|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Aug 24, 2010 20:33:33 GMT -5
Thanks! I feel much better. I can't wait for the next issue. R
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Aug 24, 2010 19:55:58 GMT -5
Some background. The Angel episode you guys have in mind is "I've Got You Under My Skin," ATS 1:14. The boy's name is Ryan. This is from the script:
"Ethros: “I am Ethros. I corrupted the spirits of men before they had speech to name me. - The child was but the last among tens of thousands, one more pure heart to corrupt, one more soul to suck dry.” Wesley: “Well, chalk up one exciting failure. You didn’t get that boy’s soul.” Ethros: “Hmpf, what soul?”
Cut to Paige setting a cup of hot cocoa in front of Stephanie and Ryan. Ryan: “She has nine marshmallows, and I only have seven.” Paige: “Well, we’ll just have to write the Nestle bunny about that. (Kisses Ryan on the cheek) Drink up. It’s way past bedtime.”
Ethros lowering its hood: “Do you know what the most frightening thing in the world is? - Nothing! That’s what I found in the boy (Cut to Ryan staring at Stephanie as she drinks her hot cocoa) no conscience, no fear, no humanity, just a black void. I couldn’t control him. (Back to the Ethros) I couldn’t get out. I never even manifested until you brought me forth. I just sat there and watched as he destroyed everything around him. Not from a belief in evil, not for any reason at all.” "
If you want to learn more about "soul" in the Buffyverse, try the Buffy wiki, look up "soul" and then go to the discussion tab. I took part in that discussion myself. I'm called "zhandele" on the wiki. To sum it up, whether Ryan Anderson had a soul depends on what a soul is, and that question has at least two different answers in the Buffyverse.
Now, does Dawn have a soul?
Let's remember that the Buffy saga is not mathematics or history. It is fiction. It's a series of emotions that must make sense emotionally, if the story is to be any good, but need not make sense logically. It's all about feeling!
Season 5 ends with Buffy's sacrifice of her life. This is the emotional high water mark of the whole series, in my view (though if you put some other incident, like Buffy killing Angel, up even higher, I won't try to change your mind). Unless you think Buffy was a damned fool who died for a sentimental twitch or a silly mistake or for nothing, then you have to believe that Dawn was worthy of what Buffy did for her, and that Buffy's bottomless love for her was natural and legitimate. Dawn must be fully human in every sense. Of course she has a soul. We must begin with that as a given, and reason from it, not toward it.
Moreover, Dawn's connection with Buffy must be at least as deep as that between natural siblings. I'm proposing that it is even deeper. Buffy says that the monks made Dawn "out of me." I think Dawn is part of Buffy. She's the weaker and dependent part. She represents what Riley wants Buffy to "let out" and share with him, but she doesn't dare (and so loses Riley).
If any of you haven't read Joseph Conrad's novella "The Secret Sharer," I strongly recommend it. You'll see the same thing, two parts of one person represented as two persons, but in a 19th century way of speaking.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Aug 24, 2010 17:20:10 GMT -5
I haven't been on this board for several months, circumstances beyond my control, but I've been trying to keep up with Buffy. Now Spike appears at the end of issue 35. Where did he come from?
I gather that to know the answer, you must've been reading some of the IDW Spike comics. Put me in jail if you must, but I haven't. I soured on the IDW comics early. I thought there was way too much extravaganza, and way way way too much T&A.
But now the story lines are coming together?
So here's my question. What's the minimum of the IDW comics that I can read to get caught up with Spike, so his sudden appearance in that diving bell or whatever it is makes some kind of sense?
Help!
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 7, 2010 5:34:41 GMT -5
I figure both of them would've been too nervous to have sex, given what they were looking forward to. I'll have to go back and watch, but I seem to remember that we caught a glimpse of them in the morning, and it looked as if both of them fell asleep with all their clothes on and never got under the covers. That's what I would expect, in that emotional situation.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 7, 2010 5:16:36 GMT -5
I agree that Willow is too "nice" and conventional to engage in an actual liaison with a teacher, Giles or anyone else. Even in her imagination, I doubt she'd go for clothes-off contact. If I heard her say that she once fantasized about kissing him, though, that wouldn't surprise me.
For HS students to crush on teachers is not unusual at all. Remember Xander had a crush like that too. I don't think Buffy ever did. When I saw her with Stephen Platt, though, at first I thought they might make something of it. He died before the episode was over, so that was that.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 7, 2010 5:06:46 GMT -5
Think a little more. When would it NOT sound strange for a child to say that?
If the child were an actor or an athlete or a comic book artist or a game designer. If s/he were active in some make-believe world. Right?
Angel is not a vampire. You didn't respond to that.
In case you don't know, Joss is on record telling us exactly what Angel is, and he's not a vampire. He's a metaphorical portrait of a recovering alcoholic.
You could say that he's a recovering "something else," an ex drug addict, or a reformed criminal, for example. But there is one thing about which we really have no choice. He absolutely is a metaphorical portrait of something in real life. He cannot be understood as a "vampire with a soul."
If he is a "vampire with a soul," why in heaven's name should he feel guilty? It's as if somebody stole my car and ran over somebody with it. Am I responsible for the vehicular death, or for the theft, for that matter? Of course not.
Suppose you had a friend, in that situation, who insisted on feeling guilty. What would you tell him? Why don't you say that to Angel, then? Why don't you call him a "drama queen" and ten other kinds of fool and change the channel?
Somewhere in your mind, you know that he's not a vampire.
And Buffy isn't a vampire slayer, either.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 6, 2010 19:26:22 GMT -5
The worst dialogue in Buffy, from start to finish, has to be in the scene between Buffy and Jonathan in the tower in "Earshot." Here it is: "My life happens very occasionally to suck beyond the telling of it. More than I can stand sometimes. And not just me. Every single person down there is ignoring your pain because they're way too busy with their own. The beautiful ones, the popular ones, the guys that pick on you... everyone." That phrase "beyond the telling of it," way too artificial and literary, it always make me gag. That's the only time I ever wanted to change the channel in the middle of Buffy.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 6, 2010 19:20:20 GMT -5
The work world is not real life?
Would you say this in another context? Suppose you went to a funeral for a woman with three sons, one a soldier, one a policeman, and one a fireman. Would you expect any one of them to say, "I do all right fighting wars/catching crooks/putting out fires, but my mother was the one who was good at real life"? Wouldn't that sound strange?
The best way to account for this is to allow that vampires are not real. Angel in particular is not a vampire. In his case, we know exactly what he is, because ...
Joss told us.
Remember?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 6, 2010 19:16:16 GMT -5
I hope you'll all go rewatch that scene, right about 30:00 minutes in "Where the Wild Things Are." Notice Willow's slack jaw when she sees Giles on stage. Notice she says he is "sexy" several times. I think there was some groiny feeling there.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 6, 2010 9:42:06 GMT -5
I'm rewatching "Where the Wild Things Are." At right about 30 minutes, Willow, Tara, Anya and Xander go to the Espresso Pump looking for Giles. They find him singing. Willow is slack jawed. She says, "Now I remember why I used to have such a crush on him."
It makes sense that the Willow of seasons 1 and 2 would have a crush on Giles, but I have to admit, I didn't see it. Did she give any signs of this that I should've noticed? Help me out here.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 6, 2010 9:37:46 GMT -5
A very perceptive post. Thank you.
A question though. If Joyce is the one who's strong in "real life," does that mean staking vampires is not real life? If not, then are vampires not real?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 3, 2010 22:28:11 GMT -5
I guess I asked a good question! I'm gratified by all the replies.
I'm not sure how to put this -- Buffy has to be an "everywoman," she has to have a high identification factor, we all must recognize ourselves in her. If she's extraordinary, then it's an ordinary way, in a way that any plain person can be. That's why I felt it was right, in Season 4, that she was kicked out of the first college class she attended, and nearly kicked out of another one, and also right, in Season 6, that she was fired from each of her first two jobs on her first day and winds up working in fast food. None of this diminishes the love and admiration I feel for her.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 3, 2010 22:15:45 GMT -5
I just rewatched "Where the Wild Things Are," reminded of a minor moment. Willow takes advantage of a moment when Buffy is distracted to tell her that she (Willow) was not the one who spilled something purple on Buffy's peasant top, which she (Willow) would never borrow without asking.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on May 2, 2010 18:51:08 GMT -5
I just finished another book. I'll post my review of it, I hope it helps somebody.
“Resurrecting Ravana,” by Ray Garton, is an “in the background story” set during Season 3, apparently in the late Fall and early Spring of Buffy's senior year at Sunnydale High. Stephen Platt, the guidance counselor, has already died, and Faith plays no role, so she must've already joined the Mayor's camp.
Whether you like this story will probably depend on what kind of Buffy fan you are.
If you love to see Buffy and her friends meet and beat a fancy new kind of demon, and solve a mystery while they're at it, then this one is for you. The demons are Rakshasa, which come from the imagination of the Indian subcontinent. They're different from most other Buffyverse monsters in size, shape, hue, and behavior, and in the kind of threat they pose.
The story is well-made, too. This author knows how to build a sense of dread and gloom, and keep it growing. He throws in a few well-figured plot twists and false leads, too, so we're never quite sure what we've got until we get it.
On the other hand, if you're mainly interested in character development and relationships, or in life problems and moral choices, or in resolving the many unknowns in the Buffyverse, this one won't give you what you want.
The season 3 relationships are all there — Buffy and Angel, Willow and Oz, Xander and Cordelia — but none of them figure in the story, except for the friendship between Buffy and Willow. Willow is also the only Buffyverse character that Ray Garton really gets, at least in my opinion. In “Resurrecting Ravana,” Willow tries to magically cure Oz of his werewolf problem. That makes sense, she would do that; I should've thought of it. Also, when Willow feels a coldness between her and her friends, she tries to make herself more useful, thinking that will get her back in their good graces. That makes sense too. It's too bad Garton doesn't do as well with the other characters.
There's one other thing about this book that bothers me, though I don't know if it would bother anybody else. Much of the action takes place in the town of Sunnydale, not at the High School. What's wrong with that? Well, the Buffy show, and most of the stories that developed from it, are about Buffy's life. Marti Noxon says we have a parable about growing up, presumably about Buffy growing up. And Buffy's life in Sunnydale doesn't extend much beyond her school. Everyone who is important to her, except Angel and her mother, is connected to it. She doesn't go in for scouting, or go to ballet school, or have a church group like some girls do. When we start wandering into the town, I feel like I'm in a different story.
To sum it up, I think I'd recommend this book to completists like myself, but otherwise, I won't try to persuade anybody one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Apr 26, 2010 19:00:50 GMT -5
I started a thread on the fanfic board about BBTL. I'm not sure which is the best place to put this.
If you listen to BBTL, you'll like most of the voices. Nick Edwards as Spike, for instance, is perfect. We don't have to get too attached to the original actors.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Apr 26, 2010 18:58:17 GMT -5
There's another thread on the main Buffy board about audiodrama, also mentions BBTL.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Apr 26, 2010 18:54:28 GMT -5
Between the Lines Studios is apparently switching to Twilight. We're losing them. We haven't shown them enough love. Go to www.strangelyliteral.com/and download episode 93, you'll hear Tabz talk about it. It's distressing what she has to say. She says we're getting bored and we're moving on to other shows. Maybe she's right, but I'm not. Is there any chance of keeping them in the fold? I don't know. At any rate, they do deserve heartfelt thanks for all they've done for us.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Apr 25, 2010 22:35:27 GMT -5
I don't know how many of you listen to the Between the Lines Studios podcasts. I think all of us should, they are truly outstanding. I'm alarmed at the news that they are switching to Twilight. I hope we can persuade them that we still care. They think, based on their email mainly, that Buffy fans are getting bored and switching to other shows. I'm not. Are you?
These people are doing it for nothing (they have to, copyright laws). We need to show them some love. Even if they do switch, we still should thank them for all they've done.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Apr 22, 2010 23:49:44 GMT -5
Buffy has super powers, which are balanced by her super problems.
Other than that, is there anything remarkable about her, or is she an ordinary person?
I'd like to hear some views.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Apr 22, 2010 23:38:57 GMT -5
Interesting. It's a judgment call, how much we should think about these pre-scientific notions that undergird the Buffyverse (and a lot of other things).
The use of Buffy's ring comes from the notion of contagious magic, described in Wikipedia (based on Levy-Strauss). The idea seems to be that if Buffy had had "a lot to do with" that ring, then it would remain connected to her, and a connection to her could be made through it, even after she was physically separated from it.
The locket that Xander gave Cordelia, as I remember, was something he bought for her. It was never a thing of his, never important to him except as a thing to give to Cordelia. Therefore it would be much more connected to Cordelia than to him, and might not work for someone who wanted to do a spell on Xander.
The crucial question is Buffy's history with that ring, which apparently we don't know. Apparently it was connected to her deeply enough that she could be "reached" through it.
Oh, here's the quote from Wikipedia:
"Another primary type of magical thinking includes the principle of contagion. This principle suggests that once two objects come into contact with each other, they will continue to affect each other even after the contact between them has been broken. One example that Tambiah gives is related to adoption. Among some American Indians, for example, when a child is adopted his or her adoptive mother will pull the child through some of her clothes, symbolically representing the birth process and thereby associating the child with herself.[51] Therefore, the child emotionally becomes hers even though their relationship is not biological. As Claude Lévi-Strauss would put it: the birth “would consist, therefore, in making explicit a situation originally existing on the emotional level and in rendering acceptable to the mind pains which the body refuses to tolerate…the woman believes in the myth and belongs to a society which believes in it.”
|
|