> actually in love with a vampire...
>>
>> Yeah, but the later seasons had Buffy in a mutually abusive
>> relationship with a vampire and featured several scenes of them
>> having sex. If I have to choose, I'll take the love storyline.
>
> buffy never loved vampires
> she loved men who were subletting from demons
> but it was their humanity - their soul - that she wanted
>
> something blue was her chance to have a relation with a vampire
> the soulless creature of the night she was going to wed
> the instant the spell was removed she responded in disgust
> and concluded that she was over the whole bad boy thing
>
>>> What I think the show needed to last is to have Buffy fight
>>> something more interesting than All Evil, All The Time. That's
>>> where the retconning helps; vampires can be something like human
>>> rather than straight demon.
>>
>> But they didn't need to use vampires to do that. They managed a well-
>> written and compelling redemption story with Faith.
>
> i dont recall any soulless vampires as being not evil
Well, I'd say Spike does a pretty good impersonation of one by the time he
goes on his vision quest. If nothing else, once he finds out that he can
hurt Buffy he doesn't go on his "kill the slayer" rampages.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"David L. Burkhead" <dbur...@sff.net> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> >>> Yet it was the early seasons, not the Spike years, that had Buffy
> >>> actually in love with a vampire...
> >>
> >> Yeah, but the later seasons had Buffy in a mutually abusive
> >> relationship with a vampire and featured several scenes of them
> >> having sex. If I have to choose, I'll take the love storyline.
> >
> > buffy never loved vampires
> > she loved men who were subletting from demons
> > but it was their humanity - their soul - that she wanted
> >
> > something blue was her chance to have a relation with a vampire
> > the soulless creature of the night she was going to wed
> > the instant the spell was removed she responded in disgust
> > and concluded that she was over the whole bad boy thing
> >
> >>> What I think the show needed to last is to have Buffy fight
> >>> something more interesting than All Evil, All The Time. That's
> >>> where the retconning helps; vampires can be something like human
> >>> rather than straight demon.
> >>
> >> But they didn't need to use vampires to do that. They managed a well-
> >> written and compelling redemption story with Faith.
> >
> > i dont recall any soulless vampires as being not evil
>
> Well, I'd say Spike does a pretty good impersonation of one by the time he
> goes on his vision quest. If nothing else, once he finds out that he can
> hurt Buffy he doesn't go on his "kill the slayer" rampages.
rape is not evil?
also spike doesnt walkabout driven by morality
he is motivated by lust
he thinks in order to screw buffy again he has to get a soul like angel
he gets more than he bargains for
Mel
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> The problem is that "Vampires are completely, irredeemably evil" is
> what we're told from day one on the show. It's the moral foundation of
> the Buffyverse. And the idea that a vampire without a soul can
> genuinely change and seek redemption calls that entire moral
> foundation into question. It raises a lot of ethical and moral issues
> that the show then never even addressed. Which leads me to believe
> that Joss and the rest of the writers were sloppy and didn't think the
> ramifications of their retcon through. And that was a big
> disappointment to me after what I'd come to expect from the first few
> seasons.
>
When did Angel show up? First season, first episode. Basically, Day 1.
When did we learn he was a vampire with a soul seeking redemption? First
season, seventh episode. So, maybe Day 1.5.
If this is indeed a problem, the problem was there from the get-go, with
no retconning required.
Mel
Daniel Damouth
[AOQ said:]
>> Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
>> Here's an example of an a thematic episode that's not so much
>> "subtle" as "hopelessly muddled." How exactly being possessed
>> by a dead kid who's hot for teacher is supposed to help Buffy
>> forgive herself for turning Angel dark and/or not killing him
>> still doesn't make a tremendous deal of sense to me.
>
> What it does is force her to confront an issue that she's been
> avoiding: that she HASN'T forgiven herself and that she needs to.
The issue of blame (and especially self-blame) for the Angelus incident
is central to the entire arc; Buffy's struggle with her guilt is a part
of season 3 and recurs in later seasons.
The issue led to some of the early moral arguments in this newsgroup,
and those, too, recurred.
-Dan Damouth
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Unfortunately, it's neither all that fresh or all that unique. Braham
> Stoker's original "Dracula" was an animal. There was nothing really
> "romantic" about him. His "seduction" of female characters was about power
> and dominance, not sexiness and romance.
>
> More "return to the genre's roots" than "fresh and unique."
It wasn't romantic, but Stoker's version of the vampire legends is
extremely sexually charged.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> On Jun 18, 4:37 pm, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> I was never into "vampires" before BtVS. I'm still not. I don't like
> Anne Rice, I don't think vampires are sexy. I liked them on BtVS
> because the show rejected that portrayal of them - at least, up until
> a very vocal group of fans decided that a serial killer WAS sexy.
But enough about Angel! (I kid, and such.)
> The problem is that "Vampires are completely, irredeemably evil" is
> what we're told from day one on the show. It's the moral foundation of
> the Buffyverse.
And that point gets subverted, as Mel points out, from day 1.5.
> And the idea that a vampire without a soul can
> genuinely change and seek redemption calls that entire moral
> foundation into question.
I wouldn't characterize Spike as seeking redemption, exactly... the
whole chip storyline helped to delineate the extent to which a
determined vampire could genuinely change, and the extent to which he
couldn't. At any time prior to the last few seconds of S6, Spike may
be a changed monster, but he's not a man, and I personally was always
pretty interested in seeing where the line between them was. Talking
more in generalities now, I don't see calling the absolute truths we
previously held into question as, in itself, a bad thing.
> It raises a lot of ethical and moral issues
> that the show then never even addressed. Which leads me to believe
> that Joss and the rest of the writers were sloppy and didn't think the
> ramifications of their retcon through. And that was a big
> disappointment to me after what I'd come to expect from the first few
> seasons.
Here I don't particularly disagree with the point you've made
elsewhere, about Spike's ability to go on his soul-quest raising some
fundamental issues about the nature of vampirism that the show didn't
seem interested in addressing (or even aware of). It's a flaw, but
it's one that doesn't bother me to any great extent just because I
also agree with the point that several people have made: Spike's
situation was an extremely unique confluence of people and events,
highly unlikely to ever be repeated. For Buffy, a soldier in a battle
with lives on the line, the most sensible course of action is to
continue to stake newly risen vampires on sight.
-AOQ
burt...@hotmail.com
> burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The problem is that "Vampires are completely, irredeemably evil" is
> > what we're told from day one on the show. It's the moral foundation of
> > the Buffyverse. And the idea that a vampire without a soul can
> > genuinely change and seek redemption calls that entire moral
> > foundation into question. It raises a lot of ethical and moral issues
> > that the show then never even addressed. Which leads me to believe
> > that Joss and the rest of the writers were sloppy and didn't think the
> > ramifications of their retcon through. And that was a big
> > disappointment to me after what I'd come to expect from the first few
> > seasons.
>
> When did Angel show up? First season, first episode. Basically, Day 1.
> When did we learn he was a vampire with a soul seeking redemption? First
> season, seventh episode. So, maybe Day 1.5.
I said a vampire WITHOUT a soul. Read my post again.
Angel was there from day one, but he was the exception that proved the
rule. It's not a problem because he was the only exception, and the
show gave a reason for the exception that didn't damage the mythology
in any way.
burt...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 19, 12:54 pm, burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The problem is that "Vampires are completely, irredeemably evil" is
> > what we're told from day one on the show. It's the moral foundation of
> > the Buffyverse.
>
> And that point gets subverted, as Mel points out, from day 1.5.
It's not really subverted, though, because Angel is unique. He's the
only vampire with a soul, and that's what makes him different.
> Talking
> more in generalities now, I don't see calling the absolute truths we
> previously held into question as, in itself, a bad thing.
You know, I would probably agree with you here - *if* this had been
addressed on the show. If someone had said, "Hey, look at Spike - he's
a soulless vampire and he helped protect Dawn from the demon bikers,
maybe soulless vampires aren't all bad," that might have led to some
interesting moral and ethical questions for our heroes to face.
But this never happened. Those absolute truths were never called into
question for anyone but Spike. Buffy was still staking vampires right
out of the grave as late as "Lies My Parents Told Me," and not a
single word was said about it. So all I see is that ridiculous double
standard I mentioned before, which leads me to believe that Joss & Co.
just didn't think about it that much. Or at all.
David L. Burkhead
In a rapish kind of way.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
George W Harris
<dbur...@sff.net> wrote:
:Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
:> On Jun 19, 2:11 pm, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote:
:>
:>> Unfortunately, it's neither all that fresh or all that unique.
:>> Braham Stoker's original "Dracula" was an animal. There was nothing
:>> really "romantic" about him. His "seduction" of female characters
:>> was about power and dominance, not sexiness and romance.
:>>
:>> More "return to the genre's roots" than "fresh and unique."
:>
:> It wasn't romantic, but Stoker's version of the vampire legends is
:> extremely sexually charged.
:
:In a rapish kind of way.
Not really. The subtext was all about how
dangerous unbridled feminine sexuality is and how it
must be restrained.
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
David L. Burkhead
> On Jun 19, 9:19 pm, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 12:54 pm, burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that "Vampires are completely, irredeemably evil" is
>>> what we're told from day one on the show. It's the moral foundation
>>> of the Buffyverse.
>>
>> And that point gets subverted, as Mel points out, from day 1.5.
>
> It's not really subverted, though, because Angel is unique. He's the
> only vampire with a soul, and that's what makes him different.
>
>> Talking
>> more in generalities now, I don't see calling the absolute truths we
>> previously held into question as, in itself, a bad thing.
>
> You know, I would probably agree with you here - *if* this had been
> addressed on the show. If someone had said, "Hey, look at Spike - he's
> a soulless vampire and he helped protect Dawn from the demon bikers,
> maybe soulless vampires aren't all bad," that might have led to some
> interesting moral and ethical questions for our heroes to face.
Spike was also unique. That chip in his head preventing him from harming
"any living thing" put him in a position to redirect his violent urges
toward "non-living" things (quotes because how the Initiative apparently
defined "living" and "non-living" does not really match my own)--in this
case demons and other vampires. It lead to him _having_ to think about
Buffy in terms other than "kill the Slayer." The process was gradual, with
frequent reversions to type, but culminates with him deliberately going out
to get William's soul back. And in this I disagree with what mariposas rand
mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges (and thank Kolordny for cut and paste)
claimed as his motivation. In his short monologues it's not "I'm going to
do what I need so I can screw you" it's "I'm going to give you what you
deserve." She deserves a "man" (for sufficient values of "man") not a
monster. As for MRMFGTDA's "got more than he bargained for" he saw
_exactly_ what having a soul did to Angel. He knew exactly what he was
"bargaining for."
In fact, IMO, in this manner Spike is actually a more admirable character
than Angel. Angel had to have his soul forced upon him both times that I
have seen him regain it. Spike deliberately set out to get it back.
> But this never happened. Those absolute truths were never called into
> question for anyone but Spike.
Who was himself a unique case, different from Angel's true, but that's kind
of what "unique" means.
> Buffy was still staking vampires right
> out of the grave as late as "Lies My Parents Told Me," and not a
> single word was said about it.
That there exists two unique sets of extraordinary circumstances (we
never see any other chipped beings from the Initiative released into the
wild nor any other vampires given that Gypsy curse), does not change the
general rule.
> So all I see is that ridiculous double
> standard I mentioned before, which leads me to believe that Joss & Co.
> just didn't think about it that much. Or at all.
<shrug> I don't see it that way. Spike's situation is every bit as
unique as Angel's. And we get introduced in Season 2 to the concept that
there are Demons and Demons (not all "Demons" are evil) via the character of
Whistler. That, however, does not appear to be true of vampires. Excepting
extraordinary circumstances, vampires _are_ evil.
Actually, I could even dispute the "evil" for vampires in general. Is an
old lion, no longer able to catch its normal prey "evil" because it turns
mankiller? Vampires are no more human than that lion. Looking at humans as
"happy meals with legs" is no more "evil" for vampires than for lions--but
that doesn't change what you have to do. So whether one considers vampires
acting like vampires as "evil" or not, they are, barring extraordinary
circumstances, a serious threat. Both Angel and Spike killed a great many
before their changes. Staking them right out of the grave would have been
entirely appropriate in their cases too. In Angel's case, Buffy didn't
encounter him until he'd stopped being a threat. As for Spike, Buffy made a
deal with him once (Becoming) because she needed his help to combat an even
greater evil. Aside from that, she didn't stop trying to stake him until he
stopped being a threat--and even then, there was the motivation that he had
valuable information, so she had a use for him in a still-able-to-talk form
(which dusting him makes kind of difficult). And by the time that had
played out, he had discovered that he could kill demons so, will he nill he,
he was starting to fight on the side of the "good guys."
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> do what I need so I can screw you" it's "I'm going to give you what you
> deserve." She deserves a "man" (for sufficient values of "man") not a
because she can only love a man
even if he can hit her spike cannot overpower buffy
so to get her he gets what angel had and he didnt
> monster. As for MRMFGTDA's "got more than he bargained for" he saw
> _exactly_ what having a soul did to Angel. He knew exactly what he was
> "bargaining for."
the whole chapel scene at the end of beneath you
he didnt realize how the guilt would hit him
-angel shouldve warned me-
> > So all I see is that ridiculous double
> > standard I mentioned before, which leads me to believe that Joss & Co.
> > just didn't think about it that much. Or at all.
>
> <shrug> I don't see it that way. Spike's situation is every bit as
> unique as Angel's. And we get introduced in Season 2 to the concept that
> there are Demons and Demons (not all "Demons" are evil) via the character of
> Whistler. That, however, does not appear to be true of vampires. Excepting
> extraordinary circumstances, vampires _are_ evil.
the ongoing debate in real life is whether humans are just biological machines
just a complicated but ultimately explicable mass of rules learned and inherited
or is there something else inside us
a free will a self consciousness a soul
something more than flesh and blood
(and while many people are willing to declare they have an absolutely true answer
in absolute truth all such answers are declarations of faith not fact)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"David L. Burkhead" <dbur...@sff.net> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2:11 pm, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, it's neither all that fresh or all that unique.
> >> Braham Stoker's original "Dracula" was an animal. There was nothing
> >> really "romantic" about him. His "seduction" of female characters
> >> was about power and dominance, not sexiness and romance.
> >>
> >> More "return to the genre's roots" than "fresh and unique."
> >
> > It wasn't romantic, but Stoker's version of the vampire legends is
> > extremely sexually charged.
>
> In a rapish kind of way.
not something discussed too often in polite circles
but sex is often about dominance rather than reproduction or romance
in some species males show dominance over other males by mounting them
as if for intercourse
thats why i think angelus used spike if dru or darla werent available
not to show affection but to show that angelus was alpha male of their pack
David L. Burkhead
news:mair_fheal-26251...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Sure, rape is evil. The change wasn't instantaneous; it was a work in
progress. A hundred years of habit takes time to overcome and one can
expect considerable backsliding.
> also spike doesnt walkabout driven by morality
> he is motivated by lust
> he thinks in order to screw buffy again he has to get a soul like angel
His motivation, spoken to himself, was to "give her what she deserves."
And when we see what she "deserves" it's his being an ensouled being rather
than getting the chip out so he can go back to killing her and everyone
around her.
> he gets more than he bargains for
I think he had a pretty good grasp, at least intellectually, of what he
bargained for. He saw what getting a sould did to Angel. Remember we've
seen in flashback at various times that Spike and Angel still had some
association for some time after Angel had his soul thrust upon him. As for
his "Angel should have warned me", that's an emotional reaction to no matter
how well you think you're prepared for something, many times you actually
aren't. (Examples from my own life include first time sex and beginning my
marriage.)
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@asmicro.com "While we live, let us live."
David L. Burkhead
news:9u4i735ae0m5aj1ho...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:08:38 -0400, "David L. Burkhead"
> <dbur...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> :Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> :> On Jun 19, 2:11 pm, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote:
> :>
> :>> Unfortunately, it's neither all that fresh or all that unique.
> :>> Braham Stoker's original "Dracula" was an animal. There was nothing
> :>> really "romantic" about him. His "seduction" of female characters
> :>> was about power and dominance, not sexiness and romance.
> :>>
> :>> More "return to the genre's roots" than "fresh and unique."
> :>
> :> It wasn't romantic, but Stoker's version of the vampire legends is
> :> extremely sexually charged.
> :
> :In a rapish kind of way.
>
> Not really. The subtext was all about how
> dangerous unbridled feminine sexuality is and how it
> must be restrained.
??? Did we read the same book? I didn't see that at all.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@asmicro.com "While we live, let us live."
burt...@hotmail.com
> burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 9:19 pm, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> In fact, IMO, in this manner Spike is actually a more admirable character
> than Angel. Angel had to have his soul forced upon him both times that I
> have seen him regain it. Spike deliberately set out to get it back.
Only if you accept the retcon that he went to Africa to get his soul
back and not to get the chip out.
> > But this never happened. Those absolute truths were never called into
> > question for anyone but Spike.
>
> Who was himself a unique case, different from Angel's true, but that's kind
> of what "unique" means.
Come on. You're arguing semantics here. Every vampire is unique. We're
talking about souls.
Look, I don't believe that Spike was genuinely on the path to
redemption before he got his soul back, and I don't think that's what
he went to Africa to get, despite what he (and Joss) later claimed.
But let's say I did buy that canon interpretation that Joss tried to
shove down our throats in the last season.
Suddenly, we have evidence that soulless vampires can grow and change
and become something more than killing machines. But this is never
even mentioned on the show, and Buffy continues to stake them right
out of the ground.
The only conclusion we can draw here is that Buffy doesn't care that
she's not actually killing irredeemably evil demons, but rather,
individuals with the ability to change and do something good with
their (un)lives. And suddenly Buffy starts to look a lot less like a
hero and a lot more like a mass murderer.
Personally, I don't like looking at Buffy that way, but if you buy
Joss's explanation of the Spike "redemption" storyline, there's no way
around it.
> Actually, I could even dispute the "evil" for vampires in general. Is an
> old lion, no longer able to catch its normal prey "evil" because it turns
> mankiller? Vampires are no more human than that lion.
Vampires aren't like lions. They don't just kill for food, they kill
for pleasure. Look at Spike in "School Hard."
"You're too old to eat." (Snaps the man's neck) "But not to kill. I
feel better!"
Vampires aren't animals. They're serial killers.
David L. Burkhead
news:1182357418.8...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 3:55 am, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote:
> > burt1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 9:19 pm, Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In fact, IMO, in this manner Spike is actually a more admirable
character
> > than Angel. Angel had to have his soul forced upon him both times that
I
> > have seen him regain it. Spike deliberately set out to get it back.
>
> Only if you accept the retcon that he went to Africa to get his soul
> back and not to get the chip out.
What retcon? He never said that he was going to get the chip out. Mind
you they were being coy with that "what [Buffy] deserves" bit, never
actually explaining it.
> > > But this never happened. Those absolute truths were never called into
> > > question for anyone but Spike.
> >
> > Who was himself a unique case, different from Angel's true, but that's
kind
> > of what "unique" means.
>
> Come on. You're arguing semantics here. Every vampire is unique. We're
> talking about souls.
No, we're talking about special circumstances.
> Look, I don't believe that Spike was genuinely on the path to
> redemption before he got his soul back, and I don't think that's what
> he went to Africa to get, despite what he (and Joss) later claimed.
You can not believe it all you want, but that's your interpretation and
not supported by the actual stories.
> But let's say I did buy that canon interpretation that Joss tried to
> shove down our throats in the last season.
>
> Suddenly, we have evidence that soulless vampires can grow and change
> and become something more than killing machines. But this is never
> even mentioned on the show, and Buffy continues to stake them right
> out of the ground.
Right out of the ground they are a threat. The only times Buffy stopped
trying to stake (or decapitate, or expose to sunlight, or get to drink holy
water--the various ways in the show to kill a vampire) Spike either when she
needed to cooperate with him to combat a greater evil (how long would Spike
have to live to rack up the 6 billion sent to hell that Acathla was going to
manage in a single evening?) and when he _stopped_ _being_ _a_ _threat_.
Out of all the vampires ever seen or mentioned on the show we have
exactly two who actually sought redemption (three if Darla does so over in
Angel--I haven't gotten that far) through extraordinary and extremely
difficult to reproduce circumstances.
Did you know that it actually possible, albeit extremely unlikely, to
survive and heal from rabies (note, the only cases I am aware of are human,
but there is no reason to expect that the possibility doesn't exist for
other animals)? Yet still standard practice is to put down a rabid animal
as soon as it is found. Does that also imply a double standard? After all,
some _might_ survive and no longer be a danger. Nope. When found, put them
down. However, we wouldn't put down a dog just because it had once had
rabies and managed to recover from it.
> The only conclusion we can draw here is that Buffy doesn't care that
> she's not actually killing irredeemably evil demons, but rather,
> individuals with the ability to change and do something good with
> their (un)lives. And suddenly Buffy starts to look a lot less like a
> hero and a lot more like a mass murderer.
That may be the only conclusion that you can draw. I, however, draw the
conclusion that she's stopping a serious threat to the lives of many people.
We have exactly zero examples of vampires that did not start killing right
out of the graves. Now, if she had a team from the Initiative available to
immediately chip any vampires then capture rather than dusting might be more
appropriate, but that option isn't there.
> Personally, I don't like looking at Buffy that way, but if you buy
> Joss's explanation of the Spike "redemption" storyline, there's no way
> around it.
There are oodles of ways around it. I just gave you one.
> > Actually, I could even dispute the "evil" for vampires in general.
Is an
> > old lion, no longer able to catch its normal prey "evil" because it
turns
> > mankiller? Vampires are no more human than that lion.
>
> Vampires aren't like lions. They don't just kill for food, they kill
> for pleasure. Look at Spike in "School Hard."
> "You're too old to eat." (Snaps the man's neck) "But not to kill. I
> feel better!"
Ah, that old canard about animals only killing to survive. Leopards
(among others) kill even when they don't particularly need to eat. They
pretty clearly love to kill. Look beyond the Marlin Perkins and Steve Irwin
school of animal behavior.
> Vampires aren't animals. They're serial killers.
So is any predator on the planet by the standards you are applying to
vampires. Vampires without souls are not human. You cannot legitimately
judge them by human standards.
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@asmicro.com "While we live, let us live."
Michael Ikeda
news:1182316742.0...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> Here I don't particularly disagree with the point you've made
> elsewhere, about Spike's ability to go on his soul-quest raising
> some fundamental issues about the nature of vampirism that the
> show didn't seem interested in addressing (or even aware of).
> It's a flaw, but it's one that doesn't bother me to any great
> extent just because I also agree with the point that several
> people have made: Spike's situation was an extremely unique
> confluence of people and events, highly unlikely to ever be
> repeated. For Buffy, a soldier in a battle with lives on the
> line, the most sensible course of action is to continue to stake
> newly risen vampires on sight.
>
Probably a more important question is later raised by the example of
another not particularly extraordinary vampire. Not whether soulless
vampires can be redeemed, but whether they can be domesticated.
(Although the second question would seem to be inherent in the fact
of vampires being intelligent creatures.)
However, the Scoobies don't really have the means or the inclination
to try that experiment with an unchipped vampire.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
(Harmony) Watcher
> In article <1182177689.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Darla, and pseudo-souled pregnant Darla have a continuity of character
> > also seen with Angel himself - they're the same person.
>
>
... and when exactly does a person cease to be the same person? :)
--
==Harmony Watcher==
Ian Galbraith
> <burt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1182357418.8...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> Only if you accept the retcon that he went to Africa to get his soul
>> back and not to get the chip out.
> What retcon? He never said that he was going to get the chip out. Mind
> you they were being coy with that "what [Buffy] deserves" bit, never
> actually explaining it.
Burt's just trolling, he's argued exactly the same things time after time
after time after time with exactly the same result. Dunno why he wants to
continue rehashing it every time somebody brings the relevant episode up,
but I can only think its to troll.
[snip]
--
"If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do" -
Angel
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
is connor with a memory reset still connor?
(Harmony) Watcher
> In article <NGjei.43123$1i1.16462@pd7urf3no>,
> "\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>
> > "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:mair_fheal-4B9C9...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > > In article <1182177689.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Darla, and pseudo-souled pregnant Darla have a continuity of
character
> > > > also seen with Angel himself - they're the same person.
> > >
> > > and what exactly is a person?
> > >
> > ... and when exactly does a person cease to be the same person? :)
>
> is connor with a memory reset still connor?
>
Alice: This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. I -- I hardly
know, sir, just at present -- at least I know who I was when I got up this
morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
One Bit Shy
news:zoWdnbHLc8dXserb...@giganews.com...
> "Michael Ikeda" <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in message
>> Just rewatched the fight. It seems clear to me that Kathy ISN'T
>> running a bluff, that she hasn't stolen all of Buffy's soul yet.
>>
>> She devotes a lot of effort to forcing Buffy's mouth open (and had
>> previously attempted this at different points in the fight before
>> she succeeds), and then opens her own mouth and draws a breath.
>> She's clearly preparing to draw the last bits of Buffy's soul out
>> when Giles' counterspell kicks in.
>
> All things exactly consistent with the running a bluff hypothesis. After
> all, to be convincing, it has to look like she's really attempting to
> perform the ritual. Note, however, that she only tries to open the mouth
> by
> main muscle rather than the simplest method for getting somebody to open
> their mouth--hold their nose. This suggests more an effort to kill time
> than to actually get the mouth open.
The distinction is that there is nothing in the story to suggest a bluff is
being worked. The acts you point to might be consistent with a bluff, but
they don't actually indicate a bluff. Nothing does. No purpose to a bluff.
No reveal that a bluff occurred. Meanwhile the declared intent of soul
sucking remains in force with the worst that can be said for it being a
ritual not explained in detail.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1182115434.1...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> and Buffy learns that things are more complicated as she grows up.
>
> But she doesn't. Not really. All the way up through the end of season
> 7, Buffy is still staking vampires fresh from the grave
> indiscriminately. The message of the show is always "soulless vampire
> = evil, stake right away," and the idea that things might be more
> complicated than that is never even mentioned, let alone discussed....
> EXCEPT in cases where said soulless vampire has a name and some
> significant screen time. Then, the rules are different, and we're
> expected to think of them in the same way as the rest of the regular
> or recurring cast.
>
> It's a pretty nonsensical double standard, when you think about it.
I expect that Buffy believes that Angel and Spike fully deserved death at
the time of their siring. Hell, Angel and Spike believe that. What they
later became wouldn't justify sparing them at the start should that have
been an option. They only earned that consideration long after, when
circumstances changed.
Their status is not based on some vague potential. It is something earned,
or due to neutering (chip), or due to emotion. None of which apply to
freshly sired vampires, who as far as anybody knows, always are killers.
OBS
burt...@hotmail.com
> <burt1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182115434.1...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> and Buffy learns that things are more complicated as she grows up.
>
> > But she doesn't. Not really. All the way up through the end of season
> > 7, Buffy is still staking vampires fresh from the grave
> > indiscriminately. The message of the show is always "soulless vampire
> > = evil, stake right away," and the idea that things might be more
> > complicated than that is never even mentioned, let alone discussed....
> > EXCEPT in cases where said soulless vampire has a name and some
> > significant screen time. Then, the rules are different, and we're
> > expected to think of them in the same way as the rest of the regular
> > or recurring cast.
>
> > It's a pretty nonsensical double standard, when you think about it.
>
> I expect that Buffy believes that Angel and Spike fully deserved death at
> the time of their siring. Hell, Angel and Spike believe that. What they
> later became wouldn't justify sparing them at the start should that have
> been an option. They only earned that consideration long after, when
> circumstances changed.
And what about Harmony, whose circumstances never changed? She didn't
have a soul or a chip, and Angel and Cordelia just let her walk away
unstaked.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
burt...@hotmail.com wrote:
human sentimentally sometimes lets people do stupid things
like releasing vamp willow back to the wild
One Bit Shy
news:dsample-E5752C...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <137b4ie...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>> There's also the giant demon in the living room not getting its due.
>> Angel
>> and Buffy literally replace James and Grace in this little play. And
>> Buffy
>> kills Angel in it. Just as we'll see her do in the finale. It's the big
>> shock moment of the episode. Buffy shoots Angel. The big release is
>> Angel
>> forgiving Buffy for doing it. Then, sure enough, next we see them Buffy
>> is
>> finally set to kill Angel, having received a kind of absolution in
>> advance.
>
> Buffy isn't feeling guilty about what she has to do. She's feeling
> guilty about what she has already done.
Why must this be an either/or proposition? Why wouldn't she feel guilty
about both?
> She feels that she already
> killed Angel on the night of her seventeenth birthday. That is when he
> lost his soul. His body just hasn't lain down and died. It's still
> wandering around killing her friends.
Then why hasn't she killed him already? If that's how she feels, forgiving
herself for the birthday night will be important for her to get on with her
life, but shouldn't have much bearing on killing Angelus now. Who cares
about an animated corpse? Hell, it'll be a blessing to rid her of the
walking nightmare of Angel's face.
Buffy has a number of gults to get past - which this episode helps deal with
across the board. (She's also consumed with guilt over Jenny's death
because she *couldn't* kill Angelus.)
Why can't she kill Angelus? I thought it was self evident that she couldn't
get past the idea that it represented killing Angel. Once Angelus is turned
to dust, then Angel is truly dead - irretrievably gone. (Or so she thinks.)
Even with Slayer duty beckoning, she can't bear delivering the final blow to
her lover - and her inner love.
Passion brought home the slayer duty with a brutal blow. But it didn't deal
with Buffy's desperate forever love.
Buffy: Love is forever.
That line is delivered three times. It is *the* critical emotion of this
story that Buffy must somehow overcome in addition to the greater guilt.
> "James destroyed the one person he loved the most in a
> moment of blind passion. And that's not something you forgive.
> No matter why he did what he did. And no matter if he knows
> now that it was wrong and selfish and stupid, it is just
> something he's going to have to live with."
> "He canšt live with it, Buff," says Xander. "He's dead."
> Buffy looks around at the rest of them, and walks off into
> the kitchen.
> "Okay. Over identify much?" asks Cordy.
Sure. She can't forgive a moment of blind passion. I've never said that
the product of Surprise wasn't an important part of this story. It surely
is. But it's not the whole story. The season doesn't end in Innocence. It
ends with the looming confrontation with Angelus that turns into the actual
(so she thinks) killing of Angel. Symbolic death turned to actual death.
This episode is the last step before that confrontation. (I don't count Go
Fish as meaningful.) It's an episode that looks forward at least as much as
it looks back. It's the episode where she rehearses slaying Angel to great
anguish. And then goes forth and does it for real. I can't take that as an
incidental parallel. Especially not when this whole season has been an
exploration of the ambiguous morality of slaying.
And what changes this episode to make it possible for her to kill
Angelus/Angel? Yes, she forgives herself. But only through the device of
experiencing the release of being forgiven by Angel directly. In effect,
Angel is giving her permission to be The Slayer again, even though it ends
all hope for Angel.
----
One of the sidelights of the forgiveness angle comes from and about Angel
himself. Back in Innocence...
Angelus: She made me feel like a human being. That's not the kind of thing
you just forgive.
In a very significant fashion Angel is made by Buffy - not just by Angel's
soul. In the first part of Becoming (where Angel and Angelus both speak of
becoming someone) we see that in action when he climbs out of his 100 year
misery specifically because Buffy inspires him.
I'm not linking that to anything in particular here - I think we move into
ever greater obscurity doing that - I just think that perspective is fun and
interesting too.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1182179494.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 17, 2:57 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>> You're looking for too much detail in common. An exact analogy isn't an
>> analogy - it's the thing itself. There is deliberate vagueness about the
>> details of James and Grace - especially Grace's motive for forgivenss.
>> But
>> the general outline is striking in its similarity. The kid kills the
>> older
>> ex-lover who rejected him/her and is consumed by guilt over it.
>
> Or, the kid falls for the older lover, is about to be abandoned by him/
> her (remember "Surprise?"), gives in to passion in some way, kills him/
> her by accident, and is forgiven for it. It kinda works in a vague
> way either way.
Well, my approach is actually in sequence. But, guilt over Surprise matters
too, and I think this is the moment to remind that this whole conversation
started with your uncertainty that this episode is really about Buffy
releasing her own guilt. We're fussing about which guilt. But whichever
guilt is in play (I think she has pleanty of guilt to choose from), this
conversation really should be affirming that one way or the other it's
Buffy's sense of guilt that needs forgiving.
> In another thread, you say:
>
> "Sorry, I don't buy that - and not because of the premise of believing
> in a soul. First of all, it's not true - as will be demonstrated in
> Becoming.
> Angel can very much be returned. Remember that Angel was already
> dead. Soul and flesh had already been cleaved. The miracle of Angel
> from the
> start was the impermanence of that state of separation. And Buffy
> knows that. She may not know how to restore Angel, and she may be
> running out of
> time to get him back, but that's not because it's impossible. Buffy
> knows otherwise. She knows it's possible because it had already been
> done. So
> killing Angelus is more than burying the corpse. It's taking away the
> possibility of restoring Angel. And it's giving up on eternal love."
>
> That would explain why "Passion" ends with Buffy saying (and in
> voiceover, no less. Characters don't usually hide their feelings in
> voiceover) "I can't hold on to the past anymore. Angel has gone.
> Nothing's ever gonna bring him back." I'd argue that she does believe
> that he's gone, and having the corpse talking and moving around makes
> it more hopeless than someone just dying would. The show demonstrates
> that Buffy believes that the original person is gone without a soul.
> This isn't to contradict the idea that actually killing him represents
> taking the final step to giving up love (it does, very much so), just
> that it's as big a source of guilt (as opposed to loss) as you think
> is so clear.
Buffy has always understood the problem for her - even in Innocence. But
she hasn't been able to steel herself to get past it. Passion was a huge
impetus to get past it, but doesn't directly address Buffy's attachment to
Angel. It only seeks to overwhelm it with extraordinary necessity and
logical rationalization. Buffy's voice over reflects that. The words
reflect the necessity and rationalization, but how about the tone? To my
mind that was resignation, not determination. She still needed more to pull
the trigger, so to speak.
>> > I don't see Buffy seeing too much guilt in killing an unsouled Angel
>> > (after all, Joss realized he could go for way more pain than that in
>> > "Becoming II," and that's not the part of the story she's so reluctant
>> > to share in S3).
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean. In Faith, Hope and Trick, the news she
>> finally let out to Giles and Willow was that Angel's soul had returned
>> before she killed him.
>>
>> However, yes, there was a great deal more pain piled into Becoming than
>> just
>> the guilt. I'm not asserting otherwise. I just think that guilt was an
>> important part of it.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that I don't see her becoming guilt-
> ridden over potentially killing Angelus without the restoration
> spell.
No, no, no. That's just part of the foundation for killing Angelus having
meaning. And way too based on rational thought. What Buffy cowers from is
the thought of killing her lover. Buffy leads with her heart. She's not
Nancy Drew figuring out a puzzle. The part that really matters about giving
up on the hope of restoring Angelus is that no matter what, a part of her
would always feel guilty for giving up. A part of her would always fear
that a way to restore him could have been found. That matters a lot. But
there's also just the sense of his blood on her hands. Some even links to
Surprise by it being her hand that completes what she started then.
> I'm not suggesting for a minute that it shouldn't be hard for
> her, just that I think she'd be capable of doing it anytime
> post-"Passion" and moving on. The reason it's more devastating than
> that is that Joss goes more for the pain by making sure Angel gets his
> soul back (ah, that Willow, always magically making things
> better...). That's the part of the story that she keeps to herself
> for so long, and the part that drives her over the edge - she
> initially tells the others that Angel stayed Angelus, and she killed
> him. She hides the fact that it was in fact Angel she had to kill,
> innocent of what he'd done and proclaiming his love for her.
Heh. Boy, do we see through different filters. You see, what that means to
me is that what Buffy fears might be true (that Angel could be restored) and
would be lost if she killed Angelus turns out to be actually true. It only
confirms what her heart yearned for and restrained Buffy's actions. So she
forces herself to overcome those doubts only to discover that the hope she
had abandoned had been real. In a sense, she had been right in her
Innocence reluctance - albeit not knowing what to do about it. I believe
this affects her deeply, to be manifested many ways - ultimately in her S7
determination to protect Spike. She wasn't going to make the same mistake
again.
>> It's still her lover that she's contemplating killing. It's this
>> episode that directly addresses that. She kills her lover and is
>> forgiven.
>> Just writing that sentence it seems so blatant that I don't get how there
>> could be a dispute.
>
> I think it's the guilt thing. You're talking about the rather obscure
> notion of pre-emptive guilt.
Obscure? She's contemplating what emotionally feels like killing her lover,
abandoning eternal love, abandoning hope. Isn't that the core tension for
Buffy since Innocence? The whole season is barreling towards that final
confrontation. How could she not feel guilty for planning to kill who she
can't stop thinking of as her great love?
> We never actually see her feel guilty
> for killing an unsouled Angel, given that that never happens, whereas
> we do see her guilt for other things. Buffy feels rationally and
> irrationally guilty for damn near everything, and IOHFY suggests that
> the actual nature of what one gets forgiven for isn't as important as
> how much one needs it. The net effect is that exactly what Buffy
> needs absolution for at this particular moment seems to me as clear as
> mud, and I'm not particularly invested in teasing it out further
> (especially given that it's quite possibly beside the point of what
> the episode purports to be about).
Well, there you have it. Recognition that she needs release from her guilt.
Whatever you think of any particular source of guilt, it does seem that
there's plenty enough candidates floating around.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:137c676...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Steroids bad!" is at least slightly more intelligent than "beer bad!"
> (In my beer-sodden opinion, that is.)
Beer foamy!
Don Sample
Other than their encounter at the end of "Innocence" she hasn't had an
opportunity to kill him, and that one was still too soon. In "Passion"
she had to choose between finishing off Angel, or saving Giles, and in
"Killed by Death" she was sick, and nearly died in their encounter, and
had to be saved by Xander and the others.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
One Bit Shy
news:1182568011.7...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
What mariposa says. Sentiment moves people too. Neither Angel nor Cordelia
claim moral high ground on that. Angel suffered Harmony to live because he
was sucking up to Cordelia. Cordelia did so foolishly initially because she
yearned for the times past that Harmony represented and because she was mad
at Angel and because she just flat out judged badly. Later on it was
probably mostly sentiment, though I think she was also emotionally depleted.
When Harm was Angel's secretary at W&H the general situation required
working with demons on a grand scale. In that context, killing her would be
just petty. Perhaps self defeating.
Whatever Cordy and Angel's motivations were, I do not see the series
suggesting that Harmony was other than a murderous vampire. A ditzy one
perhaps, but definitely not to be trusted. Indeed, Angel uses his
expectation of her inevitable betrayal as a weapon.
OBS