WTF?!?! Buffy #12 [SPOILERS}

[beetlebum]

Doesn't Four also have the one with "Buffy Want Beer?"

I have an irrational fondness for that episode.

Beer Bad. A pretty funny skewering of the collegiate love of brewed hops.

[beetlebum]

Would Buffy be an existentialist, an idealist, or a post-structuralist? :confused:

She's proof that blondes love asian gurls (tm). :evilsmile:

[AaronJ]

Doesn't Four also have the one with "Buffy Want Beer?"

I have an irrational fondness for that episode.

I think "Beer Bad" is hilarious. And at the time, I remember it being totally hated on the newsgroup. It regularly was called the worst episode ever.

I found it hysterical.

[Corrina]

I thought it was funny.

My Buffy experience is weird because I watched it out of order. A friend insisted that I watch, so I started with what was going on at the time. First episode was "The Body" in Season Five. It was an interesting start.

Then I tried catching up when Fox was showing reruns and got to most of then and then my daughter got obsessed, so it was easily to justify the DVD sets. Though since she was only twelve, I stopped at S5 for a bit. S6 was a bit too explicit for me as a parent, until she was a year or two older. She was not pleased with me.....

Obviously, Season Five was good enough to hook me. Oddly, I saw most of Seasons Three and then Two, and then One, all the while watching Six as it played out.

Two might be my favorite, I think. But love episodes from every season--I'd forgotten "Pangs." Love that. But Six definitely had the largest number of weak episodes for me. Doublemeat Palace was just boring. Still...even the episode with Riley back had one of my favorite dialogue exchanges.

"Did you die?"
"No."
"I win."

And I just love the moment when Giles shows up at the magic shop to face down Dark Willow. Between that and Tabula Rosa, I really became an Anya/Giles shipper. Which I knew was hopeless (and didn't make story sense, at least that much) but they were so interesting in those episodes. Ah, well.

[BnL]

Season six, as I said, was one of my least favorite seasons, but it has one of my favorite episodes from the show, "Normal Again." It was an interesting "what if" story.

"Life Serial" was another fave, if only for the scene where Buffy is caught in a time loop.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Doesn't Four also have the one with "Buffy Want Beer?"

I have an irrational fondness for that episode.

"Beer Bad". It's really one of the weakest episodes, and probably the least subtle in terms of dealing with thematic issues, but it does have a few charming bits.

I don't hate it as much as a lot of people do - like diana_fan notes, many hardcore BUFFY folk consider it possibly the worst episode in the series - but it's nowhere near my personal favorites.

[AaronJ]

God did I hate Tabula Rasa. That episode marks the point where I completely lost faith in the show.

[beetlebum]

Yeah, season two was my fav as well. Of all the seasons, it's the one I watch the most. I also liked four, mainly because I was in high school at the time, and I could relate to Buffy's search to find herself and navigate through her first year of university. Except of course, I ended up applying that to my high school experience.

Five was depressing, and six like I said before, was Whedon's answer to Radiohead's Kid A. Bold, experimental, and controversial due to its divisiveness. Except while I loved Kid A, I just found that with the few exceptions of episodes like "Tabula Rasa", season six was in desperate need of prozac.


Season three was great, what with Faith being Buffy's Iago, and Richard Wilkins, who was a caricature of the "Moral Majority". It was heartbreaking to see Angel and Buffy grow apart, but they did a good job with showing how it would not work out for them. At least, for that moment in time. *crosses fingers*

Oh, and as for season one, I loved "Prophecy Girl". I thought Sarah Michelle Gellar's acting was absolutely wonderful in that episode. I mean, the way she delivered her lines; "Read me the signs, tell my my FORTUNE!" showcased the full range of her acting talent. It's too bad that she was never nominated for an Emmy. Too bad because the Academy is filled with stuffy, old people who totally suck.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Season six, as I said, was one of my least favorite seasons, but it has one of my favorite episodes from the show, "Normal Again." It was an interesting "what if" story.


While on its own terms "Normal Again" is pretty well done - a really amazing piece of postmodernist drama, really, and SMG's performance is exceptional - I have a lot of problems with it within the context of the series.

The biggest problem is that the way the episode ends, it leaves very open the possibility that the entire series - all of Buffy's adventures, all the sacrifice and everything she and everyone experiences - is nothing but the delusions of an institutionalized, schizophrenic young woman. In my opinion, this rather serves to undercut the themes of heroism and female empowerment which are central to the show; one can take the episode as saying that the idea that a woman can be strong and heroic is itself delusional. Given how much Buffy is put through during the season, and thus how much the viewer is forced to endure while relating to her, I think tossing that one into the season puts the dark and tortured factor of the season way, way over the top. One can argue that the stuff with Spike represents the degradation of Buffy (the character), but "Normal Again" is thematically degrading to BUFFY - the entire series - and thus to the viewers that have stuck with it to that point and beyond.

This is the main reason why, objective quality aside, "Normal Again" is possibly my least-favorite episode of BUFFY.

[beetlebum]

God did I hate Tabula Rasa. That episode marks the point where I completely lost faith in the show.

Why?! :mad: :p

[beetlebum]

While on its own terms "Normal Again" is pretty well done - a really amazing piece of postmodernist drama, really, and SMG's performance is exceptional - I have a lot of problems with it within the context of the series.

The biggest problem is that the way the episode ends, it leaves very open the possibility that the entire show is nothing but the delusions of an institutionalized, schizophrenic young woman. In my opinion, this rather serves to undercut the themes of heroism and female empowerment which are central to the show; one can take the episode as saying that the idea that a woman can be strong and heroic is itself delusional. Given how much Buffy is put through during the season, and thus how much the viewer is forced to endure while relating to her, I think tossing that one into the season puts the dark and tortured factor of the season way, way over the top. One can argue that the stuff with Spike represents the degradation of Buffy (the character), but "Normal Again" is thematically degrading to BUFFY - the entire series - and thus to the viewers that have stuck with it to that point and beyond.

This is the main reason why, objective quality aside, "Normal Again" is possibly my least-favorite episode of BUFFY.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I always thought that "Normal Again" was created to capitalize on "A Beautiful Mind", which also deals with schizophrenia, and was a popular film at the time. I could be wrong, it could have been written earlier before that. But that's my theory. Oh and Smallville did a poor remake of it that is very much worthy of the term "eew". Aggie summed it up best when she said that episode should have been aborted before it ever got onto the air.

[TCJohnson]

Season three was great, what with Faith being Buffy's Iago, and Richard Wilkins, who was a caricature of the "Moral Majority". It was heartbreaking to see Angel and Buffy grow apart, but they did a good job with showing how it would not work out for them. At least, for that moment in time. *crosses fingers*

I always felt bad the the principal. He really was trying to do the right thing, even if he was a jerk.

Season Three had my favorite of....almost anything! The Zeppo!

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't know that I have a favorite season. 2, 3, 5 and 6 have a lot of wonderful aspects to them, and are neat in different ways.

I do agree that "Prophecy Girl" is easily the highpoint of the first season, and I think it's one of the very best episodes of the whole series.

Seasons 2 and 3 are probably the most consistently good seasons of the series.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Season Three had my favorite of....almost anything! The Zeppo!

Another excellent episode.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I always thought that "Normal Again" was created to capitalize on "A Beautiful Mind", which also deals with schizophrenia, and was a popular film at the time. I could be wrong, it could have been written earlier before that. But that's my theory.

Given the timing - A BEAUTIFUL MIND was released about 6 months before "Normal Again" was televised - you may very well be right.

I still don't like the episode, though.

[BnL]

While on its own terms "Normal Again" is pretty well done - a really amazing piece of postmodernist drama, really, and SMG's performance is exceptional - I have a lot of problems with it within the context of the series.

The biggest problem is that the way the episode ends, it leaves very open the possibility that the entire series - all of Buffy's adventures, all the sacrifice and everything she and everyone experiences - is nothing but the delusions of an institutionalized, schizophrenic young woman. In my opinion, this rather serves to undercut the themes of heroism and female empowerment which are central to the show; one can take the episode as saying that the idea that a woman can be strong and heroic is itself delusional. Given how much Buffy is put through during the season, and thus how much the viewer is forced to endure while relating to her, I think tossing that one into the season puts the dark and tortured factor of the season way, way over the top. One can argue that the stuff with Spike represents the degradation of Buffy (the character), but "Normal Again" is thematically degrading to BUFFY - the entire series - and thus to the viewers that have stuck with it to that point and beyond.

This is the main reason why, objective quality aside, "Normal Again" is possibly my least-favorite episode of BUFFY.

That's what I thought at first too, until I realized that the ending, with Buffy in the institution going catatonic, was part of Buffy's delusion. The effects of the demon's poison had not yet worked it's way out of her system by the end of the episode.

[beetlebum]

I always felt bad the the principal. He really was trying to do the right thing, even if he was a jerk.

Season Three had my favorite of....almost anything! The Zeppo!

He was a toadie for the mayor, who was trying to commit genocide. That's doing the right thing? :confused:

[KenK]

Season Three had my favorite of....almost anything! The Zeppo!

Who DOESN'T love The Zeppo?!?! Seriously, I can't imagine anyone not loving this episode!

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's what I thought at first too, until I realized that the ending, with Buffy in the institution going catatonic, was part of Buffy's delusion. The effects of the demon's poison had not yet worked it's way out of her system by the end of the episode.

That's one interpretation, and the one that keeps the episode from completely scuttling the series, but it's still left as not at all a sure thing at the end of the episode.

[TCJohnson]

He was a toadie for the mayor, who was trying to commit genocide. That's doing the right thing? :confused:


If I remembered right, all he was trying to do was run an orderly school. He was fanatical about it to an unhealthy degree, but that really is all he wanted.

It has been a while since I have seen the complete third series, but other than trying to have Buffy expelled I don't remember him doing anything particularly evil. I also don't remember him being on the Mayor's plans since he went ballistic (very shortly before his death) when the Mayor turned into a demon.

[TCJohnson]

Who DOESN'T love The Zeppo?!?! Seriously, I can't imagine anyone not loving this episode!

And it is not because Xander slept with Faith, and I wanted to be him...which is something I hear a lot of people say about the popularity of the episode.

But when I was in high school I remember trying to find my thing to make myself cool, to make myself stand out...exactly like Xander does.

ANd at the end when Xander figures out what it does take to be cool and just walks away from Cordelia...love that.

[Corrina]

That's one interpretation, and the one that keeps the episode from completely scuttling the series, but it's still left as not at all a sure thing at the end of the episode.

I figure all the writers were throwing out scripts and Joss had taken a bunch over to "Firefly" and those left in charge read the script (Marti Noxon, I think), saw how strong it was and the good role it had for their star, and went with it.

I don't think they realized what they were implying at the time but that doesn't quite take away the fact that your analysis is completely valid and it does offer a very denigrating take on the series.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And it is not because Xander slept with Faith, and I wanted to be him...which is something I hear a lot of people say about the popularity of the episode.

But when I was in high school I remember trying to find my thing to make myself cool, to make myself stand out...exactly like Xander does.

ANd at the end when Xander figures out what it does take to be cool and just walks away from Cordelia...love that.

The other neat thing about the episode is that Xander does so much cool stuff, and not only does nobody know anything about it, but Xander also doesn't tell anyone. He's secure in his knowledge that he totally rocked that night.

*That* is cool.

[beetlebum]

If I remembered right, all he was trying to do was run an orderly school. He was fanatical about it to an unhealthy degree, but that really is all he wanted.

It has been a while since I have seen the complete third series, but other than trying to have Buffy expelled I don't remember him doing anything particularly evil. I also don't remember him being on the Mayor's plans since he went ballistic (very shortly before his death) when the Mayor turned into a demon.

Watch "Becoming". In it, Snyder tells the mayor he has some "good news." Thus making him complicit in Wilkin's evil.

Here's a summary. (http://www.angelicslayer.com/tbcs/quotes/q_bp2.html)

And I suspect, that most of the torment he imposed on Buffy, whether it was forcing her to take little kids trick or treating in "Halloween", and trying to prevent her from enrolling back in school, were done at the behest of the mayor.

Here's a Wikipedia article about them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_Snyder).

[TCJohnson]

If I am ever allowed to breed and have a son I am going to make him watch that episode, many times.

[TCJohnson]

Watch "Becoming" in it, Snyder tells the mayor he has some "good news." Thus making him complicit in Wilkin's evil.

Here's a summary. (http://www.angelicslayer.com/tbcs/quotes/q_bp2.html)

And I suspect, that most of the torment he imposed on Buffy, whether it was forcing her to take little kids trick or treating in "Halloween", and trying to prevent her from enrolling back in school, were done at the behest of the mayor.

Here's a Wikipedia article about them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_Snyder).

But did he know the Mayor was evil? From the way I saw it, he believed the Mayor was trying to bring order to his town, while Buffy was nothing but pure chaos in his life (and he was not wrong.)

The guy was a jerk, and he was a antagonist. Yes, he worked for the Mayor but from what I gathered he was tricked into doing so and he was not aware of what the Mayor's plans were.

[beetlebum]

And it is not because Xander slept with Faith, and I wanted to be him...which is something I hear a lot of people say about the popularity of the episode.

But when I was in high school I remember trying to find my thing to make myself cool, to make myself stand out...exactly like Xander does.

ANd at the end when Xander figures out what it does take to be cool and just walks away from Cordelia...love that.

Don't forget how he outlasts and outruns the zombie gang as they were trying to "bake a cake", and how he stops both Jack O' Toole and the "cake" from exploding. And yeah, I loved the episode for the same reasons. :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't think they realized what they were implying at the time but that doesn't quite take away the fact that your analysis is completely valid and it does offer a very denigrating take on the series.

I need to first make sure someone hasn't already covered the same ground to death, but if not, I'm considering writing an article based around my analysis of "Normal Again" to submit to the online Buffy studies journal, SLAYAGE.

That would be a rather odd, but quite satisfying, addition to my publications CV.

[beetlebum]

But did he know the Mayor was evil? From the way I saw it, he believed the Mayor was trying to bring order to his town, while Buffy was nothing but pure chaos in his life (and he was not wrong.)

The guy was a jerk, and he was a antagonist. Yes, he worked for the Mayor but from what I gathered he was tricked into doing so and he was not aware of what the Mayor's plans were.

Well, the school board might have known, but it's not clear whether or not Snyder did. Still, I find his statement in "Becoming" incriminating. But who knows? He could have been just trying to do the right thing like you said. I'm sad to say that the show never did clarify this.

[TCJohnson]

Well, the school board might have known, but it's not clear whether or not Snyder did. Still, I find his statement in "Becoming" incriminating. But who knows? He could have been just trying to do the right thing like you said. I'm sad to say that the show never did clarify this.

But if they did, then we couldn't have enjoyable debates about it.

[Superbeast]

Whether you are giving or receiving in a same sex sexual encounter, I'd say it constitutes a gay/lesbian experience. It's not like Buffy is in prison. Although in hindsight it makes her initial judgmental reaction to Willow coming out highly ironic.

I found the Xander-centric episodes of Buffy the funniest for the most part. Bothered, Bewitched and Bewildered was hilarious IMO. Oz searching for the Buffy-rat... good times.

[Johnny_Luck]

IMHO Season 3 was easily the best of Buffy

Other than the Obvious Zeppo episode named you have Graduation Day Parts 1 and 2, Homecoming, Band Candy, The Wish, Amends(The first time we see the First), Bad Girls and Consequences, Dogglegangland, Enemies, Earshot(though how Joshua(I think that was his name) expected to commit suicide with a riffle is still beyond me)

Overall it just had so many excellent episodes. Not only That but Faith was kick ass and to this Day the Mayor remains the cooler big bad in Buffy History IMHO.

as for the rest of the order I go

Season 3, Season 2, Season 7, Season 1, Season 6, Season 5, Season 4.

[Starleafgirl]

Well, the school board might have known, but it's not clear whether or not Snyder did. Still, I find his statement in "Becoming" incriminating. But who knows? He could have been just trying to do the right thing like you said. I'm sad to say that the show never did clarify this.

Ah, I am of the very strong opinion that no one -- not the school board, not the prinicipal -- knew of the evil Mayor's plans. Even Faith wasn't party to the whole story. I mean, come on, what people in their right minds would go along with such a thing?

Speaking to the Principal Synder in particular, I agree with everything TCJohnson remembers. Being a big fan of Quark, I paid particular attention to that character. Sure, I thought the Principal was a bad dude, at first, the way he kept getting in Buffy's way... but as time wore I, I realized that at heart he was a good (though strict) guy trying to impose order. Obviously he believed the Mayor, as another authority figure with considerable power in the town, was trying to do the same thing, so he teamed up with him in the name of keeping order. He didn't know the Mayor was some evil, scheming demon dude or he wouldn't have gone along with him.

[beetlebum]

Ah, I am of the very strong opinion that no one -- not the school board, not the prinicipal -- knew of the evil Mayor's plans. Even Faith wasn't party to the whole story. I mean, come on, what people in their right minds would go along with such a thing?

Speaking to the Principal Synder in particular, I agree with everything TCJohnson remembers. Being a big fan of Quark, I paid particular attention to that character. Sure, I thought the Principal was a bad dude, at first, the way he kept getting in Buffy's way... but as time wore I, I realized that at heart he was a good (though strict) guy trying to impose order. Obviously he believed the Mayor, as another authority figure with considerable power in the town, was trying to do the same thing, so he teamed up with him in the name of keeping order. He didn't know the Mayor was some evil, scheming demon dude or he wouldn't have gone along with him.

But what about during "School Hard" when he tells someone to tell the press it was "gangs on pcp"? Or his spin doctoring of the paranormal activity that went on in "I Only Have Eyes For You"? That to me, sounds like he had some idea of the demonic activity that was going on.

[Johnny_Luck]

But what about during "School Hard" when he tells someone to tell the press it was "gangs on pcp"? Or his denial of any paranormal activity in "I Only Have Eyes For You"? That to me, sounds like he had some idea of the demonic activity that was going on.

I remember School Hard and it was clearly his attempt to continue to allow himself to pretend that there wasn't as much going on as there really was.

[Starleafgirl]

But what about during "School Hard" when he tells someone to tell the press it was "gangs on pcp"? Or his denial of any paranormal activity in "I Only Have Eyes For You"? That to me, sounds like he had some idea of the demonic activity that was going on.

He knew some pretty weird stuff goes on in Sunnydale and part of his job as Prinicipal was to cover it up. Covering up the truth to prevent panic and chaos isn't evil.

[Starleafgirl]

I think at some point, some people in charge, including the school board, knew there were dangerous supernatural occurences going on in Sunnydale. Their natural reaction was to cover up whatever they could and deny, perhaps even to themselves, just how deep and dark and evil it all was.

After all, they're trying to protect THE CHILDREN, right? Right? :D

[beetlebum]

The people of Sunnydale were daft, there is no doubt about that.. But I'm not so sure Principle Snyder was as daft as they were, esp. considering the vampire gangs that broke into buildings, and the spaghetti that transmogrified into snakes.

[TCJohnson]

Why couldn't you have been dealing drugs like normal people?!?

[scout1279]

It's that kind of fuzzy headed, liberal thinking that gets you eaten.

[beetlebum]

I remember School Hard and it was clearly his attempt to continue to allow himself to pretend that there wasn't as much going on as there really was.

But by "I Only Have Eyes For You" he had to come to some sort of epiphany that something was going on. Hell, even Scully gave in eventually during the X-Files.

EDITTOADDNOTE: I think I unintentionally moved the goalposts away from "did he know about the mayor's plans" to " did he know about paranormal activity? ". Whoops. :o See what happens when you type when you're distracted? :p I think it's safe to say that Snyder probably did not know what the mayor had planned. Though by the time of the episode I had mentioned above, he had to know there was paranormal activity in Sunnydale, even if he was unaware of the mayor's ascension.

[Cthulhudrew]

The biggest problem is that the way the episode ends, it leaves very open the possibility that the entire series - all of Buffy's adventures, all the sacrifice and everything she and everyone experiences - is nothing but the delusions of an institutionalized, schizophrenic young woman.

Actually, I felt the exact opposite way. When they had scenes that took place outside of Buffy's perception (Xander and Spike looking for the Nerd Trio, IIRC, among other scenes) it completely undercut the notion that what we were looking at existed only in her head.

Personally, if it weren't for that, and if they had left it open as to whether it was a delusional fantasy or reality, it would rank as one of my favorite episodes of the series.

But then, I'm a big fan of head trip/insanity fiction, so it might be just me.

[ForkedTongue]

I'm just skipping to the end of the thread to say that I really liked the issue and it worked for me, character-wise.

That's all. :D

[Starleafgirl]

Actually, I felt the exact opposite way. When they had scenes that took place outside of Buffy's perception (Xander and Spike looking for the Nerd Trio, IIRC, among other scenes) it completely undercut the notion that what we were looking at existed only in her head.

Personally, if it weren't for that, and if they had left it open as to whether it was a delusional fantasy or reality, it would rank as one of my favorite episodes of the series.

But then, I'm a big fan of head trip/insanity fiction, so it might be just me.

Are you kidding me? The episode ends with them panning out of her room in the asylum. They totally leave the very real possibility that it's all in her head and that's why it's one of the best, or one of the reasons, really. Yes, the scenes that took place outside of her perception could make one think it's not all in her head, but couldn't that have been another splintered fantasy in her warped mind? Another delusional little part of "Sunnydale" suddenly thrusting itself upon her?

Just trying to help. :D

[JeffreyWKramer]

Okay, earlier in the thread, I made some comments about the really dark nature of the scene where Willow does a blood sacrifice in the first episode of Season 6 (Bargaining, part 1). Someone asked me what I meant by that, and I was just explaining it to my wife as well, so let me share it here in more detail.

The onscreen action involves Willow doing a chant. A young deer responds to the summoning and Willow calls it to her, puts her arm around it, then picks up a knife and stabs it. She thanks it for giving its life and collects its blood for use later in the resurrection ritual.

It's a pretty shocking and gruesome scene. There's even more to this scene than meets the eye, however.

The chant Willow uses is taken from a classical work of ritual magic, the LEGEMETON, or "The Lesser Key of Solomon", which itself incorporates some aspects of earlier mystical and religious traditions, most notably Kabbalism and Judaic mysticism. The names she evokes - Adonai, Helomi, Pine (pronounced Pee-nay) - are among the traditional names of God, and the ritual itself is intended, in the original source, to summon an angel, which usually arrives in the form of an animal or some other form which the human mind can handle more than it could an angel's true visage. Now, in Willow's version, even though she is using the names of the Abrahamic God, she refers to "gods", but the text is otherwise drawn from that source. She refers to the deer that arrives as "blessed one", and after killing it says "May you find wings to the Kingdom."

So, in summary: Although the critter appears to be a deer, and nothing else is overtly said to indicate otherwise, the nature of the chant and the "wings to the Kingdom" reference pretty clearly tell a different story, namely that Willow has just conducted a ritual derived from her original faith, Judaism, to summon an angel, then kills it to prepare a sacrifice to a deity of another tradition (Osiris) during the later resurrection ritual. Not only does she pervert the tenets of her original faith by doing this, but by doing this in a natural setting and by doing a bood sacrifice, she also violates Wiccan tenets against killing, doing no harm and corrupting or perverting nature.

It should also be noted that the traditional form of this ritual involves symbols which are not utilized in the episode. The symbols include both the six-pointed star familiarly associated with Judaism and the five-pointed star, or pentacle, of significance in Wicca (as well as many European witchcraft traditions).

Now, in Willow's defense, she appears pretty shaken during this scene (according to the commentary on the episode DVD, Allyson Hannigan had an extremely difficult time doing the scene, often breaking into tears, and at one point they considered filming the bloodier parts of it using her stunt double). Nonetheless, she clearly knows she's done something the others will regard as wrong. At the Magic Box, she refers to the last ingredient she needed for the spell as "vino de madre", or "wine of the mother," and says she got it through the black market. She keeps it hidden, though, and during the later resurrection ritual it is clearly blood (Xander, noticing this, is visibly shaken). Presumably she attempts to obfuscate what she's done because Tara would realize what was really up, and she was already questioning the wisdom of the attempt to bring Buffy back.

In response to concerns Tara and Anya express about her doing magic involving black market ingredients, Willow replies that it's needed for the spell, so it's "good stuff in (her) book."

So, again... already at this point in the show, Willow is performing magical rituals which would qualify as sacriligious in both her former and her currently-avowed faith, in order to achieve a goal which she's decided is necessary, and she's hiding her activities from her friends, even though they are going to be taking part in the resurrection ritual.

This isn't entirely unprecedented - near the end of Season 5, while seeking revenge against Glory, Willow went straight to the books of darkest magic in search of power, with no apparent thought to the morality or consequences of her action - but it sure indicates a pretty big slide into darkness for Willow. No wonder Giles responds as he does after he finds out what she'd done.

Credit where due - I didn't figure out all the subtext noted above on my own. Nikki Stafford's BITE ME: THE UNOFFICIAL GUIDE TO BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER includes a citation of the original source of the ritual in the notes for that episode and also mentions the aspect of Willow violating her faith(s) for the sake resurrecting Buffy. Those notes got me doing some research and putting the pieces together.

The writers (and, by extension, since he okayed it, Joss) clearly intended to convey that Willow was going to a pretty dark place, and I iimagine some viewers and commentators (particularly those that like to frame BtVS as a very Christian work,* despite all the contrary elements and Joss Whedon's own statements that, as an athiest, he incorporates Christian themes and symbols to draw on the cultural and mythical connotations of same, rather than for any ideological purpose) might be even less comfortable with this subtextual analysis of the scene than they were with the whole sacrifice bit and allusions to pagan gods in the first place.


* In contrast to the various religious groups that were always calling for boycotts against BUFFY while it aired, and who frequently complained to the FCC about the sexuality, violence and "disrespect to Christianity" of the show, there are whole books and websites full of Christian analyses and commentaries of BUFFY that are, on the whole, rather positive toward the show, focusing on some of the Christian allusions and allegory and the themes of redemption even while being rather critical of the premarital sex and so forth.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Actually, I felt the exact opposite way. When they had scenes that took place outside of Buffy's perception (Xander and Spike looking for the Nerd Trio, IIRC, among other scenes) it completely undercut the notion that what we were looking at existed only in her head.

How so? It's not like a person making up an elaborate story can't imagine/make up events which happen outside their own view. Authors do that all the time, after all, and so do real-world psychotic people. When I talk to schizophrenic individuals with detailed paranoid fantasies, their accounts often include detailed suppositions about the things which they "know" are going on, even if they aren't there to observe these events.

[Cthulhudrew]

How so? It's not like a person making up an elaborate story can't imagine/make up events which happen outside their own view.

Just for me that- in television or film; visual mediums- it doesn't work in quite the same way that it would in say, prose. In visual media the purpose is to show, and in a situation where the point is to try and showcase that what is actually happening on-screen may be just a function of the main character's psychotic/delusional viewpoint, having scenes that take place outside of the perception of that character remove the viewer from their perspective. There are narrative tricks you can use in prose that can still leave it vague enough to pull it off that I'm not quite sure work in visual format (at least they didn't for me in this particular case, and I can't offhand think of how you would do it- actually, I can- when a character is narrating over the other scene, such as happened in Fight Club and Memento. Conversely, imagine those two movies if they had had scenes outside of the main character's viewpoint taking place sans narrative. You would be pulled out of thinking that the movie is taking place entirely from that character's perspective, and it would change a lot- if not all- of the impact of those films.)

All IMO, of course.

[Tobias March]

Just for me that- in television or film; visual mediums- it doesn't work in quite the same way that it would in say, prose. In visual media the purpose is to show, and in a situation where the point is to try and showcase that what is actually happening on-screen may be just a function of the main character's psychotic/delusional viewpoint, having scenes that take place outside of the perception of that character remove the viewer from their perspective. There are narrative tricks you can use in prose that can still leave it vague enough to pull it off that I'm not quite sure work in visual format (at least they didn't for me in this particular case, and I can't offhand think of how you would do it- actually, I can- when a character is narrating over the other scene, such as happened in Fight Club and Memento. Conversely, imagine those two movies if they had had scenes outside of the main character's viewpoint taking place sans narrative. You would be pulled out of thinking that the movie is taking place entirely from that character's perspective, and it would change a lot- if not all- of the impact of those films.)

But that is to illustrate what is really going on to us, the audience. Whereas in that episode we discover that Buffy is the audience, that the previous six years have in fact been a fantasy she has used to escape from her predicament.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But that is to illustrate what is really going on to us, the audience. Whereas in that episode we discover that Buffy is the audience, that the previous six years have in fact been a fantasy she has used to escape from her predicament.

Exactly.....

[PatrickG]

The other neat thing about the episode is that Xander does so much cool stuff, and not only does nobody know anything about it, but Xander also doesn't tell anyone. He's secure in his knowledge that he totally rocked that night.

*That* is cool.

You know what else is cool?

Every time somebody mentions Faith from that point forward, he had a flinch in his left eye. Later, in "All the Way" he dresses up as a pirate with an eyepatch. And the eye he loses? Left eye.

According to Whedon, this is unintentional "but pretty funny".

[JeffreyWKramer]

You know what else is cool?

Every time somebody mentions Faith from that point forward, he had a flinch in his left eye. Later, in "All the Way" he dresses up as a pirate with an eyepatch. And the eye he loses? Left eye.

According to Whedon, this is unintentional "but pretty funny".

That is very neat.

However, the level of attention to microcontinuity demonstrated by the eye twitch thing (which probably wasn't unintentional) is part of why I find it hard to buy that the problematic implications of "Normal Again" just slipped by the creative and production team, as discussed above.

[Indigo Al]

* In contrast to the various religious groups that were always calling for boycotts against BUFFY while it aired, and who frequently complained to the FCC about the sexuality, violence and "disrespect to Christianity" of the show, there are whole books and websites full of Christian analyses and commentaries of BUFFY that are, on the whole, rather positive toward the show, focusing on some of the Christian allusions and allegory and the themes of redemption even while being rather critical of the premarital sex and so forth.

Damn, I'm sorry I missed out on the bulk of this discussion. Thanks for the notes on Willow's spell, Jeffrey.

As far as the Christian analyses, how did they feel about "Bewitched, Bewildered"? I always thought that was a hilarious commentary on Satanic Panic, banning D&D, heavy metal, and other real life moral panics.

(Did you know Kill Bill has a Christian following as a pro-life movie?)

I personally disliked the "magic as crack" storyline in Season 6 - it felt lame and a bit cliche. And its "resolution" (S7: "it's not as simple as quitting the magics altogether - go be a good witch again!") wasn't terribly satisfactory.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Damn, I'm sorry I missed out on the bulk of this discussion. Thanks for the notes on Willow's spell, Jeffrey.
You're welcome. Glad to have you joining in.

As far as the Christian analyses, how did they feel about "Bewitched, Bewildered"? I always thought that was a hilarious commentary on Satanic Panic, banning D&D, heavy metal, and other real life moral panics.
Although I know such commentators exist, I honestly haven't paid that much attention to them or their arguments. Being an athiest, I'm not particularly interested in analyses that are focused primarily on Christianity or which presume a Christian perspective as the "right" one - though of course examination of Christian myth, allusions and such in BUFFY are just as valid as are Jungian analyses and those drawing on other mytho-religious and cultural themes, philosophy and political theory, linguistic theory, etc.

Honestly, from what I have seen of it, it appears to me that a lot of the Christian BUFFY analysts engage in a lot of denial and selective attention, focusing mostly on either those elements which fit within a Christian view of things, or sometimes those which are contrary to the Christian POV (again, the premarital sex stuff is often commented upon with a disapproving eye), while ignoring the vast amount of evidence strongly suggesting that a perspective giving primacy to Christian thought probably isn't the best one from which to analyze BUFFY, at least not if you want to try to understand the intent of the show's creators or its larger cultural context. It's rather as if hardcore Christian BUFFY fans and commentators recognize the quality of the show, but in order to maintain their enjoyment/approval of it, they sidestep or ignore all the stuff that doesn't fit comfortably in with their perspective.

Of course, that's still vastly better than the dingbats that dismiss and rail against the show simply because it doesn't cater to their narrow mindset.

(Did you know Kill Bill has a Christian following as a pro-life movie?)
I did not know that, and I find it rather hilarious to contemplate. I might have to look up some stuff on that.

I personally disliked the "magic as crack" storyline in Season 6 - it felt lame and a bit cliche. And its "resolution" (S7: "it's not as simple as quitting the magics altogether - go be a good witch again!") wasn't terribly satisfactory.

I prefer to look at Season 6 as encompassing broader themes of working through tragedy and the demands of adulthood, and the corruptive nature of power, vs. focusing on the obvious but rather narrow addiction metaphors. As to Season 7... I'm rather mixed about it. It's not my favorite season by any means, but there are some pretty neat things and interesting things going on. For example, the resolution of the show, which moves Buffy beyond a focus on personal sacrifice and into a greater focus on sharing and community, is a pretty nice way to end things on a feminist note. And of course those that like to focus on the redemption themes and the Christian allegory have lots to look at in Season 7, including Spike's final fate (final in the BUFFY TV series, anyhow), in which he finds his final redemption by giving his life to save others while bursting with cleansing light.

[The Xenos]

(Did you know Kill Bill has a Christian following as a pro-life movie?)

A movie that used buckets of blood for some fight scenes... is labeled "pro life". These idiots are missing some delicious irony.

I thought this comment in a thread in the indie forum was brilliant.

those vamps were too much
i loved it...
D: Hello Manservant
X: Hey How's It Going... Master {shame-face}
classic...
I love his return
Looking forward too see where this is going
I hope the first panel of #13 is

X: "....bator" :D

[tangentman]

Interesting analysis of the blood sacrifice, Jeffrey! I'd always wondered about the choice of Hebrew names in Willow's invocation, and your theory goes a long way toward sufficiently answering my question. I want to add another way Willow blatantly violated her Wiccan faith: the blatant ignoring of the "Three-fold Rule" or "Rule of Three". Many Wiccans believe that whatever you put out into the world--negative or positive--returns back to you threefold.

There's a saying among Wiccans: "and you harm none, do as you will". Willow egregiously harms people--if not the universe itself--with her actions in "Bargaining". The obvious violation occurs in the act of ripping Buffy away from her hard-earned reward in "Heaven". Willow selfishly denied Buffy the peace she'd finally realized. She only thought of her own wants, rather than thinking through the far-reaching consequences of bringing a dead woman back to life.

Willow broke trust with her family of choice and allies. To gain the most important spell component, she hides her actions from Tara, Xander, and Anya. Of course, we know she lies to them about that ingredient. Perhaps because she unconsciously knew that her intentions were wrong, she hid them from Dawn, Giles, and even Spike.

By casting the spell, Willow essentially played "Goddess". Taking it upon herself to decided who lived or died, she stepped well beyond the bounds of mortal power and responsibility. Willow tampered with reality itself by super-ceding the natural order with the resurrection spell. She was well aware of the Wiccan taboo she violated, given the conversation with Tara & Dawn in "Forever".

Willow's selfish actions put copious amounts of negative energy out into the world. Accordingly, the consequences of her actions sought her out threefold. Buffy returned tormented and alienated from everyone who loved her. Willow sought ultimate power, but ended up becoming ultimately powerless over her own lust for magick. Willow wanted to return things to the way they were before Glory or the Gift--Buffy around as best friend and protector, the tight-knit Scoobies reunited as an ideal family of choice. Instead, the group splinters and, most importantly, Willow loses Tara when Buffy's troubles literally follow her home.

That's not even getting into the hassles of the First Evil, who becomes motivated to eliminate the Slayer line because of the way Willow's spell affected it...

[beetlebum]

Good analysis tangent! Hence, the magic as addiction story line was a part of her bearing the repercussions of her decision. That's why I didn't have a problem with it and thought it was appropriate when viewed within its full context. And besides, as was noted earlier, it was more about being addicted to power, and how self destructive that is. As I have said before, Augustine made gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins for a reason. And that reason is? To much of a good thing can be harmful.

[dogzilla]

The whole lesbuffy thing came as a bit of a surprise. I'm not particularly dismayed or affronted but it did seem to come out of nowhere

[tangentman]

The whole lesbuffy thing came as a bit of a surprise. I'm not particularly dismayed or affronted but it did seem to come out of nowhere

No, not really. Buffy's clingy neediness has already been well-covered by several members. Bottom line: Buffy HATES being alone. She doesn't bear single status very well, especially when faced with the difficulties of Life (Slayer or mundane versions). Ergo, Buffy reaches out to the nearest warm or cold body around.

Let's consider the foreshadowing with Satsu. Buffy languished in Amy's "Snow White" spell. Only 'True Love's" kiss could wake Buffy--and Satsu's love proved sufficient to the task at hand. We saw that Buffy intuited Satsu's role--that level of love obviously moved Buffy. Especially considering the lack of ANY romantic love in her life.

Platonic love didn't seem forthcoming, either:

--Dawn's "super-sized" problems drove a wedge between the Summers sisters.
--Willow avoided Buffy because of unresolved issues surrounding Tara's death.
--Once again, Giles acted behind Buffy's back, and basically left Buffy's camp.
--Xander is the only true friend around, but he's pre-occupied with Renee, Dawn's troubles, and the state of "Slayer HQ".

Furthermore, Buffy is a wanted fugitive in her own country. She's literally a woman with no country now. No home, true friends far and few, surrounded by an army of subordinates who need her, and enemies hounding from all sides. Buffy felt as alone as a lonely person could get.

Thus, it's not inconceivable that a woman with Buffy's relationship history and current circumstances might seize upon the nearest person, who also happens to genuinely love her on the scale of fairytale romances. I think Satsu would be a most attractive--and tempting--person when under such duress.

[dogzilla]

I agree with the stuff about her jumping into relationships out of loneliness, I'm just not convinced that's enough to make someone suddenly switch sexual orientation. Not without a lot of booze being involved first anyway

Like I said, I wasn't outraged about it or anything. Just felt like there should have been a bit more of a lead up to it in previous issues than "Buffy feels lonely and likes Satsu's hair"

[Indigo Al]

I'm interested to see how it's gonna play out for Satsu. If her kiss was enough to get Buffy out of Amy's spell, then she's bound to get hurt by this whole thing and become the next Spike - clearly more than a case of "college experimentation" going on here.

[Tobias March]

I agree with the stuff about her jumping into relationships out of loneliness, I'm just not convinced that's enough to make someone suddenly switch sexual orientation. Not without a lot of booze being involved first anyway

Like I said, I wasn't outraged about it or anything. Just felt like there should have been a bit more of a lead up to it in previous issues than "Buffy feels lonely and likes Satsu's hair"

I can't remember the name of the director of Kinsey - he also made Gods and Monsters - but during interviews for the former film he made mention that as a gay man he'd never believed in bisexuals. He just figured they were closeted gays looking to experiment. But doing research on the Kinsey scale he discovered there are people who genuinely are attracted to both males and females.

It was an interesting admission and I like that in Buffy we're once again looking at the idea of sexuality and it's being suggested that it's more fluid than we sometimes like to believe.

[tangentman]

I think it's been made clear that Buffy hasn't "turned lesbian"--not even bisexual! She had sex with one woman and stated it was a one-time deal. Kinsey's studies would support the notion that a heterosexual person can have one same-sex experience without "turning gay". A single act does not a new sexual orientation make!

On the flipside, there are plenty of gay men and lesbians who've had a single opposite sex encounter after coming out as gay. That doesn't make THEM "straight", either. :)

Back to Buffy: I don't think Satsu will turn as obsessive as Spike, certainly not as psychotic. However, I'm sure that the eventual realization that Buffy just used her most likely stokes a deep resentment on Satsu's part.

[Puma]

There's a saying among Wiccans: "and you harm none, do as you will". Willow egregiously harms people--if not the universe itself--with her actions in "Bargaining". The obvious violation occurs in the act of ripping Buffy away from her hard-earned reward in "Heaven". Willow selfishly denied Buffy the peace she'd finally realized. She only thought of her own wants, rather than thinking through the far-reaching consequences of bringing a dead woman back to life.



I'm certainly not justifying Willow's actions but she believed that Buffy had gone to a Hell dimension and was compelled by compassion to bring her friend back. That is why she was so shocked in "Once More With Feeling" when Buffy sang that she was in heaven.

[beetlebum]

No, not really. Buffy's clingy neediness has already been well-covered by several members. Bottom line: Buffy HATES being alone. She doesn't bear single status very well, especially when faced with the difficulties of Life (Slayer or mundane versions). Ergo, Buffy reaches out to the nearest warm or cold body around.

Let's consider the foreshadowing with Satsu. Buffy languished in Amy's "Snow White" spell. Only 'True Love's" kiss could wake Buffy--and Satsu's love proved sufficient to the task at hand. We saw that Buffy intuited Satsu's role--that level of love obviously moved Buffy. Especially considering the lack of ANY romantic love in her life.

Platonic love didn't seem forthcoming, either:

--Dawn's "super-sized" problems drove a wedge between the Summers sisters.
--Willow avoided Buffy because of unresolved issues surrounding Tara's death.
--Once again, Giles acted behind Buffy's back, and basically left Buffy's camp.
--Xander is the only true friend around, but he's pre-occupied with Renee, Dawn's troubles, and the state of "Slayer HQ".

Furthermore, Buffy is a wanted fugitive in her own country. She's literally a woman with no country now. No home, true friends far and few, surrounded by an army of subordinates who need her, and enemies hounding from all sides. Buffy felt as alone as a lonely person could get.

Thus, it's not inconceivable that a woman with Buffy's relationship history and current circumstances might seize upon the nearest person, who also happens to genuinely love her on the scale of fairytale romances. I think Satsu would be a most attractive--and tempting--person when under such duress.

I agree with this, but wasn't Giles using Faith to save Buffy? That was the impression I got when I reread issues #7 and #8 recently. But I can understand Buffy's sense of betrayal, as he is basically shutting her out of his plans.

On another note, as I noted earlier in this thread with my link, it is natural for some people to want to experiment with members of the same sex. Due to the outward constructs of our respective ethnocentric environments, and the eisegesis into the texts of the Abrahamic religions (you'll have to talk to Typo for a clarification of homosexuality in the Torah), suppression of homosexual urges and these tendencies became the order of the day.

In Ancient China, before the advent of Confucianism, women were encouraged to have sexual relations with each other. It was said that women possessed an unlimited supply of yin, while men possessed a limited supply of yang. Confucianism eventually turned that on its head, as I noted.

It was like this in many other cultures as well. As it is natural for so many women, and if we were to go by empiricism here, than it was only inevitable that Buffy would go down the same route.

[beetlebum]

Well, she may have believed that Buffy was in a hell dimension, but she also had selfish reasons for doing what she did. Joyce was dead, and Willow's parents were always a bit distant to her, save for the "King Friday, patriarch" debates. Buffy was one of the few bright spots in her life. So mainly, Willow just wanted her best friend back, and was willing to go to any means to get her back.

[dogzilla]

I think it's been made clear that Buffy hasn't "turned lesbian"--not even bisexual! She had sex with one woman and stated it was a one-time deal. Kinsey's studies would support the notion that a heterosexual person can have one same-sex experience without "turning gay". A single act does not a new sexual orientation make!
I know all this, I was just saying in terms of story-telling and characterisation it seemed weird to have this just suddenly pop up out of nowhere

And if it was really just a "one-time deal", that's actually kind of annoying, because then the whole thing would seem less like a new direction for the character and more like a cheap stunt

[Puma]

Well, she may have believed that Buffy was in a hell dimension, but she also had selfish reasons for doing what she did. Joyce was dead, and Willow's parents were always a bit distant to her, save for the "King Friday, patriarch" debates. Buffy was one of the few bright spots in her life. So mainly, Willow just wanted her best friend back, and was willing to go to any means to get her back.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Willow was in a very good relationship with Tara, taking care of Dawn, and surrounded by her friends, while she certainly missed Buffy I don't believe she would've done what she did unless she believed Buffy was experiencing what Angel went through following the closing of Acathla. I really believe she thought she was helping her friend. But as Jeffrey has said, she never looked at the consequences of her actions, both to herself and to Buffy.

[beetlebum]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Willow was in a very good relationship with Tara, taking care of Dawn, and surrounded by her friends, while she certainly missed Buffy I don't believe she would've done what she did unless she believed Buffy was experiencing what Angel went through following the closing of Acathla. I really believe she thought she was helping her friend. But as Jeffrey has said, she never looked at the consequences of her actions, both to herself and to Buffy.

Ah deontology vs. consequentialism. =p. There is no doubt that Willow had some good motives and reasons for doing what she did, as you pointed out. And yes, she was in a healthy stable relationship with Tara. But there is no denying that she also had her selfish reasons as well. Mainly, she just wanted her friend back.

[tangentman]

Not only that, Puma, but Willow felt overwhelmed by the additional responsibilities involved in filling the void left by The Slayer. The Scoobies combined struggled with killing two vamps in the season premiere. Willow, Xander, Tara, and Anya were trying to maintain the lie of Buffy still being alive. Constant maintenance of the Buffybot contributed extra stress to Willow.

Sure, I think Willow might have believed Buffy was being tormented, but that doesn't negate the selfishness involved in her actions. Willow wanted Buffy back to unload her additional responsibilities. She needed a Slayer to fight the demons--as well as the metaphorical demons of adult life. I have no doubt that included playing "mother figure" to Dawn. That's why the part about "taking Dawn away and raising her" rang a little false to me. It also seems strange to me that Willow would assume a good person like Buffy would suffer in Hell.

[beetlebum]

Not only that, Puma, but Willow felt overwhelmed by the additional responsibilities involved in filling the void left by The Slayer. The Scoobies combined struggled with killing two vamps in the season premiere. Willow, Xander, Tara, and Anya were trying to maintain the lie of Buffy still being alive. Constant maintenance of the Buffybot contributed extra stress to Willow.

Sure, I think Willow might have believed Buffy was being tormented, but that doesn't negate the selfishness involved in her actions. Willow wanted Buffy back to unload her additional responsibilities. She needed a Slayer to fight the demons--as well as the metaphorical demons of adult life. I have no doubt that included playing "mother figure" to Dawn. That's why the part about "taking Dawn away and raising her" rang a little false to me. It also seems strange to me that Willow would assume a good person like Buffy would suffer in Hell.

Exactly. There was no pure deontological motive, and is there ever? And let's not forget about the demon biker gang that over ran Sunnydale as they were trying to resurrect her back from the dead. Hell that gang even threatened to rape Willow, Dawn and Tara. And lo and behold, Buffy comes back just in time to save them.

[Corrina]

Jeffrey, I appreciate the extra information about Willow's spell. I knew at the time that it definitely signaled bad things for Willow. It's not so much the 'going evil' that I find unrealistic, it's that the progression didn't work.

Willow brings back Buffy. Willow tries bad things to keep Tara with her. That all works. It's the next jump to Amy and the 'magic addict' that seems heavy handed and it continued that way. Killing Warren was excellent. Going over to destroying the world didn't quite play for me. Maybe using an evil method to destroy the hellmouth, possibly, and Buffy & company knowing that method would actually unleash something worse and fight her over it works better. But that's a nitpick, I think, because I did love the final two episodes quite a bit.

And while the extra information is good about the spell, knowing how evil it really was doesn't help if that part isn't really able to be seen on the show. I like explanations as much as the next fan but your story really has to be on the page (or screen in this case) because you really can't amend the story to put in all the notes about the evil origins of that particular spell.

[tangentman]

I don't know if that's necessarily true, Corrina. Joss & the rest of Mutant Enemy loved peppering their stories with all sorts of mythical and cultural allusions and "Easter eggs". While Marti Noxon basically fessed up that much of the occult stuff was created off-the-cuff, I wouldn't be surprised if Whedon put a little extra "something" in there for the sharp-eyed Buffy fans. Not unlike Gail having Wonder Woman sailing out of the morning sun riding a seashell, alluding to her patron goddess Aphrodite's birth.

[beetlebum]

Killing Warren made sense, though I would not say it was "excellent". I remember shortly after Faith killed the deputy mayor Allan Linch, how she and Buffy got into an argument over taking the life of another human being. Faith gave the utilitarian argument, that basically it didn't matter in the larger scheme of things. Buffy rebutted it every step of the way.

Being addicted to magic, specifically power, made sense as it overrode her senses and made right from wrong nearly indistinguishable. Being corrupted with all of that magic, which she brought into forbearance by bringing Buffy back from the dead, made sense to me if you follow the sequence of events. But that's just my opinion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm certainly not justifying Willow's actions but she believed that Buffy had gone to a Hell dimension and was compelled by compassion to bring her friend back. That is why she was so shocked in "Once More With Feeling" when Buffy sang that she was in heaven.

Yeah, as it turns out she was completely wrong, and took Buffy from what Buffy regarded as a hard-earned reward, but that wasn't Willow's intent.

Aside from the compassion, though, given some of what she was doing and how her experimentation with magic had grown in leaps and bounds over time, despite cautionary statements by both Giles and Tara, it seems likely that another motivation for Willow would be to try a different, powerful sort of magic, and perhaps she even specifically wanted to do something so forbidden. Clearly her wanting Buffy back was a primary motivation - witness her sadness when she thought the spell had failed due to the interruption by the demon gang - but I tend to think she also wanted to try the spell for her own sake.

[beetlebum]

That's another element to consider. Thank you for bringing that up. Willow was able to convince herself that Buffy was in a hell dimension, and that, when viewed in a larger context, may have been just the excuse that Willow needed to go through with her plans.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I agree with this, but wasn't Giles using Faith to save Buffy? That was the impression I got when I reread issues #7 and #8 recently. But I can understand Buffy's sense of betrayal, as he is basically shutting her out of his plans.

Yes. The mission was essentially a black ops/assassination mission, and he didn't think that would be proper thing for Buffy. This is rather like the moment in the Season 5 finale, in which Buffy didn't kill Ben after Glory reverted to him, but Giles then killed him, noting that it wasn't proper Buffy do so, as she was a hero, and it thus fell to Giles to do this ignoble but nonetheless necessary task to prevent the risk of Glory manifesting again in the future. It's interesting to note that in choosing Faith for this mission, Giles doesn't seem to consider Faith's move away from her earlier, darker self, though it's possible he just wasn't really aware of how far she'd come since most of that happened when she was with Angel in LA.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I really believe she thought she was helping her friend.

While, as I noted above, I believe that Willow also had some selfish motive in wanting to do the spell for its own sake, I do believe her wanting to bring Buffy back was the primary motivation, and very possibly the only conscious one. In fact, the act of researching and preparing the spell, and her hope for its success, probably served to somewhat blunt the impact of Buffy's death for Willow; essentially, she hadn't given up on Buffy coming back, so she didn't have to really grieve until she later believed the spell had failed.

[beetlebum]

Yes. The mission was essentially a black ops/assassination mission, and he didn't think that would be proper thing for Buffy. This is rather like the moment in the Season 5 finale, in which Buffy didn't kill Ben after Glory reverted to him, but Giles then killed him, noting that it wasn't proper Buffy do so, as she was a hero, and it thus fell to Giles to do this ignoble but nonetheless necessary task to prevent the risk of Glory manifesting again in the future. It's interesting to note that in choosing Faith for this mission, Giles doesn't seem to consider Faith's move away from her earlier, darker self, though it's possible he just wasn't really aware of how far she'd come since most of that happened when she was with Angel in LA.

Thanks for the clarification. I can't help but feel Faith must have felt used as well, considering her "it always falls back to his golden girl" statement, or something similar to that where she states that "it's all about Buffy". And from what I gather, she seems to be tormented by the demons of her past, literally, or some sort of demonic figure as she is tormented by the voices in her head. The follow up to this will be quite interesting to read.

And given Giles ignoble past as "Ripper", the elements of which we saw displayed in scenes from episodes like "Halloween" and "The Dark Ages", it is very fitting that he would be the one who offs people. As opposed to Buffy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's another element to consider. Thank you for bringing that up. Willow was able to convince herself that Buffy was in a hell dimension, and that, when viewed in a larger context, may have been just the excuse that Willow needed to go through with her plans.

That's possible, though to take Willow's side a bit, I don't think it unreasonable that she would think that because she gave her life to close a rift to a hell dimension, Buffy's soul might well be trapped in said hell dimension.

tangentman offers up a very interesting possibility as well - that part of Willow's motive in bringing Buffy back was so Willow could transfer the responsibility given to her by Buffy's death back upon Buffy. I've thought about that a fair bit, but I tend to think, based on elements of earlier and later episodes, that this is probably not the case.

Consider Willow's dream in "Restless" (the Season 4 finale). The theme of her dream is the fear that deep down, she's still the ineffectual, shy, geekish bookworm she was at the start of the show, and that others will find this out. Consider also Willow's own statments after she goes "Dark Willow", about how after six years as a sideman, now she got to be the Slayer." Finally, consider also, the forcefulness with which she is trying to direct the slaying attempts of the other members of the gang in the scene that opens Season 6 ("Bargaining, part 1). Given all these bits, it seems likely Willow probably liked taking charge, even if doing so was taking its toll on her.

Now, it is certainly possible that the toll of taking on that much responsibility might be one factor that fed into Willow falling under the corruptive lure of the power offered by magic, but I think Willow was clearly tempted enough by this power all the way along, as magic made her more than the mousy geek she used to be. I suppose the extra toll of all that responsibility might help explain the excellerated rate at which she appeared to spiral into corruption after Buffy's death, though.

[beetlebum]

Consider Willow's dream in "Restless" (the Season 4 finale). The theme of her dream is the fear that deep down, she's still the ineffectual, shy, geekish bookworm she was at the start of the show, and that others will find this out. Consider also Willow's own statments after she goes "Dark Willow", about how after six years as a sideman, now she got to be the Slayer." Finally, consider also, the forcefulness with which she is trying to direct the slaying attempts of the other members of the gang in the scene that opens Season 6 ("Bargaining, part 1). Given all these bits, it seems likely Willow probably liked taking charge, even if doing so was taking its toll on her.



Well yeah, we've seen elements of take charge Willow before. In "Earshot", an eerie foreshadowing of Columbine, she gives Cordelia, Xander and Oz assignments and tells them to do it "Today people!" And, I think it was in "The Dark Ages", or another episode during season two, where she yells at both Xander and Cordelia to shut up and get serious. The subsequent yelling leaves both Xander and Cordelia stunned, as they both don't know how to handle something that is so incongruous of Willow's personality.

And in "Doomed", Willow spends most of the episode complaining about how Percy blew her off, and how it's just like high school all over again. The insecurity is always with her, as it is for all of us.

I was just positing a hypothesis that maybe, given how stressed Willow was by her responsibilities and how enamored she became with magic by that interval, that maybe resurrecting Buffy back from the dead was not only a way to shift the bulk of her responsibility away from her, but an excuse to try new magicks as well.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And while the extra information is good about the spell, knowing how evil it really was doesn't help if that part isn't really able to be seen on the show. I like explanations as much as the next fan but your story really has to be on the page (or screen in this case) because you really can't amend the story to put in all the notes about the evil origins of that particular spell.

I have two takes on this. The first one is as tangentman noted - there are lots of little in-jokes and references to stuff all through the show. Comic book references, literary references, etc. These are part of what makes the show work. One can argue the magic/religious references are also part of the story.

Second, I am big into the "deep read" school of lit crit, which says that in analyzing meaningful or "deep" works of art - and I think that the fact that we're all discussing a show that has been off the air for years now suggests that we all regard BUFFY as such a work - one must look below the surface, at the context and subtext, to get at the deeper meanings of the work.

But then, it's also possible that spending years reading and doing such analysis on works as varied as Eliot's THE WASTE LAND and Lovecraft's AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS might have damaged my brain.

[AaronJ]

OK, I have given this a great deal of thought since my initial temper tantrum (there's really no other way to describe it). I've thought about what happened, my reaction to it, and what everyone here has had to contribute.

I've come to the conclusion that it is totally dishonest, intellectually, for me to both accept what Joss did with Willow, then, otoh, turn around and condemn him for having Buffy doing what she did.

It's a total double standard, and either I retroactively go back and freak out over the whole Willow thing, or I just suck it up and accept what's happened now.

I may not be the biggest fan, at this (admittedly very early) stage, of this development, but I also have come around to accepting it. It's the way it is, and who knows? It may turn out to be very interesting.

Also, I apologize for my totally over-the-top initial reaction.

[AaronJ]

I remember School Hard and it was clearly his attempt to continue to allow himself to pretend that there wasn't as much going on as there really was.

But by the time of "The Prom" (which still, to this day, I cannot stay dry-eyed through), it was clear that the students, at least, were absolutely sure that something was going on.


I've always read that phone call from Snyder in "Becoming" as something they planned on addressing more, knowing that the Mayor would be the Big Bad of S3, but simply either changed their minds or just never got around to.

[Tobias March]

I think it's been made clear that Buffy hasn't "turned lesbian"--not even bisexual! She had sex with one woman and stated it was a one-time deal. Kinsey's studies would support the notion that a heterosexual person can have one same-sex experience without "turning gay". A single act does not a new sexual orientation make!

Indeed, but my point was that perhaps sexuality regardless of its nature is not as rigid as some would have us believe.

I always liked the story about how Joss planted hints from the very start that either Xander or Willow might be gay. In the end he chose to do that storyline with Willow

[AaronJ]

Killing Warren made sense, though I would not say it was "excellent". I remember shortly after Faith killed the deputy mayor Allan Linch, how she and Buffy got into an argument over taking the life of another human being. Faith gave the utilitarian argument, that basically it didn't matter in the larger scheme of things. Buffy rebutted it every step of the way.

Not only that, but Faith's "explanations" never seemed to me very honest. I never believe that *she* believed them, even. But she didn't want to face up to what she had done, and so came up with a self-serving explanation.

Actually, it was that dishonesty with herself which, AFAIC, finally drove her down the road which she eventually travelled. That sort of internal discord was something Faith simply couldn't overcome (until, of course, much later).

Being addicted to magic, specifically power, made sense as it overrode her senses and made right from wrong nearly indistinguishable. Being corrupted with all of that magic, which she brought into forbearance by bringing Buffy back from the dead, made sense to me if you follow the sequence of events. But that's just my opinion.

The "Magic as Crack" approach never worked for me, and I rolled my eyes whenever it was presented. Corrina called it "heavy-handed" and I think that might even be generous.

There were so many different, more subtle, more interesting ways of dealing with Willow's decline into darkness. But, "See, she's an *addict* and so she starts hanging around the bad part of town, the wrong kind of people, and even crashes the car with her friend it. See! It's just like drug addicts!"

That seems, to me, to be not only a poor "metaphor," but also a fairly simplistic view of addiction. I think that a high-functioning addict story, if you're absolutely determined to have her be an addict, would have been much more intersting, less heavy-handed, and more subtle.

Brett Favre was addicted to Vicodin. He never missed practice. He never missed a game. He wasn't suddenly acting completely differently than before. But it was taking its toll on him, and eventually led to him having a seizure. At that point, Favre realized he needed to deal with this addiction.

Not to mention that the whole "Sabrina The Teenage Witch"/"Charmed" approach to magic in S6 turned me off.

Anyhow, I think there are a number of ways they could have gone to reach the final point that would have been better.

[JeffreyWKramer]

OK, I have given this a great deal of thought since my initial temper tantrum (there's really no other way to describe it). I've thought about what happened, my reaction to it, and what everyone here has had to contribute.

I've come to the conclusion that it is totally dishonest, intellectually, for me to both accept what Joss did with Willow, then, otoh, turn around and condemn him for having Buffy doing what she did.

It's a total double standard, and either I retroactively go back and freak out over the whole Willow thing, or I just suck it up and accept what's happened now.

I may not be the biggest fan, at this (admittedly very early) stage, of this development, but I also have come around to accepting it. It's the way it is, and who knows? It may turn out to be very interesting.

Also, I apologize for my totally over-the-top initial reaction.


Hey, I think it's cool that you think about your reactions to things, and whether they make sense. Too few people do that at all.

[AaronJ]

Hey, I think it's cool that you think about your reactions to things, and whether they make sense. Too few people do that at all.

Thanks, Jeff.

And, as I believe it was you who stated earlier, at least it started an interesting discussion on the show in general. And that's always a good thing.

[ShaunN]

Boy, I should have gotten into this thread a lot earlier, and now I'm way behind. I don't know if I'll have the time to go and read from the beginning, so just let me throw out a few things:

First, I actually wrote a column about "Buffy" during its final season for a website called "The Buzz". In general, I felt that S7 sucked - except for the first maybe 7 episodes. After that, the series hit the floor and never got back up.

Second, I totally agree with the idea that the "magic as crack" metaphor was ludicrous and overdone. Willow's problem was that she lacked the maturity and self-discipline to handle her power wisely and responsibly. By treating it as an addiction, the writers missed an opportunity to say something interesting about power in general.

Finally, though I don't yet have my copy of the new issue, I have no problem with Buffy's lesbian experimentation (or whatever it is). I read in the CBR where the editor of the series made the point that Buffy has a history of sleeping with whomever happens to be convenient and makes her feel special (i.e, has an infatuation with her) regardless of whether or not doing so is appropriate. Spike is the big, obvious example here. So, the fact that she would sleep with Satsu, who is infatuated with her, at a time when she feels lonely and worn down seems in keeping with the character. I think it is interesting that Buffy is such a developed character that we can see her loneliness/abandonment issues coming out in a regular pattern of behaviour.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[AaronJ]

Boy, I should have gotten into this thread a lot earlier, and now I'm way behind. I don't know if I'll have the time to go and read from the beginning, so just let me throw out a few things:

Well, a lot of the early stuff is me ranting, so you won't miss too much. ;)

First, I actually wrote a column about "Buffy" during its final season for a website called "The Buzz". In general, I felt that S7 sucked - except for the first maybe 7 episodes. After that, the series hit the floor and never got back up.

I think it fell apart at the beginning of S6, and I quit watching a few episodes into S7. I felt like I suffered through S6, simply because it was Buffy. A few eps into S7, and I just promised myself that that wouldn't happen again.

Second, I totally agree with the idea that the "magic as crack" metaphor was ludicrous and overdone. Willow's problem was that she lacked the maturity and self-discipline to handle her power wisely and responsibly. By treating it as an addiction, the writers missed an opportunity to say something interesting about power in general.

With great power comes ... Yeah, exactly.

Finally, though I don't yet have my copy of the new issue, I have no problem with Buffy's lesbian experimentation (or whatever it is). I read in the CBR where the editor of the series made the point that Buffy has a history of sleeping with whomever happens to be convenient and makes her feel special (i.e, has an infatuation with her) regardless of whether or not doing so is appropriate.

While I have, finally by this point, accepted that development, I do disagree with the second part.

She had, in her entire life, up to the point of her death in "The Gift" had exactly three lovers. Two of whom she slept with exactly once. So, it's not as if Buffy had a history of feeling down and jumping into bed with people.

Spike is the big, obvious example here. So, the fact that she would sleep with Satsu, who is infatuated with her, at a time when she feels lonely and worn down seems in keeping with the character. I think it is interesting that Buffy is such a developed character that we can see her loneliness/abandonment issues coming out in a regular pattern of behaviour.


True, as far as the characterization.

The entire Spike thing never rang true, and I think actually was extremely demeaning to the character. And not in an interesting way, but in a depressing way.

But that's a different issue.
Sincerely,

Shaun[/QUOTE]

[Gilda Dent]

Regarding which reality is the true one in "Normal Again", my biggest problem with it wasn't the implication that it might be all a product of Buffy's break with reality, but that it's a stock SF plot that has been done to death, two or three times in Star Trek series, in the finales of Newhart and St. Elsewhere, an episode of Lost, in one of the endings of Brazil, at least one episode of the 80's syndicated Twilight Zone, three or four SF short stories and novellas, the anime Perfect Blue. It's usually resolved as to which reality is the true one, but I don't really have much problem with open endings.

This particular plot device is generally about two things: The nature of perception and a metatextual examination of storytelling. It's a reminder that all stories are told by someone, are the products of someone's imagination. The choice here between whether the events in Sunnydale are the product of Buffy's imagination/delusions/psychosis or actually happened is a false one; even if the events did actually happen in the reality of the show, they're still the product of a person's imagination--Joss Whedon's and the writers of this episode.

My problem wasn't with the particular episode or its execution, it's that it's a plot that's been done to death.

[Indigo Al]

The "Magic as Crack" approach never worked for me, and I rolled my eyes whenever it was presented. Corrina called it "heavy-handed" and I think that might even be generous.

There were so many different, more subtle, more interesting ways of dealing with Willow's decline into darkness. But, "See, she's an *addict* and so she starts hanging around the bad part of town, the wrong kind of people, and even crashes the car with her friend it. See! It's just like drug addicts!"

That seems, to me, to be not only a poor "metaphor," but also a fairly simplistic view of addiction. I think that a high-functioning addict story, if you're absolutely determined to have her be an addict, would have been much more intersting, less heavy-handed, and more subtle.

Not to mention that the whole "Sabrina The Teenage Witch"/"Charmed" approach to magic in S6 turned me off.

Anyhow, I think there are a number of ways they could have gone to reach the final point that would have been better.

I absolutely agree with all these points. That's why I was so suprised when Jeffrey posted the source of Willow's spell to bring Buffy back.

Regarding which reality is the true one in "Normal Again", my biggest problem with it wasn't the implication that it might be all a product of Buffy's break with reality, but that it's a stock SF plot that has been done to death

Another point with which I strongly agree. It's a plot twist that's been done to death, and it's produced some awful movies as well as some good ones.

As I type, I'm watching "Conversations With Dead People" from Season 7. And "Webs" the psych vampire from Sunnydale High, is discussing Buffy's problems with men. kinda funny

[JeffreyWKramer]

Earlier in this discussion, I wrote a bit (well, as usual for me, probably more than a bit) about the problems I have with the Buffy episode "Normal Again" (Season 6, episode 17). In that episode, Buffy mentally goes back and forth between the setting normally presented in the show and one - as far as we can tell supposed to represent or at least resemble the "real world" the viewers of the show inhabit - in which she is not the Slayer, but is in fact a hospitalized young schizophrenic woman. My biggest problem with this episode, as I noted, is that the way it ends creates the impression that the entire show might be the delusions of a psychotic young woman, and causes the viewer to think about whether or not s/he should accept the show's events, and thus its themes, as narratively "real." As such, this rather undercuts a lot of the themes and goals BUFFY creator Joss Whedon has stated underlie the show (feminism, feminine empowerment, the idea that women can be heroes, etc.); after all, if Buffy's adventures are nothing but the delusions of a disturbed woman, then perhaps the themes she represents are likewise delusional, or at very least unrealistic, i.e, is the whole concept of female empowerment and a female hero somewhat delusional?

In response to my initial statement of the above, it was suggested that perhaps this was not intended, as at that point Joss was somewhat less involved in BUFFY, having turned over some duties to Marti Noxon so he could focus on FIREFLY. In reply, I noted that I think this is unlikely. Supporting this are several facts, including the fact - attested to in numerous interviews, DVD commentaries, etc. with folk closely involved with the show, including Jane Espenson and David Fury - that while Joss was not quite *as* involved with the moment-to-moment running of BUFFY at that point as he had been in the past, he was nonetheless still *very* involved in story development, script oversight, etc, and maintained final approval over everything. Pretty much everything I can find on the subject suggests that Joss is rather much of a micromanager, but this is to be rather expected, given how personally important Joss has said BUFFY and its messages are to him. He has stated numerous times that in creating Buffy, he specifically wanted to create a pop-culture icon to serve as a lasting model of a heroic young woman. Given that, I'd think he would probably be rather sensitive to elements in an episode that might undercut that goal.

Second, there's the fact that Marti Noxon and the rest of the writing/production staff were, if anything, just as interested in micro-details of the show as was Joss, and cared about it quite a bit. Every discussion with virtually anyone involved in the show has at some point focused on the fact that everyone gave the show their all, often working much longer workdays and work weeks than is typical for a TV series (the insider joke was to summarize the show they were working on as BUFFY THE WEEKEND SLAYER). Furher, the way the show was written, all of these people had some role in devising story ideas, breaking down the story, early scripting process, etc. I find it rather hard to believe such a detail would slip past Joss Whedon and everyone else.

Third, while the show is not without minor continuity errors and such, it is anything but a haphazard show. Set elements (posters, art, etc.), clothing choices, music selections, etc. were all very carefully chosen. Some "Buffy Studies" folk have commented (see Rhonda Wilcox' WHY BUFFY MATTERS, among others) how elements such as art in the walls of the Summers home changed from episode to episode in a manner accenting the themes of the episodes. While there are mistakes on BUFFY, as on any TV show, anything chosen was chosen with intent; details matter very much on that show.

Given that, I started to wonder: If that aspect of "Normal Again" which bothers me so much was not something that slipped through, it is most likely something intentional. This only makes sense, after all, as directorial and editorial choices are made very intentionally. If that's the case, then, one next has to wonder (or I do, anyhow), why is that aspect there? What was Joss Whedon intending - and again, remember, Joss was ultimately choosing what did and didn't go into a BUFFY episode - when he included that element to the episode.

Here's my hypothesis, which I'd like y'all to consider and comment on. I believe that Joss intentionally wanted the viewers to question whether or not they should accept the viewpoints which underlie BUFFY, or whether they should instead take a more pessimistic and somewhat more conventional view of ideas such as feminine empowerment and the heroism of women.

Feminist ideals, after all, have not been very mainstream for very long, and there is still opposition to many aspects of feminism by many quarters of society - and in some cultures, full-scale opposition to the idea. Some would argue that the reality of the real world (i.e., that represented by the "Buffy is a schizophrenic woman" scenario), or at very least the conventional wisdom of same, is that women are still limited - by social forces, by innate qualities, by "thinking differently than men", by relative lack of muscular strength or whatever - in what they can accomplish, and in how meaningfully "empowered" they can be, and perhaps can't realistically expect this to truly change very much.

I think that by getting the viewer to question whether or not they should accept the narrative of BUFFY as generally accepted, Joss Whedon wants the viewer to not only passively accept the show's premises while watching it , but actively choose to embrace the view that the narrative reality of the show is the better way to view the show - and, hopefully, thereby enhance the viewer's sense that the show's themes are valid. Psychologically, actively making such a choice to view things in that way would would serve to increase the viewer's identification with the show's themes, and to question (and hopefully discard) older, more pessimistic, less feminist ideas that might still hold purchase in the minds of viewers.

So... comments, anyone?

[JeffreyWKramer]

The choice here between whether the events in Sunnydale are the product of Buffy's imagination/delusions/psychosis or actually happened is a false one; even if the events did actually happen in the reality of the show, they're still the product of a person's imagination--Joss Whedon's and the writers of this episode.

In terms of objective reality, this is obviously true; BUFFY is fiction, after all. But the same rules don't apply in regard to narrative reality, and narrative reality matters in terms of what a person takes from a work of fiction, and how it impacts their thinking and their way of viewing the reality fiction, and all art, are intended to illuminate.

That's not to say the metatextual storytelling issues aren't also active in this episode. Joss is clearly concerned with such things - look at the season 7 episode "Storyteller" as a very overt attempt to address this concept. Certainly we can analyze the nature of storytelling, but that doesn't keep us from being affected by the "narrative truths" of a well-done piece of art.

My problem wasn't with the particular episode or its execution, it's that it's a plot that's been done to death.
That point I can't argue with at all. Indeed, the whole time I first viewed this episode, I kept getting distracted by thoughts of how it paralleled a particular episode of DEEP SPACE NINE which was based around the same plot and ideas.

[PatrickG]

Regarding which reality is the true one in "Normal Again", my biggest problem with it wasn't the implication that it might be all a product of Buffy's break with reality, but that it's a stock SF plot that has been done to death, two or three times in Star Trek series, in the finales of Newhart and St. Elsewhere, an episode of Lost, in one of the endings of Brazil, at least one episode of the 80's syndicated Twilight Zone, three or four SF short stories and novellas, the anime Perfect Blue. It's usually resolved as to which reality is the true one, but I don't really have much problem with open endings.

This particular plot device is generally about two things: The nature of perception and a metatextual examination of storytelling. It's a reminder that all stories are told by someone, are the products of someone's imagination. The choice here between whether the events in Sunnydale are the product of Buffy's imagination/delusions/psychosis or actually happened is a false one; even if the events did actually happen in the reality of the show, they're still the product of a person's imagination--Joss Whedon's and the writers of this episode.

My problem wasn't with the particular episode or its execution, it's that it's a plot that's been done to death.

My biggest problem was that her break with reality took place after she had met Merrick.

While it helps explain her institutionalization, it presents a third problem scenario:

Namely that she IS the Slayer even though she's imagined the events of the TV show.

[Gilda Dent]

In terms of objective reality, this is obviously true; BUFFY is fiction, after all. But the same rules don't apply in regard to narrative reality, and narrative reality matters in terms of what a person takes from a work of fiction, and how it impacts their thinking and their way of viewing the reality fiction, and all art, are intended to illuminate.

That's not to say the metatextual storytelling issues aren't also active in this episode. Joss is clearly concerned with such things - look at the season 7 episode "Storyteller" as a very overt attempt to address this concept. Certainly we can analyze the nature of storytelling, but that doesn't keep us from being affected by the "narrative truths" of a well-done piece of art.

I can't argue with that, and I don't think what I was saying and what you were saying are really in conflict, but instead fit well together. The viewer is left to choose between two versions of narrative reality, one of which is the show's creators', and reflect the themes of female empowerment you describe earlier, or that this reality is one nested within a higher one in which the only way a woman can hope to achieve heroic status of the sort Buffy (and Willow, and Tara, and Anya, and Jenny, and even Mrs. Summers, and later in Angel, Cordelia) does is through a delusion that a woman can rise above her circumstances.

When looked at metatexually, it becomes a question of whether one believes that girls should dream of being more than what society has traditionally told them they should be, whether those dreams can become reality or must remain in the realm of idealistic fantasy.

That point I can't argue with at all. Indeed, the whole time I first viewed this episode, I kept getting distracted by thoughts of how it paralleled a particular episode of DEEP SPACE NINE which was based around the same plot and ideas.

And two episodes of ST: TNG, one dealing with Riker and one with Dr. Crusher, and an episode of Voyager dealing with The Doctor.

[ShaunN]

Dear Jeffrey,

Really interesting points. I don't know - I guess my initial reaction is to say that my impression was that Joss pretty much walked away from the show during S6 and 7, except to OK the larger storylines. I can easily see him as simply having said of "Normal Again" - "hey, sounds like a good idea, go to it", without overthinking the larger implications. But your interpretation is very interesting.

Diana-fan - I totally agree that many, many aspects of S6 were really badly done. Joss' departure from the show was dearly felt and S6 really went over the top - I think there's a line somewhere where Giles says something like "the subtext is rapidly becoming text" and S6 was that - no subtlety, every bad and every stupid choice that all of the characters could possibly make were made, everyone fell apart at the same time and the "family" that the Scoobies had constructed for themselves was shown to be remarkably lacking in emotional support. I understand the need to cram a lot of ideas and metaphors into a limited amount of time, but it was just too much. Towards the end of the season, there were some memorable moments - "Dark Willow" was fun and had some great lines (though why everything comes down to "saving the world" I don't know) and the return of Giles was spectacular. ;-)

And, yes, I completely agree that Buffy's "relationship" with Spike in S6 was completely degrading to her and an abdication of her responsibilities to herself as both a woman and a Slayer. In some ways, it was meant to be an indication of how depressed she was and how far she had fallen - though, frighteningly, a lot of Buffy fans just did not get this. But Marti Noxon also wanted it to represent the "bad boy" stage that lots of women go through. Fortunately, however, most women's "bad boys" aren't mass-murdering, soulless, conscience-less vampires. Buffy couldn't get involved with Spike without really undermining everything that she was. I like Spike - to a point - but the Buffy-Spike relationship was meant to be a demonstration in what not to do. The fact that many people considered it "romantic" was really disturbing.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Indigo Al]

Earlier in this discussion, I wrote a bit (well, as usual for me, probably more than a bit) about the problems I have with the Buffy episode "Normal Again" (Season 6, episode 17).

My biggest problem with this episode, as I noted, is that the way it ends creates the impression that the entire show might be the delusions of a psychotic young woman, and causes the viewer to think about whether or not s/he should accept the show's events, and thus its themes, as narratively "real." As such, this rather undercuts a lot of the themes and goals BUFFY creator Joss Whedon has stated underlie the show (feminism, feminine empowerment, the idea that women can be heroes, etc.); after all, if Buffy's adventures are nothing but the delusions of a disturbed woman, then perhaps the themes she represents are likewise delusional, or at very least unrealistic, i.e, is the whole concept of female empowerment and a female hero somewhat delusional?


I personally have never given "Normal Again" much thought, except as a throw-away one off idea that underlines Buffy's weariness with herself, her current situation, the responsibility she has to burden, and being back from Heaven.

To me, if ANY episode undercuts the themes you mention - feminism, female empowerment, etc. - it's "Get it Done" from Season 7 - wherein we find out that The Slayer is essentially created by "rape", a little girl abused by priests who are setting her up to take their lumps for them.

(I don't mean to derail any discussion of "Normal Again," by the way).

[JeffreyWKramer]

I can't argue with that, and I don't think what I was saying and what you were saying are really in conflict, but instead fit well together. The viewer is left to choose between two versions of narrative reality, one of which is the show's creators', and reflect the themes of female empowerment you describe earlier, or that this reality is one nested within a higher one in which the only way a woman can hope to achieve heroic status of the sort Buffy (and Willow, and Tara, and Anya, and Jenny, and even Mrs. Summers, and later in Angel, Cordelia) does is through a delusion that a woman can rise above her circumstances.

When looked at metatexually, it becomes a question of whether one believes that girls should dream of being more than what society has traditionally told them they should be, whether those dreams can become reality or must remain in the realm of idealistic fantasy.

Yeah, I think our points fit well together, and I think your metatextual analysis offers some support for my hypothesis, in that not only did the episode present the choice, but the way the choice is set up - identify with this unpleasant reality, or stick with the show you've followed to this point, even as dark as it is right now - might be seeking to get the viewer to believe in the dream by choosing to go with the narrative reality that represents that dream.

And two episodes of ST: TNG, one dealing with Riker and one with Dr. Crusher, and an episode of Voyager dealing with The Doctor.

I recall the Riker episode, but not the Crusher one, and I'm not sure I saw the VOYAGER one, as I didn't follow that show very closely and gave up on it entirely somewhere around the middle of Season 4. The one I was referrning to (and Gilda, I'm guessing you already know this) frames Sisko a a science fiction writer in mid-20th century America who dares to dream of a time when race isn't a factor in one's opportunities. This episode is referenced again in at least one or two subsequent episodes of that series.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Dear Jeffrey,

Really interesting points. I don't know - I guess my initial reaction is to say that my impression was that Joss pretty much walked away from the show during S6 and 7, except to OK the larger storylines. I can easily see him as simply having said of "Normal Again" - "hey, sounds like a good idea, go to it", without overthinking the larger implications. But your interpretation is very interesting.

Jane Espenson's own statements contradict your impressions. As she states it, scriptwriting on BUFFY and ANGEL followed the following process:

1) Joss clearly lays out the emotional/thematic arc for the season. At this time he also details some specific episodes - including the ones he himself writes and directs - and where they will fall within that arc, and apparently also gives some roughs of many of the other episodes and how they will fit in with the season's theme and narrative arc. Occasionally an ep idea will come out of left field at a later date and subsequently and be worked into the arc plan - "Superstar" is one she says started this way - but for the most part there's a pretty good plan right from the start as to what will be occurring in the broad sense, and some details of specific stories.

2) Individual episodes are roughly plotted out by Joss and the writing team. The big moments of the story are ironed out, and Espensen specifically states that Joss leads them through the process of identifying the scenes necessary to tell the story and roughly where they fall within a given episode's four-act structure. This is "breaking" the episodes, and is done by the whole team, with the decided-upon ideas written on a whiteboard.

3) Episodes (other than those Joss has identified as "his") are assigned to a given writer to do an initial outline, which fleshes out the scenes already whiteboarded. Joss then reads the outline and gives the writer extremely detailed notes, although in seasons 6 and 7, Marti Noxon might have been the one doing this (Espenson's statements are sort of uncearl on this). The writer rewrites the outline to address the notes and then works on the first draft.

4) Joss reads each draft of the writer's script, writes notes and sends the draft back to the writer to do rewrites incorporating the notes. Sometimes as many as five drafts are written before it hits final draft/shooting script, though time pressures usually didn't allow for this. The impression I get is that in the later seasons, some of these draft/note/rewrite sessions are done by Marti Noxon, but that a draft isn't done until Joss reads and approves it.

And, yes, I completely agree that Buffy's "relationship" with Spike in S6 was completely degrading to her and an abdication of her responsibilities to herself as both a woman and a Slayer. In some ways, it was meant to be an indication of how depressed she was and how far she had fallen - though, frighteningly, a lot of Buffy fans just did not get this. But Marti Noxon also wanted it to represent the "bad boy" stage that lots of women go through. Fortunately, however, most women's "bad boys" aren't mass-murdering, soulless, conscience-less vampires. Buffy couldn't get involved with Spike without really undermining everything that she was. I like Spike - to a point - but the Buffy-Spike relationship was meant to be a demonstration in what not to do. The fact that many people considered it "romantic" was really disturbing.
While this analysis isn't entirely untrue, it ignores the larger context of Spike's own process of redemption, and the fact that he wasn't a mass-murdering creature or completely without conscience at that point, and hadn't been for quite a while.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I personally have never given "Normal Again" much thought, except as a throw-away one off idea that underlines Buffy's weariness with herself, her current situation, the responsibility she has to burden, and being back from Heaven.

To me, if ANY episode undercuts the themes you mention - feminism, female empowerment, etc. - it's "Get it Done" from Season 7 - wherein we find out that The Slayer is essentially created by "rape", a little girl abused by priests who are setting her up to take their lumps for them.


Yep, that is shown to be how the Slayer came to be, and how things worked up to that point in time, but note also that Buffy rebels against the "Shadow Men" and refuses to allow herself to be violated by the shadow in order to gain more power from it at cost to her humanity. From there on, the rest of the season is her working out another path, which comes to fruition in the finale. Also, the next-to-final episode, "End of Days" shows us that the Shadow Men didn't tell Buffy the whole story, i.e., there is a bit more going on than is encompassed by the patriarchal "offical line."

So, ultimately the message of that episode, considered in the context of the rest of the season, becomes one of "Things started with guys in charge, that's how things were, but that's not how it's going to be from now on."

[AaronJ]

To me, if ANY episode undercuts the themes you mention - feminism, female empowerment, etc. - it's "Get it Done" from Season 7 - wherein we find out that The Slayer is essentially created by "rape", a little girl abused by priests who are setting her up to take their lumps for them.

While I didn't like "Get it Done" at all, I do have to take some issue with this. If only because I don't believe that something born of violence, of ugliness, of utterly atrocious motives *necessarily* has to be undermined in its status as empowered.

Two examples:

First, from Buffy, I think Angel is a perfect example. As a human, Liam was a worthless, drunken, whoring douchebag. He just was. As a vampire, he was a torturing, violent, hateful creature who was evil in every way.

But once he was cursed, which was clearly a *punishment*, what happened? Well, to be honest, at first not a whole heck of a lot. But eventually, from that punishment, from those horrible memories, from that worthless status as a human even, Angel grew to be a hero, a warrior for light.

Second, an example from L&O:SVU. Mariska Hargitay's character, Olivia Benson, was conceived during her mother's rape. She obviously never knew her father, and her mother was an abusive alcoholic. Olivia didn't exactly have the deck stacked in her favor. However, now she is a Detective in the Special Victims Unit, trying every day to keep what happened to her mother from happening to anyone else. She protects the victims, and tries to bring justice to the bad guys.

Not that Olivia doesn't have problems. Her sex life is a disaster, her relationships are nearly non-existent. She has been known to drink too much. And she is sometimes overly violent on the job.

But at her core, what she does, what she tries to do is to help people.


So, even though I very much disliked the development in "Get It Done" of which you speak, I do not believe that it somehow, on its own, diminishes the empowerment theme in BtVS. Heck, Buffy Anne Summers is living proof of that. :)

[Corrina]

And, yes, I completely agree that Buffy's "relationship" with Spike in S6 was completely degrading to her and an abdication of her responsibilities to herself as both a woman and a Slayer. In some ways, it was meant to be an indication of how depressed she was and how far she had fallen - though, frighteningly, a lot of Buffy fans just did not get this. But Marti Noxon also wanted it to represent the "bad boy" stage that lots of women go through. Fortunately, however, most women's "bad boys" aren't mass-murdering, soulless, conscience-less vampires. Buffy couldn't get involved with Spike without really undermining everything that she was. I like Spike - to a point - but the Buffy-Spike relationship was meant to be a demonstration in what not to do. The fact that many people considered it "romantic" was really disturbing.

Sincerely,

Shaun

I don't consider it 'romantic' but I think it was more complicated than a bad buy phase. For one, Spike was the only one who seemed to understand exactly what Buffy was thinking--that's a powerful pull, especially given how everyone else needed her for something and, once again, she had to take on the responsibility that she really hadn't asked for this time. Spike didn't want her to do that--he represented her desire to abdicate that responsibility.

And yet, it's even more than that because Spike at this point was more complicated. He had stayed to help the Scoobies battle evil out of what seemed an honorable desire to do what Buffy would have wanted. He protected Dawn, especially, from S5 and into S6. He seemed to consider it something of a moral imperative. His vampire part is definitely a lot different than Angelus' vampire demon, for instance. Spike's vampire demon consistently seemed to act from feelings of love. Quite twisted love, as with Drusilla, but more love than any other vampire on the show.

His concern and care for Buffy is real. And she did feel grateful that he had stayed around to help. But Spike the Vampire with no soul is quite dysfunctional for all that, as was Buffy struggling with being back from heaven. She used him as much as he used her--and it's interesting that she seems to see this in S7, when he shows up back with his soul. She's determined to protect him and seems to bear little ill-will from the attempted rape.

We can talk about that but my take on the scene is that this is how their relationship had progressed all along--when Buffy said 'no,' she meant 'yes but we have to hit each other first' quite a bit. When Spike realized she wasn't fighting back, he did leave--and I think her breakdown there is both from her fear of the rape and because she knew that's exactly how she taught Spike to treat her. For his part, Spike ran off and tried to atone by getting his soul back.

In many ways, Spike's vampire demon shows far more ability to access the more altruistic emotions that Angelus ever did. I always wondered why that was the case.

*Though we can argue that maybe Spike went back to get the chip out and be a full, nasty vamp again. But off-screen, the Buffy writers say 'no, he went out to get his soul,' so I'm going with that.

A bad relationship and not one to last but far more complicated than Buffy going through a bad boy phase.

[beetlebum]

The "Magic as Crack" approach never worked for me, and I rolled my eyes whenever it was presented. Corrina called it "heavy-handed" and I think that might even be generous.

There were so many different, more subtle, more interesting ways of dealing with Willow's decline into darkness. But, "See, she's an *addict* and so she starts hanging around the bad part of town, the wrong kind of people, and even crashes the car with her friend it. See! It's just like drug addicts!"

That seems, to me, to be not only a poor "metaphor," but also a fairly simplistic view of addiction. I think that a high-functioning addict story, if you're absolutely determined to have her be an addict, would have been much more intersting, less heavy-handed, and more subtle.

Brett Favre was addicted to Vicodin. He never missed practice. He never missed a game. He wasn't suddenly acting completely differently than before. But it was taking its toll on him, and eventually led to him having a seizure. At that point, Favre realized he needed to deal with this addiction.

Not to mention that the whole "Sabrina The Teenage Witch"/"Charmed" approach to magic in S6 turned me off.

Anyhow, I think there are a number of ways they could have gone to reach the final point that would have been better.


I never really viewed it from this perspective. Which explains why the story line never really bothered me. When you present it this way, it does give me a lot to think about. Now I wish they had gone down this route as well, exploring power and its side effects, as opposed to the black and white addiction storyline.

I guess what it comes down to is a matter of taste, as well as aesthetics. Aesthetically, I had no qualms with the episodes, with the exception being my regret that the ambiguity and complexities of life were toned down in favour of simplicity. As a matter of taste, I never thought too deeply about this. Hence why it never bothered me.

(I guess this also rebuts Kant's theory that some things are "universally" recognized as "beautiful." :p)

About two days ago, I read a criticism of how victims of domestic violence were portrayed on Buffy. The criticism was that the show usually portrayed the victims as helpless, and portrayed running away, as the best and most viable option.

From that website:

Domestic Abuse in BtVS and A:tS episodes

"...Battered women such as Debbie in "Beauty and the Beasts" and Rachel in "In the Dark" have been characterized as weak and "codependent" and addicted to the abuse/abuser.... There is no typical battered woman (ie weak, low self-esteem, "codependent", must have been abused as a child, etc. -- our society is quite fond of pathologizing victims). The victim/survivors of domestic violence I have worked with as a counselor and advocate are quite diverse in terms of their personality, socio-economic background, race/ethnicity, lifestyle, level of education, mental health, and childhood experience/family background etc. What they all have in common is being in a relationship with a batterer. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence defines battering as "a pattern of behavior used to establish power and control over another person through fear and intimidation,often including the threat or use of violence. Battering happens when one person believes they are entitled to control another." What so many people fail to understand is that domestic violence is that the physical violence is one of (many) tactics batterers employ to maintain power and control over their partners.

My strongest objection to how BtVS has portrayed battering is that it has consistently failed to depict the real dangers battered women face. "Buffy" and "Angel" have presented leaving as the ultimate solution for victims of domestic violence. However, leaving the abuser is not synonymous with safety; on the contrary it is the most dangerous time for battered women. The Bureau of Justice reports that although divorced and separated women comprise only 7% of the population in the U.S., they account for 75% of all battered women and report being assaulted 14 times more often than women still living with a partner. Because domestic violence is about power and control, when a woman leaves the relationship it represents the ultimate loss of control for the batterer; the batterer will resort to more extreme and violent methods to get that power back. It's much easier for us to look at a woman in an abusive relationship and blame her then confront this unsettling reality.

Finally the idea that most abused women are so "weak" and so addicted to their abusers that they never leave is a fallacy. Many women do leave after the first incident or sign of abuse. Other women make multiple attempts until they gain the support and resoruces needed to successfully and safely break free. Susan Schecter, a pioneer in the battered women's movement, noted the following in her classic book, "Women and Male Violence": "Battered women are not passive, rather, they engage in step-like, logical behavior as they attempt to stop the violence or leave. Not all of them are successful because the major variable, the violent man, is outside the realm of their control. Staying, especially given the lack of resources and social supports for leaving, should never be read as accepting violence."

"Ted" is the brilliant exception in that it portrays domestic violence for what it is: an issue of male power and control. By making Ted a controlling robot programmed to spew sexist ideas and rules, the show successfully and smartly wrote an allegory that captured the core dynamics and roots of family violence and challenged us to think about the role of society and socialization in the shaping of gender identity."

Interesting points to think about. Although I would argue that Buffy is fiction, and its first job is to entertain the audience. And besides, I don't think those episodes were written as "After School Specials", though "Beauty and The Beasts" did examine the darker aspects of relationships. It was appropriate, as well as analogous, considering the fact that Angel had just come back from hell at that interval. Still, even though Buffy is entertainment, mediums in general do have to be responsible, as well as true to themselves and their audience, and consider all factors as they go about trying to tell a story.

That goes for domestic violence, and magic-as-addiction story lines

As for addiction story lines, there are a few that I can think of that I thought were handled well, or that I just liked. Lynette Schiavo's in season one of Desperate Housewives comes to mind. Or Dr. Carter's addiction in season seven of ER. And, the three protagonists addiction to "dolls" in Valley Of The Dolls. I loved the way Jacqueline Susan detailed their spirals out of control. And not to mention their demises, which were very much in the noir tradition.

Just some interesting things to think about.

[ShaunN]

Dear Jeffrey,

Hi! Thanks for the rundown on the process the scriptwriters followed. Clearly, Joss was deeply involved in the whole thing. I actually feel a bit bad about that - that means that he really is responsible for the almost unmitigated disasters that were S6 and S7! Or, at least, responsible for some really depressing and destructive stuff.

RE: Spike: my comments were addressed to his relationship with Buffy in S6, not as much S7. I should have been clearer.

RE: vampires in the Buffyverse: one thing that the writers did fairly consistently was depict the vampires as embodying and carrying to dysfunctional and evil extremes, the main personality traits of the humans they possessed. Spike is the best example - as a human, Spike is a hopeless romantic who desperately fixates on a single woman and then spends all his energy trying to possess that person. As a vampire, this quality is taken, amplified, and given an evil twist. This pathology is evident in his relationships with every woman he was with - from the first one who rejected him (who later turned up as a vengeance demon) to Dru to Buffy.

Take care,

Shaun

[beetlebum]

I don't consider it 'romantic' but I think it was more complicated than a bad buy phase. For one, Spike was the only one who seemed to understand exactly what Buffy was thinking--that's a powerful pull, especially given how everyone else needed her for something and, once again, she had to take on the responsibility that she really hadn't asked for this time. Spike didn't want her to do that--he represented her desire to abdicate that responsibility.

And yet, it's even more than that because Spike at this point was more complicated. He had stayed to help the Scoobies battle evil out of what seemed an honorable desire to do what Buffy would have wanted. He protected Dawn, especially, from S5 and into S6. He seemed to consider it something of a moral imperative. His vampire part is definitely a lot different than Angelus' vampire demon, for instance. Spike's vampire demon consistently seemed to act from feelings of love. Quite twisted love, as with Drusilla, but more love than any other vampire on the show.

His concern and care for Buffy is real. And she did feel grateful that he had stayed around to help. But Spike the Vampire with no soul is quite dysfunctional for all that, as was Buffy struggling with being back from heaven. She used him as much as he used her--and it's interesting that she seems to see this in S7, when he shows up back with his soul. She's determined to protect him and seems to bear little ill-will from the attempted rape.

We can talk about that but my take on the scene is that this is how their relationship had progressed all along--when Buffy said 'no,' she meant 'yes but we have to hit each other first' quite a bit. When Spike realized she wasn't fighting back, he did leave--and I think her breakdown there is both from her fear of the rape and because she knew that's exactly how she taught Spike to treat her. For his part, Spike ran off and tried to atone by getting his soul back.

In many ways, Spike's vampire demon shows far more ability to access the more altruistic emotions that Angelus ever did. I always wondered why that was the case.

*Though we can argue that maybe Spike went back to get the chip out and be a full, nasty vamp again. But off-screen, the Buffy writers say 'no, he went out to get his soul,' so I'm going with that.

A bad relationship and not one to last but far more complicated than Buffy going through a bad boy phase.

That's true. You did bring up some good points. But overall, I still hated it. It was self destructive; and Buffy does not belong "in the darkness." She has always been the embodiment of light, who occasionally dabbles in the dark, in order to save others. And that's how I'll always see her.

[JeffreyWKramer]

A bad relationship and not one to last but far more complicated than Buffy going through a bad boy phase.
I like your discussion. Spike really was a lot more in tune with Buffy, in some ways, than anyone else. And people who criticize Buffy in regard to that relationship should keep in mind that in late Season 7, when everyone else has turned on Buffy due to her increasingly dictatorial behavior and having made a call which got a potential killed, some others badly wounded and Xander blinded in one eye, the one person that stands by her, and who demonstrates he most understands what Buffy is about... is Spike. Now, granted this is post-soul, sans-chip Spike, not the Spike with whom Buffy was getting it on, but the sentiments he expresses and his behavior at that point are consistent with many statements and many aspects of his behavior leading up to and during the time of their relationship.

For another take on the Buffy/Spike thing...

I was reading some discussion of Buffy's relationships with Spike, Angel, Riley and other, and the various statements about Buffy being attracted to the dark, needing some monster in her man, etc., and in some of this discussion, one commentator tossed out an interesting theory. The theory is based on the season 7 episode referenced above, "Get It Done," and also the bit in the Dracula episode, in which tasting Dracula's blood awakened Buffy to aspects of herself. In "Get It Done" we discover that the Slayer line was started when some long-ago priests or shamen or whatever joined a girl with a shadowy demon, resulting in her being infused with its dark power. This is the source of the Slayer's strength and ability to fight evil. Finally, there was the bit in "Restless" (season 4 finale), in which, in Buffy's dream, she tells Adam "We aren't demons", and he replies "Is that a fact?" "Restless", you might recall, is widely read as providing a lot of hints as to what is to come in later seasons.

The idea: Part of why Buffy is attracted to "dark" men such as Angel and Spike in part because she is infused with a bit of the demonic due to her Slayer nature.

Now, this is all circumstantial; as far as I can recall, there is no overt textual statement within the episodes to support the connection between the source of her Slayer powers and the sorts of men with whom Buffy best relates. But it's an interesting idea.

Comments?

[beetlebum]

I don't remember much of "Get It Done." As I have said before, I prefer the first four seasons, and remember bits and pieces of them the most.

Horrible rape storyline aside, Diana Fan is right. Nothing can negate Buffy's status as a strong, capable, heroine. The show was predicated upon that notion.

But going back to Angel and his soul, when you think about it at first, it is kind of odd that gypsy's would "punish" Angel by giving him back his soul. Of course, as we all know, it was deemed by The Powers That Be that this would happen.

Having him undergo transmigration made him a better individual. It gave him a sense of purpose, and a reason for his overall being.

Even though it was revealed that Angel has read Sartre, I find it hard to believe that he would subscribe to Sartre's brand of atheistic existentialism, given how the many supernatural occurrences negate the methodological naturalist argument. At least in that universe. Not to mention that I don't think he would also subscribe to Sartre's subjectivity, in terms of ethics, as well.

Angel has at times struggled with his calling, and has to wrestle with his vampire nature (the vampire nature, at times, subjects Angel to dualism. One of the few instances where that theory is viable. ;p) Angel is constrained by his vampire nature (although now there is a cure for that--a cure he chose to reject). His human desire to do good pulls in the other direction. But what happens when Angel no longer believes that humanity can be saved and that he can be saved? For one who finds it not so easy to embrace evil, there are only everyday acts of compassion. It's the light that keeps him going.

His is a story of redemption, and it reflects the prominence of the Abrahamic religions, and how even an atheist like Joss Whedon is subject to there impact. Redemption is not uniquely Judeo-Christian, mind you. But it is one of its basic, and most noteworthy tenets. But redemption, more or less, is something that has evolved out of, and is necessary to human nature.

Heracles performed The Twelve Labors to redeem himself after he slays his family. Nicomachean ethics was predicated upon the notion that virtue, and doing good led to happiness and is the natural course of man. People seem to think it's just about happiness, when the truth is, self sacrifice is one of its main tenets.

Thus paving the way for Kant and deontology. How it ties in is that, Angel sacrifices his happiness so that others may be happy, and that is his contrition. And it seems to be thematic for all of the hero's and heroines in the Whedon-Verse.

What I liked the most about the vampires in this universe, is that they're given human characteristics. It gives the universe a sense of ambiguity, something that permeates our real world. Thus making it more relatible. The fact that you harbor any sort of positive emotions for creatures that are essentially mass murderers is a testament to the genius of the show. And it's why Buffy wrestles with The X-Files and Veronica Mars for the title of my favourite television programme of all time.

[saintsaucey]

I'm curious if anyone has ever listened to the commentary on Smashed. In it Drew Greenberg states that his original intentions for the misogynistic men in the bronze was for Amy to snap her fingers and have the guys start making out with them selves. Joss smacked down that idea for two reasons. One he stated that you can't just snap your fingers and make someone gay, two he didn't think kissing another guy should be viewed as punishment. Drew then stated that Joss was wasted on the hetero community and that he would be a tribute to the Gay one. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

RE: vampires in the Buffyverse: one thing that the writers did fairly consistently was depict the vampires as embodying and carrying to dysfunctional and evil extremes, the main personality traits of the humans they possessed. Spike is the best example - as a human, Spike is a hopeless romantic who desperately fixates on a single woman and then spends all his energy trying to possess that person. As a vampire, this quality is taken, amplified, and given an evil twist. This pathology is evident in his relationships with every woman he was with - from the first one who rejected him (who later turned up as a vengeance demon) to Dru to Buffy.


I have a somewhat different spin on Spike, though drawing on some of what you mention.

Spike's love for Buffy, and earlier for Drusilla, was not just a fixation. It's clear from the first appearance of the pair that, twisted though they are, Spike has a real love for Dru. His entire demeanor changes when she enters the room. In ANGEL we see his pain when he discovers that despite his romantic exclamations of love for Dru, Angelus and Dru were carrying on sexually behind his back; this is mirrored in BUFFY when Angelus and Dru carry on while Spike is in the wheelchair. Now, sure, jealousy isn't the most noble emotion, but in this case at least it's clearly based in love, as Spike wouldn't be hurt by Dru and Angelus' carrying on if he didn't really care about her. Nor would he have been as broken up as he was when Dru left him.

Similarly, Buffy. Spike's love for Buffy was not just a fixation. In Season 5, he protected her secrets rather than break under Glory's torture. There's his speech to her shortly before the final fight with Glory, and how he breaks down at her death. When she returns, Spike tells her "Every night I saved you in my dreams." Later, in season 7, Buffy saying she believes in him keeps him from breaking under the First's torture and brainwashing. I don't know how much more clear it can be that Spike's love for Buffy is real.

Now, during the time before Spike regained his soul, his love was somewhat twisted by his demonic nature, that's true, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Even when his demonic side takes over for a bit, his love pulls him back in line. Consider "Once More With Feeling":
The torch I bear is scorching me/Buffy's laughing I've no doubt/I hope she fries! I'm free if that bitch dies/I'd better help her out."
Time and again, his love wins through his anger. After the attempted rape - which, from Spike's point of view, probably *was* more of the "she says no but she wants it" pattern that had characterized their sexual relationship - Spike breaks down with alternating remorse for having hurt her, and almost raped her, and anger at himself for having the conscience to be bothered by this.

Keep in mind also: Spike's love for Buffy is what drove him to regain his soul in the first place, and of his own free will. Love led Spike to redemption, albeit by a rather rocky road. You can't get much more real than that.

Also, while it hinted that Cecily (pre-Spike William's love interest) and Halfrek (Anya's fellow vengeance demon) might be the same person, this isn't ever completely confirmed. The fact that the same actress played both and that there were some commonalities in mannerisms is certainly suggestive, though, as is the fact that Halfrek recognizes Spike and calls him "William."

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm curious if anyone has ever listened to the commentary on Smashed. In it Drew Greenberg states that his original intentions for the misogynistic men in the bronze was for Amy to snap her fingers and have the guys start making out with them selves. Joss smacked down that idea for two reasons. One he stated that you can't just snap your fingers and make someone gay, two he didn't think kissing another guy should be viewed as punishment. Drew then stated that Joss was wasted on the hetero community and that he would be a tribute to the Gay one. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

I didn't recall that, though I have listened to that commentary (and most of the other ones).

In any case, Joss's support for gay rights, as well as women's rights and general human rights, is well documented.

[beetlebum]

I like your discussion. Spike really was a lot more in tune with Buffy, in some ways, than anyone else. And people who criticize Buffy in regard to that relationship should keep in mind that in late Season 7, when everyone else has turned on Buffy due to her increasingly dictatorial behavior and having made a call which got a potential killed, some others badly wounded and Xander blinded in one eye, the one person that stands by her, and who demonstrates he most understands what Buffy is about... is Spike. Now, granted this is post-soul, sans-chip Spike, not the Spike with whom Buffy was getting it on, but the sentiments he expresses and his behavior at that point are consistent with many statements and many aspects of his behavior leading up to and during the time of their relationship.

For another take on the Buffy/Spike thing...

I was reading some discussion of Buffy's relationships with Spike, Angel, Riley and other, and the various statements about Buffy being attracted to the dark, needing some monster in her man, etc., and in some of this discussion, one commentator tossed out an interesting theory. The theory is based on the season 7 episode referenced above, "Get It Done," and also the bit in the Dracula episode, in which tasting Dracula's blood awakened Buffy to aspects of herself. In "Get It Done" we discover that the Slayer line was started when some long-ago priests or shamen or whatever joined a girl with a shadowy demon, resulting in her being infused with its dark power. This is the source of the Slayer's strength and ability to fight evil. Finally, there was the bit in "Restless" (season 4 finale), in which, in Buffy's dream, she tells Adam "We aren't demons", and he replies "Is that a fact?" "Restless", you might recall, is widely read as providing a lot of hints as to what is to come in later seasons.

The idea: Part of why Buffy is attracted to "dark" men such as Angel and Spike in part because she is infused with a bit of the demonic due to her Slayer nature.

Now, this is all circumstantial; as far as I can recall, there is no overt textual statement within the episodes to support the connection between the source of her Slayer powers and the sorts of men with whom Buffy best relates. But it's an interesting idea.

Comments?

Interesting points all around. This may explain why Buffy is able to fight demons so well, she has a bit of them infused in her. And why she was attracted to them. Still, on a personal level, I just don't like the relationship. Not only because of season six, but just as a matter of personal judgment value and taste.

It just rubbed me the wrong way, that's all.

[saintsaucey]

Also, while it hinted that Cecily (pre-Spike William's love interest) and Halfrek (Anya's fellow vengeance demon) might be the same person, this isn't ever completely confirmed. The fact that the same actress played both and that there were some commonalities in mannerisms is certainly suggestive, though, as is the fact that Halfrek recognizes Spike and calls him "William."

In Spike Old Wounds by IDW it is confirmed she was already a vengeance Demon when he met her she was there to wreak vengeance on someone else and William being there was a coincidence.

In the commentary for Selfless the writer and director mention the fact that The changed the scene with the fall of (Russia I think) so that it woulf fit with Halfrek being in England and meeting William.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Horrible rape storyline aside, Diana Fan is right. Nothing can negate Buffy's status as a strong, capable, heroine. The show was predicated upon that notion.

I don't think anything in the show - including the near-rape, the bad choices Buffy makes at times, etc. - in any manner negates her being a strong, capable heroine. As I noted early in this thread, I think one can rather argue that her very human flaws simply make her a more realistic and more human model of heroism.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In Spike Old Wounds by IDW it is confirmed she was already a vengeance Demon when he met her she was there to wreak vengeance on someone else and William being there was a coincidence.
Is that one considered canon, though? I've not seen it listed on the shortlist of BUFFY/ANGEL comics which are considered canon.

In the commentary for Selfless the writer and director mention the fact that The changed the scene with the fall of (Russia I think) so that it woulf fit with Halfrek being in England and meeting William.

That, however, does support the premise you state.

[ShaunN]

Dear Jeffrey

I agree with your take on Spike and love (indeed, I think I said something similar in one of my Buffy columns) and Corrina's point that Spike seemed more able to access altruistic emotions as a vampire than other vampires.

This being said, I also totally agree with Beetlebum that Buffy's relationship with Spike, particularly in S6, was destructive and, as I indicated earlier, beneath her. It really was indicative of how far she had fallen.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[saintsaucey]

Is that one considered canon, though? I've not seen it listed on the shortlist of BUFFY/ANGEL comics which are considered canon.



That, however, does support the premise you state.


It's part of the same series of one shots that lead up to angel after the fall. and Peter david told me in an email that Joss okayed the story so I consider it so.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's part of the same series of one shots that lead up to angel after the fall. and Peter david told me in an email that Joss okayed the story so I consider it so.

That sounds reasonably definitive. Coolness.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Dear Jeffrey

I agree with your take on Spike and love (indeed, I think I said something similar in one of my Buffy columns) and Corrina's point that Spike seemed more able to access altruistic emotions as a vampire than other vampires.

This being said, I also totally agree with Beetlebum that Buffy's relationship with Spike, particularly in S6, was destructive and, as I indicated earlier, beneath her. It really was indicative of how far she had fallen.


I don't argue that, really. While Spike did love Buffy, it's pretty clear she didn't love Spike at that point, but rather was using him sexually in order to feel something. Beyond that, I think one can argue that even while he did love her, Spike's demonic nature also made him comfortable enough to take advantage of her emotional vulnerability at that point in time.

As to the "degradation" thing, I think a lot of that really comes down to Buffy feeling degraded because she seemed to have come back from death with something "off" , because she knew she was using Spike and maybe taking advantage of his real feelings for her but nonetheless kept doing it, and because she was very conflicted about enjoying the rough, uninhibited and rather kinky sex she and Spike shared. Ultimately, the main source of any "degradation" of Buffy was Buffy herself, or more specifically, her righteousness turned inward as self-criticism, and her viewing what she was doing as "bad."

Personally, I wish it had worked out for them to do a Faith episode somewhere in there and have Faith discover at the time what Spike and Buffy were up to. Seeing that Buffy had "gotten the stick out" (as I recall she said at some point) might have conceivably changed her view of Buffy, though it might also have made her think Buffy more the hypocrite for having been so judgmental toward Faith.

Of course, part of the problem was that even while she was getting jiggy with Spike, Buffy still hadn't really removed that stick, and it was still poking at her conscience.

[beetlebum]

I would have loved to have seen that too. That would have made for some great television viewing. Though correct me if I'm wrong, cos my memory of season seven is fuzzy, (mainly by choice >=p) but didn't Faith give an indication that she knew that they had slept together? At least, that's from what I remember.

And "jiggy with it"? I'm sorry, but that cracked me up. That phrase went out of style when I graduated from the eighth grade. ;p :p :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

I would have loved to have seen that too. That would have made for some great television viewing. Though correct me if I'm wrong, cos my memory of season seven is fuzzy, (mainly by choice >=p) but didn't Faith give an indication that she knew that they had slept together? At least, that's from what I remember.

Yeah, she became aware when she came back for the end of Season 7, but by that point the sex with Spike and Buffy was over, so it wasn't a big deal. It might have been more interesting had she shown up while that part of their relationship was active.

Of course, from Buffy's POV, having Riley find out during that time was probably plenty bad enough.

And "jiggy with it"? I'm sorry, but that cracked me up. That phrase went out of style when I graduated from the eighth grade. ;p :p :)

Hey, I never claimed to be some with-it, hepcat daddy-o.

And as to the great viewing thing... I have to admit, I love Faith as a character, flaws and all. If anything, her appearances on ANGEL were even better than most of her BUFFY episodes. I find it quite sad that as BUFFY was winding down, Joss approached Eliza Duskhu with the possibility of doing a FAITH show as a spin-off from/continuation of BUFFY, only to be turned down because she'd been offered TRU CALLING.

That said, the show she and Joss are working on right now (for next fall, apparently), sounds very, very cool. DOLLHOUSE. Look it up on Wiki and elsewhere. Hopefully Fox won't fuck this one up the way they did FIREFLY. I'm honestly surprised Joss would work with Fox ever again after that fiasco.

[Indigo Al]

The idea: Part of why Buffy is attracted to "dark" men such as Angel and Spike in part because she is infused with a bit of the demonic due to her Slayer nature.

Now, this is all circumstantial; as far as I can recall, there is no overt textual statement within the episodes to support the connection between the source of her Slayer powers and the sorts of men with whom Buffy best relates. But it's an interesting idea.

Comments?

I think this has been pretty explicitly hinted at various times throughout the show. Nonetheless, we should look to the previous/future slayer line for hints. And in that regard:

The Chinese Slayer, Kendra - both warrior ascetics who don't seem open to romance and love, although Buffy was "rubbing off" (MINDS OUT THE GUTTER PEOPLE) on Kendra in that regard.

Nikki Wood - Nikki, the "Foxy" slayer, was bereft of love for her son...and in the in-canon comic sources, she had a relationship with an asian cop for whom she felt nothing after he died. Did she need a monster?

Faith - promiscuous but detached from 'love' - she probably did need a bit of 'monster' given her reactions to Angel AND Angelus, and her father bond with The Mayor. Her burgeoning relationship with Robin Wood was hinting at her discovering actual intimacy - but then, Robin Wood has some deep mommy issues, doesn't he? Why does he want to have sex with The Slayer?

Kennedy - (ugh - for the record, I don't like the character) Is there something different about the lesbian dynamic? You could argue that Willow has 'monster', but that didn't seem to be what was turning Kennedy's crank.

The other stories in the Tales of the Slayer one shot (some incredible comics there) don't really hint at romance/love relationships too much. Perhaps Amber Benson's tale of the French Revolution slayer, or Joss's/Tim Sale's story of the medieval slayer More asceticism than anything else.

[Gilda Dent]

I recall the Riker episode, but not the Crusher one, and I'm not sure I saw the VOYAGER one, as I didn't follow that show very closely and gave up on it entirely somewhere around the middle of Season 4. The one I was referrning to (and Gilda, I'm guessing you already know this) frames Sisko a a science fiction writer in mid-20th century America who dares to dream of a time when race isn't a factor in one's opportunities. This episode is referenced again in at least one or two subsequent episodes of that series.

Yeah, I remember that vaguely; I've not seen DS9 since it first aired.

The Crusher episode deals with Dr. Crusher seeing what seems to be a series of changes in reality around her, which causes her to start questioning which version of reality is true and whether she can trust her memories and perceptions. The resolution is a somewhat novel one in that she reasons that not trusting her memories and perceptions gets her nowhere, so she'll start with the assumption that she's perfectly sane and the universe is changing around her and works from there.

The Voyager episode is one of the best of that series, but all the best Voyager episodes were Doctor based ones. Come to think of it, Commander Chakotay and Capt. Janeway both get episodes in which they're forced to question the nature of their perception of reality as well, Picard gets one on TNG, and Chief O'Brien gets one on DS9, not all the same "which version of reality is the correct one" but all questioning the degree to which we can trust our perception of reality, and the degree to which it matters how well one's memories reflect objective reality.

[tangentman]

Al: Regarding your point about the misogyny in "Get It Done"--Jeffery touched on the way Buffy stuck it to misogynistic, sexually abusive "father figures" by refusing the demon (AND overpowering her tormentors). Buffy pioneered her own path, culminating in Buffy's subversion (and reinvention) of the "Slayer Force". The act of Buffy & Willow rewriting the rules of the "Legacy", and redistributing the Slayer power among other young woman seems like the ultimate feminist victory in TV/Film.

As for the inability of other Slayers to love--well, that's as much "Nurture" as "Nature". After all, Buffy was the sole Slayer to work with a healthy support system. Other Slayers worked exclusively with a single Watcher apiece. Unlike Giles, most Watchers kept their Slayers at arm's length. Slayers were traditionally cut off from families and old friends, not to mention strongly discouraged from pursuing lovers. Small wonder that women like Nikki, Kendra, or Faith showed major problems with intimacy.

[Gilda Dent]

Al: Regarding your point about the misogyny in "Get It Done"--Jeffery touched on the way Buffy stuck it to misogynistic, sexually abusive "father figures" by refusing the demon (AND overpowering her tormentors). Buffy pioneered her own path, culminating in Buffy's subversion (and reinvention) of the "Slayer Force". The act of Buffy & Willow rewriting the rules of the "Legacy", and redistributing the Slayer power among other young woman seems like the ultimate feminist victory in TV/Film.

As for the inability of other Slayers to love--well, that's as much "Nurture" as "Nature". After all, Buffy was the sole Slayer to work with a healthy support system. Other Slayers worked exclusively with a single Watcher apiece. Unlike Giles, most Watchers kept their Slayers at arm's length. Slayers were traditionally cut off from families and old friends, not to mention strongly discouraged from pursuing lovers. Small wonder that women like Nikki, Kendra, or Faith showed major problems with intimacy.

Well, with Faith there was also the whole thing with being forced to witness her Watcher being tortured to death and as a result being abandoned by her primary parental figure in a very ugly way, a death that she blamed on herself such that she subsequently shut off all feelings of genuine affection for anyone else for fear of losing them. She'd already lost everyone she'd ever cared about by the time she showed up in Sunnydale and was greeted with the expectation that she'd be able to function as normally as a Slayer with a full support system. Her fall, given those circumstances, is almost inevitable. Her eventual redemption doesn't come until Angel keeps insisting on caring about her, looking for the good in her despite all the evil things she had done and despite her every attempt to provoke him into killing her.

[Indigo Al]

Al: Regarding your point about the misogyny in "Get It Done"--Jeffery touched on the way Buffy stuck it to misogynistic, sexually abusive "father figures" by refusing the demon (AND overpowering her tormentors). Buffy pioneered her own path, culminating in Buffy's subversion (and reinvention) of the "Slayer Force". The act of Buffy & Willow rewriting the rules of the "Legacy", and redistributing the Slayer power among other young woman seems like the ultimate feminist victory in TV/Film.

True. And yet (and maybe this is only my lame 'fan-ownership' instincts arising) - it always made sense to me that the Slayer just was - that she emerged mysteriously from who knows where to combat evil - and that nature/the universe knew that only women could deal with this kind of life. Now I have to wonder what the role of that goddess that appeared in the penultimate episode is - and just what her connection to Willow is...

As for the inability of other Slayers to love--well, that's as much "Nurture" as "Nature". After all, Buffy was the sole Slayer to work with a healthy support system.

Well, but Buffy's healthy support system (which seemed to keep her from going the 'i don't care anymore' way of Nikki) was not enough to help her form healthy love relationships. Then again, she made it work with Riley for a long while. And, when she first started with Angel, I don't think it was so much an "i need some monster in my man" as it was the Bad Boy/mysterious allure that any normal teenage girl might go through.

[AaronJ]

I'm curious if anyone has ever listened to the commentary on Smashed. In it Drew Greenberg states that his original intentions for the misogynistic men in the bronze was for Amy to snap her fingers and have the guys start making out with them selves. Joss smacked down that idea for two reasons. One he stated that you can't just snap your fingers and make someone gay, two he didn't think kissing another guy should be viewed as punishment. Drew then stated that Joss was wasted on the hetero community and that he would be a tribute to the Gay one. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

What does that even mean?

Honestly?

[AaronJ]

I don't argue that, really. While Spike did love Buffy, it's pretty clear she didn't love Spike at that point, but rather was using him sexually in order to feel something.

So, the soulless, heartless, completely evil creature *loved* Buffy, but Buffy herself was just using it ... I mean, him?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Now I have to wonder what the role of that goddess that appeared in the penultimate episode is - and just what her connection to Willow is...
Good question. We don't know that she's a goddess per se, only that there used to be more of whatever she is, but she was the last one, they made the scythe back in the ancient days so the Slayer could push the primeval demons off the earth then put it into hiding until it was needed again, and the statement that they were "watching the Watchers", though that is never explained.

As to the connection to Willow... well, obviously that scene where she does the spell with the scythe to awaken all the Slayers has her looking sort of like the woman who explained the scythe to Buffy, so maybe Willow somehow channeled her, or whatever she represents. Maybe the comic will get around to dealing with this.

Meanwhile, rewatching the series finale today got me wondering... what has happened to Robin Wood since the series ended? Maybe I'm just not remembering it, but I don't think the current Season 8 comic has said what happened to him after the finale. He and Faith had some degree of connection beyond hopping into bed once, but that doesn't seem to have blossomed.

So... is there some mention of what happened to him in the comics that I'm just not remembering? I really do need to go back and reread the run to date one of these days.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, the soulless, heartless, completely evil creature *loved* Buffy, but Buffy herself was just using it ... I mean, him?

Again, it is clear that Spike wasn't completely heartless, as there really can't be any doubt given his actions that he truly did love Buffy, and Dru before her. Indeed, that love is what led him on the path of redemption. Much as you don't like the Buffy/Spike relationship, that much is clear if you go back and watch the relevant episodes.

As to Buffy using him, well, yes. She even said as much multiple times in Season 6. Spike said he was fine with being used, but Buffy really wasn't okay with being a user, or being sexual with someone she didn't love, which is what eventually caused her to end the relationship. Unfortunately, she'd sang that tune repeatedly over the course of several episodes, only to end up with Spike again each time, such that he didn't know she really, really meant it the last time, which resulted in the near-rape scene.

[AllisterH]

Meanwhile, rewatching the series finale today got me wondering... what has happened to Robin Wood since the series ended? Maybe I'm just not remembering it, but I don't think the current Season 8 comic has said what happened to him after the finale. He and Faith had some degree of connection beyond hopping into bed once, but that doesn't seem to have blossomed.

So... is there some mention of what happened to him in the comics that I'm just not remembering? I really do need to go back and reread the run to date one of these days.

Actually he was mentioned.

During Faith's two-issue arc, at the beginning, it was through Robin Wood that Giles contacted Faith. It looks like he was doing the "Andrew/Xander" thing as well in a different city

[Cthulhudrew]

Again, it is clear that Spike wasn't completely heartless, as there really can't be any doubt given his actions that he truly did love Buffy, and Dru before her.

Not to mention that, unlike with Angelus, there was humanity within him that the Judge could sense and wanted to burn out.

[tangentman]

Well, with Faith there was also the whole thing with being forced to witness her Watcher being tortured to death and as a result being abandoned by her primary parental figure in a very ugly way, a death that she blamed on herself such that she subsequently shut off all feelings of genuine affection for anyone else for fear of losing them. She'd already lost everyone she'd ever cared about by the time she showed up in Sunnydale and was greeted with the expectation that she'd be able to function as normally as a Slayer with a full support system. Her fall, given those circumstances, is almost inevitable. Her eventual redemption doesn't come until Angel keeps insisting on caring about her, looking for the good in her despite all the evil things she had done and despite her every attempt to provoke him into killing her.

Your overview of Faith's history is certainly true. However, it only supports what I said earlier--Faith's alienation owed more to "Nurture" (alcoholic mom, murdered Watcher, treacherous Watcher, resentful fellow Slayer) than "Nature" (inherent Slayer urge to self-isolate).

True. And yet (and maybe this is only my lame 'fan-ownership' instincts arising) - it always made sense to me that the Slayer just was - that she emerged mysteriously from who knows where to combat evil - and that nature/the universe knew that only women could deal with this kind of life. Now I have to wonder what the role of that goddess that appeared in the penultimate episode is - and just what her connection to Willow is...

I actually appreciated that additional piece of Slayer lore. Remember back in "Restless" and "Buffy Vs. Dracula", when multiple hints fell of darkness in the Slayer's history and nature? A demonic aspect to the Slayer was foreshadowed as early as Seasons 4 & 5. I'm not at all surprised that this came to pass in a literal sense.


Well, but Buffy's healthy support system (which seemed to keep her from going the 'i don't care anymore' way of Nikki) was not enough to help her form healthy love relationships. Then again, she made it work with Riley for a long while. And, when she first started with Angel, I don't think it was so much an "i need some monster in my man" as it was the Bad Boy/mysterious allure that any normal teenage girl might go through.

Buffy avoided becoming a Faith or Nikki or Kendra because her support system kept her emotionally grounded. No, that system couldn't meet all her needs, but friends aren't necessarily meant to do so. Buffy's challenge is in finding ways SHE can meet that one lingering need which brings her so much heartbreak again and again. Her friends aren't the problem.


As to the connection to Willow... well, obviously that scene where she does the spell with the scythe to awaken all the Slayers has her looking sort of like the woman who explained the scythe to Buffy, so maybe Willow somehow channeled her, or whatever she represents. Maybe the comic will get around to dealing with this.

Given the Guardian's behavior and mannerisms, I personally wondered whether or not Buffy actually encountered a Willow who'd somehow lived through the ages. Think "time loop"--Willow stops aging through her evolution via magic and somehow goes back in time to survive up to "End of Days".

Meanwhile, rewatching the series finale today got me wondering... what has happened to Robin Wood since the series ended? Maybe I'm just not remembering it, but I don't think the current Season 8 comic has said what happened to him after the finale. He and Faith had some degree of connection beyond hopping into bed once, but that doesn't seem to have blossomed.

So... is there some mention of what happened to him in the comics that I'm just not remembering? I really do need to go back and reread the run to date one of these days.

At the beginning of Brian Vaughn's arc, Faith talked with Robin by cellphone. He's alive and well, but the romance obviously didn't work out. It wasn't explicitly stated, but Faith's dialogue hinted at Robin abandoning her, rather than vice versa. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I got the feeling that Faith harbored a resentment over things not working out.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Oh, and here's another thing that occurred to me in watching the series finale again today.

Lots of fans of the show have nitpicked about how when first presented, the primal ubervampires that made up the First's army were incredibly tough, such that Buffy got her ass kicked in her first encounter with one, and could kill them only with great effort prior to her gaining the scythe... yet during the finale, Buffy, Faith and the newly-empowered Slayers mow through them pretty easily and with only a few losses, while Xander, Robin, Andrew, Dawn and Giles survived fighting a few of them (along with a bunch of the Bringers), losing only Anya in the process - and she was killed by a Bringer.

Now, I can't explain how the others survived, but there's a fairly easy explanation for how the Slayer Squad was able to mow through the ubervamps. Namely, when Willow did her spell, which used the scythe as its focus, perhaps not only did the potential Slayers get a power-up, but the whole Slayer line also got a bit of the aspect of the scythe. Now, in the commentary for the episode, Joss said he simply ignored the previous, much tougher performance of the ubervamps for the sake of making the final battle so cool and dramatic. He was more concerned with showing a bunch of empowered women kicking ass than he was sticking with continuity.

I suppose one could also theorize that the one ubervamp Buffy first fought, and eventually killed, was simply a lot tougher than the others (kind of the stud of the ubervamps), or that it was extra-powerful due to infusion of the First's power, just like Caleb.

And looking over this post, it's pretty clear a) I'm a major-league geek, and b) I probably think way too much about these things. Still, if Joss ever sees this and could use a continuity cop... hey, I'll make sure to be available!

[PatrickG]

Yeah, I remember that vaguely; I've not seen DS9 since it first aired.

The Crusher episode deals with Dr. Crusher seeing what seems to be a series of changes in reality around her, which causes her to start questioning which version of reality is true and whether she can trust her memories and perceptions. The resolution is a somewhat novel one in that she reasons that not trusting her memories and perceptions gets her nowhere, so she'll start with the assumption that she's perfectly sane and the universe is changing around her and works from there.

The Voyager episode is one of the best of that series, but all the best Voyager episodes were Doctor based ones. Come to think of it, Commander Chakotay and Capt. Janeway both get episodes in which they're forced to question the nature of their perception of reality as well, Picard gets one on TNG, and Chief O'Brien gets one on DS9, not all the same "which version of reality is the correct one" but all questioning the degree to which we can trust our perception of reality, and the degree to which it matters how well one's memories reflect objective reality.

In fairness, EVERY episode of The Prisoner was built on this motif. My favorite variation (but least favorite episode), they redid the series as a Western and shot the opening credits as a western rather than a spy drama.

[AllisterH]

re: The Slayer powersource

I always was under the impression that the Slayer powersource was female intentionally because the original shaman believed that they could more easily control a single female.

I think this is actually the first part of the Season 8 comic arc where when Buffy challenges the general, he mentions it isn't men alone that are against the Slayers but humanity in general.

I think the original shamen actually feared what is actually occuing with Slayers basically thinking they are above humanity.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Actually he was mentioned.

During Faith's two-issue arc, at the beginning, it was through Robin Wood that Giles contacted Faith. It looks like he was doing the "Andrew/Xander" thing as well in a different city

At the beginning of Brian Vaughn's arc, Faith talked with Robin by cellphone. He's alive and well, but the romance obviously didn't work out. It wasn't explicitly stated, but Faith's dialogue hinted at Robin abandoning her, rather than vice versa. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I got the feeling that Faith harbored a resentment over things not working out.

Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you. Somehow I forgot that.

I really *do* need to go back and reread the SEASON 8 issues that have been released so far.

Given the Guardian's behavior and mannerisms, I personally wondered whether or not Buffy actually encountered a Willow who'd somehow lived through the ages. Think "time loop"--Willow stops aging through her evolution via magic and somehow goes back in time to survive up to "End of Days".
That's rather a cool idea.

You know, if that time loop idea is true, it might be touched on in an upcoming story arc of the comic.

In (I think) issue 16, the Buffyverse is going to get its first major time-travel story, as the future-slayer from FRAY crosses over with BUFFY SEASON 8.

[AaronJ]

I just watched "Amends" and saw Buffy create a Christmas Miracle that saved Angel's life, due to her love for him. :(

Made me so sad.

[Indigo Al]

Now, I can't explain how the others survived, but there's a fairly easy explanation for how the Slayer Squad was able to mow through the ubervamps.

Personally, I think it's only a function of plot-induced whatever the Rumbles term-du-jour is. Unless the theory about the Slayers being a bit extra-hopped up from Willow's spell might be true.

And isn't it interesting how some of our favorite Potentials bit it? And how we were stuck with the gratingly annoying Andrew, while Jonathan, the nerd we liked, who was decent and looked like he might man up (or even become a sorcerer), whom we would have loved to see have a potential Slayer GF, had to be the nerd triad member we weren't stuck with?

[Ryan Day]

Again, it is clear that Spike wasn't completely heartless, as there really can't be any doubt given his actions that he truly did love Buffy, and Dru before her. Indeed, that love is what led him on the path of redemption. Much as you don't like the Buffy/Spike relationship, that much is clear if you go back and watch the relevant episodes.

I think Spike's portrayal in Season Five is fantastic. He's in love with Buffy, but it's love filtered through an inherently evil thing. So he does things that he thinks are for Buffy's good, but doesn't really consider whether it's what she would want. He reveals Riley's activities, he's willing to kill Dru for her, he looks after Dawn and helps her do things she really shouldn't. He even has the Buffybot built, which he partly considers a substitute for the real thing. And while he could have told Glory about the whole Dawn/Key thing, he let her torture him instead.

There's a nobility to his character, even if it's twisted. I think his awareness of that makes the character even more compelling - at the end of Season Five, he tells Buffy "I know you'll never love me." And he goes on the quest for his soul because he knows he's incapable of loving her without it.

[beetlebum]

Personally, I think it's only a function of plot-induced whatever the Rumbles term-du-jour is. Unless the theory about the Slayers being a bit extra-hopped up from Willow's spell might be true.

And isn't it interesting how some of our favorite Potentials bit it? And how we were stuck with the gratingly annoying Andrew, while Jonathan, the nerd we liked, who was decent and looked like he might man up (or even become a sorcerer), whom we would have loved to see have a potential Slayer GF, had to be the nerd triad member we weren't stuck with?

PIS, plot induced stupidity (dear God, I can't believe I know this.) PIS, in order to make the final battle more climactic.

But shortly before that, did not Buffy conquer one of the uber-vamps in some sort of display before her slayers? I believe that was in the episode "Showtime".

Or one could argue that somehow Willow's magic affected the uber-vamps or made the slayers more powerful. Or it was just plot induced stupidity.

[beetlebum]

In fairness, EVERY episode of The Prisoner was built on this motif. My favorite variation (but least favorite episode), they redid the series as a Western and shot the opening credits as a western rather than a spy drama.

I loved The Prisoner. What a mind**** of a television programme. Truly, it is one of the best series of all time, and its impact can still be felt to this very day. I see elements of this show in programmes like Alias and Lost, with Lost being the one programme that has blatantly "borrowed" from The Prisoner the most (the village anyone?)

I just watched "Amends" and saw Buffy create a Christmas Miracle that saved Angel's life, due to her love for him. :(

Made me so sad.

Amends was one of the main reasons for my hypothesis that it would be hard for someone like Angel to buy into the atheistic brand of existentialism promoted by Sartre.

The methodological naturalist arguments would also be hard to justify in a universe like that, as opposed to ours. The theory of irreducible complexity would not be considered ridiculous in a universe fraught with so much supernatural activity. Cosmological arguments, put forth by the likes of Kalam and Gottfried Leibniz syllogistic conclusions, that everything has an explanation (in this case, metaphysical) would seem more plausible there than in our world.

Meaning? They have a purpose and a destiny, and it is given to them by powers beyond their control and comprehension. I just like analyzing it, mainly cos I find it so fascinating.

[beetlebum]

In (I think) issue 16, the Buffyverse is going to get its first major time-travel story, as the future-slayer from FRAY crosses over with BUFFY SEASON 8.

Can I has link, plz? *hopeful look*

[Indigo Al]

But shortly before that, did not Buffy conquer one of the uber-vamps in some sort of display before her slayers? I believe that was in the episode "Showtime".


Which in that context is fine. Buffy put her very all into that fight. I just don't buy them crumbling like your regular Buffyverse vamp at the slightest tap.

[beetlebum]

Hence, the concept of plot induced stupidity. Dear God, I'm using Rumbles terminology! I might as well move into mum's basement and wank off to anime while I'm at it. :p

[Night Swordsman]

Hence, the concept of plot induced stupidity. Dear God, I'm using Rumbles terminology! I might as well move into mum's basement and wank off to anime while I'm at it. :p

You mean you are NOT doing that anyway? :D

[beetlebum]

:mad:

Hey you stay out of- I mean,er, eh,.....LIAR!!! :mad:

Yeah, liar, that's it......

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Honestly, I think the Spike/Buffy relationship is one of the deepest, most interesting, most well-developed pairings I've ever seen on a TV show.

And I feel that Spike is an amazing character that is really three-dimensional once you get past the "bad boy" image.

The whole Spike/Buffy saga is what really made me enjoy the later seasons. It was uncomfortable and depressing, but that doesn't really bother me.

[AaronJ]

Again, it is clear that Spike wasn't completely heartless, as there really can't be any doubt given his actions that he truly did love Buffy, and Dru before her. Indeed, that love is what led him on the path of redemption. Much as you don't like the Buffy/Spike relationship, that much is clear if you go back and watch the relevant episodes.

Love? Or simply a desire to OWN? Yes, Spike did have emotional feelings for Dru, which built up over a century. And they weren't, I would argue, real feelings, but more a desire to keep her away from Angelus. Because whenever Spike had the ability to abuse her, treat her like crap, whatever, he took it. Unless it was about being a SAVIOR.

And yes, Spike is good at being a savior. But I don't buy that he can actually *love*. I really don't. He doesn't have a soul. He doesn't have a beating heart. Whatever he *exhibits* as love is just desire, lust, or the need to control.

And I believe there is NO path to redemption. Spike is a soulless monster. A funny soulless monster? Sure. But a soulless monster nonetheless.

As to Buffy using him, well, yes. She even said as much multiple times in Season 6. Spike said he was fine with being used, but Buffy really wasn't okay with being a user, or being sexual with someone she didn't love, which is what eventually caused her to end the relationship. Unfortunately, she'd sang that tune repeatedly over the course of several episodes, only to end up with Spike again each time, such that he didn't know she really, really meant it the last time, which resulted in the near-rape scene.

*sigh*

I'm gonna wait til I'm less inebriated to reply to this one. :)

[AaronJ]

Amends was one of the main reasons for my hypothesis that it would be hard for someone like Angel to buy into the atheistic brand of existentialism promoted by Sartre.

And it's one the main reasons why, much less philosophically, I believed Buffy and Angel were meant to be together. She makes it snow! She saves his life! I know that's the un-popular view these days, but that's how I've always interpreted the episode: Her LOVE makes it snow. Her DESIRE for his continuing "life" makes him go on.

Buffy loves Angel. Buffy saves Angel. Buffy kills lots of stuff, but she SAVES Angel.

The metaphysical naturalist arguments would also be hard to justify in a universe like that, as opposed to ours. The theory of irreducible complexity would not be considered ridiculous in a universe fraught with so much supernatural activity. Cosmological arguments, put forth by the likes of Kalam and Gottfried Leibniz syllogistic conclusions, that everything has an explanation (in this case, metaphysical) would seem more plausible there than in our world.

OK, I remember reading this stuff. But you're making my head hurt. :)

Meaning? They have a purpose and a destiny, and it is given to them by powers beyond their control and comprehension. I just like analyzing it, mainly cos I find it so fascinating.

Buffy and Angel have a True Love that is beyond anything else Buffy will experience. That's why "The Prom" is such a tear-jerker. That's why GD2 is such a tear-jerker. That's why the scene when Angel drinks from Buffy is SO DAMNED erotic, and so intense.

It's the ultimate love. It's the ultimate ACT of love. She saves him through her blood! There's a reason why that scene is *so much* more erotic than any dumpster sex, or Bronze sex, or whatever she has with Spike: Buffy and Angel's love is True.

When the Mayor calls her a whore ....

[AllisterH]

re: Buffy and Angel true love.

I think Buffy truly loved Angel. I'm not so sure about the reverse mainly because of how well the Cordelia and Angel relationship went.

I've seen many people prefer Angel with cordelia mainly because in their interactions, they relate to each other more as equals than Angel and Buffy did.

[AaronJ]

re: Buffy and Angel true love.

I think Buffy truly loved Angel. I'm not so sure about the reverse mainly because of how well the Cordelia and Angel relationship went.

I've seen many people prefer Angel with cordelia mainly because in their interactions, they relate to each other more as equals than Angel and Buffy did.

Ugh. I love Cordy. I do. And she really shone during AtS.

But Buffy and Angel were meant to be together, if anyone ever were meant to be together. Yes, show politics split them apart. Yes, they did a decent job of explaining *why* they were apart.

But those two were meant to be together. I don't know how else to put it.

[Typo Lad]

I loved The Prisoner. What a mind**** of a television programme. Truly, it is one of the best series of all time, and its impact can still be felt to this very day. I see elements of this show in programmes like Alias and Lost, with Lost being the one programme that has blatantly "borrowed" from The Prisoner the most (the village anyone?)

Ever seen Nowhere Man? It was basically The Prisoner II. In an awesome way.

[JeffreyWKramer]

PIS, plot induced stupidity (dear God, I can't believe I know this.) PIS, in order to make the final battle more climactic.

But shortly before that, did not Buffy conquer one of the uber-vamps in some sort of display before her slayers? I believe that was in the episode "Showtime".

Yes, she did, but with a lot more effort than everyone was slicing through them in the finale.

Or one could argue that somehow Willow's magic affected the uber-vamps or made the slayers more powerful. Or it was just plot induced stupidity.

Well, as I noted, Joss admitted the latter, but it seems one could easily use the former as a retcon/explanation.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I loved The Prisoner. What a mind**** of a television programme. Truly, it is one of the best series of all time, and its impact can still be felt to this very day. I see elements of this show in programmes like Alias and Lost, with Lost being the one programme that has blatantly "borrowed" from The Prisoner the most (the village anyone?)



Amends was one of the main reasons for my hypothesis that it would be hard for someone like Angel to buy into the atheistic brand of existentialism promoted by Sartre.

The metaphysical naturalist arguments would also be hard to justify in a universe like that, as opposed to ours. The theory of irreducible complexity would not be considered ridiculous in a universe fraught with so much supernatural activity. Cosmological arguments, put forth by the likes of Kalam and Gottfried Leibniz syllogistic conclusions, that everything has an explanation (in this case, metaphysical) would seem more plausible there than in our world.

Meaning? They have a purpose and a destiny, and it is given to them by powers beyond their control and comprehension. I just like analyzing it, mainly cos I find it so fascinating.


Angel goes back and forth with that issue on his own show. Obviously there are higher beings and prophecies and things in the Buffyverse, things with something behind them. Yet at the same time, the prophecies often get evaded or twisted, and powerful beings - gods, in essence and in name, such as Glory, Illyria and Jasmine - can be successfully opposed, thwarted and even destroyed, and the higher powers that Angel initially served turn out to be a bunch of manipulative shits who do reprehensible things (the whole Jasmine thing with Cordy, for example), and thus ultimately not visibly much different than the demonic senior partners at Wolfram & Hart.

Clearly Angel believes in some degree of destiny, which is why it is very difficult for him to divorce himself of the hope offered in the Shanshu Prophecies (in the final episode) - yet the fact that he can do so (or can he, really, or is this just a demonic ruse?) calls into question whether free will doesn't trump such things.

Even Buffy, who has been to something she identifies as heaven, says (in "Conversations With Dead People") the existence of God is an open question.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can I has link, plz? *hopeful look*

There are some on the BUFFY threads on the Indy Comics board. Enjoy!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hence, the concept of plot induced stupidity. Dear God, I'm using Rumbles terminology! I might as well move into mum's basement and wank off to anime while I'm at it. :p

Rumbles is not for everyone, but how is what goes on there any inherently different than our fannish talk about Buffy?

Plus there are some very cool and bright people there, and I've said that even during times I am not active on the board due to disagreements with how the board is run (usually by higher-ups than the actual Rumbles mods, mind you).

[JeffreyWKramer]

Love? Or simply a desire to OWN? Yes, Spike did have emotional feelings for Dru, which built up over a century. And they weren't, I would argue, real feelings, but more a desire to keep her away from Angelus. Because whenever Spike had the ability to abuse her, treat her like crap, whatever, he took it. Unless it was about being a SAVIOR.

And yes, Spike is good at being a savior. But I don't buy that he can actually *love*. I really don't. He doesn't have a soul. He doesn't have a beating heart. Whatever he *exhibits* as love is just desire, lust, or the need to control.

And I believe there is NO path to redemption. Spike is a soulless monster. A funny soulless monster? Sure. But a soulless monster nonetheless.
This is a case, really, where what you believe and what is presented on the show are pretty much in diametric opposition, and your take differs from that of pretty much every writer on the show and all the relevant actors have to say about the issue. Really, your argument looks to be based more on Angel/Buffy shipperistic tendencies than on the text of the shows.

Spike's reactions and actions to events many times demonstrate that what he felt for BUFFY even prior to being ensouled was not just lust or a desire for control (though those are there too, because as Astonishing X-Fan notes above, Spike and his relationships are complex). He couldn't be so hurt by things Buffy says and does otherwise, and he wouldn't stay by her side after the hurts otherwise.

[BnL]

But Buffy and Angel were meant to be together, if anyone ever were meant to be together. Yes, show politics split them apart. Yes, they did a decent job of explaining *why* they were apart.

But those two were meant to be together. I don't know how else to put it.

And that's exactly why I fucking hated Angel and Buffy as a couple. It was so FORCED on the audience. Like, "YOU MUST EXCEPT THIS AND LOVE THIS, CAUSE SEE?? LOOK HOW GREAT THEY ARE TOGETHER!!" All that "meant to be," and "greatest love EVAH!" shit really grated on my nerves.

[Typo Lad]

And that's exactly why I fucking hated Angel and Buffy as a couple. It was so FORCED on the audience. Like, "YOU MUST EXCEPT THIS AND LOVE THIS, CAUSE SEE?? LOOK HOW GREAT THEY ARE TOGETHER!!" All that "meant to be," and "greatest love EVAH!" shit really grated on my nerves.
Isn't that how it is on any show though? Especially genre? We're told "Yeah, Odo and Kira make a GREAT couple," even though we've no reason to think they should be, etc.

[Alan Lynch]

Isn't that how it is on any show though? Especially genre? We're told "Yeah, Odo and Kira make a GREAT couple," even though we've no reason to think they should be, etc.
It's different when shows take their time though; Odo and Kira, Mulder and Scully, Chandler and Monica - stuff like that. They might not work as couples, but at least there's been enough of them as singles that people might care. With Buffy and Angel we had what, 6 or 7 episodes of flirting and then "Oh shit he's a vampire but I love him WAAAAH!" angst. It was all rather rushed considering we'd barely gotten used to the show. I didn't mind the relationship myself, but I definitely agree it got a bit heavy handed.

[Typo Lad]

Except the groundwork for Chandler/Monica and Scully/Mulder was lain from day one. In the case of the former it was one of many possible matches, but we're shown flirtatious behavior even in the first season, and "loaded" flashbacks as soon as the third (what? My wife has the box sets, okay?). In the case of Scully/Mulder there's sexual tension from the get-go and it is built on, but it was as obvious a "will they/won't they" as "Who's The Boss?", for goddness sake.

I agree that it was done hamfistedly (a season to build would have made more sense), but it's no more "forced" than say, Riker and Troi.

[Alan Lynch]

Except the groundwork for Chandler/Monica and Scully/Mulder was lain from day one. In the case of the former it was one of many possible matches, but we're shown flirtatious behavior even in the first season, and "loaded" flashbacks as soon as the third (what? My wife has the box sets, okay?). In the case of Scully/Mulder there's sexual tension from the get-go and it is built on, but it was as obvious a "will they/won't they" as "Who's The Boss?", for goddness sake.

I agree that it was done hamfistedly (a season to build would have made more sense), but it's no more "forced" than say, Riker and Troi.
Oh there's definitely groundwork goes into these things, but I think that's preferable to just having couples thrown together and while telling the audience they're perfect together. I'd appreciate it if they took the time to show in other ways why a couple is perfect, even if the outcome is planned well in advance. It's like introducing a bad guy episode one and killing him off in episode two - we know it's likely to happen, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some sort of build towards it.

Like I say, I don't actually mind Buffy/Angel. I thought that season 2 was the best they ever handled them as a couple, and that was about the only time they were officially together long enough to be called one.

[BnL]

To me, it was all just done too quickly, too unconvincingly, and too heavyhandedly. We were to not just buy that they made a GOOD couple, but that their love was somehow the deepest, the truest, the most special, that they were fated to be together, etc. And let's not even get into the fact that this "perfect love" was between a 16 year old girl a guy who's lived like 200 years. Just...bleh.

[PatrickG]

Except the groundwork for Chandler/Monica and Scully/Mulder was lain from day one. In the case of the former it was one of many possible matches, but we're shown flirtatious behavior even in the first season, and "loaded" flashbacks as soon as the third (what? My wife has the box sets, okay?). In the case of Scully/Mulder there's sexual tension from the get-go and it is built on, but it was as obvious a "will they/won't they" as "Who's The Boss?", for goddness sake.

I agree that it was done hamfistedly (a season to build would have made more sense), but it's no more "forced" than say, Riker and Troi.

I would say Xander/Buffy is the equivalent here.

SMG and Nick Brendan remained fans of the pairing through the show's run and Whedon says that they never dismissed it and wanted to keep it as an option. He's still toying with it in Season 8.

The thing is that with all of the described pairings (except Odo/Kira), the conflict changed in a way that lost a lot of the audience.

I think Buffy/Xander would be fine but the trick is doing it in a way that escalates drama -- and yet, with YEARS of off and on setup, something that doesn't get dismissed too quickly either.

[Alan Lynch]

I would say Xander/Buffy is the equivalent here.

SMG and Nick Brendan remained fans of the pairing through the show's run and Whedon says that they never dismissed it and wanted to keep it as an option. He's still toying with it in Season 8.
You think? I don't see it at all in season 8. They both seem really comfortable with each other as they are now, and unless something happened in one of the issues I've missed - I think there's been 2 or 3 of those - Xander in particular seems to be flourishing with the current dynamic. He doesn't seem hung up on Buffy for the first time in a while. I actually love him again.

[AaronJ]

This is a case, really, where what you believe and what is presented on the show are pretty much in diametric opposition, and your take differs from that of pretty much every writer on the show and all the relevant actors have to say about the issue. Really, your argument looks to be based more on Angel/Buffy shipperistic tendencies than on the text of the shows.

You may be right. But that was what I was presented with. Honestly. I don't really care (and I don't mean this like some jackass, just in general) what creators *say* about a show/book/comic/movie/play/opera/etc. I care what is actually *presented* to me.

But you may very well be right. I'll think about it. But I don't understand how a soulless, heartless demonic animal could love. Like I said, I will think about it.

And that's exactly why I fucking hated Angel and Buffy as a couple. It was so FORCED on the audience. Like, "YOU MUST EXCEPT THIS AND LOVE THIS, CAUSE SEE?? LOOK HOW GREAT THEY ARE TOGETHER!!" All that "meant to be," and "greatest love EVAH!" shit really grated on my nerves.

Normally, I would agree with you. I remember the X-Files newsgroup when I first learned the word "'ship" and I despised the idea of Mulder/Scully, and all the talk of it.

But Buffy and Angel are like peanut butter and jelly. She's the young, impressionable, but still insightful Slayer. He's the dark, brooding, vampire with a soul. If they aren't meant to be together, I don't know who is.

And honestly, look at her without Angel. Look at her whenever she is away from him. She's a wreck. She's depressed and lonely in "Anne." She screws Parker and gets drunk. Dumpster Sex.

It's not like Buffy has a great record away from Angel.

And it was "pushed on you" because it was the central romance to the show. It was the central *doomed* romance. But it was the central romance. There were obviously a number of other interesting romances on the show. But none so compelling as Buffy and Angel.

And I never saw it as "See how great they are together?!" Quite the opposite, actually. They are a beautiful couple, but Buffy and Angel are, in the end, doomed. Watch "Surprise"/"Innocence" again.

[PatrickG]

You think? I don't see it at all in season 8. They both seem really comfortable with each other as they are now, and unless something happened in one of the issues I've missed - I think there's been 2 or 3 of those - Xander in particular seems to be flourishing with the current dynamic. He doesn't seem hung up on Buffy for the first time in a while. I actually love him again.

I was referring to the infamous dream sequence Buffy has where she invites Xander to bed and then accidentally knocks his head off kissing him.

I think it says something about her. She's a little into Xander being into her at least (and still likes "average" guys as we often saw in the TV show) but she's afraid she'll break them.

Which casts the Xander thing in a different light. I know the "brother" comparison gets used a lot but he's almost a "priest" in the slayer cult. We've seen that he could never give himself over fully to anyone else (Anya included) once he'd developed a taste for Slayer life... and I think we've seen points where Buffy was interested in or jealous of Xander but felt like he was unavailable by necessity.

IMHO, he's the Mary Magdalene of the Church of Buffy. Which means some purists could never see it happening but he's that option who's always present.

I'd actually play with that with the Fray crossover, suggesting they may have had lots of plump grandchildren together in Fray's history -- which would accentuate the awkwardness without doing the more stereotypical route of having Xander behave like a dick to re-emphasize it.

Heck... I'd build a relationship for Xander with this new slayer girl and then have the suggestion brought out about Xander and Buffy's future, hopefully in the most awkward way possible.

And I may be bordering on Winnickry here (let me know if I am) but I think I'd have a bunch of Slayer relics tied in with Fray, one of which would be an apparent sex tape of sixty year old Xander and Buffy, just to make everybody wish they were blind.

[Alan Lynch]

And I may be bordering on Winnickry here (let me know if I am) but I think I'd have a bunch of Slayer relics tied in with Fray, one of which would be an apparent sex tape of sixty year old Xander and Buffy, just to make everybody wish they were blind.
That's genius. I don't see them together anymore, but something like that would have me laughing myself silly. It's not high-brow by any stretch, but I like it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But you may very well be right. I'll think about it. But I don't understand how a soulless, heartless demonic animal could love. Like I said, I will think about it.
Well, the Buffyverse shows aren't entirely consistent about what a soul really means. In a lot of ways, it seems - behaviorally, at least - to correlate with a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Most vamps lack that, but Spike eventually got there, albeit with a lot of struggles, via love. Right from the bat he seemed to have the potential to be something other than the average vamp - his first interest once embraced was to embrace his mother, to prevent her from dying of the disease that was killing her. When we first meet Spike, that has been suppressed a long time, overridden by his demon nature and ground down due to spending decades as a vampire and with other vamps, but that changes over the course of his long association with Buffy, and that potential comes to the fore again and eventually leads Spike to redemption.

[AaronJ]

Well, the Buffyverse shows aren't entirely consistent about what a soul really means. In a lot of ways, it seems - behaviorally, at least - to correlate with a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Most vamps lack that, but Spike eventually got there, albeit with a lot of struggles, via love. Right from the bat he seemed to have the potential to be something other than the average vamp - his first interest once embraced was to embrace his mother, to prevent her from dying of the disease that was killing her. When we first meet Spike, that has been suppressed a long time, overridden by his demon nature and ground down due to spending decades as a vampire and with other vamps, but that changes over the course of his long association with Buffy, and that potential comes to the fore again and eventually leads Spike to redemption.

The difference between us is that you think Spike was redeemed, whereas I see him as nothing more than a monster with an occasionally funny thing to say.

But then again, I see him as the downfall of the show. So ....

[JeffreyWKramer]

The difference between us is that you think Spike was redeemed, whereas I see him as nothing more than a monster with an occasionally funny thing to say.


Let's see...
he withstood torture and threat of death rather than betray Buffy, and risked his (un)life repeatedly fighting by her side;
he won back his soul by his own efforts in attempt to be worthy of love and to stop being a monster;
in season 7, his love for her was completely nonsexual, understanding the trust broken by the attempted rape, but he was there constantly, for emotional supports and other types;
and in the season finale he gave his life fighting evil.

If that's not redemption, I guess we aren't working on the same definitions at all.

[AaronJ]

As I've said, I haven't seen S7 (I quit after a few episodes). And I am not necessarily saying he wasn't redeemed. But he can have been redeemed and still be the downfall of the show.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As I've said, I haven't seen S7 (I quit after a few episodes). And I am not necessarily saying he wasn't redeemed. But he can have been redeemed and still be the downfall of the show.

It comes down, as much, to a matter of personal taste.

Personally, the more I rewatch the Season 6 and 7 episodes, the more I appreciate them for the complexity and the subtlety of a lot of the character growth. At the same time, I can understand why many don't like them, and even I (who do like them for the most part) think Joss and company overdid the dark 'n' dreary factor in Season 6 by a fair margin. It was just too damn relentless, and even the funny bits with the nerd trio didn't manage to lighten the pall too much.

[AaronJ]

It comes down, as much, to a matter of personal taste.

Exactly.

Personally, the more I rewatch the Season 6 and 7 episodes, the more I appreciate them for the complexity and the subtlety of a lot of the character growth. At the same time, I can understand why many don't like them, and even I (who do like them for the most part) think Joss and company overdid the dark 'n' dreary factor in Season 6 by a fair margin.

I think we can agree on that.

It was just too damn relentless, and even the funny bits with the nerd trio didn't manage to lighten the pall too much.

Wow, did I hate those guys.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Wow, did I hate those guys.

They were fine given the metaphors and themes Joss was wanting to explore that season, and Jonathan and Andrew can be pretty funny sometimes (Warren always was more a douche than really funny, and just became more despicable as the season progressed), but as far as "epic" villainy goes, they don't match up to the better Buffy foes.

On the other hand, at least they aren't boring like Adam was.

[LewisH]

just got way too dark for me even though I did watch every ep. I just didn't enjoy the show as much. After the empowered young woman triumphs over evil fun of the first 4 seasons, we ended up with embittered young woman pretty much hates life in the last 3. And the noone's allowed to have a happy relationship thing got old after about the 3rd time too. To be honest I spent most of Season 5 rooting for Glory, Season 6 rooting for everyone to stop whining and Season 7 hoping the First Evil actually had an interesting plan.

At least the Bufffy in the S8 comic seems to be having some fun again. Hopefully the villains have an interesting plan.

[AaronJ]

They were fine given the metaphors and themes Joss was wanting to explore that season, and Jonathan and Andrew can be pretty funny sometimes (Warren always was more a douche than really funny, and just became more despicable as the season progressed), but as far as "epic" villainy goes, they don't match up to the better Buffy foes.

I really hated them. They made me embarrassed to be a fan of the show, quite frankly. I felt they drove the show down into the ground. I never found Andrew or Jonathan funny in the slightest. I took it all as an insult.

On the other hand, at least they aren't boring like Adam was.

On this we agree. Adam was a bore-fest. I can kind of see where they wanted to go with the idea. But the execution completely failed.

[Johnny_Luck]

Andrew was awesome, more so in season 7 when he grew to become good, but near the end of 6 he was worthwhile too.

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind.

[Corrina]

I think he did get there at the end of Season 7, if only for the exchange where he tells Buffy that he welcomes sacrificing himself. He goes through quite a bit of angst. That scene on the cross in the church is one of the most arresting visuals in all of season 7.

And he knows Buffy doesn't love him at the end of S7, he knows it won't change her mind. And that's okay, because he feels like this is what he needs to do. There's also a story in the last season of Angel, where he's tortured by a insane slayer and comes to realize more clearly the harm that he's done. At the end of that season, he picks the good fight, because it's right, not because he's trying to impress anyone or beat Angel, but because it's the thing to do.

He's a much different personality that Angel, however. He is much more less tolerant for accepting social conventions, he really sees no need for a lot of social veneers. Like when he kidnaps Willow for the love spell. "I'm love's bitch but at least I know it." In a way, he serves as the Cordelia of the show, the one who tells the unpleasant truths--as she did in the first few seasons. Then that moves to Spike to Season 5, to a good extent, and then over to Anya, who also doesn't have a good social veneer and comes out with unpleasant truths that others won't face. Much as Whedon is using Emma Frost in his X-Men run, btw.

I enjoy, as a fictional character, Spike's refusal to tolerate what he sees as 'bullshit' or anything other than brutal honesty but that certainly could grate on others. And in real life, not so good, I think.

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind.

[Corrina]

Except sometimes people don't listen to tactful things. Sometimes you need the big mallet to hit them over the head with.

Certainly, Angel & Buffy weren't going to listen to someone politely say 'you can't be friends, you're still in love and you have to face it, move forward, or let it go.'

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind.

[ShaunN]

Around the end of the "Buffy" TV series, there was an article in Salon.com with the title "How Spike Ruined Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I can't recall much of the article, beyond agreeing with it.

My own take on Spike - beyond feeling that Buffy's "relationship" with him in S6 was very unfortunate, albeit appropriate to the plot - was that he simply ended up getting too much screen time.

To me, "Buffy" was about, in large part, how a group of misfit youngsters grew to love and trust each other and, along with their surrogate father (Giles) ended up forming a "family." When the stories began to revolve around Spike, when Buffy seemed willing to do almost anything for Spike, when it became Spike, Spike, Spike -and maybe that's just my warped perception, but it sure felt that way - I felt that the heart and soul of the series was lost. This is especially true in S7, where Willow and Xander become virtual bystanders to the action.

So, to me, that essential famly/friend dynamic was lost. The Spike obsession on the part of the writers was either symptomatic of a breakdown in the fundamentals of the series or a cause of the problem.

Take care,

Shaun

[Tobias March]

Re: some of the complaints some pages ago about the lack of ongoing male homosexuals in Buffy...there were many noted hints of a homoerotic rivalry between Spike and Angel, though it was never fully realized. I thought it amusing that the moment the writers of Tochwood got their hands on James Marsters they immediately had him swapping spit with their 'Angelus', Jack Harkness.

[Starleafgirl]

I really hated them. They made me embarrassed to be a fan of the show, quite frankly. I felt they drove the show down into the ground. I never found Andrew or Jonathan funny in the slightest. I took it all as an insult.

Hitting a bit too close to home, were they? :D

Kidding, kidding! Honestly, I myself thought "WTF?!" when they first started being featured, but after the first couple of times, I really, really grew to like the humor they added to the show. They were... Just. So. Odd. Lol. I loved to hate them. It was that sort of thing. And now, years later, I appreciate that they gave something, ah, different to the show. :D

[JeffreyWKramer]

Around the end of the "Buffy" TV series, there was an article in Salon.com with the title "How Spike Ruined Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I can't recall much of the article, beyond agreeing with it.

My own take on Spike - beyond feeling that Buffy's "relationship" with him in S6 was very unfortunate, albeit appropriate to the plot - was that he simply ended up getting too much screen time.

To me, "Buffy" was about, in large part, how a group of misfit youngsters grew to love and trust each other and, along with their surrogate father (Giles) ended up forming a "family." When the stories began to revolve around Spike, when Buffy seemed willing to do almost anything for Spike, when it became Spike, Spike, Spike -and maybe that's just my warped perception, but it sure felt that way - I felt that the heart and soul of the series was lost. This is especially true in S7, where Willow and Xander become virtual bystanders to the action.

So, to me, that essential famly/friend dynamic was lost. The Spike obsession on the part of the writers was either symptomatic of a breakdown in the fundamentals of the series or a cause of the problem.

Take care,

Shaun

I agree with some of the above, disagree with other parts. Certianly I don't think Spike "ruined" BUFFY, but the dynamic certainly did change.

Consider, though, that the show's title is BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, not BUFFY, XANDER & WILLOW. Although supportive characters are very important to the show and its message, and to its popularity with the fans, ultimately the show is most about Buffy and what she's dealing with. As such, as her relationship dynamics change, and as relationships end, change, etc., so does the show's focus on different characters.

Season 1 is about setting things in place, and is very much centered on the original four characters.

Season 2 was about Angel and Buffy much more than anyone else, though Spike, Dru, Xander, Willow, Cordy, Giles and (to a lesser extent) Oz all had important roles.

Season 3 brought Angel back into the mix, and introduced Faith. It was also more about a theme - graduation - and somewhat less about the individual characters, though all got spotlight episodes. Relationships were also again a focus, but not as much so just the Buffy/Angel one, as the Willow/Oz and (especially) Xander/Cordelia ones got a lot of screen time, not to mention the bit with Xander and Willow and the impact that had on the other relationships.

Season 4 was about moving past high school and starting to establish an adult identity. There were episodes focused on each of the original primary characters, plus Anya joined the show, and later Tara, while Oz departed. But the biggest and most important (though most boring) addition was Riley, and Buffy's relationship with him took on a lot of importance, as relationships tend to at that point in life. Spike also joined as a regular, but mostly served as comic relief. At the end, though, things went back to the original four.

Season 5 was about growing up and taking on adult responsibility, and about family - genetic family (Buffy, Dawn and Joyce), and also family of choice (most notably in the Tara-centered episode titled, tellingly, "Family"). Spike was a regular now, but not really a primary, and Riley (thankfully) departed, but Dawn also joined up, and Joyce played a bigger role than she had really at any other time in the show. There were individuals centered on each cast member, including Spike and (to some extent) Anya, but Buffy's romantic relationships took a back seat to her family ones.

Season 6 is about the downside of growing up and about dealing with tragedy and loss. There are still stories based around most of the primary characters, but Buffy's issues - which feature Spike prominently - very much take center stage, as do Willow's issues (focusing on bad ways of dealing with responsibility and loss) to a lesser degree, and in a manner sort of shadowing Buffy's working through her own issues. Xander gets an ep focused on his (and Anya's) stuff, Dawn gets a couple and Willow gets several, as the show essentially centers on her almost as much as Buffy for much of the season.

Season 7 is about taking one's place in the world, accepting consequences and tough realities, and working together. We don't get any truly Xander-centric or Giles-centric episodes, but Anya and Dawn each get one - as does Jonathan - and Willow gets two. Spike gets a lot of play this season, but mostly in regard to the concept of consequences - his relationship with Buffy has changed due to past actions, while Robin represents a different sort of consequence as Spike's past hauns him. If anyone truly gets shorted, it's definitely Xander and Giles, but that's probably because of all the others things that need to happen this season, including drawing the curtain on the show. Xander's importance to the story is emphasized in some ways particularly by what happens when something happens to him, but Giles necessarily takes on less important a role because in large part Buffy takes on the role he had at the start of the show. Xander isn't a bystander, though, and Willow certainly isn't, given two eps focused on her and given her pivotal role in the finale. At the end, the original dynamic is revisited, and it is clearly still important, but the four original characters have significantly grown by that time.

A lot of people missed how the show stopped being about the three misfit teens and their mentor, and that's understandable, because change is tough and the lure of nostalgia is strong, but it would also have been rather static and somewhat silly for it to continue with that focus, because the characters moved into adulthood and beyond the need for a mentor; instead, Buffy takes on that role herself. As only makes sense sense, because ultimately, it is her show.

[Tobias March]

Hitting a bit too close to home, were they? :D

Kidding, kidding! Honestly, I myself thought "WTF?!" when they first started being featured, but after the first couple of times, I really, really grew to like the humor they added to the show. They were... Just. So. Odd. Lol. I loved to hate them. It was that sort of thing. And now, years later, I appreciate that they gave something, ah, different to the show. :D

I love the Trio. Loved 'em. The wonderful flashback to the moment when they decided to take over Sunnydale while gaming was my favourite.

And of course "We're your arch-nemesis..ses....?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBphJGuxuek

[tangentman]

I think part of the problem with Spike lies in the "Fonzie Syndrome" which afflicted him in the last few seasons. When Spike rode into Sunnydale in "School Hard", he brought a seductive menace to the series. In one of the most unpredictable moments in that era, Spike murdered the Annointed ("Annoying") One, supplanting the child messiah as one third of the "Big Bad" Trifecta. Spike brought danger and contributed to the downfall of Angel.

Even when he returned in Season 3, though a little laughable, Spike remained a deadly threat. Buffy and Spike hated one another in the most visceral way, although Spike's attraction was foreshadowed as early as Season 2. He was the flipside of Angel, the vampire seductiveness and rebelliousness with none of the honor or compassion. Spike exuded raw sexuality and a contempt for social graces and "niceness".

Then, Season 4 reduced Spike to comic relief. He was "de-fanged" by the Initiative, and reduced to the "Funny Neighbor". Hell, by Season 7, I expected Spike to lecture Dawn about eating her vegetables and the "coolness" of wearing glasses! Just like Fonzie of Happy Days, Spike went from "Rebel" to "Upstanding Guy in Leather".


Regarding the Buffy/Xander pairing--I'm all for it! I'm not one of those "Shipper Purists" who refuse to consider their relationship in a new light. I was over Angel being Buffy's main man well before "Graduation Day". Ever since Season 5, I think Buffy's shown hints that she's gradually seen Xander in a new way. Personally, by Season 6, I think she came to see him as a man, though one unavailable because of Anya.

Honestly, I wonder which way their relationship would have gone if Warren hadn't stormed into her backyard that morning in "Seeing Red". I think Season 8 dropped hints to that answer, although I certainly considered the "red herring" factor I've come to associate with Joss during the dream & "Fairytale Kiss" scenes. Still, I wouldn't object to at least an honest, adult conversation between Buffy and Xander about their unresolved history.

[AaronJ]

Hitting a bit too close to home, were they? :D

Et tu, Leafy? Et tu? :(


:)

Kidding, kidding! Honestly, I myself thought "WTF?!" when they first started being featured, but after the first couple of times, I really, really grew to like the humor they added to the show. They were... Just. So. Odd. Lol. I loved to hate them. It was that sort of thing. And now, years later, I appreciate that they gave something, ah, different to the show. :D

I guess I can see the appeal. But there was just something so grating.

[beetlebum]

Rumbles is not for everyone, but how is what goes on there any inherently different than our fannish talk about Buffy?

Plus there are some very cool and bright people there, and I've said that even during times I am not active on the board due to disagreements with how the board is run (usually by higher-ups than the actual Rumbles mods, mind you).

I actually like some of the Rumblers. Kain5252 and I pm each other constantly, and of course I love Gladiara Alata, due to the fact that we both post a lot in the *Passes out* thread. And I wish Sharpandpointies would post here more. I've had my problems with the moderation as well (though Gordon, for the most part, has done a very good job keeping the peace).

Of all the Rumblers, there are only two I don't like. They constantly troll Buffy threads, and I was once thread banned after getting into an argument with them. :rolleyes:

And I was joking, hence the :p. Sometimes the intentions of the speaker get lost, due the inability to read body language across the internet.

[tangentman]

Of all the Rumblers, there are only two I don't like. They constantly troll Buffy threads, and I was once thread banned after getting into an argument with them. :rolleyes:

Butchers the English language...stridently obnoxious...

Hmm...could it be...IMMORTAL WATCHDOG?!? :p

[beetlebum]

I cannot confirm......nor deny........:evilsmile:

[Indigo Al]

Season 5 was about growing up and taking on adult responsibility, and about family - genetic family (Buffy, Dawn and Joyce), and also family of choice (most notably in the Tara-centered episode titled, tellingly, "Family").

Another interesting topic, to me, is how biological fathers are either absent or failures on both BtvS and Angel. I know Giles is the show's father figure, and I know that the strength of the bonds between Joyce, Buffy and Dawn are central to the show's theme.

But apart from the first appearance of good ole deadbeat Mr. Summers (season 1) that suggested he might not be such a horrible guy, you really don't see hide or hair of those kinds of relationships - or if you do, they are generally not positive.

I'm not claiming conspiracy or backlash here; I don't think it's intentional. But it is kinda curious.

[beetlebum]

Another interesting topic, to me, is how biological fathers are either absent or failures on both BtvS and Angel. I know Giles is the show's father figure, and I know that the strength of the bonds between Joyce, Buffy and Dawn are central to the show's theme.

But apart from the first appearance of good ole deadbeat Mr. Summers (season 1) that suggested he might not be such a horrible guy, you really don't see hide or hair of those kinds of relationships - or if you do, they are generally not positive.

I'm not claiming conspiracy or backlash here; I don't think it's intentional. But it is kinda curious.


Don't forget, that by season five, Hank was in Spain living the high life with his secretary. The struggle with the Watchers Council could be construed as as an allegory of a struggle with patriarchy as well.

[scout1279]

All of Whedon's shows have also had a strong message of family being something you make, not something you are born into. The Scoobies are a family. Angel Investigations is a family. The crew of the Firefly is a family. Bloob relationships don't necessarily mean anything in the Whedonverse unless there's more to it than just that.

[Ryan Day]

Another interesting topic, to me, is how biological fathers are either absent or failures on both BtvS and Angel. I know Giles is the show's father figure, and I know that the strength of the bonds between Joyce, Buffy and Dawn are central to the show's theme.

I think it extends to biological parents in general. Willow's parents were usually absent yet vaguely judgemental, Xander's family was nuts, Tara's family was practically evil. Angel and Wesley had father issues, Spike had mother issues. Faith had a generally troubled past with her family.

Joyce was supportive, and so were Fred's parents, but that's about it.

(Vaguely related, I always loved the scene at the end of Lineage where Angel and Spike try to console Wesley by telling him how they had to kill their parents, too.)

[beetlebum]

All of Whedon's shows have also had a strong message of family being something you make, not something you are born into. The Scoobies are a family. Angel Investigations is a family. The crew of the Firefly is a family. Bloob relationships don't necessarily mean anything in the Whedonverse unless there's more to it than just that.

You may be right, but there is no denying dialectic like push pull and the subtle commentary on the traditional roles of gender that permeate the show.

[scout1279]

I think it extends to biological parents in general. Willow's parents were usually absent yet vaguely judgemental, Xander's family was nuts, Tara's family was practically evil. Angel and Wesley had father issues, Spike had mother issues. Faith had a generally troubled past.

Joyce was supportive, and so were Fred's parents, but that's about it.

(Vaguely related, I always loved the scene at the end of Lineage where Angel and Spike try to console Wesley by telling him how they had to kill their parents, too.)
To be fair, before he turned her into a Vampire, Spike's mother was very loving.

[scout1279]

You may be right, but there is no denying dialectic like push pull and the subtle commentary on the traditional roles of gender that permeate the show.
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I was just adding to the topic at hand. As a matter of fact, I suspect that Whedon's distance from his biological father and the fact that his step-father was a strong presence in his life may be a factor in why the shows had the message of family being something you make.

That message is something that Whedon has openly talked about though, specifically with regard to the episode "Family." Whedon wrote that episode because he wanted to make that point.

[Ryan Day]

To be fair, before he turned her into a Vampire, Spike's mother was very loving.

Perhaps too loving. Her son was a bit of a sissy, you know. :)

(besides, encouraging William's poetry deserves some punishment)

[beetlebum]

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I was just adding to the topic at hand. As a matter of fact, I suspect that Whedon's distance from his biological father and the fact that his step-father was a strong presence in his life may be a factor in why the shows had the message of family being something you make.

That message is something that Whedon has openly talked about though, specifically with regard to the episode "Family." Whedon wrote that episode because he wanted to make that point.

That's the gist of it right there, and probably the basis for a lot of the story lines we see on the show. I haven't spoken to my biological father for a while (I've issues as well), so now that aspect of the show is more relatible to me.

[Starleafgirl]

And of course "We're your arch-nemesis..ses....?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBphJGuxuek

BWHAHA. :D

I guess I can see the appeal. But there was just something so grating.

:)

I just watched that YouTube video, and while I just think The Trio is sooo hilarious, I can see the grating-ness you mention, too. ;D

That's the gist of it right there, and probably the basis for a lot of the story lines we see on the show. I haven't spoken to my biological father for a while (I've issues as well), so now that aspect of the show is more relatible to me.

Hmm, well... I happen to have a very good relationship with my biological father... Not quite to the level of Veronica Mars and her dad, but it's like that, just less witty/more joking. But real life experiences definitely influence one's writing, no matter what. I think that's why there are so many movies where the main character is a writer -- writers are a special folk and I think the only ones that understand us (and that we understand) are other loons. I'm sorry, I mean writers. :)

In related news, there has got to be someone on LOST's writing staff with daddy issues. I mean, seriously, is there a single character on that show that has a GOOD relationship with his/her father?!

[beetlebum]

As for Buffy and Xander, I'd say I'd like them better as friends, as opposed to a couple. They have almost a brother and sister like relationship. And having that type of relationship is part of the reason why so many fans hated George and Izzie together on Grey's Anatomy. At first, I thought it was really sweet. Then, over time, as it began to sink in, it grossed me out. They just did not belong together. Esp. considering the fact that they broke up a marriage and Izzie was taking advantage of their friendship, and using him to get over Denny. I'm not so sure I'd be grossed out by Xander and Buffy, but I could just never see them together.

But than again, I wished Wallace was more Veronica's type so he and Veronica could hook up. He was a lot better than Logan. And yeah, I am very partisan to my dislike of them being together. Logan on his own was fine, and he did have some redeeming qualities. But put him together with Veronica and thus begins the lying, backstabbing, and destruction.

Going back to Spike, I don't think he ruined the show. He was fine on his own. I loved him in "Lover's Walk", and he had me cracking up. Whether it was with hot cocoa and marshmallows with Joyce, or ruminating over how he and Dru killed a homeless guy on a bench (the look on Buffy and Angel's face was priceless). He was absolutely hilarious in that episode. And part of the reason why I loved season four is because of all of the jokes that were surmised upon the discovery of his implant ("flaccid?"). But put him together with Buffy, and that's where the problems came in. The relationship was destructive and degrading.

[Indigo Al]

Spike/Joyce shippers - make yourselves known!!!!

[beetlebum]

And I loved the troika as well. I think they were there to lighten up the season, (when they first appeared) and were there to quite possibly take the mick out of their fans, in a light hearted way.

"I present to you my nem-se-ses"-Buffy

It wasn't until they tried to rape Warren's ex Karen (God, what is with all of the rape story lines?) did they turn truly evil, and things began to fall apart.

But for the most part, they were one of the few things about season six that did not suck. They were good for a laugh when they were around.

[Starleafgirl]

As for Buffy and Xander, I'd say I'd like them better as friends, as opposed to a couple. (...)

But than again, I wished Wallace was more Veronica's type so he and Veronica could hook up. He was a lot better than Logan. And yeah, I am very partisan to my dislike of them being together. Logan on his own was fine, and he did have some redeeming qualities. But put him together with Veronica and thus begins the lying, backstabbing, and destruction.

Going back to Spike, I don't think he ruined the show. He was fine on his own. (...) But put him together with Buffy, and that's where the problems came in. The relationship was destructive and degrading.

I agree with you on BuffyxXander and SpikexBuffy, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on VeronicaxLogan. I really liked them as a couple, at least at first, but then again... I agree that it wasn't a good relationship for either of them, towards the end of the show. I'd rather have Veronica with that guy who they used to think might've been her half-brother. Lordy, I hope they weren't ACTUALLY related...

[JeffreyWKramer]

Of all the Rumblers, there are only two I don't like. They constantly troll Buffy threads, and I was once thread banned after getting into an argument with them. :rolleyes:

I suspect one of the pair in question is a guy that names himself after a Buffyverse character, yet ironically demonstrates virtually no comprehension of the shows.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's the gist of it right there, and probably the basis for a lot of the story lines we see on the show. I haven't spoken to my biological father for a while (I've issues as well), so now that aspect of the show is more relatible to me.

Interestingly, Sarah Michelle Gellar has never had anything good to say about her biological father (now deceased) in interviews, but has spoken well of her stepfather.

[beetlebum]

I agree with you on BuffyxXander and SpikexBuffy, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on VeronicaxLogan. I really liked them as a couple, at least at first, but then again... I agree that it wasn't a good relationship for either of them, towards the end of the show. I'd rather have Veronica with that guy who they used to think might've been her half-brother. Lordy, I hope they weren't ACTUALLY related...

Disagreement is part of the reason why I stopped posting on TWop. (Well that, and a lot of people on there need to be treated for their "issues").

But, at the end of season one, I don't remember which episode, it was either "A Trip To The Dentist" or "Leave It To Beaver" where Keith took a paternity test and it was revealed that he was indeed Veronica's biological father.

And yeah, Duncan was kind of boring. But the depression and the epilepsy did give him a layer of complexity. But sad to say, the only thing that made him interesting in season two was having him mourn his ex who was in a coma, Meg.

Logan did have some good qualities. He did save Veronica in season two's finale, as well as beat up a guy who he thought was going to hurt her in "Weapons Of Class Destruction". But still, this guy was once accused of homicide, and he slept with a married woman, and he used to cross the border to buy drugs. Not to mention all of the racist jokes he made about Weevil (but to be fair, Weevil made them back). And I still don't like how he used Hannah Teeter. And the dumb broad nearly gave her virginity to him.

But to be fair, Logan was a victim of his father's abuse, so it's only natural that he would gravitate towards self destructive behaviour.

At the end of season two, they planted some pretty interesting easter eggs, in regards to Lilly's murder. It made it seem like, despite Aaron Echoll's guilt, the full story had not been told. I wish the show was still on the air so they could have followed through with it.

[Corrina]

Well, Giles is Buffy's father, in all ways that matter.

Which is why it was meant to work in S6 that his leaving pushed her more down the road to darkness. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that Giles leaving at that particular point was not something Giles would have done, that he would have had more insight, as he had previously. The fact that ASH wanted to go back to England led me to believe it was a case of real-world events causing a fictional event that didn't quite work.

[beetlebum]

I suspect one of the pair in question is a guy that names himself after a Buffyverse character, yet ironically demonstrates virtually no comprehension of the shows.

Or the English language. :evilsmile: :D

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, Giles is Buffy's father, in all ways that matter.

Which is why it was meant to work in S6 that his leaving pushed her more down the road to darkness. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that Giles leaving at that particular point was not something Giles would have done, that he would have had more insight, as he had previously. The fact that ASH wanted to go back to England led me to believe it was a case of real-world events causing a fictional event that didn't quite work.

Agreed.

The thing that worked least well for me* of all the season 6 stuff was Giles' departure. It just didn't make sense, given all Buffy had been through and what she revealed in "Once More With Feeling." It was entirely out of character, and the rationale given for it was quite weak.

The only positive thing that came out of it was that his being gone for awhile allowed for his wonderful surprise entrance, and extremely memorable and cool line, near the end of the Dark Willow stuff.


* I also had a lot of trouble with Xander's decision to leave Anya at the altar. The rationale wasn't a bad one for most characters, but given how much loyalty was among his defining traits, the action just didn't feel like a Xander thing to do, at least to me. At least that story choice did result in the incredibly powerful scene with Anya taking that long, painful walk down the aisle, though. Heartrending though that was, it was nonetheless a really powerful, inspired scene.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Or the English language. :evilsmile: :D

Yup, we're definitely thinking of the same fellow.

Some of his arguments on one of the BUFFY-related threads on the Indy board constitute possibly the least logical arguments in CBR history.

[scout1279]

I had always thought of Buffy as very much Kitty Pryde and Peter Parker inspired, but the more thought I give to her, in particular her relationship to Giles, the more fitting I think her last name of Summers really is. And when I think about her romantic relationships, they're kind of Scott Summers-like as well.

As for Veronica and Logan, I always thought they were perfect for eachother and utterly horrible for eachother all at the same time. I can completely understand why they were so attracted to eachother, but they really could not give eachother what they needed. Veronica needed someone who would give her no reason for doubts so that she could learn to trust again. Logan needed someone who would trust him and love him unconditionally so that he could become the kind of person that was worthy of that. (Really, he probably needed a good parental figure more than a girlfriend.) And as much as I don't think Logan was good enough for Veronica, I also think she was as much at fault for the failure of their relationship as he was. She was just downright unfair to him at times. Unfortunately, they were never going to become the kind of people they needed eachother to be as long as they were in eachother's lives simply because they were always going to be romantically drawn to one another.

[beetlebum]

Yup, we're definitely thinking of the same fellow.

Some of his arguments on one of the BUFFY-related threads on the Indy board constitute possibly the least logical arguments in CBR history.

Actually, the guy I was referring to was named by tangent earlier in the thread. But I know of the other individual you're thinking of.

Let's just call him "Evil Angel". He does have a tendency to inflate his beloved character's abilities, or attribute things to him that were never done on the show. It is something that I find hilarious and all the erstwhile, baffling. So yeah, totally agreed on that point.

[beetlebum]

I had always thought of Buffy as very much Kitty Pryde and Peter Parker inspired, but the more thought I give to her, in particular her relationship to Giles, the more fitting I think her last name of Summers really is. And when I think about her romantic relationships, they're kind of Scott Summers-like as well.

As for Veronica and Logan, I always thought they were perfect for eachother and utterly horrible for eachother all at the same time. I can completely understand why they were so attracted to eachother, but they really could not give eachother what they needed. Veronica needed someone who would give her no reason for doubts so that she could learn to trust again. Logan needed someone who would trust him and love him unconditionally so that he could become the kind of person that was worthy of that. (Really, he probably needed a good parental figure more than a girlfriend.) And as much as I don't think Logan was good enough for Veronica, I also think she was as much at fault for the failure of their relationship as he was. She was just downright unfair to him at times. Unfortunately, they were never going to become the kind of people they needed eachother to be as long as they were in eachother's lives simply because they were always going to be romantically drawn to one another.

Lilly's death is what drew them together. If she had never died, the thought of the two of them hooking up would have never entered their minds. They missed her, and tried to fill the void inside of them that she had left with each other.

I'm surprised that after all that was revealed, that Logan still loved Lilly, esp. given how unfaithful she was. She cheated on him with not one, but two guys. And one of the men happened to be Logan's father, for crying out loud. It was a desperate cry for attention, and she seemed to be doing it as a reaction to the way Jake and Celeste (and esp. how Celeste) treated her. Duncan was the beloved child, the one whom they poured their affections upon. Lilly was just the "other", and as was revealed in the episode "The Wrath Of Con", she was often the scapegoat as well.

But she must have been really affectionate, and must have cared a lot for Logan to make him love her that deeply.

And I totally agree about what they needed from each other, but what they ended up giving instead. They just weren't right, for eachother. :p :)

[Tobias March]

Actually, the guy I was referring to was named by tangent earlier in the thread. But I know of the other individual you're thinking of.

Let's just call him "Evil Angel". He does have a tendency to inflate his beloved character's abilities, or attribute things to him that were never done on the show. It is something that I find hilarious and all the erstwhile, baffling. So yeah, totally agreed on that point.

Oooo I've read him. Yeah that's just....well plain silly.

[Angelus II]

Should've been Xander. Joss was planning on Xander being gay from day one, but change his mind.

Why Buffy? I just don't see it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Ah, speak of the dingbat...

In fact, Joss has said that he planned from early on that either Xander or Willow might be gay, and he went with Willow.

[Yoda]

Up until recently I had only seen seasons 5, 6 and 7 and have been reading Season 8 and loved it all. I just picked up the box set and have been working through that and I have a new appreciation for the high school years. The discussion here is an excellent commentary on the themes of the show. I can't wait to re-watch season 6 especially having read this.

I guess I really didn't have much to add, but I just have to say that this is one of the most enlightening threads I've ever read. Thank you all!

[PatrickG]

Should've been Xander. Joss was planning on Xander being gay from day one, but change his mind.

Why Buffy? I just don't see it.

Well, the point is that she's not gay. It would be pointless to have another story about another gay character having gay sex unless there was something more to add, like Willow finding a new love or Andrew coming to grips with his emotions or something (maybe realizing that he loved Jonathan more than Warren, as a reflection on the nature of love as something that's hard to identify at the time). Angel and Buffy having sex wouldn't have been a story on its own but the curse allowed a story to hinge on it.

The story would have no chops if it was just gay person has gay sex, any more than if it was about straight person has straight sex.

But straight person has gay sex and is still not gay -- that has some chops to it. That requires you to grasp it. It forces some thought and builds character-driven exploration and revelation.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Last night I started rereading the BUFFY SEASON 8 issues. I got through the first 7 last night.

I shouldn't be astonished, I suppose, given how skilled a writer Vaughan is and how involved Joss is with the series and how much Joss and Vaughan have spoken about projects, but it's nonetheless amazing to see someone who hasn't written in the Buffyverse before so perfectly capture the distinct voices of each character as Brian K. Vaughan does during the Faith story arc. I absolutely defy anyone familiar with the show to read those books - particularly Giles' comments to Faith about past choices and Faith's "I ain't going downtown" line - and not hear the lines in your head as if they'd been delivered by Eliza Dushku and Anthony Stewart Head.

If there is ever an ongoing spin-off title, I really, really hope it's a FAITH book. Maybe Joss could then use whatever ideas he had for the FAITH spin-off TV series which was considered at one point.

I also can't believe I'd forgotten the exchange between Robin and Faith.

[scout1279]

I also can't believe I'd forgotten the exchange between Robin and Faith.
What cracked me up about that exchange was that hen it was over, my only reactions was "Oh my God! Faith just turned into Batman." Had she been talking to a character with any other name...

[Charles RB]

Having finally got the issue, all I can say is that the "let's keep this secret- *half of the cast walks into Buffy's room in escalating embarrassment factor* " bit was goddamn funny. :D

[AndrewCrossett]

Having finally got the issue, all I can say is that the "let's keep this secret- *half of the cast walks into Buffy's room in escalating embarrassment factor* " bit was goddamn funny. :D

Yeah, I thought that was the funniest scene in the whole series so far...crapping all over that irritating "let's keep this to ourselves" cliche.

I also liked how quickly Buffy got over her embarrassment. Yeah, she did it, she's glad she did it, deal with it.

Drew Goddard can write some damn fine stuff. I'm really impressed with the caliber of writers they've gotten on this title. I want Gail to write an arc.

[Starleafgirl]

Drew Goddard can write some damn fine stuff. I'm really impressed with the caliber of writers they've gotten on this title. I want Gail to write an arc.

I'd love to see that. :D

[Tobias March]

SOmeone pointed out to me the other day something interesting...the real issue is not so much Buffy 'switching teams' or not - it's that she's taking advantage of the emotions of someone she does not feel the same way for. Hurm.

[beetlebum]

Going back to the powers that be for a second, there is no doubt that they engaged in awful behaviour. But, they did some good as well. Amends was already mentioned. And don't forget Whistler, who, as was revealed in the episodes Becoming I and II, was sent to be a guardian of sorts, to help Angel.

It's true that whether or not there is a God is still up for grabs in that universe. I was just positing that maybe, the ontological, teleological, and metaphysical arguments would be easier to make there than here.

The concept of modal realism, is real there, as was demonstrated with Pylea. They are irreducible entities. One could refer to them and have the terms used to describe them be indexical, as opposed to our reality. The way the soul is portrayed in the Buffy verse seems to indicate the writers had a more Thomistic view of the soul, as opposed to a hylomorphic, dualist theory.

Aristotle's Law Of Identity (A is A) is often misinterpreted. From what I understand, Gottfried Leibniz came up with the A is A theory, and Aristotle's Law was in reference to linguistics ( a word cannot change within a specific context) as opposed to anything else.

As for free will, I have a hard time believing that pure free will exists. Compatibility is more like it. It's hard to perform any action without taking into account what had come before. Similarly, things beyond our control and that you did not expect will happen. Or better yet, a more plausible theory is probabilistic causation. It seems more plausible than determinism, which is predicated on the notion that things will follow a pattern, or possibilism, which is more Platonic in nature. A probability causes A in B if A's occurrence probably causes B.

Buffy trying to defy the prophecy she will die in "Prophecy Girl" is a good example. And though God may not exist there, things of the ecclesiastical nature, such as crosses, do have power. Overall, even though Joss does not specify whether or not there is a God, he does give us lots of things to think about.

And maybe, with Angel and his gang overcoming Jasmine, and the Scoobies overcoming Glory, the writers seem to use it as an allegory for man's struggle with God(s). Or maybe I'm just reading to much into it. Either way, I find if fascinating.

[AndrewCrossett]

SOmeone pointed out to me the other day something interesting...the real issue is not so much Buffy 'switching teams' or not - it's that she's taking advantage of the emotions of someone she does not feel the same way for. Hurm.

If there was any "taking advantage of" here, it was purely consensual and voluntary on both sides. Buffy clearly told Satsu in the previous issue that she wasn't in love with her.

Now, you may argue that it's not good judgment to sleep with someone you're not in love with, knowing that they are in fact in love with you. (This was proven by the fact that Satsu could wake Buffy from her coma with a kiss, since "true love" was a requirement.)

But, if all the characters acted with uniformly good judgment, there'd be no story to tell. Especially in the Buffyverse. (Has ANY romantic relationship ever turned out well there?)

[Ryan Day]

SOmeone pointed out to me the other day something interesting...the real issue is not so much Buffy 'switching teams' or not - it's that she's taking advantage of the emotions of someone she does not feel the same way for. Hurm.

Ultimately, the whole thing kind of boils down to "Buffy makes a bad relationship decision." Which is kind of the recurring theme of the character.

[beetlebum]

If there was any "taking advantage of" here, it was purely consensual and voluntary on both sides. Buffy clearly told Satsu in the previous issue that she wasn't in love with her.

Now, you may argue that it's not good judgment to sleep with someone you're not in love with, knowing that they are in fact in love with you. (This was proven by the fact that Satsu could wake Buffy from her coma with a kiss, since "true love" was a requirement.)

But, if all the characters acted with uniformly good judgment, there'd be no story to tell. Especially in the Buffyverse. (Has ANY romantic relationship ever turned out well there?)

I agree with this here. Buffy told Satsu that getting into a relationship with her is not a good idea, mainly because the people that do either leave or die.

The bad judgement may be misconstrued as taking advantage, but keep in mind the contractual obligations between all parties.

On another note, letting Satsu stay in bed with her while claiming "it can't go any further than this" does send mixed signals. I wonder if Buffy is trying to (unintentionally) inflict any cognitive dissonance in her (though she may be suffering from it herself.)

Though sadly, I know it won't last between Satsu and Buffy, I just hope that Satsu does not turn out to be some, villain/traitor in the end as has been speculated. Aside from Buffy, she's my favourite slayer. Doing that would just upset me beyond measure.

And btw, I just want everyone's opinions here; who might Twilight be?

I'd love for it to be Hank Summers, but it could be Riley. Any guesses?

[scout1279]

It never ocurred to me that twilight might be someone we already know until Joss did that fake out with the reveal.

I kind of don't see Riley becoming a bad guy or turning on Buffy to that extent, but it would be interesting. He put her on such a pedestal, so for him to start thinking that she's actually dangerous would be a fun reversal.

[beetlebum]

Yup, I was thinking the same thing.

Though a part of me really wants it to be Hank Summers. The allegories that come with it, as well as analyzing it afterwards will be quite interesting.

I'm just twisted that way. :p

[Ryan Day]

My money's on Giles right now. Feuding with Buffy, recruiting Faith, dark past, enough mystical know-how to engineer it all.

[scout1279]

My money's on Giles right now. Feuding with Buffy, recruiting Faith, dark past, enough mystical know-how to engineer it all.

Uck! I would die. Frankly, I was pretty annoyed by the whole Faith arc because, while very well written, everything with Faith and Giles seemed very much like a retread, especially Buffy and Giles' falling out.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think Riley's the most likely suspect, though given that we're talking about Joss Whedon's plot twists, that probably means it isn't Riley.

As to why... maybe his wife got killed in some horrible way by some mystic critter, and this built on his tendency to already distrust magic.

[beetlebum]

It could be plausible. But than again, if Giles is trying to hurt her, than why does he use Faith to save her?

My only problem with the Giles, Faith storyline is the fact that Faith is being used. Other than that, and the fact that Giles is, once again, lying to Buffy (albeit for altruistic purposes) it doesn't really bother me.

[beetlebum]

I think Riley's the most likely suspect, though given that we're talking about Joss Whedon's plot twists, that probably means it isn't Riley.

As to why... maybe his wife got killed in some horrible way by some mystic critter, and this built on his tendency to already distrust magic.

That would be an interesting turn of events. He seems expendable, given how much he unpopular he is amongst Buffy fans.

I bet a large segment of them would even welcome this under the guise of "See?! I was right about him all along!"

[JeffreyWKramer]

My only problem with the Giles, Faith storyline is the fact that Faith is being used. Other than that, and the fact that Giles is, once again, lying to Buffy (albeit for altruistic purposes) it doesn't really bother me.

All fair points, but none of those things bother me at all. Giles has repeatedly worried more about what he thought was right than he has doing things as Buffy would like. Killing Ben/Glory, setting Spike up to possibly get killed by Robin... this is just another example, though probably for better reasons than the Spike one. As for Faith, she knew she was being used but stepped into it anyhow because of the chance to earn something she thought she wanted.

Much as all the issues of this book have been pretty darn good, up until the current issue the Faith/Giles ones have been the ones in which the characters in the comic best caught the feel of the way they were portrayed in the show. Joss admitted in an interview that after being away from these characters for awhile, it's taken him a bit to get back fine-tuned with them, whereas BKV, and now Goddard, have hit it exactly right from the start. Everyone knows BKV is one of the best dialogue writers in comics, so I guess one shouldn't be surprised how solidly he hit the mark, but every Giles/Faith exchange is just *so* right that when I read them, I can completely imagine Eliza Dushku and Anthony Stewart Head speaking the lines.

There's been some talk (mostly on the DH website, from what I've seen to date) about possibly doing a spin-off from BUFFY SEASON 8, and if they go that route, I'd definitely be up for a FAITH book, and especially if they can get BKV to come back for an encore.

[Ryan Day]

It could be plausible. But than again, if Giles is trying to hurt her, than why does he use Faith to save her?

Twilight has said he's not ready to kill Buffy just yet, and that the real mission was to eliminate the rogue slayer and the warlock.

My only problem with the Giles, Faith storyline is the fact that Faith is being used. Other than that, and the fact that Giles is, once again, lying to Buffy (albeit for altruistic purposes) it doesn't really bother me.

Kind of par for the course for Faith - she's always being used. (The Mayor, Wolfram & Hart, Wesley) It makes for an interesting dynamic: She wants a father figure, Giles wants a more impressionable (obedient?) slayer.

Actually, I kind of hope it plays out a bit differently, because I am kind of tired of Buffy vs. Faith. I usually preferred Faith when she was on Angel, since she got to be a real character instead of just the Anti-Buffy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Here's something that occurred to me.

The Initiative and the US Military aren't the only parts of the Buffyverse version of the US Government to be involved in mystic stuff. Anyone remember how the invisible girl from the first-season episode "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" was recruited by the FBI (or whomever), and we learned that they look for kids like that and train them for assassination missions? Well, given that the Slayer Squad is apparently viewed as a terrorist organization, and given the involvement of the FBI and other intelligence agencies in Homeland Security issues, I can't help thinking that it would be natural for that girl and the other invisible assassins to possibly show up, since they would be dangerous opponents for Buffy and friends while also tying back into the Buffyverse's established mythology.

[beetlebum]

Here's something that occurred to me.

The Initiative and the US Military aren't the only parts of the Buffyverse version of the US Government to be involved in mystic stuff. Anyone remember how the invisible girl from the first-season episode "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" was recruited by the FBI (or whomever), and we learned that they look for kids like that and train them for assassination missions? Well, given that the Slayer Squad is apparently viewed as a terrorist organization, and given the involvement of the FBI and other intelligence agencies in Homeland Security issues, I can't help thinking that it would be natural for that girl and the other invisible assassins to possibly show up, since they would be dangerous opponents for Buffy and friends while also tying back into the Buffyverse's established mythology.

Yeah, her name was Marcy. She was turned invisible after repeatedly being ignored by everyone around her, and being given the "kiss of death", in the form of "Have A Nice Summer" scrawled in her yearbook.

She was recruited by the FBI to assassinate the Castro's of the world, and perhaps was an allegory for the unsavory activities the CIA committed during the Cold War (Iran, anyone?)

I would love for them to show up. It would make for an interesting turn of events. And are you maybe implying that Twilight was a government created monster as well? If he is, than that would be an interesting addition to the plot.

[beetlebum]

All fair points, but none of those things bother me at all. Giles has repeatedly worried more about what he thought was right than he has doing things as Buffy would like. Killing Ben/Glory, setting Spike up to possibly get killed by Robin... this is just another example, though probably for better reasons than the Spike one. As for Faith, she knew she was being used but stepped into it anyhow because of the chance to earn something she thought she wanted.

Much as all the issues of this book have been pretty darn good, up until the current issue the Faith/Giles ones have been the ones in which the characters in the comic best caught the feel of the way they were portrayed in the show. Joss admitted in an interview that after being away from these characters for awhile, it's taken him a bit to get back fine-tuned with them, whereas BKV, and now Goddard, have hit it exactly right from the start. Everyone knows BKV is one of the best dialogue writers in comics, so I guess one shouldn't be surprised how solidly he hit the mark, but every Giles/Faith exchange is just *so* right that when I read them, I can completely imagine Eliza Dushku and Anthony Stewart Head speaking the lines.

There's been some talk (mostly on the DH website, from what I've seen to date) about possibly doing a spin-off from BUFFY SEASON 8, and if they go that route, I'd definitely be up for a FAITH book, and especially if they can get BKV to come back for an encore.

Fair enough. Good points all around, though I can't help but feel sorry for her. But than again, as I did note earlier with Satsu, she was a willing accomplice.

Maybe this is some sort of physical contrition for her, perhaps? Maybe she's doing this to atone for sins past?

I do think Goddard and Brian K. Vaughn have done a good job with Giles and Faith, and capturing their persona, as well as their inner voices.

I just hope she comes into her own someday, and yeah, I'd be willing to read a Faith book as well. Here's to hoping this continues for as long as it can.

[beetlebum]

Twilight has said he's not ready to kill Buffy just yet, and that the real mission was to eliminate the rogue slayer and the warlock.



Kind of par for the course for Faith - she's always being used. (The Mayor, Wolfram & Hart, Wesley) It makes for an interesting dynamic: She wants a father figure, Giles wants a more impressionable (obedient?) slayer.

Actually, I kind of hope it plays out a bit differently, because I am kind of tired of Buffy vs. Faith. I usually preferred Faith when she was on Angel, since she got to be a real character instead of just the Anti-Buffy.

It's still up in the air as to whether or not Twilight is Giles, though at this interval, I feel he's not. And I kind of agree on the last part, though I think that they are naturally destined to be opposites. Faith is the Iago to Buffy's Othello, and they're like the superhero versions of Turkey and Greece ( long history of conflict; two parties trying to progress and move forward from the past, while having progress temporarily haltered each time a new accusation is thrown out.)

Now more than ever, I'd really like to see Faith come into her own in her own series. Make it happen!

[JeffreyWKramer]

I would love for them to show up. It would make for an interesting turn of events. And are you maybe implying that Twilight was a government created monster as well? If he is, than that would be an interesting addition to the plot.

Hard to tell. Given the precedent of Adam, the Initiative's experiments on its personnel, etc., it's a possibility. Maybe Riley - or someone else - decided the best use of all the magical know-how they'd grabbed and stockpiled was to put an end to magic.

Even if Twilight wasn't government-created, though, we already know the US government is aware of and concerned about the Slayer situation, and given that, it would not be surprising to have the invisible death squad sent out to deal with the situation. *If* Twilight has significant government connections, as opposed to simply a few pawns within the government/military, the odds would be all the greater.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Now more than ever, I'd really like to see Faith come into her own in her own series. Make it happen!

In an ideal world, we'd have a FAITH book written by the same folk that have done such a great job with BUFFY, and illustrated at least some of the time by Adam Hughes.

[beetlebum]

Hard to tell. Given the precedent of Adam, the Initiative's experiments on its personnel, etc., it's a possibility. Maybe Riley - or someone else - decided the best use of all the magical know-how they'd grabbed and stockpiled was to put an end to magic.

Even if Twilight wasn't government-created, though, we already know the US government is aware of and concerned about the Slayer situation, and given that, it would not be surprising to have the invisible death squad sent out to deal with the situation. *If* Twilight has significant government connections, as opposed to simply a few pawns within the government/military, the odds would be all the greater.

Yes it would.

And interesting theory about Riley; I could see the writers using that as a motivation.

Though we don't know for sure at this inerval.

Good points all around.

[AndrewCrossett]

Re: Satsu being good or evil...I kind of wondered, given that her name means (unless I'm mistaken) "killer" in Japanese. Not sure if that's a foreshadowing of her intentions, or just an inside joke (a Slayer named "Slayer").

Re: the identity of Twilight...Riley is my #1 suspect right now, based on his apparent reluctance to hurt Buffy (much).

Or maybe he's an evil luchador...

[Tobias March]

Here's something that occurred to me.

The Initiative and the US Military aren't the only parts of the Buffyverse version of the US Government to be involved in mystic stuff. Anyone remember how the invisible girl from the first-season episode "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" was recruited by the FBI (or whomever), and we learned that they look for kids like that and train them for assassination missions? Well, given that the Slayer Squad is apparently viewed as a terrorist organization, and given the involvement of the FBI and other intelligence agencies in Homeland Security issues, I can't help thinking that it would be natural for that girl and the other invisible assassins to possibly show up, since they would be dangerous opponents for Buffy and friends while also tying back into the Buffyverse's established mythology.

And once again we see the great advantage of having this comic book reference the continuity of the show and have direct involvement from the writers. Long after the actors have moved on to other careers (Clea DuVal is doing pretty well for herself isn't she?) the comic can revist these characters and plotlines.

As for Twilight theories, seems to me it's almost the polar opposite of the First Evil, which was a return to primordial magicks. The involvement of the army must be a fakeout - it's not the Initiative-style villain, they're a patsy. Which leaves.....hmmm

I would love it if Mrs Rosenburg was leading a revitalized MOO as the main antagonist ;)