FLM films - My Webpage

2003-03-11 10:56:57-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact on the world. What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? Xander's very occasionally been used for plot but he's mostly just there, an interesting member of the group. Also Dawn brings out characteristics of other characters we might not otherwise see. The brotherly protectiveness of Spike. Buffy trying to be the responsible parent.

2003-03-11 10:56:57-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact on the world. What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? Xander's very occasionally been used for plot but he's mostly just there, an interesting member of the group. Also Dawn brings out characteristics of other characters we might not otherwise see. The brotherly protectiveness of Spike. Buffy trying to be the responsible parent.

2003-03-11 13:01:37-05:00 - Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


Mostly I was intrigued by the comments Jane made about Joss Whedon. She mentioned that she and the other writers had recently started a huge convoluted story board for the episode where Faith returns and that Joss walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi type story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return makes on other characters. Character analysis, imo, is Whedon's genius and why Buffy has been so brilliant on occasion. He focuses on telling the character's story and the metaphor evolves. When Whedon does it he is inevitably successful, when the other writers try it can fall completely flat. Willow's magic addiction, for example, is a metaphor with a character forced into it, rather than a character's behavior becoming a naturally evolving metaphor. What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as it would have without Dawn. What impact has Dawn made on the other characters? None, everything happened to them exactly as it would have without her. Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in the course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic since Season 3. You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened eventually without Dawn. Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching everyone goes through as they grow up. So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-11 13:01:37-05:00 - Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


Mostly I was intrigued by the comments Jane made about Joss Whedon. She mentioned that she and the other writers had recently started a huge convoluted story board for the episode where Faith returns and that Joss walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi type story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return makes on other characters. Character analysis, imo, is Whedon's genius and why Buffy has been so brilliant on occasion. He focuses on telling the character's story and the metaphor evolves. When Whedon does it he is inevitably successful, when the other writers try it can fall completely flat. Willow's magic addiction, for example, is a metaphor with a character forced into it, rather than a character's behavior becoming a naturally evolving metaphor. What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as it would have without Dawn. What impact has Dawn made on the other characters? None, everything happened to them exactly as it would have without her. Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in the course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic since Season 3. You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened eventually without Dawn. Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching everyone goes through as they grow up. So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-11 15:41:22-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Shuggie" <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com... > Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) > Why does everyone always assume that? ;) I don't care for Dawn, but that isn't her fault. It's Whedons. My complaint is that he has introduced a main character into the mix of things and then allowed her to exist for three seasons without any reason or function. > I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your > criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact on the > world. > I find it odd too. Which is why I'm pointing it out. > What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They haven't even been asked on the show itself. Xander's > very occasionally been used for plot but he's mostly just there, an interesting > member of the group. > No, Xander has a tremendous impact on the other characters. He's been an earthy and humanizing influence on every person in the cast. That is the function of his character. When the world is in chaos Xander brings it all home. What influence has Dawn had on any of the characters? > Also Dawn brings out characteristics of other characters we might not otherwise > see. The brotherly protectiveness of Spike. Buffy trying to be the responsible > parent. > I simply don't agree with this at all. Spike was shown to have an extremely caring and protective quality about himself with Druscilla. Whether the feelings are *brotherly* or not, I don't believe is an issue. Having Dawn around has given Spike *more* opportunities to show that caring side of himself, but it hasn't changed or influenced his essential character in any way. Buffy has had to assume a more involved role in Dawn's life, but that too has not changed her life or her character much beyond what it would have been like had Joyce died without leaving an extra child behind. Buffy still would have had the bills to pay, the house to take care of, the depression she experienced, etc. -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-11 15:41:22-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Shuggie" <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com... > Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) > Why does everyone always assume that? ;) I don't care for Dawn, but that isn't her fault. It's Whedons. My complaint is that he has introduced a main character into the mix of things and then allowed her to exist for three seasons without any reason or function. > I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your > criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact on the > world. > I find it odd too. Which is why I'm pointing it out. > What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They haven't even been asked on the show itself. Xander's > very occasionally been used for plot but he's mostly just there, an interesting > member of the group. > No, Xander has a tremendous impact on the other characters. He's been an earthy and humanizing influence on every person in the cast. That is the function of his character. When the world is in chaos Xander brings it all home. What influence has Dawn had on any of the characters? > Also Dawn brings out characteristics of other characters we might not otherwise > see. The brotherly protectiveness of Spike. Buffy trying to be the responsible > parent. > I simply don't agree with this at all. Spike was shown to have an extremely caring and protective quality about himself with Druscilla. Whether the feelings are *brotherly* or not, I don't believe is an issue. Having Dawn around has given Spike *more* opportunities to show that caring side of himself, but it hasn't changed or influenced his essential character in any way. Buffy has had to assume a more involved role in Dawn's life, but that too has not changed her life or her character much beyond what it would have been like had Joyce died without leaving an extra child behind. Buffy still would have had the bills to pay, the house to take care of, the depression she experienced, etc. -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-11 16:12:52-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice > > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then > > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in > the > > course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic > since > > Season 3. > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no opening > up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that dive of > the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical killed Buffy > and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the cause of death > wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's her job. > > > > You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and > accept > > responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > > eventually without Dawn. > > She would have accepted responsibility for Dawn without Dawn? She's already accepted responsibility for saving the world. What has Dawn added to that? Is bringing home a hamburger from the Double Meat Palace or going to a parent/teacher conference really that much more taxing than fighting off demonic evil every night to save humanity? Dawn is just one more person added to the mix of people that Buffy has taken on the responsibility of saving and taking care of. > With Dawn she had an extra mouth to feed, and to take care of. Without Dawn > she might have overcome the financial troubles brought about her mothers > illness and death, and not dropped out of college. > Even with Dawn she might have overcome her financial troubles and not dropped out of college. In fact, if anything, having Dawn around should have helped her more and it didn't. Dawn is still eligible to receive child support. And she should have received Social Security benefits after Joyce's death until she was 18. Furthermore, life insurance money *cannot* be included in the estate of the deceased. All of Joyce's life insurance money belonged to Dawn and Buffy and Joyce's creditors had no claim to it. In other words, the gang really screwed up when they payed Joyce's medical bills with Buffy and Dawn's inheritance. > > > > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > > everyone goes through as they grow up. > > > > Well Dawn's existence was explained to the characters. They KNEW that their > memories concerning Dawn where wrong. > Exactly. And even *that* didn't make an impact on them! Do you see what I'm getting at here? They found out that this entity has been dropped into their lives and their brains and she is chock full of knowledge about them and their past. And no one even questions it. How does Dawn know what she knows? Who has been watching them all of this time and recording enough information about their personalities, their families, their history, everything, to insert it into the memory of a human being and have her fit in like she has always belonged? Eh! Who cares? It's no big deal. On to the next apocalypse. > > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. > > Yes it is. > Dawn (the Key) needed to be protected (by Buffy). > Dawn bleeds and her blood opens up the dimensions that will ultimately > destroy the world. > Buffy dies saving the world that is threatened because Dawn's blood had > opened up the dimensions. > Buffy is brought back by Willow (slightly altered, Spike is able to hit her > without chip induced pain). > Buffy is so out of balance she doesn't notice Willow's problems (wrong thing > one), and she even has a relationship of sorts with Spike! (wrong thing two) > Which would not have happened if she hadn't died to save Dawn. > The monks have a lot to answer for. > > IMO season 6 was the fall-out of the creation of Dawn. > But, all of those things might have just as easily happened without Dawn. Buffy could have sacrificed herself in a magic portal to save any innocent child. The blood thing would have to change, obviously, but since that doesn't make any sense anyway what's the difference? Willow still would have brought her back, Buffy still would have been depressed, she still would have had sex with Spike (after all that attraction and the reasons behind it, too, started well before Dawn's appearance). > > I agree that the Monk's have a lot to answer for, but apparently ME and Whedon don't. > > > > -- > > Shannon > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > > little!" > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-11 16:12:52-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice > > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then > > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in > the > > course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic > since > > Season 3. > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no opening > up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that dive of > the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical killed Buffy > and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the cause of death > wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's her job. > > > > You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and > accept > > responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > > eventually without Dawn. > > She would have accepted responsibility for Dawn without Dawn? She's already accepted responsibility for saving the world. What has Dawn added to that? Is bringing home a hamburger from the Double Meat Palace or going to a parent/teacher conference really that much more taxing than fighting off demonic evil every night to save humanity? Dawn is just one more person added to the mix of people that Buffy has taken on the responsibility of saving and taking care of. > With Dawn she had an extra mouth to feed, and to take care of. Without Dawn > she might have overcome the financial troubles brought about her mothers > illness and death, and not dropped out of college. > Even with Dawn she might have overcome her financial troubles and not dropped out of college. In fact, if anything, having Dawn around should have helped her more and it didn't. Dawn is still eligible to receive child support. And she should have received Social Security benefits after Joyce's death until she was 18. Furthermore, life insurance money *cannot* be included in the estate of the deceased. All of Joyce's life insurance money belonged to Dawn and Buffy and Joyce's creditors had no claim to it. In other words, the gang really screwed up when they payed Joyce's medical bills with Buffy and Dawn's inheritance. > > > > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > > everyone goes through as they grow up. > > > > Well Dawn's existence was explained to the characters. They KNEW that their > memories concerning Dawn where wrong. > Exactly. And even *that* didn't make an impact on them! Do you see what I'm getting at here? They found out that this entity has been dropped into their lives and their brains and she is chock full of knowledge about them and their past. And no one even questions it. How does Dawn know what she knows? Who has been watching them all of this time and recording enough information about their personalities, their families, their history, everything, to insert it into the memory of a human being and have her fit in like she has always belonged? Eh! Who cares? It's no big deal. On to the next apocalypse. > > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. > > Yes it is. > Dawn (the Key) needed to be protected (by Buffy). > Dawn bleeds and her blood opens up the dimensions that will ultimately > destroy the world. > Buffy dies saving the world that is threatened because Dawn's blood had > opened up the dimensions. > Buffy is brought back by Willow (slightly altered, Spike is able to hit her > without chip induced pain). > Buffy is so out of balance she doesn't notice Willow's problems (wrong thing > one), and she even has a relationship of sorts with Spike! (wrong thing two) > Which would not have happened if she hadn't died to save Dawn. > The monks have a lot to answer for. > > IMO season 6 was the fall-out of the creation of Dawn. > But, all of those things might have just as easily happened without Dawn. Buffy could have sacrificed herself in a magic portal to save any innocent child. The blood thing would have to change, obviously, but since that doesn't make any sense anyway what's the difference? Willow still would have brought her back, Buffy still would have been depressed, she still would have had sex with Spike (after all that attraction and the reasons behind it, too, started well before Dawn's appearance). > > I agree that the Monk's have a lot to answer for, but apparently ME and Whedon don't. > > > > -- > > Shannon > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > > little!" > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-11 16:41:20-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030311130713.12283.00000315@mb-cu.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > > > > > > >So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > >entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > >while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > >has had no impact on the world >whatsoever? > > And I wonder why he didn't drop Soul Spike into the mix and show how the others > accept or reject his soulness, and how they respond to him beyond a simplistic > punching scene and a threat from Dawn. > > Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should have...the > evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an impact > on the others. > You might be able to make a case at the end of the season that Faith stole Spike's redemptive thunder. I think that will depend a lot on how things end. But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or the events in the Buffyverse. Without question his actions almost single handedly prevented the world from being sucked into hell in Season 2. He created complete havoc in the personal love lives of every character in Season 3, permanently influencing the outcome of Xander/Cordelia. In fact, Spike had more influence on the events of the Buffyverse in one episode than Dawn has had in three years. He's a big part of the reason that Riley left. He's the only thing that stood between Dawn and Glory in Season Five. And he's a large part of the reason that the entire Scooby Gang survived the entire Summer of Buffy's non-existence. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-11 16:41:20-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030311130713.12283.00000315@mb-cu.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > > > > > > >So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > >entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > >while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > >has had no impact on the world >whatsoever? > > And I wonder why he didn't drop Soul Spike into the mix and show how the others > accept or reject his soulness, and how they respond to him beyond a simplistic > punching scene and a threat from Dawn. > > Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should have...the > evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an impact > on the others. > You might be able to make a case at the end of the season that Faith stole Spike's redemptive thunder. I think that will depend a lot on how things end. But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or the events in the Buffyverse. Without question his actions almost single handedly prevented the world from being sucked into hell in Season 2. He created complete havoc in the personal love lives of every character in Season 3, permanently influencing the outcome of Xander/Cordelia. In fact, Spike had more influence on the events of the Buffyverse in one episode than Dawn has had in three years. He's a big part of the reason that Riley left. He's the only thing that stood between Dawn and Glory in Season Five. And he's a large part of the reason that the entire Scooby Gang survived the entire Summer of Buffy's non-existence. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-11 17:14:06-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or the > >events in the Buffyverse > > I was talking about Soul Spike. > Even Soul Spike is a major player. Clearly, he's one of FE's major targets. For what reason we don't know, and maybe never will. But he's still a big part of what's going on. He's a major fighting force for good or evil. If he helps Buffy she's more likely to succeed, if he doesn't she's more likely to fail. Dawn could have her neck snapped tommorow and what difference would it make? Aside from the fact that she's Buffy's sister, of course, and Buffy would be devastated. But, for all she's worth to the plot or the storyline, at this point, she may as well be any random S.I.T. > It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and had > more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking her > "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. Well, that wasn't exactly a small feat. The getting her back from the shamans thing, I mean. No one else in the gang might have done it, except possibly Willow, who was tied up with sucking the life force out of her new beloved. Even Spike's past is coming in to play in the story line. An upcoming episode is dedicated to it, in fact. So we'll know more than we ever wanted to, or needed to about Spike, and still nothing about Dawn. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > >

2003-03-11 17:14:06-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or the > >events in the Buffyverse > > I was talking about Soul Spike. > Even Soul Spike is a major player. Clearly, he's one of FE's major targets. For what reason we don't know, and maybe never will. But he's still a big part of what's going on. He's a major fighting force for good or evil. If he helps Buffy she's more likely to succeed, if he doesn't she's more likely to fail. Dawn could have her neck snapped tommorow and what difference would it make? Aside from the fact that she's Buffy's sister, of course, and Buffy would be devastated. But, for all she's worth to the plot or the storyline, at this point, she may as well be any random S.I.T. > It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and had > more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking her > "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. Well, that wasn't exactly a small feat. The getting her back from the shamans thing, I mean. No one else in the gang might have done it, except possibly Willow, who was tied up with sucking the life force out of her new beloved. Even Spike's past is coming in to play in the story line. An upcoming episode is dedicated to it, in fact. So we'll know more than we ever wanted to, or needed to about Spike, and still nothing about Dawn. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > >

2003-03-11 18:07:13+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > > >So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an >entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her >while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that >has had no impact on the world >whatsoever? And I wonder why he didn't drop Soul Spike into the mix and show how the others accept or reject his soulness, and how they respond to him beyond a simplistic punching scene and a threat from Dawn. Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should have...the evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an impact on the others. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 18:07:13+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > > >So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an >entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her >while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that >has had no impact on the world >whatsoever? And I wonder why he didn't drop Soul Spike into the mix and show how the others accept or reject his soulness, and how they respond to him beyond a simplistic punching scene and a threat from Dawn. Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should have...the evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an impact on the others. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 18:13:59+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <20030311130713.12283.00000315@mb-cu.aol.com>, Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should have...the > evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an > impact > on the others. > Faith's redemption fits into the general theme and tone of Angel as a show. And it isn't like they have ignored the Spike thing on Buffy, it just isn't the forefront of the show (such issues rarely are)

2003-03-11 18:13:59+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <20030311130713.12283.00000315@mb-cu.aol.com>, Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should have...the > evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an > impact > on the others. > Faith's redemption fits into the general theme and tone of Angel as a show. And it isn't like they have ignored the Spike thing on Buffy, it just isn't the forefront of the show (such issues rarely are)

2003-03-11 18:29:47+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (REMOVEnick182@pacbell.net)


>Faith's redemption fits into the general theme and tone of Angel as a >show. > >And it isn't like they have ignored the Spike thing on Buffy, it just >isn't the forefront of the show (such issues rarely are) I agree. And althouhg it can be easily argued that Spike killed a HELL of a lot more people than Faith did, her arc is much more personal. It was one girl who killed one guy, and is paying for it. I personally like that theme better than Spike's, who killed countless people and is attoning in a general, vague way. With Faith atoning for a single event, it takes on a much more symbolic state to me. And that is what Buffy should be about, metaphors and symbols. Nick

2003-03-11 18:29:47+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (REMOVEnick182@pacbell.net)


>Faith's redemption fits into the general theme and tone of Angel as a >show. > >And it isn't like they have ignored the Spike thing on Buffy, it just >isn't the forefront of the show (such issues rarely are) I agree. And althouhg it can be easily argued that Spike killed a HELL of a lot more people than Faith did, her arc is much more personal. It was one girl who killed one guy, and is paying for it. I personally like that theme better than Spike's, who killed countless people and is attoning in a general, vague way. With Faith atoning for a single event, it takes on a much more symbolic state to me. And that is what Buffy should be about, metaphors and symbols. Nick

2003-03-11 18:37:54+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: PJ Browning antarian@pacbell.net >Date: 3/11/2003 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <110320031015000971%antarian@pacbell.net> > >In article <20030311130713.12283.00000315@mb-cu.aol.com>, Rose ><fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >> Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should >have...the >> evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an >> impact >> on the others. >> > >Faith's redemption fits into the general theme and tone of Angel as a >show. To be fair, we don't know how well or badly the Redeemed Faith issue will be handled on BtVS. It could be as lame as how the Souled Spike issue was handled. > >And it isn't like they have ignored the >Spike thing on Buffy, it just >isn't the forefront of the show (such issues >rarely are) > Spike himself has not been ignored since early November. He's had either a lot or a reasonable amount to do in each ep. I am a rare "one-character" fan who is not too concerned with quantity of air time as long as the quality is good. Also, I believe in the old adage, "leave them wanting more." It's better for him to have a little too little air time and have people saying "more Spike!" than a little too much and have people saying "less Spike!". My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath You, it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken care of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for the remainder of the season. It's like Espenson said Whedon said... it's interesting to drop the new character into the mix and see them impact she has on their lives. They could have done this with the new character SoulSpike and they simply did not. Since Spike is a regular, it makes at least as much sense to dedicate 60 seconds to the impact his soul has on the gang, as to dedicate chunks of an episode to the impact a returning character like Faith has on the gang. I bet many fans would agree that it would have been a better use of 60 seconds than having two too many "Spike crazy in the cellar" scenes. Spike was present early in the season, but his presence was often wasted. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 18:37:54+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: PJ Browning antarian@pacbell.net >Date: 3/11/2003 10:13 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <110320031015000971%antarian@pacbell.net> > >In article <20030311130713.12283.00000315@mb-cu.aol.com>, Rose ><fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > >> Really, Faith is taking on the role this season that Spike should >have...the >> evil prodigal returning having at least somewhat reformed, and having an >> impact >> on the others. >> > >Faith's redemption fits into the general theme and tone of Angel as a >show. To be fair, we don't know how well or badly the Redeemed Faith issue will be handled on BtVS. It could be as lame as how the Souled Spike issue was handled. > >And it isn't like they have ignored the >Spike thing on Buffy, it just >isn't the forefront of the show (such issues >rarely are) > Spike himself has not been ignored since early November. He's had either a lot or a reasonable amount to do in each ep. I am a rare "one-character" fan who is not too concerned with quantity of air time as long as the quality is good. Also, I believe in the old adage, "leave them wanting more." It's better for him to have a little too little air time and have people saying "more Spike!" than a little too much and have people saying "less Spike!". My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath You, it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken care of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for the remainder of the season. It's like Espenson said Whedon said... it's interesting to drop the new character into the mix and see them impact she has on their lives. They could have done this with the new character SoulSpike and they simply did not. Since Spike is a regular, it makes at least as much sense to dedicate 60 seconds to the impact his soul has on the gang, as to dedicate chunks of an episode to the impact a returning character like Faith has on the gang. I bet many fans would agree that it would have been a better use of 60 seconds than having two too many "Spike crazy in the cellar" scenes. Spike was present early in the season, but his presence was often wasted. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 19:12:56+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (matrriix@aol.com)


--It's better for him to have a little too little air time and have people saying "more Spike!" than a little too much and have people saying "less Spike!".-- I thought we were already screaming "less spike!" -Neo

2003-03-11 19:12:56+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (matrriix@aol.com)


--It's better for him to have a little too little air time and have people saying "more Spike!" than a little too much and have people saying "less Spike!".-- I thought we were already screaming "less spike!" -Neo

2003-03-11 19:55:29-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Shuggie" <shuggie@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:rbrs6v4dgaavl80vr9qmfelv8ih579lr6t@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:41:22 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > >"Shuggie" <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >news:b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com... > >> Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) > >> > >Why does everyone always assume that? ;) I don't care for Dawn, but that > >isn't her fault. It's Whedons. My complaint is that he has introduced a > >main character into the mix of things and then allowed her to exist for > >three seasons without any reason or function. > > > > Most of my point was that a character can be interesting without having > a "reason or function". > Okay, I buy that. Clem, for example, interesting but without reason or function. Also, is not a main character in the opening credits or with a scene in every episode. He also did not have an entire year devoted to his creation and existence for no purpose. Interesting characters for the sake of interesting characters are fine on occasion, but a major character should have a major role to play and a major characterization to go along with it. > >> I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your > >> criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact > >on the > >> world. > >> > >I find it odd too. Which is why I'm pointing it out. > > > > My point was that you use plot-based arguments to suggest that Joss's > characterisation is bad. That's topsy turvy. > No, it's the whole point of my post. Joss, whose forte is characterization created a character without one. Dawn is plot driven, period. She could be any goofy S.I.T. or other Sunnydale struck high school student with exception to the fact that she's related to the Slayer. The Key storyline makes the exact mistake that Whedon stopped Jane and the other writers from making with Faith. They wanted a big, fantastical, episode with a convoluted storyline to surround Faith's return. That's exactly what The Key storyline is, big, fantastical (even for the B-verse),and with more convolutions than you can shake a stick at. Joss came in and said no this story is about Faith, it's about Faith's character, who Faith is, and how Faith's return is going to impact the other characters. Why does he feel strongly that Faith's story should be about Faith and her impact on the B-verse when he created Dawn, who has no story that really impacts the storyline, or any real impact on the other characters? > >> What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? > > > >Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the > >lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the > >potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised > >more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than > >anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They > >haven't even been asked on the show itself. > > My point is not whether you think Dawn was interesting - it was can't a > character just be interesting without having to impact the Buffyverse? > Sure. Like I said Clem qualifies. So does Druscilla. Harmony is another example. They're fun characters that add interest and enjoyment to the show, but they aren't major characters. They haven't been forced into every storyline and every script without a purpose. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-11 19:55:29-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Shuggie" <shuggie@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:rbrs6v4dgaavl80vr9qmfelv8ih579lr6t@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:41:22 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > >"Shuggie" <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >news:b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com... > >> Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) > >> > >Why does everyone always assume that? ;) I don't care for Dawn, but that > >isn't her fault. It's Whedons. My complaint is that he has introduced a > >main character into the mix of things and then allowed her to exist for > >three seasons without any reason or function. > > > > Most of my point was that a character can be interesting without having > a "reason or function". > Okay, I buy that. Clem, for example, interesting but without reason or function. Also, is not a main character in the opening credits or with a scene in every episode. He also did not have an entire year devoted to his creation and existence for no purpose. Interesting characters for the sake of interesting characters are fine on occasion, but a major character should have a major role to play and a major characterization to go along with it. > >> I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your > >> criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact > >on the > >> world. > >> > >I find it odd too. Which is why I'm pointing it out. > > > > My point was that you use plot-based arguments to suggest that Joss's > characterisation is bad. That's topsy turvy. > No, it's the whole point of my post. Joss, whose forte is characterization created a character without one. Dawn is plot driven, period. She could be any goofy S.I.T. or other Sunnydale struck high school student with exception to the fact that she's related to the Slayer. The Key storyline makes the exact mistake that Whedon stopped Jane and the other writers from making with Faith. They wanted a big, fantastical, episode with a convoluted storyline to surround Faith's return. That's exactly what The Key storyline is, big, fantastical (even for the B-verse),and with more convolutions than you can shake a stick at. Joss came in and said no this story is about Faith, it's about Faith's character, who Faith is, and how Faith's return is going to impact the other characters. Why does he feel strongly that Faith's story should be about Faith and her impact on the B-verse when he created Dawn, who has no story that really impacts the storyline, or any real impact on the other characters? > >> What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? > > > >Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the > >lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the > >potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised > >more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than > >anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They > >haven't even been asked on the show itself. > > My point is not whether you think Dawn was interesting - it was can't a > character just be interesting without having to impact the Buffyverse? > Sure. Like I said Clem qualifies. So does Druscilla. Harmony is another example. They're fun characters that add interest and enjoyment to the show, but they aren't major characters. They haven't been forced into every storyline and every script without a purpose. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-11 20:30:46+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:sfadnWIRdJI9ufOjXTWcoA@comcast.com... > Mostly I was intrigued by the comments Jane made about Joss Whedon. She > mentioned that she and the other writers had recently started a huge > convoluted story board for the episode where Faith returns and that Joss > walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from > scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi type > story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return makes on > other characters. > > Character analysis, imo, is Whedon's genius and why Buffy has been so > brilliant on occasion. He focuses on telling the character's story and the > metaphor evolves. When Whedon does it he is inevitably successful, when the > other writers try it can fall completely flat. Willow's magic addiction, > for example, is a metaphor with a character forced into it, rather than a > character's behavior becoming a naturally evolving metaphor. > > What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the > hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What > impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, > none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as > it would have without Dawn. What impact has Dawn made on the other > characters? None, everything happened to them exactly as it would have > without her. > > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in the > course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic since > Season 3. Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept > responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > eventually without Dawn. She would have accepted responsibility for Dawn without Dawn? With Dawn she had an extra mouth to feed, and to take care of. Without Dawn she might have overcome the financial troubles brought about her mothers illness and death, and not dropped out of college. > > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > everyone goes through as they grow up. > Well Dawn's existence was explained to the characters. They KNEW that their memories concerning Dawn where wrong. > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. Yes it is. Dawn (the Key) needed to be protected (by Buffy). Dawn bleeds and her blood opens up the dimensions that will ultimately destroy the world. Buffy dies saving the world that is threatened because Dawn's blood had opened up the dimensions. Buffy is brought back by Willow (slightly altered, Spike is able to hit her without chip induced pain). Buffy is so out of balance she doesn't notice Willow's problems (wrong thing one), and she even has a relationship of sorts with Spike! (wrong thing two) Which would not have happened if she hadn't died to save Dawn. The monks have a lot to answer for. IMO season 6 was the fall-out of the creation of Dawn. > > > -- > Shannon > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > little!" > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address >

2003-03-11 20:30:46+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:sfadnWIRdJI9ufOjXTWcoA@comcast.com... > Mostly I was intrigued by the comments Jane made about Joss Whedon. She > mentioned that she and the other writers had recently started a huge > convoluted story board for the episode where Faith returns and that Joss > walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from > scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi type > story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return makes on > other characters. > > Character analysis, imo, is Whedon's genius and why Buffy has been so > brilliant on occasion. He focuses on telling the character's story and the > metaphor evolves. When Whedon does it he is inevitably successful, when the > other writers try it can fall completely flat. Willow's magic addiction, > for example, is a metaphor with a character forced into it, rather than a > character's behavior becoming a naturally evolving metaphor. > > What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the > hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What > impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, > none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as > it would have without Dawn. What impact has Dawn made on the other > characters? None, everything happened to them exactly as it would have > without her. > > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in the > course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic since > Season 3. Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept > responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > eventually without Dawn. She would have accepted responsibility for Dawn without Dawn? With Dawn she had an extra mouth to feed, and to take care of. Without Dawn she might have overcome the financial troubles brought about her mothers illness and death, and not dropped out of college. > > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > everyone goes through as they grow up. > Well Dawn's existence was explained to the characters. They KNEW that their memories concerning Dawn where wrong. > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. Yes it is. Dawn (the Key) needed to be protected (by Buffy). Dawn bleeds and her blood opens up the dimensions that will ultimately destroy the world. Buffy dies saving the world that is threatened because Dawn's blood had opened up the dimensions. Buffy is brought back by Willow (slightly altered, Spike is able to hit her without chip induced pain). Buffy is so out of balance she doesn't notice Willow's problems (wrong thing one), and she even has a relationship of sorts with Spike! (wrong thing two) Which would not have happened if she hadn't died to save Dawn. The monks have a lot to answer for. IMO season 6 was the fall-out of the creation of Dawn. > > > -- > Shannon > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > little!" > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address >

2003-03-11 21:43:17-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (himiko@animail.net)


Shuggie <shuggie@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<rbrs6v4dgaavl80vr9qmfelv8ih579lr6t@4ax.com>... > > My point is not whether you think Dawn was interesting - it was can't a > character just be interesting without having to impact the Buffyverse? Because when you have only 22 episodes of 42 minutes each in which to tell a story, giving time to a character who serves no particular plot or character development purpose is just plain insane. himiko

2003-03-11 21:43:17-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (himiko@animail.net)


Shuggie <shuggie@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<rbrs6v4dgaavl80vr9qmfelv8ih579lr6t@4ax.com>... > > My point is not whether you think Dawn was interesting - it was can't a > character just be interesting without having to impact the Buffyverse? Because when you have only 22 episodes of 42 minutes each in which to tell a story, giving time to a character who serves no particular plot or character development purpose is just plain insane. himiko

2003-03-11 21:46:15-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (himiko@animail.net)


Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com>... > > Also Dawn brings out characteristics of other characters we might not otherwise > see. The brotherly protectiveness of Spike. Buffy trying to be the responsible > parent. But she doesn't. She did in S5. She also served a major plot function in S5. But in S6 all she did was add another layer of stuff Buffy wasn't coping with, and now she doesn't affect Buffy much one way or the other. The same is true of her relationship with Spike which we also haven't seen since S5. She should have been the one to jump off that tower. I would sincerely have missed her at that point. himiko

2003-03-11 21:46:15-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (himiko@animail.net)


Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com>... > > Also Dawn brings out characteristics of other characters we might not otherwise > see. The brotherly protectiveness of Spike. Buffy trying to be the responsible > parent. But she doesn't. She did in S5. She also served a major plot function in S5. But in S6 all she did was add another layer of stuff Buffy wasn't coping with, and now she doesn't affect Buffy much one way or the other. The same is true of her relationship with Spike which we also haven't seen since S5. She should have been the one to jump off that tower. I would sincerely have missed her at that point. himiko

2003-03-11 22:02:11+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or the >events in the Buffyverse I was talking about Soul Spike. It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and had more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking her "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 22:02:11+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or the >events in the Buffyverse I was talking about Soul Spike. It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and had more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking her "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 22:24:16+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or >the >> >events in the Buffyverse >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets screen time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically treated like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith in the mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do this with Spike when his souled version was introduced. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 22:24:16+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or >the >> >events in the Buffyverse >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets screen time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically treated like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith in the mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do this with Spike when his souled version was introduced. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-11 23:18:05+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Shuggie <shuggie@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk>)


On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:41:22 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > >"Shuggie" <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com... >> Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) >> >Why does everyone always assume that? ;) I don't care for Dawn, but that >isn't her fault. It's Whedons. My complaint is that he has introduced a >main character into the mix of things and then allowed her to exist for >three seasons without any reason or function. > Most of my point was that a character can be interesting without having a "reason or function". >> I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your >> criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact >on the >> world. >> >I find it odd too. Which is why I'm pointing it out. > My point was that you use plot-based arguments to suggest that Joss's characterisation is bad. That's topsy turvy. >> What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? > >Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the >lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the >potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised >more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than >anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They >haven't even been asked on the show itself. My point is not whether you think Dawn was interesting - it was can't a character just be interesting without having to impact the Buffyverse? -- Shug Let's not stray too far from the "me" subject, okay? it's getting weird - Joss, OMWF soundtrack liner notes

2003-03-11 23:18:05+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Shuggie <shuggie@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk>)


On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:41:22 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > >"Shuggie" <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:b4lbhp0sr2@drn.newsguy.com... >> Guess you don't like Dawn huh? :) >> >Why does everyone always assume that? ;) I don't care for Dawn, but that >isn't her fault. It's Whedons. My complaint is that he has introduced a >main character into the mix of things and then allowed her to exist for >three seasons without any reason or function. > Most of my point was that a character can be interesting without having a "reason or function". >> I find it odd that you praise Joss for being good at characters but your >> criticism of Dawn is all plot-based, namely she didn't have enough impact >on the >> world. >> >I find it odd too. Which is why I'm pointing it out. > My point was that you use plot-based arguments to suggest that Joss's characterisation is bad. That's topsy turvy. >> What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? > >Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the >lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the >potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised >more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than >anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They >haven't even been asked on the show itself. My point is not whether you think Dawn was interesting - it was can't a character just be interesting without having to impact the Buffyverse? -- Shug Let's not stray too far from the "me" subject, okay? it's getting weird - Joss, OMWF soundtrack liner notes

2003-03-12 01:34:32-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... > My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with > soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath You, > it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from > Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One > 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in > which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken care > of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for > the remainder of the season. That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the viewer "wants" is a boring show. No way do I want to see a regular weekly meeting where all the characters give us a summary of their current emotional orientation towards each of the other characters. Yes, it's more *frustrating* to have to guess at what people are thinking, by watching their actions or decoding their cryptic conversations, but it's also a lot more interesting than just having them all just be mouthpieces for the writers intentions.

2003-03-12 01:34:32-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... > My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with > soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath You, > it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from > Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One > 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in > which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken care > of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for > the remainder of the season. That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the viewer "wants" is a boring show. No way do I want to see a regular weekly meeting where all the characters give us a summary of their current emotional orientation towards each of the other characters. Yes, it's more *frustrating* to have to guess at what people are thinking, by watching their actions or decoding their cryptic conversations, but it's also a lot more interesting than just having them all just be mouthpieces for the writers intentions.

2003-03-12 02:16:03+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (John DiFool <jdifool@earthlink.net>)


DarkMagic wrote: > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > > > It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and > had > > more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking > her > > "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. > > Well, that wasn't exactly a small feat. The getting her back from the > shamans thing, I mean. No one else in the gang might have done it, except > possibly Willow, who was tied up with sucking the life force out of her new > beloved. Even Spike's past is coming in to play in the story line. An > upcoming episode is dedicated to it, in fact. So we'll know more than we > ever wanted to, or needed to about Spike, and still nothing about Dawn. > Well, yeah. We know that she isn't a Proto-Slayer, but that's about it. What effect does/will her "Keyness" have, if anything? A question: did one of those assassin guys try to kill her, as in single her out deliberately for termination (as opposed to a target of opportunity)? If she isn't a Proto-Slayer, then why do that? Does the First suspect her of having powers that the Scoobies are currently ignorant of? JD -- ============================================ Reach heaven far too high ============================================

2003-03-12 02:16:03+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (John DiFool <jdifool@earthlink.net>)


DarkMagic wrote: > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > > > It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and > had > > more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking > her > > "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. > > Well, that wasn't exactly a small feat. The getting her back from the > shamans thing, I mean. No one else in the gang might have done it, except > possibly Willow, who was tied up with sucking the life force out of her new > beloved. Even Spike's past is coming in to play in the story line. An > upcoming episode is dedicated to it, in fact. So we'll know more than we > ever wanted to, or needed to about Spike, and still nothing about Dawn. > Well, yeah. We know that she isn't a Proto-Slayer, but that's about it. What effect does/will her "Keyness" have, if anything? A question: did one of those assassin guys try to kill her, as in single her out deliberately for termination (as opposed to a target of opportunity)? If she isn't a Proto-Slayer, then why do that? Does the First suspect her of having powers that the Scoobies are currently ignorant of? JD -- ============================================ Reach heaven far too high ============================================

2003-03-12 04:26:35-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > At what point did soulless Angelus ever seek out and obtain a soul for himself > and then reveal that to the Scooby Gang? Factually correct but pointless answer: In "Passion", when he approached and grabbed the Orb Of Thessula, saying to Jenny, a member of the Scooby Gang, that it contained his soul. What do you mean, "That's completely different and utterly irrelevant"? -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-03-12 04:26:35-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > At what point did soulless Angelus ever seek out and obtain a soul for himself > and then reveal that to the Scooby Gang? Factually correct but pointless answer: In "Passion", when he approached and grabbed the Orb Of Thessula, saying to Jenny, a member of the Scooby Gang, that it contained his soul. What do you mean, "That's completely different and utterly irrelevant"? -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-03-12 05:18:33-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> Shannon wrote: > >> > >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or > the > >> >events in the Buffyverse > >> > >> I was talking about Soul Spike. > >> > >Even Soul Spike is a major player. > > But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets screen > time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, > impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically treated > like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. > > My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith in the > mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do this > with Spike when his souled version was introduced. > > > Rose > Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat > anyone else better." > Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just doesn't have a feel for it or care? Also, the rumours of a Faith spin-off required her redemption so she could be the lead hero of a new show, another kind of investment. But the few rumours I read had Spike there too, but then again he would be more like a Watcher with a Ripper background not needing quite the same rehabilitation for the networks to buy him as a continuing second banana hero. Or, like I've said elsewhere, they're really just running out of steam. And I wholly agree with Shannon on the total waste of Dawn's keyness. Of course, she wasn't a waste if JW just wanted to have a junior Buffy around to take over should SMG quit and Faith was unavailable, etc. Then just keep Dawn's powder dry. Ken

2003-03-12 05:18:33-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> Shannon wrote: > >> > >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or > the > >> >events in the Buffyverse > >> > >> I was talking about Soul Spike. > >> > >Even Soul Spike is a major player. > > But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets screen > time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, > impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically treated > like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. > > My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith in the > mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do this > with Spike when his souled version was introduced. > > > Rose > Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat > anyone else better." > Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just doesn't have a feel for it or care? Also, the rumours of a Faith spin-off required her redemption so she could be the lead hero of a new show, another kind of investment. But the few rumours I read had Spike there too, but then again he would be more like a Watcher with a Ripper background not needing quite the same rehabilitation for the networks to buy him as a continuing second banana hero. Or, like I've said elsewhere, they're really just running out of steam. And I wholly agree with Shannon on the total waste of Dawn's keyness. Of course, she wasn't a waste if JW just wanted to have a junior Buffy around to take over should SMG quit and Faith was unavailable, etc. Then just keep Dawn's powder dry. Ken

2003-03-12 05:28:17-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... <SNIP> > > > > > I agree that the Monk's have a lot to answer for, but apparently ME and > Whedon don't. > > > > > > > -- > > > Shannon > > > Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I think many of the posts here come down to our expectations that we're watching art, when more and more we've been watching commerce. They lived together symbiotically for many of us for a long time. IMO, commerce definitely got the upper hand once the show left the WB. The "whys" will not be really known till one of the main players (creative team, not acting team) reveals what was going on. We'll probably want the viewpoints of many of them to compare. In fact, that may be the only way some of us will buy the DVD sets past S3--have "extras" that really reveal how the gears turned and were lubricated, what creative battles were waged, etc. Ken

2003-03-12 05:28:17-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... <SNIP> > > > > > I agree that the Monk's have a lot to answer for, but apparently ME and > Whedon don't. > > > > > > > -- > > > Shannon > > > Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I think many of the posts here come down to our expectations that we're watching art, when more and more we've been watching commerce. They lived together symbiotically for many of us for a long time. IMO, commerce definitely got the upper hand once the show left the WB. The "whys" will not be really known till one of the main players (creative team, not acting team) reveals what was going on. We'll probably want the viewpoints of many of them to compare. In fact, that may be the only way some of us will buy the DVD sets past S3--have "extras" that really reveal how the gears turned and were lubricated, what creative battles were waged, etc. Ken

2003-03-12 06:57:48+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: Ian Galbraith igalbraith@ozonline.com.au >Date: 3/11/2003 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <9v7t6vcb80m2v6v4bsoeqck61766abi69n@4ax.com> > >On 11 Mar 2003 18:37:54 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >[snip] > >>My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with >>soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath >You, >>it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from >>Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One >>60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in >>which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken >care >>of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for >>the remainder of the season. > >We've already seen how they would react from their reactions to Angel. > >[snip] At what point did soulless Angelus ever seek out and obtain a soul for himself and then reveal that to the Scooby Gang? Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 06:57:48+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: Ian Galbraith igalbraith@ozonline.com.au >Date: 3/11/2003 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <9v7t6vcb80m2v6v4bsoeqck61766abi69n@4ax.com> > >On 11 Mar 2003 18:37:54 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >[snip] > >>My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with >>soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath >You, >>it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from >>Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One >>60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in >>which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken >care >>of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for >>the remainder of the season. > >We've already seen how they would react from their reactions to Angel. > >[snip] At what point did soulless Angelus ever seek out and obtain a soul for himself and then reveal that to the Scooby Gang? Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 07:46:51-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (bergeg@parl.gc.ca)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no > > opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that > > dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical > > killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the > > cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's > her job. The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for example Spike, which you used in another thread. If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2, Xander and Cordelia would've eventually broken up since Willow and Xander kissage could have very well been discovered another way, Riley was bound to leave, Spike or no Spike, when the army asked him to join them, Buffy could have started destructive sex with Warren, etc... Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted by Riley, the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to saving the world. Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once were. And her presence changed a big part of the dynamic within the gang as well. In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel).

2003-03-12 07:46:51-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (bergeg@parl.gc.ca)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no > > opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that > > dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical > > killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the > > cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's > her job. The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for example Spike, which you used in another thread. If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2, Xander and Cordelia would've eventually broken up since Willow and Xander kissage could have very well been discovered another way, Riley was bound to leave, Spike or no Spike, when the army asked him to join them, Buffy could have started destructive sex with Warren, etc... Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted by Riley, the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to saving the world. Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once were. And her presence changed a big part of the dynamic within the gang as well. In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel).

2003-03-12 09:40:52-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> Shannon wrote: > >> > >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or > >the > >> >events in the Buffyverse > >> > >> I was talking about Soul Spike. > >> > >Even Soul Spike is a major player. > > But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets screen > time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, > impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically treated > like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. > > My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith in the > mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do this > with Spike when his souled version was introduced. I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of discussion between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why she should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character that I can tell. At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but was simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has a soul now. Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no one else understands why they should care. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." >

2003-03-12 09:40:52-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> Shannon wrote: > >> > >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters or > >the > >> >events in the Buffyverse > >> > >> I was talking about Soul Spike. > >> > >Even Soul Spike is a major player. > > But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets screen > time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, > impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically treated > like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. > > My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith in the > mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do this > with Spike when his souled version was introduced. I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of discussion between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why she should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character that I can tell. At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but was simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has a soul now. Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no one else understands why they should care. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." >

2003-03-12 09:51:03-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > >story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > >else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the > >hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What > >impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, > >none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as > >it would have without Dawn. > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > implies. > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What difference has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does making sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > [snip] > > >You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept > >responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > >eventually without Dawn. > > Not in terms of being a parent. > Parent, shmarent. Like I said, big deal. In addition to saving the world and fighting off demonic evil for the sake of all humanity Buffy has to make sure Dawn goes to school and doesn't dance nasty for older men in the Bronze. Not much of a challenge for the women who pulvarized the Master, sent her boyfriend to hell, blew up the high school and the Mayor, ripped the nuclear core out of a monster, and whacked the snot out of a god. > >Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > >version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > >Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > >everyone goes through as they grow up. > > Maybe, I agree that on a narrative level it would have been nice to > see something like this, but apart from your suggestion above I > struggle to see how they could relate it back to the central themes > and metaphors of the show. I don't think meaningful conflict could be > built around such soul searching, whereas even though we haven't seen > the Faith returns episode I can see how conflict would arise because > of it. > Plenty of meaningful conflict might have arisen from the magic, know-it-all, new person in their midst, but none ever did. So, like I say, what was the point of Dawn from Whedon's point of view? > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 09:51:03-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > >story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > >else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the > >hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What > >impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, > >none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as > >it would have without Dawn. > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > implies. > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What difference has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does making sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > [snip] > > >You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept > >responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > >eventually without Dawn. > > Not in terms of being a parent. > Parent, shmarent. Like I said, big deal. In addition to saving the world and fighting off demonic evil for the sake of all humanity Buffy has to make sure Dawn goes to school and doesn't dance nasty for older men in the Bronze. Not much of a challenge for the women who pulvarized the Master, sent her boyfriend to hell, blew up the high school and the Mayor, ripped the nuclear core out of a monster, and whacked the snot out of a god. > >Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > >version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > >Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > >everyone goes through as they grow up. > > Maybe, I agree that on a narrative level it would have been nice to > see something like this, but apart from your suggestion above I > struggle to see how they could relate it back to the central themes > and metaphors of the show. I don't think meaningful conflict could be > built around such soul searching, whereas even though we haven't seen > the Faith returns episode I can see how conflict would arise because > of it. > Plenty of meaningful conflict might have arisen from the magic, know-it-all, new person in their midst, but none ever did. So, like I say, what was the point of Dawn from Whedon's point of view? > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 09:52:42-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"John DiFool" <jdifool@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3E6E988A.9555221E@earthlink.net... > DarkMagic wrote: > > > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > > > > > It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and > > had > > > more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking > > her > > > "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. > > > > Well, that wasn't exactly a small feat. The getting her back from the > > shamans thing, I mean. No one else in the gang might have done it, except > > possibly Willow, who was tied up with sucking the life force out of her new > > beloved. Even Spike's past is coming in to play in the story line. An > > upcoming episode is dedicated to it, in fact. So we'll know more than we > > ever wanted to, or needed to about Spike, and still nothing about Dawn. > > > > Well, yeah. We know that she isn't a Proto-Slayer, but that's > about it. What effect does/will her "Keyness" have, if anything? > A question: did one of those assassin guys try to kill her, as in > single her out deliberately for termination (as opposed to a target > of opportunity)? If she isn't a Proto-Slayer, then why do that? > Does the First suspect her of having powers that the Scoobies > are currently ignorant of? I keep expecting that some striking revelation about Dawn will appear any episode now. Some larger plan at work as the reason for her existence, or some nefarious plan to destroy Buffy because of Dawn. Something, anything, to justify the introduction of this character to the show. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-12 09:52:42-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"John DiFool" <jdifool@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3E6E988A.9555221E@earthlink.net... > DarkMagic wrote: > > > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > > > > > It's ironic that Evil Spike had more to do with the other regulars, and > > had > > > more impact on them, than Soul Spike who only impacts Buffy by stroking > > her > > > "admire me, love me" ego and getting her back from the shamans. > > > > Well, that wasn't exactly a small feat. The getting her back from the > > shamans thing, I mean. No one else in the gang might have done it, except > > possibly Willow, who was tied up with sucking the life force out of her new > > beloved. Even Spike's past is coming in to play in the story line. An > > upcoming episode is dedicated to it, in fact. So we'll know more than we > > ever wanted to, or needed to about Spike, and still nothing about Dawn. > > > > Well, yeah. We know that she isn't a Proto-Slayer, but that's > about it. What effect does/will her "Keyness" have, if anything? > A question: did one of those assassin guys try to kill her, as in > single her out deliberately for termination (as opposed to a target > of opportunity)? If she isn't a Proto-Slayer, then why do that? > Does the First suspect her of having powers that the Scoobies > are currently ignorant of? I keep expecting that some striking revelation about Dawn will appear any episode now. Some larger plan at work as the reason for her existence, or some nefarious plan to destroy Buffy because of Dawn. Something, anything, to justify the introduction of this character to the show. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-12 11:42:49-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > implies. > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What difference > has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving > the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is > Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does making > sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really > add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and sometimes the two are in conflict. In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the dilema of choosing between them. Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it weren't for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale now, instead of a university dropout. She could have sold the house and used the money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the Doublemeat Palace. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 11:42:49-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > implies. > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What difference > has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving > the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is > Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does making > sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really > add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and sometimes the two are in conflict. In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the dilema of choosing between them. Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it weren't for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale now, instead of a university dropout. She could have sold the house and used the money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the Doublemeat Palace. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 12:22:34-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> Shannon wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters > >or > >> >the > >> >> >events in the Buffyverse > >> >> > >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. > >> >> > >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. > >> > >> But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets > >screen > >> time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, > >> impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically > >treated > >> like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. > >> > >> My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith > >in the > >> mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do > >this > >> with Spike when his souled version was introduced. > > > >I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of discussion > >between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why she > >should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite > >frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character that > >I can tell. > > > > He's no longer a sociopath. I don't know about that. He was still turning little angels around to face backwards even after he left the basement. Spike's behavior maybe somewhat arbitrary, but only if you presume he was completely at FE's mercy and devoid of free will. I'm not ready to assume that, yet. But even if it made no difference in Spike's > character, I'd think that the fact that a vampire can go get himself a soul > would give the demon-fighters pause. > Beyond any doubt it means that demons have free will. They are capable of trying to be good. Spike has proven that. I'm satisfied that he's trying. I'm not satisfied that he's accomplished it, or that it's a given now that he has a soul. > >At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his > >insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but was > >simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. > > > > I think it was pretty clear that Spike's insanity was due to a combination of > overwhelming guilt and being tormented by the First Evil. He got sucked into > being brainwashed by Firstie so he could forget about the voices in his head > telling him to go to hell. His guilt was so overwhelming that he ran away into > the Never Leave Me song, unwittingly enabling Firstie to use him as a killing > machine. > So, where are the voices telling him to go hell now? Where's the overwhelming guilt now? Based on his spoiler actions in future spoiler scenes with a certain spoiler Slayer's son I'd say guilt over past actions plays a very small role in his decision making today. > >So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has a > >soul now. > > I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the revelation > that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It > makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that Dawn did react to that. Buffy told her that Spike knew what he had done was wrong and that's why he went to get a soul. And Dawn's response, basically, was "So what? What does that mean? What does that change?" Buffy didn't, couldn't, answer those questions. So she, and we, are left to wonder. > wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact > that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. Well, if they're being attacked by vampires I don't expect them to stop and chat about souls first. And if Buffy is staking them fresh from the grave then she need not worry that they have a soul. > > >Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no > >one else understands why they should care. > >> > > Yes, the reaction largely has been "Yawn, why should I care." Boy, that sure > makes a fascinating storyline. > It is fascinating if it means that it doesn't really matter if something has a soul or not. At least it is to me. It's far more fascinating for me to contemplate that demons are evil or good by choice than that they can be mystically made good by visiting Lurky and having roaches crawl up their nose. Showing that the characters have free will and that they are accountable for their actions, all of their actions all of the time, is far more interesting than the idea that they can be made puppets of evil at FE's whim, imo. > > > >Shannon > > > >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > >little!" > > > >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > >>

2003-03-12 12:22:34-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> Shannon wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters > >or > >> >the > >> >> >events in the Buffyverse > >> >> > >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. > >> >> > >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. > >> > >> But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets > >screen > >> time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, > >> impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically > >treated > >> like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. > >> > >> My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith > >in the > >> mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do > >this > >> with Spike when his souled version was introduced. > > > >I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of discussion > >between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why she > >should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite > >frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character that > >I can tell. > > > > He's no longer a sociopath. I don't know about that. He was still turning little angels around to face backwards even after he left the basement. Spike's behavior maybe somewhat arbitrary, but only if you presume he was completely at FE's mercy and devoid of free will. I'm not ready to assume that, yet. But even if it made no difference in Spike's > character, I'd think that the fact that a vampire can go get himself a soul > would give the demon-fighters pause. > Beyond any doubt it means that demons have free will. They are capable of trying to be good. Spike has proven that. I'm satisfied that he's trying. I'm not satisfied that he's accomplished it, or that it's a given now that he has a soul. > >At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his > >insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but was > >simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. > > > > I think it was pretty clear that Spike's insanity was due to a combination of > overwhelming guilt and being tormented by the First Evil. He got sucked into > being brainwashed by Firstie so he could forget about the voices in his head > telling him to go to hell. His guilt was so overwhelming that he ran away into > the Never Leave Me song, unwittingly enabling Firstie to use him as a killing > machine. > So, where are the voices telling him to go hell now? Where's the overwhelming guilt now? Based on his spoiler actions in future spoiler scenes with a certain spoiler Slayer's son I'd say guilt over past actions plays a very small role in his decision making today. > >So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has a > >soul now. > > I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the revelation > that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It > makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that Dawn did react to that. Buffy told her that Spike knew what he had done was wrong and that's why he went to get a soul. And Dawn's response, basically, was "So what? What does that mean? What does that change?" Buffy didn't, couldn't, answer those questions. So she, and we, are left to wonder. > wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact > that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. Well, if they're being attacked by vampires I don't expect them to stop and chat about souls first. And if Buffy is staking them fresh from the grave then she need not worry that they have a soul. > > >Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no > >one else understands why they should care. > >> > > Yes, the reaction largely has been "Yawn, why should I care." Boy, that sure > makes a fascinating storyline. > It is fascinating if it means that it doesn't really matter if something has a soul or not. At least it is to me. It's far more fascinating for me to contemplate that demons are evil or good by choice than that they can be mystically made good by visiting Lurky and having roaches crawl up their nose. Showing that the characters have free will and that they are accountable for their actions, all of their actions all of the time, is far more interesting than the idea that they can be made puppets of evil at FE's whim, imo. > > > >Shannon > > > >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > >little!" > > > >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > >>

2003-03-12 12:38:54-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no > > > opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that > > > dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical > > > killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the > > > cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > > > > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the > > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she > > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular > > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an > > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to > > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has > > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's > > her job. > > The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events > in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for > example Spike, which you used in another thread. > > If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more > different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2 Not really. Buffy would have been seriously pressed to fight off Spike, Druscilla *and* Angel. Spike evened up the odds of her success in that battle. If you're going to argue that the season could have been played out without Spike or Druscilla at all, it certainly could have. But would it have been as interesting, as much fun, taught us as much about Angel/Angelus, or Buffy as it did, or made for as many funny and memorable scenes? Arguably not. What did Dawn's appearance in Season 5 teach us about Buffy, or anyone else, for that matter? What scenes including Dawn are so incredibly funny or poignant that they virtually define the essence of the story or the B-verse for you? , Xander > and Cordelia would've eventually broken up since Willow and Xander > kissage could have very well been discovered another way, Riley was > bound to leave, Spike or no Spike, when the army asked him to join > them, Buffy could have started destructive sex with Warren, etc... > > Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force > behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state > of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted > by Riley, See, again, I have to disagree. Buffy stopped letting her guard down, or allowing herself to depend on a boyfriend, when Angel became evil. Riley left because Buffy didn't love him and he couldn't deal with it. It had nothing at all to do with Dawn. the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the > World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much > about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same > place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full > episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to > saving the world. > Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. > Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree > that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put > in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or > Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once > were. So, you're saying the gang needed a Mary Sue. Fine. Why make it Buffy's sister? Why make it the Key? Why not just introduce a Mary Sue every episode they need one? Why not make the Key any teenager in need? Show me that the fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister affects the storyline in any way other than the blood/portal thing, which makes no sense. And her presence changed a big part of the dynamic within the > gang as well. > > In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the > dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone > but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel). How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character fundamentally changed? -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 12:38:54-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no > > > opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that > > > dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical > > > killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the > > > cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > > > > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the > > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she > > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular > > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an > > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to > > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has > > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's > > her job. > > The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events > in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for > example Spike, which you used in another thread. > > If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more > different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2 Not really. Buffy would have been seriously pressed to fight off Spike, Druscilla *and* Angel. Spike evened up the odds of her success in that battle. If you're going to argue that the season could have been played out without Spike or Druscilla at all, it certainly could have. But would it have been as interesting, as much fun, taught us as much about Angel/Angelus, or Buffy as it did, or made for as many funny and memorable scenes? Arguably not. What did Dawn's appearance in Season 5 teach us about Buffy, or anyone else, for that matter? What scenes including Dawn are so incredibly funny or poignant that they virtually define the essence of the story or the B-verse for you? , Xander > and Cordelia would've eventually broken up since Willow and Xander > kissage could have very well been discovered another way, Riley was > bound to leave, Spike or no Spike, when the army asked him to join > them, Buffy could have started destructive sex with Warren, etc... > > Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force > behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state > of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted > by Riley, See, again, I have to disagree. Buffy stopped letting her guard down, or allowing herself to depend on a boyfriend, when Angel became evil. Riley left because Buffy didn't love him and he couldn't deal with it. It had nothing at all to do with Dawn. the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the > World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much > about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same > place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full > episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to > saving the world. > Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. > Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree > that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put > in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or > Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once > were. So, you're saying the gang needed a Mary Sue. Fine. Why make it Buffy's sister? Why make it the Key? Why not just introduce a Mary Sue every episode they need one? Why not make the Key any teenager in need? Show me that the fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister affects the storyline in any way other than the blood/portal thing, which makes no sense. And her presence changed a big part of the dynamic within the > gang as well. > > In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the > dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone > but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel). How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character fundamentally changed? -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 12:46:12-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030312103633.08589.00000171@mb-ml.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) > >Date: 3/12/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303120134.2276a1a8@posting.google.com> > > > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message > >news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... > > > >> My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with > >> soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath > You, > >> it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from > >> Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One > >> 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and > in > >> which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken > care > >> of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang > for > >> the remainder of the season. > > > >That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the > >viewer "wants" is a boring show. > > > > Thus you're saying that one 60-second scene (or even 30 seconds if 60 is too > long) would sap so much life from the show and be so excrutiatingly tedious > that it would ruin the episode and yay, the very series? It wouldn't be the length, but what was said in it. It wouldn't take very long for them to reduce the delicate frustratiness to a sort of boring procedural activity. Buffy: I am accepting of your ensouledness and look forward to a more stable relationship over the coming weeks. Spike: I acknowledge and appreciate your acceptingness. Xander: I see your trite summary and raise you two yawns. > >No way do I want to see a regular weekly meeting where all the > >characters give us a summary of their current emotional orientation > >towards each of the other characters. > > > > If you think that's what I said, Wally, you didn't read my post. I don't want > what you described either. Admittedly I was just exaggerating to find the opposite extreme of the way the show normally works. > What Jane described as Joss' intention was dropping Faith -- a sort of "new" > presence, as a wiser and being-redeemed character whom some haven't seen since > she was evil three years ago, and whom some have never seen -- into the mix and > instead of her arrival being plot-driven, depicting the impact her arrival has > on the characters. > > What I said is that that is what they should have done that with Souled Spike, > who is, in effect, a "new" regular character. "New" regulars are not > introduced every week -- in fact they hardly ever are -- so there is no need > for a weekly meeting depicting characters' reactions to one another. > > >Yes, it's more *frustrating* to have to guess at what people are > >thinking, > > It's even more frustrating when what you guess is "nothing." No reaction, no > interest, it's as if the "new" or pseudo-new character isn't there for most of > the important characters, and it has no impact on them whatsoever. The > knowledge of this rather incredible thing, that a vampire actually got himself > a soul and now instead of one souled vampire in the world, there are two, is so > entirely irrelevant and insignificant to them that it seems to reflect that the > writers themselves find it fairly unimportant. That in itself makes Souled > Spike less interesting, makes his story less compelling. If most of the > characters don't give a tinker's damn -- even Buffy didn't react much for weeks > after the revelation -- why should we? Hmmm... I'm going to go out on a limb here, based on reading your messages for a few months now... Spike is your fave character from TV's Buffy. Now, you may construe from my pseudonym that I favour the character Willow of TV's Buffy. And guess what!? I don't think enough time has been given to the "new" Willow - I think it is possible to make a case for there being a "new" Willow now, much like there's a new Spike. "New" Willow is The Incredible Hulk. Power and lack of control combined in one explosive package. WILLOW SMASH! Basically, your favourite character is the one that you wish the show was all about. Not that there should be no other characters - but they should all have the decency to talk about little else apart from how intriguing and interesting your favourite character is! And yet each time Willow's situation is developed, I get a huge kick out of it, possibly because it is so tantalising and not properly "dealt with." This is why Andrew's Ricki Lake routine with Xander and Anya made me laugh so much - people *never* talk openly like that on Buffy! Maybe with Spike, they are taking the frustration thing too far (at least for someone with your particular... enthusiasm for the character.) But the opposite (as demonstrated by Xander/Anya) is that Buffy and Spike have a proper chat, mull things over, maybe a cup of tea, more chat, some sex... Wouldn't the game be over then?

2003-03-12 12:46:12-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030312103633.08589.00000171@mb-ml.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) > >Date: 3/12/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303120134.2276a1a8@posting.google.com> > > > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message > >news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... > > > >> My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with > >> soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath > You, > >> it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from > >> Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One > >> 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and > in > >> which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken > care > >> of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang > for > >> the remainder of the season. > > > >That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the > >viewer "wants" is a boring show. > > > > Thus you're saying that one 60-second scene (or even 30 seconds if 60 is too > long) would sap so much life from the show and be so excrutiatingly tedious > that it would ruin the episode and yay, the very series? It wouldn't be the length, but what was said in it. It wouldn't take very long for them to reduce the delicate frustratiness to a sort of boring procedural activity. Buffy: I am accepting of your ensouledness and look forward to a more stable relationship over the coming weeks. Spike: I acknowledge and appreciate your acceptingness. Xander: I see your trite summary and raise you two yawns. > >No way do I want to see a regular weekly meeting where all the > >characters give us a summary of their current emotional orientation > >towards each of the other characters. > > > > If you think that's what I said, Wally, you didn't read my post. I don't want > what you described either. Admittedly I was just exaggerating to find the opposite extreme of the way the show normally works. > What Jane described as Joss' intention was dropping Faith -- a sort of "new" > presence, as a wiser and being-redeemed character whom some haven't seen since > she was evil three years ago, and whom some have never seen -- into the mix and > instead of her arrival being plot-driven, depicting the impact her arrival has > on the characters. > > What I said is that that is what they should have done that with Souled Spike, > who is, in effect, a "new" regular character. "New" regulars are not > introduced every week -- in fact they hardly ever are -- so there is no need > for a weekly meeting depicting characters' reactions to one another. > > >Yes, it's more *frustrating* to have to guess at what people are > >thinking, > > It's even more frustrating when what you guess is "nothing." No reaction, no > interest, it's as if the "new" or pseudo-new character isn't there for most of > the important characters, and it has no impact on them whatsoever. The > knowledge of this rather incredible thing, that a vampire actually got himself > a soul and now instead of one souled vampire in the world, there are two, is so > entirely irrelevant and insignificant to them that it seems to reflect that the > writers themselves find it fairly unimportant. That in itself makes Souled > Spike less interesting, makes his story less compelling. If most of the > characters don't give a tinker's damn -- even Buffy didn't react much for weeks > after the revelation -- why should we? Hmmm... I'm going to go out on a limb here, based on reading your messages for a few months now... Spike is your fave character from TV's Buffy. Now, you may construe from my pseudonym that I favour the character Willow of TV's Buffy. And guess what!? I don't think enough time has been given to the "new" Willow - I think it is possible to make a case for there being a "new" Willow now, much like there's a new Spike. "New" Willow is The Incredible Hulk. Power and lack of control combined in one explosive package. WILLOW SMASH! Basically, your favourite character is the one that you wish the show was all about. Not that there should be no other characters - but they should all have the decency to talk about little else apart from how intriguing and interesting your favourite character is! And yet each time Willow's situation is developed, I get a huge kick out of it, possibly because it is so tantalising and not properly "dealt with." This is why Andrew's Ricki Lake routine with Xander and Anya made me laugh so much - people *never* talk openly like that on Buffy! Maybe with Spike, they are taking the frustration thing too far (at least for someone with your particular... enthusiasm for the character.) But the opposite (as demonstrated by Xander/Anya) is that Buffy and Spike have a proper chat, mull things over, maybe a cup of tea, more chat, some sex... Wouldn't the game be over then?

2003-03-12 13:00:24-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > > implies. > > > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What difference > > has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving > > the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is > > Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does making > > sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really > > add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > > It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the > world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and > sometimes the two are in conflict. Far be it from me to belittle the efforts of child raising but I would hardly compare it to being responsible for the safety and well being of the entire world. Sending your kid to kindergarten is tough, but it hardly is the same thing as sending your lover to hell. In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the > dilema of choosing between them. > And in "Becoming" Buffy was given the dilemma of choosing between someone she loved and the world. She chose the world. Of course, Angel wasn't completely innocent and Dawn was. Are you saying Buffy would have chosen differently in "The Gift" if Joyce had been the Key? Xander? Any innocent girl off the street? No way. She was done killing people she cared about for the sake of duty and it wouldn't have mattered who it was. > Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it weren't > for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale now, instead > of a university dropout. We don't know that. According to you Joyce would have had a brain tumor without Dawn, anyway. Buffy still drops out of school to care for her Mom, she still can't get back in. Dawn makes no difference. She could have sold the house and used the > money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the > Doublemeat Palace. According to the loan officer at the bank houses in Sunnydale aren't worth that much. Dawn is no reason at all for Buffy to keep the house and stay in Sunnydale. If anything having to care for Dawn with no reliable back up is incentive to get the heck out of Sunnydale. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 13:00:24-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > > implies. > > > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What difference > > has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving > > the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is > > Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does making > > sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really > > add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > > It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the > world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and > sometimes the two are in conflict. Far be it from me to belittle the efforts of child raising but I would hardly compare it to being responsible for the safety and well being of the entire world. Sending your kid to kindergarten is tough, but it hardly is the same thing as sending your lover to hell. In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the > dilema of choosing between them. > And in "Becoming" Buffy was given the dilemma of choosing between someone she loved and the world. She chose the world. Of course, Angel wasn't completely innocent and Dawn was. Are you saying Buffy would have chosen differently in "The Gift" if Joyce had been the Key? Xander? Any innocent girl off the street? No way. She was done killing people she cared about for the sake of duty and it wouldn't have mattered who it was. > Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it weren't > for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale now, instead > of a university dropout. We don't know that. According to you Joyce would have had a brain tumor without Dawn, anyway. Buffy still drops out of school to care for her Mom, she still can't get back in. Dawn makes no difference. She could have sold the house and used the > money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the > Doublemeat Palace. According to the loan officer at the bank houses in Sunnydale aren't worth that much. Dawn is no reason at all for Buffy to keep the house and stay in Sunnydale. If anything having to care for Dawn with no reliable back up is incentive to get the heck out of Sunnydale. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 13:06:52-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312103936.08589.00000172@mb-ml.aol.com... > Ken wrote: > > > > >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith > >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just > >doesn't have a feel for it or care? > > That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds think > alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a > regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to the > visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end up > with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the viewer. > Anya: "Omigosh! It's a White Elephant! They are so rare! How did it get here? Can I look closer at it?" The White Elephant charges Anya and uses it's tusks to toss her across the room. > Buffy: "The White Elephant knows that it was bad and that's why it's here now." Dawn: "What does that mean exactly? Is the White Elephant a good Elephant now? Are you in love with it because it's a White Elephant?" Buffy: "No....,but I feel for the White Elephant." Xander: "I don't care how much you want to feel the White Elephant. I hate the White Elephant and I don't want it in my apartment." Shannon >

2003-03-12 13:06:52-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312103936.08589.00000172@mb-ml.aol.com... > Ken wrote: > > > > >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith > >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just > >doesn't have a feel for it or care? > > That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds think > alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a > regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to the > visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end up > with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the viewer. > Anya: "Omigosh! It's a White Elephant! They are so rare! How did it get here? Can I look closer at it?" The White Elephant charges Anya and uses it's tusks to toss her across the room. > Buffy: "The White Elephant knows that it was bad and that's why it's here now." Dawn: "What does that mean exactly? Is the White Elephant a good Elephant now? Are you in love with it because it's a White Elephant?" Buffy: "No....,but I feel for the White Elephant." Xander: "I don't care how much you want to feel the White Elephant. I hate the White Elephant and I don't want it in my apartment." Shannon >

2003-03-12 13:20:37-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <Oe6cnb1U1K5D6PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net... > > In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > > > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > > > implies. > > > > > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What > > > difference has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already > > > responsible for saving the world. The safety and well being of > > > every citizen in Sunnydale is Buffy's responsibility and has been > > > since she was 15 years old. Does making sure Dawn eats a healthy > > > breakfast and does her homework every night really add so much to > > > that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > > > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > > > > It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the > > world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and > > sometimes the two are in conflict. > > Far be it from me to belittle the efforts of child raising but I > would hardly compare it to being responsible for the safety and well > being of the entire world. Sending your kid to kindergarten is > tough, but it hardly is the same thing as sending your lover to hell. She had to protect Dawn from a hellgod, and at the end she was presented with the choice of having to kill her, or let the world be destroyed. > > In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the > > dilema of choosing between them. > > > And in "Becoming" Buffy was given the dilemma of choosing between > someone she loved and the world. She chose the world. Of course, > Angel wasn't completely innocent and Dawn was. Are you saying Buffy > would have chosen differently in "The Gift" if Joyce had been the > Key? Xander? Any innocent girl off the street? No way. She was > done killing people she cared about for the sake of duty and it > wouldn't have mattered who it was. It is different when it's your child. Buffy took the opposite side when she killed Angel. She killed the man she loved to save the world. In _The Gift_ she refused to do that with Dawn. > > Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it > > weren't for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale > > now, instead of a university dropout. > > We don't know that. According to you Joyce would have had a brain > tumor without Dawn, anyway. Buffy still drops out of school to care > for her Mom, she still can't get back in. Dawn makes no difference. Buffy didn't drop out of school until after her mother died. Without the burden of having to care for Dawn she could have taken up her classes again. > > She could have sold the house and used the > > money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the > > Doublemeat Palace. > > According to the loan officer at the bank houses in Sunnydale aren't worth > that much. No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. That isn't the same as selling the house. Even in a depressed market like Sunnydale that house of hers has got to be worth at least a quarter of a million. > Dawn is no reason at all for Buffy to keep the house and stay in > Sunnydale. If anything having to care for Dawn with no reliable back up is > incentive to get the heck out of Sunnydale. Buffy stays in Sunnydale because of the Hellmouth, and her duty as the Slayer. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 13:20:37-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <Oe6cnb1U1K5D6PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net... > > In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > > > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > > > implies. > > > > > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What > > > difference has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already > > > responsible for saving the world. The safety and well being of > > > every citizen in Sunnydale is Buffy's responsibility and has been > > > since she was 15 years old. Does making sure Dawn eats a healthy > > > breakfast and does her homework every night really add so much to > > > that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > > > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > > > > It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the > > world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and > > sometimes the two are in conflict. > > Far be it from me to belittle the efforts of child raising but I > would hardly compare it to being responsible for the safety and well > being of the entire world. Sending your kid to kindergarten is > tough, but it hardly is the same thing as sending your lover to hell. She had to protect Dawn from a hellgod, and at the end she was presented with the choice of having to kill her, or let the world be destroyed. > > In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the > > dilema of choosing between them. > > > And in "Becoming" Buffy was given the dilemma of choosing between > someone she loved and the world. She chose the world. Of course, > Angel wasn't completely innocent and Dawn was. Are you saying Buffy > would have chosen differently in "The Gift" if Joyce had been the > Key? Xander? Any innocent girl off the street? No way. She was > done killing people she cared about for the sake of duty and it > wouldn't have mattered who it was. It is different when it's your child. Buffy took the opposite side when she killed Angel. She killed the man she loved to save the world. In _The Gift_ she refused to do that with Dawn. > > Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it > > weren't for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale > > now, instead of a university dropout. > > We don't know that. According to you Joyce would have had a brain > tumor without Dawn, anyway. Buffy still drops out of school to care > for her Mom, she still can't get back in. Dawn makes no difference. Buffy didn't drop out of school until after her mother died. Without the burden of having to care for Dawn she could have taken up her classes again. > > She could have sold the house and used the > > money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the > > Doublemeat Palace. > > According to the loan officer at the bank houses in Sunnydale aren't worth > that much. No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. That isn't the same as selling the house. Even in a depressed market like Sunnydale that house of hers has got to be worth at least a quarter of a million. > Dawn is no reason at all for Buffy to keep the house and stay in > Sunnydale. If anything having to care for Dawn with no reliable back up is > incentive to get the heck out of Sunnydale. Buffy stays in Sunnydale because of the Hellmouth, and her duty as the Slayer. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 13:49:59+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On 11 Mar 2003 18:37:54 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: [snip] >My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with >soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath You, >it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from >Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One >60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in >which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken care >of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for >the remainder of the season. We've already seen how they would react from their reactions to Angel. [snip] -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-12 13:49:59+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On 11 Mar 2003 18:37:54 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: [snip] >My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with >soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath You, >it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from >Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One >60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and in >which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken care >of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang for >the remainder of the season. We've already seen how they would react from their reactions to Angel. [snip] -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-12 14:29:17+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (dunce@nomail.com)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > >"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message >news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... >> "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message >news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... >> > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message >> > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no >> > > opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take >that >> > > dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical >> > > killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If >the >> > > cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. >> > > >> > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the >> > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway >she >> > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular >> > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an >> > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice >herself to >> > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she >has >> > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. >That's >> > her job. >> >> The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events >> in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for >> example Spike, which you used in another thread. >> >> If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more >> different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2 > >Not really. Buffy would have been seriously pressed to fight off Spike, >Druscilla *and* Angel. Spike evened up the odds of her success in that >battle. If you're going to argue that the season could have been played out >without Spike or Druscilla at all, it certainly could have. But would it >have been as interesting, as much fun, taught us as much about >Angel/Angelus, or Buffy as it did, or made for as many funny and memorable >scenes? Arguably not. What did Dawn's appearance in Season 5 teach us >about Buffy, or anyone else, for that matter? What scenes including Dawn >are so incredibly funny or poignant that they virtually define the essence >of the story or the B-verse for you? > >, Xander >> and Cordelia would've eventually broken up since Willow and Xander >> kissage could have very well been discovered another way, Riley was >> bound to leave, Spike or no Spike, when the army asked him to join >> them, Buffy could have started destructive sex with Warren, etc... >> >> Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force >> behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state >> of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted >> by Riley, > >See, again, I have to disagree. Buffy stopped letting her guard down, or >allowing herself to depend on a boyfriend, when Angel became evil. Riley >left because Buffy didn't love him and he couldn't deal with it. It had >nothing at all to do with Dawn. > > the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the >> World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much >> about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same >> place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full >> episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to >> saving the world. >> >Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up >sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with >Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she >feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy >people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how >that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't >even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the >devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. > >> Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree >> that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put >> in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or >> Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once >> were. > >So, you're saying the gang needed a Mary Sue. Fine. Why make it Buffy's >sister? Why make it the Key? Why not just introduce a Mary Sue every >episode they need one? Why not make the Key any teenager in need? Show me >that the fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister affects the storyline in any way >other than the blood/portal thing, which makes no sense. > >And her presence changed a big part of the dynamic within the >> gang as well. >> >> In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the >> dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone >> but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel). > >How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character >fundamentally changed? I'm just going to jump in here and offer my quick two cents. Dawn hasn't changed anyone's character any more or less than any other person on BTVS. You could argue that the group dynamic hasn't changed at all with the inclusion or removal of any one character. Oz' leaving didn't have a huge impact on the group. Willow went through a dark period but then hooked up with Tara. The question is if Oz had never left and they had never introduced Tara (and Willow's homosexuality) would any of the group dynamics have been different in season's 4, 5, and 6? I don't think so. The addition of Tara opened up a new view of Willow's character but didn't really have an impact on any of the major events in the seasonal story arcs. The introduction of Dawn was vital to the season 5 story arc. Plus she has been used to show different aspects of other people's character. Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's passive/aggresive tendencies. The way that Willow talked in a baby voice, called her "Dawny", and constantly spoke down to her could not have been done with any other character. If Willow had even tried that behavior with anybody else she would have been slapped down so fast her head would spin. Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's darker side without really pointing to it. Dawn was the first female in Xander's life who he didn't regard in some sexual capacity. Throughout the series we've seen Xander's various feelings and fantasies for Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Faith, Joyce, Jenny, Tara, Anya, and various demon women. Xander was aware of Dawn's crush on him but never responded to it in any other way than that of a big brother. We never would have seen that with any of the previously mentioned women. The way that Buffy kept ignoring her responsiblities to Dawn and foisting them on to Giles in season 6 were used to illustrate Giles' reasoning to leave Sunnydale. That wouldn't have worked with any other member of the Scooby gang.

2003-03-12 14:29:17+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (dunce@nomail.com)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > >"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message >news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... >> "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message >news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... >> > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message >> > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no >> > > opening up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take >that >> > > dive of the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical >> > > killed Buffy and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If >the >> > > cause of death wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. >> > > >> > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the >> > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway >she >> > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular >> > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an >> > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice >herself to >> > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she >has >> > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. >That's >> > her job. >> >> The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events >> in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for >> example Spike, which you used in another thread. >> >> If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more >> different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2 > >Not really. Buffy would have been seriously pressed to fight off Spike, >Druscilla *and* Angel. Spike evened up the odds of her success in that >battle. If you're going to argue that the season could have been played out >without Spike or Druscilla at all, it certainly could have. But would it >have been as interesting, as much fun, taught us as much about >Angel/Angelus, or Buffy as it did, or made for as many funny and memorable >scenes? Arguably not. What did Dawn's appearance in Season 5 teach us >about Buffy, or anyone else, for that matter? What scenes including Dawn >are so incredibly funny or poignant that they virtually define the essence >of the story or the B-verse for you? > >, Xander >> and Cordelia would've eventually broken up since Willow and Xander >> kissage could have very well been discovered another way, Riley was >> bound to leave, Spike or no Spike, when the army asked him to join >> them, Buffy could have started destructive sex with Warren, etc... >> >> Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force >> behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state >> of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted >> by Riley, > >See, again, I have to disagree. Buffy stopped letting her guard down, or >allowing herself to depend on a boyfriend, when Angel became evil. Riley >left because Buffy didn't love him and he couldn't deal with it. It had >nothing at all to do with Dawn. > > the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the >> World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much >> about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same >> place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full >> episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to >> saving the world. >> >Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up >sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with >Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she >feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy >people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how >that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't >even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the >devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. > >> Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree >> that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put >> in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or >> Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once >> were. > >So, you're saying the gang needed a Mary Sue. Fine. Why make it Buffy's >sister? Why make it the Key? Why not just introduce a Mary Sue every >episode they need one? Why not make the Key any teenager in need? Show me >that the fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister affects the storyline in any way >other than the blood/portal thing, which makes no sense. > >And her presence changed a big part of the dynamic within the >> gang as well. >> >> In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the >> dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone >> but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel). > >How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character >fundamentally changed? I'm just going to jump in here and offer my quick two cents. Dawn hasn't changed anyone's character any more or less than any other person on BTVS. You could argue that the group dynamic hasn't changed at all with the inclusion or removal of any one character. Oz' leaving didn't have a huge impact on the group. Willow went through a dark period but then hooked up with Tara. The question is if Oz had never left and they had never introduced Tara (and Willow's homosexuality) would any of the group dynamics have been different in season's 4, 5, and 6? I don't think so. The addition of Tara opened up a new view of Willow's character but didn't really have an impact on any of the major events in the seasonal story arcs. The introduction of Dawn was vital to the season 5 story arc. Plus she has been used to show different aspects of other people's character. Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's passive/aggresive tendencies. The way that Willow talked in a baby voice, called her "Dawny", and constantly spoke down to her could not have been done with any other character. If Willow had even tried that behavior with anybody else she would have been slapped down so fast her head would spin. Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's darker side without really pointing to it. Dawn was the first female in Xander's life who he didn't regard in some sexual capacity. Throughout the series we've seen Xander's various feelings and fantasies for Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Faith, Joyce, Jenny, Tara, Anya, and various demon women. Xander was aware of Dawn's crush on him but never responded to it in any other way than that of a big brother. We never would have seen that with any of the previously mentioned women. The way that Buffy kept ignoring her responsiblities to Dawn and foisting them on to Giles in season 6 were used to illustrate Giles' reasoning to leave Sunnydale. That wouldn't have worked with any other member of the Scooby gang.

2003-03-12 14:58:33-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <20030312132547.10347.00000411@mb-fh.aol.com>, Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > Don wrote; > > > > >No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give > >a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. > > He said there was little or no equity, which means most of the money from the > sale would be spent paying back the lender. He said the equity had been dropping, not that there wasn't any. His refusal to give Buffy a loan was based on her lack of income. It didn't matter how much equity she had. Banks don't give mortgages to people who can't pay the money back, no matter how much equity they may have in their home. Throwing orphans out on the street when they stop making mortgage payments is very bad for their public image. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 14:58:33-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <20030312132547.10347.00000411@mb-fh.aol.com>, Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > Don wrote; > > > > >No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give > >a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. > > He said there was little or no equity, which means most of the money from the > sale would be spent paying back the lender. He said the equity had been dropping, not that there wasn't any. His refusal to give Buffy a loan was based on her lack of income. It didn't matter how much equity she had. Banks don't give mortgages to people who can't pay the money back, no matter how much equity they may have in their home. Throwing orphans out on the street when they stop making mortgage payments is very bad for their public image. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 15:36:33+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) >Date: 3/12/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303120134.2276a1a8@posting.google.com> > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... > >> My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with >> soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath >You, >> it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from >> Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One >> 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and >in >> which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken >care >> of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang >for >> the remainder of the season. > >That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the >viewer "wants" is a boring show. > Thus you're saying that one 60-second scene (or even 30 seconds if 60 is too long) would sap so much life from the show and be so excrutiatingly tedious that it would ruin the episode and yay, the very series? >No way do I want to see a regular weekly meeting where all the >characters give us a summary of their current emotional orientation >towards each of the other characters. > If you think that's what I said, Wally, you didn't read my post. I don't want what you described either. What Jane described as Joss' intention was dropping Faith -- a sort of "new" presence, as a wiser and being-redeemed character whom some haven't seen since she was evil three years ago, and whom some have never seen -- into the mix and instead of her arrival being plot-driven, depicting the impact her arrival has on the characters. What I said is that that is what they should have done that with Souled Spike, who is, in effect, a "new" regular character. "New" regulars are not introduced every week -- in fact they hardly ever are -- so there is no need for a weekly meeting depicting characters' reactions to one another. >Yes, it's more *frustrating* to have to guess at what people are >thinking, It's even more frustrating when what you guess is "nothing." No reaction, no interest, it's as if the "new" or pseudo-new character isn't there for most of the important characters, and it has no impact on them whatsoever. The knowledge of this rather incredible thing, that a vampire actually got himself a soul and now instead of one souled vampire in the world, there are two, is so entirely irrelevant and insignificant to them that it seems to reflect that the writers themselves find it fairly unimportant. That in itself makes Souled Spike less interesting, makes his story less compelling. If most of the characters don't give a tinker's damn -- even Buffy didn't react much for weeks after the revelation -- why should we? OTOH, Faith's presence is treated as important, as it should be. If the arrival of redeemy Faith isn't something that matters, then why bother having her arrive? I think that if they'd had a brief scene where we saw the Scoobs find out about Spike and the soul he sought, it would have forced ME to show that such information is interesting and does matter to the other characters and hence, is important enough for the viewer to care about. OTOH, perhaps Spike and his soul really don't matter much to the writers or to the story, so in terms of character and story he's just a big fat waste of space this season. Then the problem is not the characters' reactions, but the fact that they have a regular character wasting space and screen time. Perhaps that really has been the problem all along. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 15:36:33+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) >Date: 3/12/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303120134.2276a1a8@posting.google.com> > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... > >> My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year with >> soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in Beneath >You, >> it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul from >> Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. One >> 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, and >in >> which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken >care >> of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang >for >> the remainder of the season. > >That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the >viewer "wants" is a boring show. > Thus you're saying that one 60-second scene (or even 30 seconds if 60 is too long) would sap so much life from the show and be so excrutiatingly tedious that it would ruin the episode and yay, the very series? >No way do I want to see a regular weekly meeting where all the >characters give us a summary of their current emotional orientation >towards each of the other characters. > If you think that's what I said, Wally, you didn't read my post. I don't want what you described either. What Jane described as Joss' intention was dropping Faith -- a sort of "new" presence, as a wiser and being-redeemed character whom some haven't seen since she was evil three years ago, and whom some have never seen -- into the mix and instead of her arrival being plot-driven, depicting the impact her arrival has on the characters. What I said is that that is what they should have done that with Souled Spike, who is, in effect, a "new" regular character. "New" regulars are not introduced every week -- in fact they hardly ever are -- so there is no need for a weekly meeting depicting characters' reactions to one another. >Yes, it's more *frustrating* to have to guess at what people are >thinking, It's even more frustrating when what you guess is "nothing." No reaction, no interest, it's as if the "new" or pseudo-new character isn't there for most of the important characters, and it has no impact on them whatsoever. The knowledge of this rather incredible thing, that a vampire actually got himself a soul and now instead of one souled vampire in the world, there are two, is so entirely irrelevant and insignificant to them that it seems to reflect that the writers themselves find it fairly unimportant. That in itself makes Souled Spike less interesting, makes his story less compelling. If most of the characters don't give a tinker's damn -- even Buffy didn't react much for weeks after the revelation -- why should we? OTOH, Faith's presence is treated as important, as it should be. If the arrival of redeemy Faith isn't something that matters, then why bother having her arrive? I think that if they'd had a brief scene where we saw the Scoobs find out about Spike and the soul he sought, it would have forced ME to show that such information is interesting and does matter to the other characters and hence, is important enough for the viewer to care about. OTOH, perhaps Spike and his soul really don't matter much to the writers or to the story, so in terms of character and story he's just a big fat waste of space this season. Then the problem is not the characters' reactions, but the fact that they have a regular character wasting space and screen time. Perhaps that really has been the problem all along. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 15:39:36+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Ken wrote: > >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just >doesn't have a feel for it or care? That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds think alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to the visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end up with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the viewer. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 15:39:36+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Ken wrote: > >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just >doesn't have a feel for it or care? That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds think alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to the visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end up with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the viewer. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 15:45:01+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters >or >> >the >> >> >events in the Buffyverse >> >> >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. >> >> >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. >> >> But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets >screen >> time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, >> impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically >treated >> like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. >> >> My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith >in the >> mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do >this >> with Spike when his souled version was introduced. > >I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of discussion >between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why she >should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite >frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character that >I can tell. > He's no longer a sociopath. But even if it made no difference in Spike's character, I'd think that the fact that a vampire can go get himself a soul would give the demon-fighters pause. >At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his >insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but was >simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. > I think it was pretty clear that Spike's insanity was due to a combination of overwhelming guilt and being tormented by the First Evil. He got sucked into being brainwashed by Firstie so he could forget about the voices in his head telling him to go to hell. His guilt was so overwhelming that he ran away into the Never Leave Me song, unwittingly enabling Firstie to use him as a killing machine. >So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has a >soul now. I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the revelation that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that, or wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. >Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no >one else understands why they should care. >> Yes, the reaction largely has been "Yawn, why should I care." Boy, that sure makes a fascinating storyline. >Shannon > >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a >little!" > >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >> > > > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 15:45:01+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the characters >or >> >the >> >> >events in the Buffyverse >> >> >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. >> >> >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. >> >> But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets >screen >> time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, >> impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically >treated >> like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. >> >> My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop Faith >in the >> mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't do >this >> with Spike when his souled version was introduced. > >I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of discussion >between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why she >should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite >frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character that >I can tell. > He's no longer a sociopath. But even if it made no difference in Spike's character, I'd think that the fact that a vampire can go get himself a soul would give the demon-fighters pause. >At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his >insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but was >simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. > I think it was pretty clear that Spike's insanity was due to a combination of overwhelming guilt and being tormented by the First Evil. He got sucked into being brainwashed by Firstie so he could forget about the voices in his head telling him to go to hell. His guilt was so overwhelming that he ran away into the Never Leave Me song, unwittingly enabling Firstie to use him as a killing machine. >So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has a >soul now. I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the revelation that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that, or wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. >Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no >one else understands why they should care. >> Yes, the reaction largely has been "Yawn, why should I care." Boy, that sure makes a fascinating storyline. >Shannon > >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a >little!" > >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >> > > > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 16:47:31-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312130857.10347.00000406@mb-fh.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time > >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >> Shannon wrote: > >> >> >> > >> > > So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only reason > Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's heads > and chortle behind his hand later. There is a difference between Angel/Angelus, it's the same difference that's between Faith "I staked the deputy mayor and enjoyed it a little too much" and Faith "I'm fresh out of prison and feeling the redemptive urge." A very fine line. So it's not true that the writers refused > to get the chip out of Spike's head years ago because they couldn't bear the > idea of a soulless thing being able to choose good was untenable. Unquestionably if they ever took that position they've changed it. Because Spike *did* choose good without a soul. And so it > really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating up a > thing, she was beating up a man If you're referring to "Dead Things" (the only incident in which I feel Buffy gave Spike more than he deserved, or asked for) whether he was a soulless thing or a man is irrelevant, imo. She was wrong no matter what she thinks or what he is. I don't recall even the most rabid Spike hater defending her actions that night. She went way overboard. whose lack of soul was no more relevant than my > lack of a bushy red beard, and ergo subject to the same human rights as > everyone else. Come on. The whole problem the writers faced with Spike as a > regular was how to have an evil, soulless creature who can't change on the show > every single week without getting staked. They managed it, didn't they? Because Spike definitely changed between the beginning of season 4 and the end of season 6. If they didn't think the lack of > soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. > No, if they think that simply *having* the soul is that important they can have him repent and be reformed in five minutes. That would be a big cheat. It makes soulless Spike and soulless Angel innocent of all evil actions. The soul is merely the essence of life. It isn't knowledge of right and wrong, it isn't a conscience, it isn't the memories, ideas, personality, or beliefs of the human. To have a soul is to have an innate appreciation for life and it's struggles. That's it. > >At least it is to me. It's far more fascinating for me to > >contemplate that demons are evil or good by choice than that they can be > >mystically made good by visiting Lurky and having roaches crawl up their > >nose. > > To me, plotlines, story lines, and big turning points that don't matter are > very dull, frustrating and a waste. (The same way you feel about Dawn's > keyness being wasted.) If something doesn't matter, then don't do it. It's not that the soul doesn't matter. It does matter. It's just not ME's mystical answer to the get out of jail free card. Having the soul really doesn't mean a thing, it's what Spike decides to do now that he has it that will make the difference. Do > something that matters so we in the audience can actually care about something, > and the characters can care about something so the episodes aren't deadly dull. > Which, in the first six weeks of the season, they were. I enjoyed the first few eps. "Beneath You","Same Time Same Place", "Him", and "Selfless" were not deadly dull episodes. > >> > >> > >> >Shannon > >> > > >> >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > >> >little!" > >> > > >> >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >> >

2003-03-12 16:47:31-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312130857.10347.00000406@mb-fh.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time > >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >> Shannon wrote: > >> >> >> > >> > > So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only reason > Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's heads > and chortle behind his hand later. There is a difference between Angel/Angelus, it's the same difference that's between Faith "I staked the deputy mayor and enjoyed it a little too much" and Faith "I'm fresh out of prison and feeling the redemptive urge." A very fine line. So it's not true that the writers refused > to get the chip out of Spike's head years ago because they couldn't bear the > idea of a soulless thing being able to choose good was untenable. Unquestionably if they ever took that position they've changed it. Because Spike *did* choose good without a soul. And so it > really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating up a > thing, she was beating up a man If you're referring to "Dead Things" (the only incident in which I feel Buffy gave Spike more than he deserved, or asked for) whether he was a soulless thing or a man is irrelevant, imo. She was wrong no matter what she thinks or what he is. I don't recall even the most rabid Spike hater defending her actions that night. She went way overboard. whose lack of soul was no more relevant than my > lack of a bushy red beard, and ergo subject to the same human rights as > everyone else. Come on. The whole problem the writers faced with Spike as a > regular was how to have an evil, soulless creature who can't change on the show > every single week without getting staked. They managed it, didn't they? Because Spike definitely changed between the beginning of season 4 and the end of season 6. If they didn't think the lack of > soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. > No, if they think that simply *having* the soul is that important they can have him repent and be reformed in five minutes. That would be a big cheat. It makes soulless Spike and soulless Angel innocent of all evil actions. The soul is merely the essence of life. It isn't knowledge of right and wrong, it isn't a conscience, it isn't the memories, ideas, personality, or beliefs of the human. To have a soul is to have an innate appreciation for life and it's struggles. That's it. > >At least it is to me. It's far more fascinating for me to > >contemplate that demons are evil or good by choice than that they can be > >mystically made good by visiting Lurky and having roaches crawl up their > >nose. > > To me, plotlines, story lines, and big turning points that don't matter are > very dull, frustrating and a waste. (The same way you feel about Dawn's > keyness being wasted.) If something doesn't matter, then don't do it. It's not that the soul doesn't matter. It does matter. It's just not ME's mystical answer to the get out of jail free card. Having the soul really doesn't mean a thing, it's what Spike decides to do now that he has it that will make the difference. Do > something that matters so we in the audience can actually care about something, > and the characters can care about something so the episodes aren't deadly dull. > Which, in the first six weeks of the season, they were. I enjoyed the first few eps. "Beneath You","Same Time Same Place", "Him", and "Selfless" were not deadly dull episodes. > >> > >> > >> >Shannon > >> > > >> >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > >> >little!" > >> > > >> >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >> >

2003-03-12 16:50:57-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:0XMba.2269$nJ5.209499@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Ir-cnUj0xYpC1PKjXTWcog@comcast.com... > > > I keep expecting that some striking revelation about Dawn will appear any > > episode now. Some larger plan at work as the reason for her existence, or > > some nefarious plan to destroy Buffy because of Dawn. Something, > anything, > > to justify the introduction of this character to the show. > > > > > I suspect a couple of reasons for Dawn's introduction into the show that had > nothing to do with in-story reasons. She was basically a one season plot > device to drive the Buffy character to certain emotional points. I think > Joss or the suits at WB wanted a character that their original target > demographic(teenage girls) could identify with, as the Scoobies by season 5 > had grown much older than their stated ages. I also think Dawn was an > insurance policy that a spinoff was to be centered around if SMG hadn't > resigned for seasons 6 and 7. Little did ME realize they wrote Dawn as a > very insipid character from the beginning so that the fans never really > warmed up to her. > All the facts point to this being absolutely correct. But since Joss is the king of characterization why hasn't he stepped up to the plate and given Dawn a little? She was his idea to begin with. Obviously, he cares enough about Faith (a character that hasn't been seen in two years) to step in and totally rewrite an episode about her. If Dawn was his idea, and an idea he had for Buffy for quite a long time, as he claims, what is the thought behind her? Could they really have not noticed how awful and obnoxious they made her? I don't think that's possible. >-- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 16:50:57-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Chris Zabel" <alephnull@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:0XMba.2269$nJ5.209499@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Ir-cnUj0xYpC1PKjXTWcog@comcast.com... > > > I keep expecting that some striking revelation about Dawn will appear any > > episode now. Some larger plan at work as the reason for her existence, or > > some nefarious plan to destroy Buffy because of Dawn. Something, > anything, > > to justify the introduction of this character to the show. > > > > > I suspect a couple of reasons for Dawn's introduction into the show that had > nothing to do with in-story reasons. She was basically a one season plot > device to drive the Buffy character to certain emotional points. I think > Joss or the suits at WB wanted a character that their original target > demographic(teenage girls) could identify with, as the Scoobies by season 5 > had grown much older than their stated ages. I also think Dawn was an > insurance policy that a spinoff was to be centered around if SMG hadn't > resigned for seasons 6 and 7. Little did ME realize they wrote Dawn as a > very insipid character from the beginning so that the fans never really > warmed up to her. > All the facts point to this being absolutely correct. But since Joss is the king of characterization why hasn't he stepped up to the plate and given Dawn a little? She was his idea to begin with. Obviously, he cares enough about Faith (a character that hasn't been seen in two years) to step in and totally rewrite an episode about her. If Dawn was his idea, and an idea he had for Buffy for quite a long time, as he claims, what is the thought behind her? Could they really have not noticed how awful and obnoxious they made her? I don't think that's possible. >-- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 17:11:28-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


<dunce@nomail.com> wrote in message news:3e6f372e.8690600@news.hfx.eastlink.ca... > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > >"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > >news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > >> "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > >news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... > >> > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > >> > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > > > >How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > >fundamentally changed? > > > > I'm just going to jump in here and offer my quick two cents. Hey, that's the beauty of usenet! ;) > > Dawn hasn't changed anyone's character any more or less than any other > person on BTVS. You could argue that the group dynamic hasn't changed > at all with the inclusion or removal of any one character. Oz' leaving > didn't have a huge impact on the group. Oz had an enormous impact on the storyline and on our view of the Buffyverse. He was a live, human, counterpart to Angel. He was the first character that was introduced that made everyone watching the show think "Hmmm....maybe all demons and monsters shouldn't just be ruthlessly slaughtered and disregarded. Maybe they have redeeming qualities, maybe they can be reformed, maybe they can be controlled." Oz is the only redemption success story. I loved the Halloween episode where he sits in the tub and says "I'm not going to change. I'm not going to change." He can control his inner beast, he knows that. He just has to believe it. The Initiative's treatment of Oz was the final straw for Riley. For everyone. There was no question anymore that maybe the Initiatives ideas weren't all bad, or that they weren't completely evil. Another huge turning point in the season and in the Buffyverse. The answer to the demon problem in the Buffyverse isn't rehabilitation or demon boot camp. The power, force, and subterfuge of the United States Military isn't as effective as Buffy alone. And to top it all off, Oz was funny, packed with common sense, and he played in a band. The question is if Oz had never > left and they had never introduced Tara (and Willow's homosexuality) > would any of the group dynamics have been different in season's 4, 5, > and 6? I don't think so. The addition of Tara opened up a new view of > Willow's character but didn't really have an impact on any of the > major events in the seasonal story arcs. Tara was a witch. A witch who believed in Willow's power and her power to be a successful witch. Until Tara, most of Willow's spells were mish-mash and disaster. Tara gave her the confidence, the help, and the knowledge that turned Willow into the most powerful witch in the Buffyverse. Now, if that isn't major storyline and character impact, I don't know what is. > > Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's passive/aggresive tendencies. The > way that Willow talked in a baby voice, called her "Dawny", and > constantly spoke down to her could not have been done with any other > character. Willow was always passive aggressive. Always used baby talk. Ask Rose. > > Dawn was the first female in Xander's life who he didn't regard in > some sexual capacity. Throughout the series we've seen Xander's > various feelings and fantasies for Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Faith, > Joyce, Jenny, Tara, Anya, and various demon women. Xander was aware of > Dawn's crush on him but never responded to it in any other way than > that of a big brother. We never would have seen that with any of the > previously mentioned women. > This much may be true, but what's the point? Xander is capable of caring about a female and not taking what his penis thinks into consideration? Not much of a reason to introduce a whole major character, imo. > The way that Buffy kept ignoring her responsiblities to Dawn and > foisting them on to Giles in season 6 were used to illustrate Giles' > reasoning to leave Sunnydale. Giles is a big shmuck. He has as much responsibility to Dawn as anybody does with Joyce out of the picture. I still can't believe that's the reason ME gave for him to abandon a sucidally depressed Buffy, manically magic Willow, and Dawn the Klepto to go horse back riding in England. -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 17:11:28-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


<dunce@nomail.com> wrote in message news:3e6f372e.8690600@news.hfx.eastlink.ca... > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > >"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > >news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > >> "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > >news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... > >> > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > >> > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > >> > > > > >How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > >fundamentally changed? > > > > I'm just going to jump in here and offer my quick two cents. Hey, that's the beauty of usenet! ;) > > Dawn hasn't changed anyone's character any more or less than any other > person on BTVS. You could argue that the group dynamic hasn't changed > at all with the inclusion or removal of any one character. Oz' leaving > didn't have a huge impact on the group. Oz had an enormous impact on the storyline and on our view of the Buffyverse. He was a live, human, counterpart to Angel. He was the first character that was introduced that made everyone watching the show think "Hmmm....maybe all demons and monsters shouldn't just be ruthlessly slaughtered and disregarded. Maybe they have redeeming qualities, maybe they can be reformed, maybe they can be controlled." Oz is the only redemption success story. I loved the Halloween episode where he sits in the tub and says "I'm not going to change. I'm not going to change." He can control his inner beast, he knows that. He just has to believe it. The Initiative's treatment of Oz was the final straw for Riley. For everyone. There was no question anymore that maybe the Initiatives ideas weren't all bad, or that they weren't completely evil. Another huge turning point in the season and in the Buffyverse. The answer to the demon problem in the Buffyverse isn't rehabilitation or demon boot camp. The power, force, and subterfuge of the United States Military isn't as effective as Buffy alone. And to top it all off, Oz was funny, packed with common sense, and he played in a band. The question is if Oz had never > left and they had never introduced Tara (and Willow's homosexuality) > would any of the group dynamics have been different in season's 4, 5, > and 6? I don't think so. The addition of Tara opened up a new view of > Willow's character but didn't really have an impact on any of the > major events in the seasonal story arcs. Tara was a witch. A witch who believed in Willow's power and her power to be a successful witch. Until Tara, most of Willow's spells were mish-mash and disaster. Tara gave her the confidence, the help, and the knowledge that turned Willow into the most powerful witch in the Buffyverse. Now, if that isn't major storyline and character impact, I don't know what is. > > Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's passive/aggresive tendencies. The > way that Willow talked in a baby voice, called her "Dawny", and > constantly spoke down to her could not have been done with any other > character. Willow was always passive aggressive. Always used baby talk. Ask Rose. > > Dawn was the first female in Xander's life who he didn't regard in > some sexual capacity. Throughout the series we've seen Xander's > various feelings and fantasies for Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Faith, > Joyce, Jenny, Tara, Anya, and various demon women. Xander was aware of > Dawn's crush on him but never responded to it in any other way than > that of a big brother. We never would have seen that with any of the > previously mentioned women. > This much may be true, but what's the point? Xander is capable of caring about a female and not taking what his penis thinks into consideration? Not much of a reason to introduce a whole major character, imo. > The way that Buffy kept ignoring her responsiblities to Dawn and > foisting them on to Giles in season 6 were used to illustrate Giles' > reasoning to leave Sunnydale. Giles is a big shmuck. He has as much responsibility to Dawn as anybody does with Joyce out of the picture. I still can't believe that's the reason ME gave for him to abandon a sucidally depressed Buffy, manically magic Willow, and Dawn the Klepto to go horse back riding in England. -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 17:19:53+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: Don Sample dsample@synapse.net >Date: 3/12/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net> > >In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic ><slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message >> news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... >> > >> > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that >> > implies. >> > >> Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What >difference >> has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving >> the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is >> Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does >making >> sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really >> add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to >> change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > >It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the >world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and >sometimes the two are in conflict. In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the >dilema of choosing between them. > >Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it weren't >for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale now, instead >of a university dropout. She could have sold the house and used the >money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the >Doublemeat Palace. > Actually, Dawn's presence is exactly why Buffy should have sold the house and not worked at Doublemeat Palace. A waitressing or receptionist/secretarial training or construction job will go a lot farther toward supporting for two young women who buy lots of expensive clothes than will a minimum wage fast food job. As will the proceeds from the house. >-- >Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net >Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ >Quando omni flunkus moritati > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 17:19:53+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: Don Sample dsample@synapse.net >Date: 3/12/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net> > >In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic ><slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message >> news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... >> > >> > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that >> > implies. >> > >> Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What >difference >> has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already responsible for saving >> the world. The safety and well being of every citizen in Sunnydale is >> Buffy's responsibility and has been since she was 15 years old. Does >making >> sure Dawn eats a healthy breakfast and does her homework every night really >> add so much to that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to >> change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > >It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the >world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and >sometimes the two are in conflict. In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the >dilema of choosing between them. > >Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it weren't >for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale now, instead >of a university dropout. She could have sold the house and used the >money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the >Doublemeat Palace. > Actually, Dawn's presence is exactly why Buffy should have sold the house and not worked at Doublemeat Palace. A waitressing or receptionist/secretarial training or construction job will go a lot farther toward supporting for two young women who buy lots of expensive clothes than will a minimum wage fast food job. As will the proceeds from the house. >-- >Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net >Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ >Quando omni flunkus moritati > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 17:20:12-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht > news:EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > 'mechanical' death. > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > > Responsibility for your own family is far more important emotionally than > the rest of the world. > Blood is thicker than water. I don't agree with that. And I don't think Buffy would agree with that, either. Buffy has had to choose many times between seeing to it that Dawn and Joyce were safe and leaving to save the rest of the world. And it's not like she wouldn't have cared for any helpless teenager being stalked by a crazed God who wanted to destroy the world. > > Yeah. But why should they have bothered to question their version of reality > at all once they knew the truth. Once you get the facts, why reflect on it > further? Because some freakish entity knows enough about every single personal incident of their intimate existences to create an entire human being that knows everything? What entity has that kind of power? What has been spying on them all these years to that extent? If that isn't the damn creepiest thing you can imagine, what is? > What's done is done. No use crying over spilled milk > True. The Key is here to stay and I'm not crying, really. I just want to understand Whedon's rationale. > > > > -- > > > > Shannon > > > > > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up > a > > > > little!" > > > > > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you > here." > > > > >

2003-03-12 17:20:12-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht > news:EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > 'mechanical' death. > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > > Responsibility for your own family is far more important emotionally than > the rest of the world. > Blood is thicker than water. I don't agree with that. And I don't think Buffy would agree with that, either. Buffy has had to choose many times between seeing to it that Dawn and Joyce were safe and leaving to save the rest of the world. And it's not like she wouldn't have cared for any helpless teenager being stalked by a crazed God who wanted to destroy the world. > > Yeah. But why should they have bothered to question their version of reality > at all once they knew the truth. Once you get the facts, why reflect on it > further? Because some freakish entity knows enough about every single personal incident of their intimate existences to create an entire human being that knows everything? What entity has that kind of power? What has been spying on them all these years to that extent? If that isn't the damn creepiest thing you can imagine, what is? > What's done is done. No use crying over spilled milk > True. The Key is here to stay and I'm not crying, really. I just want to understand Whedon's rationale. > > > > -- > > > > Shannon > > > > > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up > a > > > > little!" > > > > > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you > here." > > > > >

2003-03-12 17:28:12+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Character analysis, imo, is Whedon's genius and why Buffy has been so >brilliant on occasion. He focuses on telling the character's story and the >metaphor evolves. When Whedon does it he is inevitably successful, when the >other writers try it can fall completely flat. Willow's magic addiction, >for example, is a metaphor with a character forced into it, rather than a >character's behavior becoming a naturally evolving metaphor. Thats a good summation of the problems with Wrecked. >What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real >story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone >else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the >hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What >impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, >none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as >it would have without Dawn. She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that implies. I very much doubt she would be in the same place personally without Dawn. [snip] >You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept >responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened >eventually without Dawn. Not in terms of being a parent. >Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their >version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. >Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching >everyone goes through as they grow up. Maybe, I agree that on a narrative level it would have been nice to see something like this, but apart from your suggestion above I struggle to see how they could relate it back to the central themes and metaphors of the show. I don't think meaningful conflict could be built around such soul searching, whereas even though we haven't seen the Faith returns episode I can see how conflict would arise because of it. [snip] -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-12 17:28:12+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:01:37 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Character analysis, imo, is Whedon's genius and why Buffy has been so >brilliant on occasion. He focuses on telling the character's story and the >metaphor evolves. When Whedon does it he is inevitably successful, when the >other writers try it can fall completely flat. Willow's magic addiction, >for example, is a metaphor with a character forced into it, rather than a >character's behavior becoming a naturally evolving metaphor. Thats a good summation of the problems with Wrecked. >What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real >story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone >else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What the >hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be cool? What >impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the storyline, >none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened exactly as >it would have without Dawn. She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that implies. I very much doubt she would be in the same place personally without Dawn. [snip] >You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and accept >responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened >eventually without Dawn. Not in terms of being a parent. >Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their >version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. >Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching >everyone goes through as they grow up. Maybe, I agree that on a narrative level it would have been nice to see something like this, but apart from your suggestion above I struggle to see how they could relate it back to the central themes and metaphors of the show. I don't think meaningful conflict could be built around such soul searching, whereas even though we haven't seen the Faith returns episode I can see how conflict would arise because of it. [snip] -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-12 17:29:31-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:120320031320372484%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <Oe6cnb1U1K5D6PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > news:120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net... > > > In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > > > > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > > > > implies. > > > > > > > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What > > > > difference has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already > > > > responsible for saving the world. The safety and well being of > > > > every citizen in Sunnydale is Buffy's responsibility and has been > > > > since she was 15 years old. Does making sure Dawn eats a healthy > > > > breakfast and does her homework every night really add so much to > > > > that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > > > > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > > > > > > It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the > > > world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and > > > sometimes the two are in conflict. > > > > Far be it from me to belittle the efforts of child raising but I > > would hardly compare it to being responsible for the safety and well > > being of the entire world. Sending your kid to kindergarten is > > tough, but it hardly is the same thing as sending your lover to hell. > > She had to protect Dawn from a hellgod, and at the end she was > presented with the choice of having to kill her, or let the world be > destroyed. > > > > > In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the > > > dilema of choosing between them. > > > > > And in "Becoming" Buffy was given the dilemma of choosing between > > someone she loved and the world. She chose the world. Of course, > > Angel wasn't completely innocent and Dawn was. Are you saying Buffy > > would have chosen differently in "The Gift" if Joyce had been the > > Key? Xander? Any innocent girl off the street? No way. She was > > done killing people she cared about for the sake of duty and it > > wouldn't have mattered who it was. > > It is different when it's your child. Buffy took the opposite side > when she killed Angel. She killed the man she loved to save the world. > In _The Gift_ she refused to do that with Dawn. > She sent Angel to hell because he created the problem that forced her to do it. And it was the hardest thing she's ever done. She wasn't going to do that again to anyone, for any reason. Especially not to an innocent child that had no culpability, whatsoever. Any innocent child. Buffy would have jumped into that portal to save any innocent. You know that. > > > > Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it > > > weren't for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale > > > now, instead of a university dropout. > > > > We don't know that. According to you Joyce would have had a brain > > tumor without Dawn, anyway. Buffy still drops out of school to care > > for her Mom, she still can't get back in. Dawn makes no difference. > > Buffy didn't drop out of school until after her mother died. Without > the burden of having to care for Dawn she could have taken up her > classes again. > Who knows if she would have? Buffy wasn't keeping up with her classes when Joyce was alive. She might have just dropped them all anyway because she was too depressed and overwhelmed to deal with poetry, term papers, final exams, paying the bills, repairing the house, and saving the world, again. Dawn was not an essential factor in that storyline. > > > > She could have sold the house and used the > > > money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the > > > Doublemeat Palace. > > > > According to the loan officer at the bank houses in Sunnydale aren't worth > > that much. > > No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give > a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. > That isn't the same as selling the house. Even in a depressed market > like Sunnydale that house of hers has got to be worth at least a > quarter of a million. > Three words, Don. "Location, Location, Location". ;) Calling Sunnydale a depressed market is like calling Detroit a decent neighborhood. > > > Dawn is no reason at all for Buffy to keep the house and stay in > > Sunnydale. If anything having to care for Dawn with no reliable back up is > > incentive to get the heck out of Sunnydale. > > Buffy stays in Sunnydale because of the Hellmouth, and her duty as the > Slayer. Right, not because of Dawn. Again, Dawn's existence has no impact on Buffy's life or decisions. >-- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 17:29:31-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:120320031320372484%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <Oe6cnb1U1K5D6PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > news:120320031142490153%dsample@synapse.net... > > > In article <J2ydnRaxq_rh1PKjXTWcoA@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message > > > > news:02jt6vgditqep83d962l4ursjgksce62j4@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > > She's essentially become a parent with all the responsibilities that > > > > > implies. > > > > > > > > > Yes, but as I pointed out in my reply to Wouter, who cares? What > > > > difference has that made in Buffy's life? The woman is already > > > > responsible for saving the world. The safety and well being of > > > > every citizen in Sunnydale is Buffy's responsibility and has been > > > > since she was 15 years old. Does making sure Dawn eats a healthy > > > > breakfast and does her homework every night really add so much to > > > > that burden? Not from what I can tell. It hasn't seemed to > > > > change Buffy, or her lifestyle, at all. > > > > > > It has changed Buffy profoundly. The responsiblity for saving the > > > world is nothing like the responsibility for caring for a child, and > > > sometimes the two are in conflict. > > > > Far be it from me to belittle the efforts of child raising but I > > would hardly compare it to being responsible for the safety and well > > being of the entire world. Sending your kid to kindergarten is > > tough, but it hardly is the same thing as sending your lover to hell. > > She had to protect Dawn from a hellgod, and at the end she was > presented with the choice of having to kill her, or let the world be > destroyed. > > > > > In _The Gift_ Buffy was given the > > > dilema of choosing between them. > > > > > And in "Becoming" Buffy was given the dilemma of choosing between > > someone she loved and the world. She chose the world. Of course, > > Angel wasn't completely innocent and Dawn was. Are you saying Buffy > > would have chosen differently in "The Gift" if Joyce had been the > > Key? Xander? Any innocent girl off the street? No way. She was > > done killing people she cared about for the sake of duty and it > > wouldn't have mattered who it was. > > It is different when it's your child. Buffy took the opposite side > when she killed Angel. She killed the man she loved to save the world. > In _The Gift_ she refused to do that with Dawn. > She sent Angel to hell because he created the problem that forced her to do it. And it was the hardest thing she's ever done. She wasn't going to do that again to anyone, for any reason. Especially not to an innocent child that had no culpability, whatsoever. Any innocent child. Buffy would have jumped into that portal to save any innocent. You know that. > > > > Her lifestyle has been turned completely on its ear too. If it > > > weren't for Dawn Buffy would probably be a senior at UCSunnydale > > > now, instead of a university dropout. > > > > We don't know that. According to you Joyce would have had a brain > > tumor without Dawn, anyway. Buffy still drops out of school to care > > for her Mom, she still can't get back in. Dawn makes no difference. > > Buffy didn't drop out of school until after her mother died. Without > the burden of having to care for Dawn she could have taken up her > classes again. > Who knows if she would have? Buffy wasn't keeping up with her classes when Joyce was alive. She might have just dropped them all anyway because she was too depressed and overwhelmed to deal with poetry, term papers, final exams, paying the bills, repairing the house, and saving the world, again. Dawn was not an essential factor in that storyline. > > > > She could have sold the house and used the > > > money from it to finance her education. No having to work at the > > > Doublemeat Palace. > > > > According to the loan officer at the bank houses in Sunnydale aren't worth > > that much. > > No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give > a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. > That isn't the same as selling the house. Even in a depressed market > like Sunnydale that house of hers has got to be worth at least a > quarter of a million. > Three words, Don. "Location, Location, Location". ;) Calling Sunnydale a depressed market is like calling Detroit a decent neighborhood. > > > Dawn is no reason at all for Buffy to keep the house and stay in > > Sunnydale. If anything having to care for Dawn with no reliable back up is > > incentive to get the heck out of Sunnydale. > > Buffy stays in Sunnydale because of the Hellmouth, and her duty as the > Slayer. Right, not because of Dawn. Again, Dawn's existence has no impact on Buffy's life or decisions. >-- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-12 17:35:45-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312131601.10347.00000407@mb-fh.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <f_WcnelWRuz_6vKjXTWcrg@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030312103936.08589.00000172@mb-ml.aol.com... > >> Ken wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith > >> >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just > >> >doesn't have a feel for it or care? > >> > >> That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds > >think > >> alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a > >> regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to > >the > >> visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end > >up > >> with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the > >viewer. > >> > >Anya: "Omigosh! It's a White Elephant! They are so rare! How did it get > >here? Can I look closer at it?" > > > > Yes, I already said Anya reacted. > > >> > >Buffy: "The White Elephant knows that it was bad and that's why it's here > >now." > > Yes, I've already said Buffy reacted to the White Elephant. > > > > >Dawn: "What does that mean exactly? Is the White Elephant a good Elephant > >now? Are you in love with it because it's a White Elephant?" > > > > What would be closer to the truth is: "What white elephant? I've never heard > of a white elephant, I know nothing about white elephants and unless you can > define a white elephant, as far as I'm concerned it isn't there. Let's get > back to talking about my love life." > > > Buffy" "Well, a white elephant is uh....an elephant....only it's um....white. And I don't really know why it's white, it just is." Because the truth is Buffy doesn't *know* what having a soul means. She knows it made Angel not Angelus and that's about it. That's all any of us knows for sure. We can, have, and probably will, continue to speculate about it, but I think Buffy gave Dawn the only honest answer she could give. > >Xander: "I don't care how much you want to feel the White Elephant. I hate > >the White Elephant and I don't want it in >my apartment." > > More like: "There are no white elephants, just normal ordinary house pets. > You might think there's a white elephant here but you're just wishing. Why do > I have to take care of your nasty dog?" > > Besides which, you're again missing my point that we got no reaction from Dawn, > Xander, Giles, or Willow to learning about his soul. All we got were later > comments, comments that indicated very little interest. The inital reactions were probably pretty similar. Especially Xanders. If you recall, at the end of the day he pretty much thought Angel was a vampire, souled or not. > > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-12 17:35:45-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312131601.10347.00000407@mb-fh.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <f_WcnelWRuz_6vKjXTWcrg@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030312103936.08589.00000172@mb-ml.aol.com... > >> Ken wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith > >> >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just > >> >doesn't have a feel for it or care? > >> > >> That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds > >think > >> alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a > >> regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to > >the > >> visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end > >up > >> with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the > >viewer. > >> > >Anya: "Omigosh! It's a White Elephant! They are so rare! How did it get > >here? Can I look closer at it?" > > > > Yes, I already said Anya reacted. > > >> > >Buffy: "The White Elephant knows that it was bad and that's why it's here > >now." > > Yes, I've already said Buffy reacted to the White Elephant. > > > > >Dawn: "What does that mean exactly? Is the White Elephant a good Elephant > >now? Are you in love with it because it's a White Elephant?" > > > > What would be closer to the truth is: "What white elephant? I've never heard > of a white elephant, I know nothing about white elephants and unless you can > define a white elephant, as far as I'm concerned it isn't there. Let's get > back to talking about my love life." > > > Buffy" "Well, a white elephant is uh....an elephant....only it's um....white. And I don't really know why it's white, it just is." Because the truth is Buffy doesn't *know* what having a soul means. She knows it made Angel not Angelus and that's about it. That's all any of us knows for sure. We can, have, and probably will, continue to speculate about it, but I think Buffy gave Dawn the only honest answer she could give. > >Xander: "I don't care how much you want to feel the White Elephant. I hate > >the White Elephant and I don't want it in >my apartment." > > More like: "There are no white elephants, just normal ordinary house pets. > You might think there's a white elephant here but you're just wishing. Why do > I have to take care of your nasty dog?" > > Besides which, you're again missing my point that we got no reaction from Dawn, > Xander, Giles, or Willow to learning about his soul. All we got were later > comments, comments that indicated very little interest. The inital reactions were probably pretty similar. Especially Xanders. If you recall, at the end of the day he pretty much thought Angel was a vampire, souled or not. > > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-12 17:44:14-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <JSGdndmPELNvKfKjXTWcqg@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > Right, not because of Dawn. Again, Dawn's existence has no impact on > Buffy's life or decisions. > > >-- > Shannon If it wasn't for Dawn Buffy would have turned herself into a splat at the base of Glory's tower after Willow resurrected her. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 17:44:14-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <JSGdndmPELNvKfKjXTWcqg@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > Right, not because of Dawn. Again, Dawn's existence has no impact on > Buffy's life or decisions. > > >-- > Shannon If it wasn't for Dawn Buffy would have turned herself into a splat at the base of Glory's tower after Willow resurrected her. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 18:08:57+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the >characters >> >or >> >> >the >> >> >> >events in the Buffyverse >> >> >> >> >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. >> >> >> >> >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. >> >> >> >> But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets >> >screen >> >> time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, >> >> impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically >> >treated >> >> like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. >> >> >> >> My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop >Faith >> >in the >> >> mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't >do >> >this >> >> with Spike when his souled version was introduced. >> > >> >I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of >discussion >> >between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why >she >> >should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite >> >frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character >that >> >I can tell. >> > >> >> He's no longer a sociopath. > >I don't know about that. He was still turning little angels around to face >backwards even after he left the >basement. Which means he had a conscience, which is the principal change. That and Essence of William being added to the mix. >Spike's behavior maybe somewhat >arbitrary, but only if you presume he was completely at FE's mercy and >devoid of free will. That's the position that the show has taken. If I am forced to accept the shows' positions that I hate, such as "Spike was a totally evil scumbag even in late S5 when he got all his bones broken trying to save Dawn", I will also accept the shows' positions that are palatable to me, otherwise, I'm just believing stuff I don't like and that would really be a self-punishing way to watch. :) >I'm not ready to assume that, yet. > > But even if it made no difference in Spike's >> character, I'd think that the fact that a vampire can go get himself a >soul >> would give the demon-fighters pause. >> >Beyond any doubt it means that demons >have free will. They are capable of >trying to be good. Fine, so what does that mean to the Scoobies? >Spike has proven that. I'm satisfied that >he's trying. But my point is...what impact does this knowledge have on the Scoobs and their reactions to vampires in general? >I'm not satisfied that he's accomplished it, or that it's a given now that >he has a soul. Of course not. Being "not a sociopath" isn't the same as being good. Lots of bad people aren't sociopaths. Some of them are narcissists instead. > >> >At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his >> >insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but >was >> >simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. >> > >> >> I think it was pretty clear that Spike's insanity was due to a combination >of >> overwhelming guilt and being tormented by the First Evil. He got sucked >into >> being brainwashed by Firstie so he could forget about the voices in his >head >> telling him to go to hell. His guilt was so overwhelming that he ran away >into >> the Never Leave Me song, unwittingly enabling Firstie to use him as a >killing >> machine. >> >So, where are the voices telling him to go >hell now? I believe the implication is that once Buffy said she believes in him, it helped Spike stop torturing himself and move on. Is it realistic that a guy suffering from severe mental illness get better so quick because Buffy Summers says "I believe in you?" No, but since ME doesn't have 90 years to tell Spike's recovery story, they have to accelerate it or we're going to get a year of crazy, depressed behavior and as we know from S6, that's a drag. >Where's the >overwhelming guilt now? Based on his spoiler actions in future spoiler >scenes with a certain spoiler Slayer's son I'd say guilt over past actions >plays a very small role in his decision making today. > Guilt shouldn't play a role in decision making. And yes, they did accelerate Spike's extreme guilt phase. It was an unfortunate necessity. >> >So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has >a >> >soul now. >> >> I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the >revelation >> that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. >It >> makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that > >Dawn did react to that. Buffy told her that Spike knew what he had done was >wrong and that's why he went to get a soul. And Dawn's response, basically, >was "So what? What does that mean? We didn't see Dawn react to the *news*. We saw Dawn discuss Spike's soul in the context of her own cynicism about love relationships. And "what does that mean", by the way, made her sound either really stupid or amazingly ignorant. I guess the monks didn't do a very good job with the false memories. If the only way Spike's soul impacts Dawn -- a girl who once regarded him as a brother, who saw him break all a bunch of bones in trying to save her, and came to violently hate him due to what he did to her sister -- is to reveal to the audience how stupid she is, that's a shame. As far as her life goes, Spike's arrival with soul had zero impact upon her. So, for the zillionth time, I make the point that they did not do with Spike what Jane said was such a great thing they did with Faith. >What does that change?" Buffy didn't, >couldn't, answer those questions. Which in itself was really lame and pathetic. I mean... "duh." It means he's a person, is capable of being good and redeeming himself, can no longer be staked, and is fully accountable for his actions except when he's being mind-controlled, just like Dawn, Buffy and everyone else. I mean... "duh". How could they write Dawn and Buffy as so utterly dumb? >So she, and we, are left to wonder. I didn't wonder a thing. I know what Spike having a soul means and what it changes. I know it means he can do good, not that he will do good. Just like with Angel, whom Buffy and Dawn knew and had first hand experience with. I mean, you'd think he never existed, they way they seem to be totally floored at what "having a soul means." > >> wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what >impact >> that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. > >Well, if they're being attacked by vampires I don't expect them to stop and >chat about souls first. No. But heaven forbid that any character should have an intellectual or philosophical thought for five seconds rather than "soul, huh, maybe he'll feel bad about not picking up his towels, now let's get back to talking about my shitty love life." Really, I was looking so forward to how the fact of the utter unprecedented shock of a vampire seeking a soul would affect the show. As it turned out, they might as well not have done it at all. Why not just have had the soul be an accident? At least then the collective shrug from the Scoobs would make a bit of sense. And the audience wouldn't feel so cheated after "Grave." >And if Buffy is staking them fresh from the grave >then she need not worry that they have a soul. >> >> >Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no >> >one else understands why they should care. >> >> >> >> Yes, the reaction largely has been "Yawn, why should I care." Boy, that >sure >> makes a fascinating storyline. >> >It is fascinating if it means that it doesn't really matter if something has >a soul or not. So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only reason Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's heads and chortle behind his hand later. So it's not true that the writers refused to get the chip out of Spike's head years ago because they couldn't bear the idea of a soulless thing being able to choose good was untenable. And so it really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating up a thing, she was beating up a man whose lack of soul was no more relevant than my lack of a bushy red beard, and ergo subject to the same human rights as everyone else. Come on. The whole problem the writers faced with Spike as a regular was how to have an evil, soulless creature who can't change on the show every single week without getting staked. If they didn't think the lack of soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. >At least it is to me. It's far more fascinating for me to >contemplate that demons are evil or good by choice than that they can be >mystically made good by visiting Lurky and having roaches crawl up their >nose. To me, plotlines, story lines, and big turning points that don't matter are very dull, frustrating and a waste. (The same way you feel about Dawn's keyness being wasted.) If something doesn't matter, then don't do it. Do something that matters so we in the audience can actually care about something, and the characters can care about something so the episodes aren't deadly dull. Which, in the first six weeks of the season, they were. And not all because of Spike...the writers didn't just make this "who cares" mistake with his story. > >Showing that the characters have free will and that they are accountable for >their actions, all of their actions all of the time, is far more interesting >than the idea that they can be made puppets of evil at FE's whim, imo. > >> >> >> >Shannon >> > >> >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a >> >little!" >> > >> >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 18:08:57+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >But you can't say that Spike never made any impact on the >characters >> >or >> >> >the >> >> >> >events in the Buffyverse >> >> >> >> >> >> I was talking about Soul Spike. >> >> >> >> >> >Even Soul Spike is a major player. >> >> >> >> But the point I was making was not whether Spike is a player or gets >> >screen >> >> time, but the way his arrival, and the news of his soul, >> >> impacted/affected/impressed the other characters. It was basically >> >treated >> >> like a non-issue except for Buffy and Anya. >> >> >> >> My post was based on Jane Espenson's point that Joss had them drop >Faith >> >in the >> >> mix and show the effect she has on the other characters. They didn't >do >> >this >> >> with Spike when his souled version was introduced. >> > >> >I noticed last night in "Him" that Spike's soul was an object of >discussion >> >between Dawn and Buffy, too. Apparently, Dawn doesn't understand why >she >> >should be impressed with the fact that Spike went to get a soul and quite >> >frankly I don't either. It hasn't made any difference to his character >that >> >I can tell. >> > >> >> He's no longer a sociopath. > >I don't know about that. He was still turning little angels around to face >backwards even after he left the >basement. Which means he had a conscience, which is the principal change. That and Essence of William being added to the mix. >Spike's behavior maybe somewhat >arbitrary, but only if you presume he was completely at FE's mercy and >devoid of free will. That's the position that the show has taken. If I am forced to accept the shows' positions that I hate, such as "Spike was a totally evil scumbag even in late S5 when he got all his bones broken trying to save Dawn", I will also accept the shows' positions that are palatable to me, otherwise, I'm just believing stuff I don't like and that would really be a self-punishing way to watch. :) >I'm not ready to assume that, yet. > > But even if it made no difference in Spike's >> character, I'd think that the fact that a vampire can go get himself a >soul >> would give the demon-fighters pause. >> >Beyond any doubt it means that demons >have free will. They are capable of >trying to be good. Fine, so what does that mean to the Scoobies? >Spike has proven that. I'm satisfied that >he's trying. But my point is...what impact does this knowledge have on the Scoobs and their reactions to vampires in general? >I'm not satisfied that he's accomplished it, or that it's a given now that >he has a soul. Of course not. Being "not a sociopath" isn't the same as being good. Lots of bad people aren't sociopaths. Some of them are narcissists instead. > >> >At first, when Spike was crazy, I was intrigued. Now that it seems his >> >insanity had nothing to do with guilt or dual personality disorder, but >was >> >simply FE induced it seems dull and meaningless. >> > >> >> I think it was pretty clear that Spike's insanity was due to a combination >of >> overwhelming guilt and being tormented by the First Evil. He got sucked >into >> being brainwashed by Firstie so he could forget about the voices in his >head >> telling him to go to hell. His guilt was so overwhelming that he ran away >into >> the Never Leave Me song, unwittingly enabling Firstie to use him as a >killing >> machine. >> >So, where are the voices telling him to go >hell now? I believe the implication is that once Buffy said she believes in him, it helped Spike stop torturing himself and move on. Is it realistic that a guy suffering from severe mental illness get better so quick because Buffy Summers says "I believe in you?" No, but since ME doesn't have 90 years to tell Spike's recovery story, they have to accelerate it or we're going to get a year of crazy, depressed behavior and as we know from S6, that's a drag. >Where's the >overwhelming guilt now? Based on his spoiler actions in future spoiler >scenes with a certain spoiler Slayer's son I'd say guilt over past actions >plays a very small role in his decision making today. > Guilt shouldn't play a role in decision making. And yes, they did accelerate Spike's extreme guilt phase. It was an unfortunate necessity. >> >So, ME really did explore the gang's reaction to the fact that Spike has >a >> >soul now. >> >> I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the >revelation >> that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. >It >> makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that > >Dawn did react to that. Buffy told her that Spike knew what he had done was >wrong and that's why he went to get a soul. And Dawn's response, basically, >was "So what? What does that mean? We didn't see Dawn react to the *news*. We saw Dawn discuss Spike's soul in the context of her own cynicism about love relationships. And "what does that mean", by the way, made her sound either really stupid or amazingly ignorant. I guess the monks didn't do a very good job with the false memories. If the only way Spike's soul impacts Dawn -- a girl who once regarded him as a brother, who saw him break all a bunch of bones in trying to save her, and came to violently hate him due to what he did to her sister -- is to reveal to the audience how stupid she is, that's a shame. As far as her life goes, Spike's arrival with soul had zero impact upon her. So, for the zillionth time, I make the point that they did not do with Spike what Jane said was such a great thing they did with Faith. >What does that change?" Buffy didn't, >couldn't, answer those questions. Which in itself was really lame and pathetic. I mean... "duh." It means he's a person, is capable of being good and redeeming himself, can no longer be staked, and is fully accountable for his actions except when he's being mind-controlled, just like Dawn, Buffy and everyone else. I mean... "duh". How could they write Dawn and Buffy as so utterly dumb? >So she, and we, are left to wonder. I didn't wonder a thing. I know what Spike having a soul means and what it changes. I know it means he can do good, not that he will do good. Just like with Angel, whom Buffy and Dawn knew and had first hand experience with. I mean, you'd think he never existed, they way they seem to be totally floored at what "having a soul means." > >> wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what >impact >> that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. > >Well, if they're being attacked by vampires I don't expect them to stop and >chat about souls first. No. But heaven forbid that any character should have an intellectual or philosophical thought for five seconds rather than "soul, huh, maybe he'll feel bad about not picking up his towels, now let's get back to talking about my shitty love life." Really, I was looking so forward to how the fact of the utter unprecedented shock of a vampire seeking a soul would affect the show. As it turned out, they might as well not have done it at all. Why not just have had the soul be an accident? At least then the collective shrug from the Scoobs would make a bit of sense. And the audience wouldn't feel so cheated after "Grave." >And if Buffy is staking them fresh from the grave >then she need not worry that they have a soul. >> >> >Anya was somewhat impressed and curious, Buffy was touched, no >> >one else understands why they should care. >> >> >> >> Yes, the reaction largely has been "Yawn, why should I care." Boy, that >sure >> makes a fascinating storyline. >> >It is fascinating if it means that it doesn't really matter if something has >a soul or not. So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only reason Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's heads and chortle behind his hand later. So it's not true that the writers refused to get the chip out of Spike's head years ago because they couldn't bear the idea of a soulless thing being able to choose good was untenable. And so it really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating up a thing, she was beating up a man whose lack of soul was no more relevant than my lack of a bushy red beard, and ergo subject to the same human rights as everyone else. Come on. The whole problem the writers faced with Spike as a regular was how to have an evil, soulless creature who can't change on the show every single week without getting staked. If they didn't think the lack of soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. >At least it is to me. It's far more fascinating for me to >contemplate that demons are evil or good by choice than that they can be >mystically made good by visiting Lurky and having roaches crawl up their >nose. To me, plotlines, story lines, and big turning points that don't matter are very dull, frustrating and a waste. (The same way you feel about Dawn's keyness being wasted.) If something doesn't matter, then don't do it. Do something that matters so we in the audience can actually care about something, and the characters can care about something so the episodes aren't deadly dull. Which, in the first six weeks of the season, they were. And not all because of Spike...the writers didn't just make this "who cares" mistake with his story. > >Showing that the characters have free will and that they are accountable for >their actions, all of their actions all of the time, is far more interesting >than the idea that they can be made puppets of evil at FE's whim, imo. > >> >> >> >Shannon >> > >> >Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a >> >little!" >> > >> >Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 18:16:01+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <f_WcnelWRuz_6vKjXTWcrg@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030312103936.08589.00000172@mb-ml.aol.com... >> Ken wrote: >> >> > >> >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith >> >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just >> >doesn't have a feel for it or care? >> >> That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds >think >> alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a >> regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to >the >> visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end >up >> with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the >viewer. >> >Anya: "Omigosh! It's a White Elephant! They are so rare! How did it get >here? Can I look closer at it?" > Yes, I already said Anya reacted. >> >Buffy: "The White Elephant knows that it was bad and that's why it's here >now." Yes, I've already said Buffy reacted to the White Elephant. > >Dawn: "What does that mean exactly? Is the White Elephant a good Elephant >now? Are you in love with it because it's a White Elephant?" > What would be closer to the truth is: "What white elephant? I've never heard of a white elephant, I know nothing about white elephants and unless you can define a white elephant, as far as I'm concerned it isn't there. Let's get back to talking about my love life." > >Xander: "I don't care how much you want to feel the White Elephant. I hate >the White Elephant and I don't want it in >my apartment." More like: "There are no white elephants, just normal ordinary house pets. You might think there's a white elephant here but you're just wishing. Why do I have to take care of your nasty dog?" Besides which, you're again missing my point that we got no reaction from Dawn, Xander, Giles, or Willow to learning about his soul. All we got were later comments, comments that indicated very little interest. I think the initial reaction is vitally important, ymmv. > >Shannon >> > > > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 18:16:01+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <f_WcnelWRuz_6vKjXTWcrg@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030312103936.08589.00000172@mb-ml.aol.com... >> Ken wrote: >> >> > >> >Perhaps JW is emotionally and intellectually invested in the Faith >> >storyline, whereas someone else pushed for "soul Spike" and JW just >> >doesn't have a feel for it or care? >> >> That's a point I just made in response to Wally, so maybe great minds >think >> alike. But that in itself is a huge problem. Having a major change in a >> regular character occur, and having that change just not matter a damn to >the >> visionary producer and to the other characters, is a big problem. You end >up >> with a big white elephant in the room that no one seems to see but the >viewer. >> >Anya: "Omigosh! It's a White Elephant! They are so rare! How did it get >here? Can I look closer at it?" > Yes, I already said Anya reacted. >> >Buffy: "The White Elephant knows that it was bad and that's why it's here >now." Yes, I've already said Buffy reacted to the White Elephant. > >Dawn: "What does that mean exactly? Is the White Elephant a good Elephant >now? Are you in love with it because it's a White Elephant?" > What would be closer to the truth is: "What white elephant? I've never heard of a white elephant, I know nothing about white elephants and unless you can define a white elephant, as far as I'm concerned it isn't there. Let's get back to talking about my love life." > >Xander: "I don't care how much you want to feel the White Elephant. I hate >the White Elephant and I don't want it in >my apartment." More like: "There are no white elephants, just normal ordinary house pets. You might think there's a white elephant here but you're just wishing. Why do I have to take care of your nasty dog?" Besides which, you're again missing my point that we got no reaction from Dawn, Xander, Giles, or Willow to learning about his soul. All we got were later comments, comments that indicated very little interest. I think the initial reaction is vitally important, ymmv. > >Shannon >> > > > > > > > > Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 18:25:47+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Don wrote; > >No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give >a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. He said there was little or no equity, which means most of the money from the sale would be spent paying back the lender. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 18:25:47+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Don wrote; > >No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give >a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. He said there was little or no equity, which means most of the money from the sale would be spent paying back the lender. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 18:53:11-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > 'mechanical' death. > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 18:53:11-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > 'mechanical' death. > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-12 19:52:27+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com... > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to > sacrifice > > > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and > then > > > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > > > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in > > the > > > course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic > > since > > > Season 3. > > > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no > opening > > up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that dive of > > the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical killed > Buffy > > and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the cause of > death > > wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's > her job. Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more 'mechanical' death. In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and > > accept > > > responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > > > eventually without Dawn. > > > > She would have accepted responsibility for Dawn without Dawn? > > She's already accepted responsibility for saving the world. What has Dawn > added to that? Is bringing home a hamburger from the Double Meat Palace or > going to a parent/teacher conference really that much more taxing than > fighting off demonic evil every night to save humanity? Dawn is just one > more person added to the mix of people that Buffy has taken on the > responsibility of saving and taking care of. Responsibility for your own family is far more important emotionally than the rest of the world. Blood is thicker than water. > > > With Dawn she had an extra mouth to feed, and to take care of. Without > Dawn > > she might have overcome the financial troubles brought about her mothers > > illness and death, and not dropped out of college. > > > Even with Dawn she might have overcome her financial troubles and not > dropped out of college. In fact, if anything, having Dawn around should > have helped her more and it didn't. Dawn is still eligible to receive child > support. And she should have received Social Security benefits after > Joyce's death until she was 18. Furthermore, life insurance money *cannot* > be included in the estate of the deceased. All of Joyce's life insurance > money belonged to Dawn and Buffy and Joyce's creditors had no claim to it. > In other words, the gang really screwed up when they payed Joyce's medical > bills with Buffy and Dawn's inheritance. They're probably not legal or financial experts :) > > > > > > > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > > > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal > lives. > > > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > > > everyone goes through as they grow up. > > > > > > > Well Dawn's existence was explained to the characters. They KNEW that > their > > memories concerning Dawn where wrong. > > > Exactly. And even *that* didn't make an impact on them! Do you see what > I'm getting at here? They found out that this entity has been dropped into > their lives and their brains and she is chock full of knowledge about them > and their past. And no one even questions it. How does Dawn know what she > knows? Who has been watching them all of this time and recording enough > information about their personalities, their families, their history, > everything, to insert it into the memory of a human being and have her fit > in like she has always belonged? Eh! Who cares? It's no big deal. On to > the next apocalypse. Yeah. But why should they have bothered to question their version of reality at all once they knew the truth. Once you get the facts, why reflect on it further? What's done is done. No use crying over spilled milk > > > > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > > > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > > > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character > that > > > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > > > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > > > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. > > > > Yes it is. > > Dawn (the Key) needed to be protected (by Buffy). > > Dawn bleeds and her blood opens up the dimensions that will ultimately > > destroy the world. > > Buffy dies saving the world that is threatened because Dawn's blood had > > opened up the dimensions. > > Buffy is brought back by Willow (slightly altered, Spike is able to hit > her > > without chip induced pain). > > Buffy is so out of balance she doesn't notice Willow's problems (wrong > thing > > one), and she even has a relationship of sorts with Spike! (wrong thing > two) > > Which would not have happened if she hadn't died to save Dawn. > > The monks have a lot to answer for. > > > > IMO season 6 was the fall-out of the creation of Dawn. > > > But, all of those things might have just as easily happened without Dawn. > Buffy could have sacrificed herself in a magic portal to save any innocent > child. The blood thing would have to change, obviously, but since that > doesn't make any sense anyway what's the difference? Willow still would > have brought her back, Buffy still would have been depressed, she still > would have had sex with Spike (after all that attraction and the reasons > behind it, too, started well before Dawn's appearance). The monks made the Key into a sister, because that would increase the Slayers emotional involvement. As I said: Blood is thicker than water. If there had been another girl (not being a relative) or another portal, or another magical death yeah, maybe, but what would have been the odds? And couldn't Buffy sooner have suffered a 'mechanical' death (as Tara did). > > > > > I agree that the Monk's have a lot to answer for, but apparently ME and > Whedon don't. > > > > > > > -- > > > Shannon > > > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > > > little!" > > > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address > >

2003-03-12 19:52:27+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com... > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to > sacrifice > > > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and > then > > > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > > > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in > > the > > > course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic > > since > > > Season 3. > > > > Err, with no Dawn there would not have been a key, and therefore no > opening > > up of the dimensions. And therefore no need for Buffy to take that dive of > > the tower (which would not have been there). Something magical killed > Buffy > > and because of that Willow was able to bring her back. If the cause of > death > > wasn't magical, it couldn't have been done. > > > Oh, come on. There has to be a hundred or more "magical" ways in the > Buffyverse that Buffy might have died therefore giving Willow the leeway she > needed to bring her back. Sure, that particular portal, that particular > tower, that particular reason, wouldn't have existed. But there's an > apocalypse *every* year. There's a reason for Buffy to sacrifice herself to > save the world *every* year. We already know that she would do it, she has > done it. She would have sacrificed herself for a complete stranger. That's > her job. Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more 'mechanical' death. In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > You might argue that with Joyce dying Buffy was forced to grow up and > > accept > > > responsibility for Dawn. True. But, that too would have happened > > > eventually without Dawn. > > > > She would have accepted responsibility for Dawn without Dawn? > > She's already accepted responsibility for saving the world. What has Dawn > added to that? Is bringing home a hamburger from the Double Meat Palace or > going to a parent/teacher conference really that much more taxing than > fighting off demonic evil every night to save humanity? Dawn is just one > more person added to the mix of people that Buffy has taken on the > responsibility of saving and taking care of. Responsibility for your own family is far more important emotionally than the rest of the world. Blood is thicker than water. > > > With Dawn she had an extra mouth to feed, and to take care of. Without > Dawn > > she might have overcome the financial troubles brought about her mothers > > illness and death, and not dropped out of college. > > > Even with Dawn she might have overcome her financial troubles and not > dropped out of college. In fact, if anything, having Dawn around should > have helped her more and it didn't. Dawn is still eligible to receive child > support. And she should have received Social Security benefits after > Joyce's death until she was 18. Furthermore, life insurance money *cannot* > be included in the estate of the deceased. All of Joyce's life insurance > money belonged to Dawn and Buffy and Joyce's creditors had no claim to it. > In other words, the gang really screwed up when they payed Joyce's medical > bills with Buffy and Dawn's inheritance. They're probably not legal or financial experts :) > > > > > > > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > > > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal > lives. > > > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > > > everyone goes through as they grow up. > > > > > > > Well Dawn's existence was explained to the characters. They KNEW that > their > > memories concerning Dawn where wrong. > > > Exactly. And even *that* didn't make an impact on them! Do you see what > I'm getting at here? They found out that this entity has been dropped into > their lives and their brains and she is chock full of knowledge about them > and their past. And no one even questions it. How does Dawn know what she > knows? Who has been watching them all of this time and recording enough > information about their personalities, their families, their history, > everything, to insert it into the memory of a human being and have her fit > in like she has always belonged? Eh! Who cares? It's no big deal. On to > the next apocalypse. Yeah. But why should they have bothered to question their version of reality at all once they knew the truth. Once you get the facts, why reflect on it further? What's done is done. No use crying over spilled milk > > > > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > > > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > > > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character > that > > > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > > > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > > > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. > > > > Yes it is. > > Dawn (the Key) needed to be protected (by Buffy). > > Dawn bleeds and her blood opens up the dimensions that will ultimately > > destroy the world. > > Buffy dies saving the world that is threatened because Dawn's blood had > > opened up the dimensions. > > Buffy is brought back by Willow (slightly altered, Spike is able to hit > her > > without chip induced pain). > > Buffy is so out of balance she doesn't notice Willow's problems (wrong > thing > > one), and she even has a relationship of sorts with Spike! (wrong thing > two) > > Which would not have happened if she hadn't died to save Dawn. > > The monks have a lot to answer for. > > > > IMO season 6 was the fall-out of the creation of Dawn. > > > But, all of those things might have just as easily happened without Dawn. > Buffy could have sacrificed herself in a magic portal to save any innocent > child. The blood thing would have to change, obviously, but since that > doesn't make any sense anyway what's the difference? Willow still would > have brought her back, Buffy still would have been depressed, she still > would have had sex with Spike (after all that attraction and the reasons > behind it, too, started well before Dawn's appearance). The monks made the Key into a sister, because that would increase the Slayers emotional involvement. As I said: Blood is thicker than water. If there had been another girl (not being a relative) or another portal, or another magical death yeah, maybe, but what would have been the odds? And couldn't Buffy sooner have suffered a 'mechanical' death (as Tara did). > > > > > I agree that the Monk's have a lot to answer for, but apparently ME and > Whedon don't. > > > > > > > -- > > > Shannon > > > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a > > > little!" > > > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address > >

2003-03-12 20:09:37+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <120320031458337983%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <20030312132547.10347.00000411@mb-fh.aol.com>, Rose > <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > > > Don wrote; > > > > > > > >No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give > > >a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. > > > > He said there was little or no equity, which means most of the money from > > the > > sale would be spent paying back the lender. > > He said the equity had been dropping, not that there wasn't any. > > His refusal to give Buffy a loan was based on her lack of income. yep. it's like trying to get an apartment without a job. Unless you have a million dollars in the bank (or at least several thousands), folks aren't going to play. The fact that the equity was dropping meant that Buffy couldn't sell the house to raise the money to pay off the loan. Nor could the bank get enough money to be worth it. thus no loan.

2003-03-12 20:09:37+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <120320031458337983%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <20030312132547.10347.00000411@mb-fh.aol.com>, Rose > <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: > > > Don wrote; > > > > > > > >No. He said that the value had dropped. He was also refusing to give > > >a mortgage (or maybe a second mortgage) to someone who had no income. > > > > He said there was little or no equity, which means most of the money from > > the > > sale would be spent paying back the lender. > > He said the equity had been dropping, not that there wasn't any. > > His refusal to give Buffy a loan was based on her lack of income. yep. it's like trying to get an apartment without a job. Unless you have a million dollars in the bank (or at least several thousands), folks aren't going to play. The fact that the equity was dropping meant that Buffy couldn't sell the house to raise the money to pay off the loan. Nor could the bank get enough money to be worth it. thus no loan.

2003-03-12 20:40:28+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Ir-cnUj0xYpC1PKjXTWcog@comcast.com... > I keep expecting that some striking revelation about Dawn will appear any > episode now. Some larger plan at work as the reason for her existence, or > some nefarious plan to destroy Buffy because of Dawn. Something, anything, > to justify the introduction of this character to the show. > I suspect a couple of reasons for Dawn's introduction into the show that had nothing to do with in-story reasons. She was basically a one season plot device to drive the Buffy character to certain emotional points. I think Joss or the suits at WB wanted a character that their original target demographic(teenage girls) could identify with, as the Scoobies by season 5 had grown much older than their stated ages. I also think Dawn was an insurance policy that a spinoff was to be centered around if SMG hadn't resigned for seasons 6 and 7. Little did ME realize they wrote Dawn as a very insipid character from the beginning so that the fans never really warmed up to her.

2003-03-12 20:40:28+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Ir-cnUj0xYpC1PKjXTWcog@comcast.com... > I keep expecting that some striking revelation about Dawn will appear any > episode now. Some larger plan at work as the reason for her existence, or > some nefarious plan to destroy Buffy because of Dawn. Something, anything, > to justify the introduction of this character to the show. > I suspect a couple of reasons for Dawn's introduction into the show that had nothing to do with in-story reasons. She was basically a one season plot device to drive the Buffy character to certain emotional points. I think Joss or the suits at WB wanted a character that their original target demographic(teenage girls) could identify with, as the Scoobies by season 5 had grown much older than their stated ages. I also think Dawn was an insurance policy that a spinoff was to be centered around if SMG hadn't resigned for seasons 6 and 7. Little did ME realize they wrote Dawn as a very insipid character from the beginning so that the fans never really warmed up to her.

2003-03-12 21:00:03-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312174446.20592.00000324@mb-mo.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 1:47 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <KImcndykzMSHNvKjXTWcoA@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030312130857.10347.00000406@mb-fh.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time > >> >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... > >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time > >> >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >> >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >> >> Shannon wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only > >reason > >> Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's > >heads > >> and chortle behind his hand later. > > > >There is a difference between Angel/Angelus, it's the same difference that's > >between Faith "I staked the deputy mayor and enjoyed it a little too much" > >and Faith "I'm fresh out of prison and feeling the redemptive urge." A very > >fine line. > > > > Well, would you say that Angelus is capable of having a change of heart, > refraining from hurting people on general principle and accepting punishment > for his actions? > No, but at one point I would have said the exact same thing about Faith and she has a soul. In fact, even Angel doesn't refrain from hurting people on general principle. I feel the same way about Angel smothering Wesley in the hospital bed as you do about Buffy bashing the snot out of Spike in the alley. > > > > And so it > >> really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating > >up a > >> thing, she was beating up a man > > > >If you're referring to "Dead Things" (the only incident in which I feel > >Buffy gave Spike more than he deserved, or asked for) whether he was a > >soulless thing or a man is irrelevant, imo. > > Well, many posters here disagree. They will say she wasn't right to do what > she did, but you can't call Buffy a batterer because Spike was a soulless > thing, not a person. Some even felt she didn't do a thing wrong because it's > right for a slayer to hurt a vampire. > That's twisted. I think spiders in the house have to be staked, but I don't indulge in vicarious arachniabuse. > > > >They managed it, didn't they? Because Spike definitely changed between the > >beginning of season 4 and the end of season 6. > > > > He became better but he did not and could not become good. He did not and > could not be redeemed. He could be redeemed. He wasn't. That was his choice. No one twisted Spike's arm and forced him to do Anya. No one forced him to try and rape Buffy. No one forced him to try to get a soul back, either. Again, all a matter of free will. That was the whole point of Spike's arc in S6. It was > also the point of the AtS ep "Disharmony." Sooner or later she will turn on > you, it is her nature, Angel said. It was a foreshadowing, a warning if you > will, of what was to come re Spike. > The same might be said of all of them as you have pointed out. Who hasn't turned on Buffy? Even Xander did it in "The Pack". Her own Mother turned on her in "Gingerbread". > > If they didn't think the lack of > >> soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. > >> > >No, if they think that simply *having* the soul is that important they can > >have him repent and be reformed in five >minutes. > > I've never alleged that they thought that. What I'm saying is that if the soul > is not what enables a vampire to repent and truly change and be good, then > there was no reason not to redeem Spike without getting him a soul. Over and > over we redemptionists have been lectured, even by ME producers, that this > would violate canon. > Since we only have the one example of a souled vampire there's not a whole lot of canon going on there. Plus, you know, magic monks can create whole people, memories, and histories to violate the canon that Buffy is an only child. Why be so hard nosed about Spike and a soul? > > >That would be a big cheat. > >It makes soulless Spike and soulless >Angel innocent of all evil actions. > > Well, I think they are innocent of what their soulless counterparts did, but > that's besides the point right now. > > >The soul is merely the essence of life. It isn't knowledge of right and > >wrong, it isn't a conscience, it isn't the memories, ideas, personality, or > >beliefs of the human. To have a soul is to have an innate appreciation for > >life and it's struggles. That's it. > > > > That's not what has been said on or about the show, though. > We know the soul isn't knowledge of right and wrong. Spike, and other vampires, clearly understand that they are evil and despise good. They know the difference. We've seen that vampires and their human counterparts share identical personalities right down to the quirks. So, the soul isn't the essence of the person. There's only one thing left. The soul is life itself. That's why the other people who sold their souls to the same guy that Gunn did died when he took their soul out. Souled vampires are still dead because the demon soul is dead. That is, it has no respect for life. > > > >It's not that the soul doesn't matter. > > You just said in your prior post that it is more interesting to you if it > doesn't matter. Let me clarify then. I think the soul *does* matter. But it doesn't make Souled Spike a completely different person from non-souled Spike. It doesn't make Angel a completely different person than Angelus. It doesn't make it any easier to make the right choices. It does give the vampire a mortal human perspective to their evil activities which has been lacking since they became undead. My point is that while it is supposed to matter to fans and it > does matter to Buffy, ME has made it so it matters very little or not at all to > most of the characters, which makes it less important in the grand scheme of > things on the show. I agree. It's hard to be interested in something that most of the > characters don't care about, and that even Buffy barely cared about until > "Him." Right. Which is why you have to wonder about the canon thing. > > If having the soul doesn't mean a thing then why does Spike have to do anything > with it? If he's no different than he was last April, if his ability to embrace > the cause of right for the sake of right is unchanged, then what is there to > "do" with the soul? It has not changed him anymore than my latest hair dye has > changed me. > I think having a soul changes his perspective. It changes the way he sees his past, I suppose, but it doesn't change anything else about him. It's a passive thing. The actual change part is up to Spike. He can choose to change his behavior based on his new world view, or not. It doesn't make him any more inclined to be good than he was before. > Why else would they have given him the soul? It sure wasn't so Buffy could > have a vampire boyfriend in Season 7. They have not gotten them together and > if they do, it will be so late in the game that one can't really allege that > having Spike as a romantic partner was necessary to S7. If it wasn't because > it's the only way Spike can be redeemed, then it seems like that whole > cliffhanger at the end of S6 was a giant waste of time. > Well, Spike hasn't been redeemed, yet. And maybe he won't be, either. What will that say about his soul? > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > >

2003-03-12 21:00:03-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030312174446.20592.00000324@mb-mo.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >Date: 3/12/2003 1:47 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <KImcndykzMSHNvKjXTWcoA@comcast.com> > > > > > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >news:20030312130857.10347.00000406@mb-fh.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time > >> >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... > >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time > >> >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview > >> >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net > >> >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time > >> >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >> >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> >> >> >> Shannon wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only > >reason > >> Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's > >heads > >> and chortle behind his hand later. > > > >There is a difference between Angel/Angelus, it's the same difference that's > >between Faith "I staked the deputy mayor and enjoyed it a little too much" > >and Faith "I'm fresh out of prison and feeling the redemptive urge." A very > >fine line. > > > > Well, would you say that Angelus is capable of having a change of heart, > refraining from hurting people on general principle and accepting punishment > for his actions? > No, but at one point I would have said the exact same thing about Faith and she has a soul. In fact, even Angel doesn't refrain from hurting people on general principle. I feel the same way about Angel smothering Wesley in the hospital bed as you do about Buffy bashing the snot out of Spike in the alley. > > > > And so it > >> really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating > >up a > >> thing, she was beating up a man > > > >If you're referring to "Dead Things" (the only incident in which I feel > >Buffy gave Spike more than he deserved, or asked for) whether he was a > >soulless thing or a man is irrelevant, imo. > > Well, many posters here disagree. They will say she wasn't right to do what > she did, but you can't call Buffy a batterer because Spike was a soulless > thing, not a person. Some even felt she didn't do a thing wrong because it's > right for a slayer to hurt a vampire. > That's twisted. I think spiders in the house have to be staked, but I don't indulge in vicarious arachniabuse. > > > >They managed it, didn't they? Because Spike definitely changed between the > >beginning of season 4 and the end of season 6. > > > > He became better but he did not and could not become good. He did not and > could not be redeemed. He could be redeemed. He wasn't. That was his choice. No one twisted Spike's arm and forced him to do Anya. No one forced him to try and rape Buffy. No one forced him to try to get a soul back, either. Again, all a matter of free will. That was the whole point of Spike's arc in S6. It was > also the point of the AtS ep "Disharmony." Sooner or later she will turn on > you, it is her nature, Angel said. It was a foreshadowing, a warning if you > will, of what was to come re Spike. > The same might be said of all of them as you have pointed out. Who hasn't turned on Buffy? Even Xander did it in "The Pack". Her own Mother turned on her in "Gingerbread". > > If they didn't think the lack of > >> soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. > >> > >No, if they think that simply *having* the soul is that important they can > >have him repent and be reformed in five >minutes. > > I've never alleged that they thought that. What I'm saying is that if the soul > is not what enables a vampire to repent and truly change and be good, then > there was no reason not to redeem Spike without getting him a soul. Over and > over we redemptionists have been lectured, even by ME producers, that this > would violate canon. > Since we only have the one example of a souled vampire there's not a whole lot of canon going on there. Plus, you know, magic monks can create whole people, memories, and histories to violate the canon that Buffy is an only child. Why be so hard nosed about Spike and a soul? > > >That would be a big cheat. > >It makes soulless Spike and soulless >Angel innocent of all evil actions. > > Well, I think they are innocent of what their soulless counterparts did, but > that's besides the point right now. > > >The soul is merely the essence of life. It isn't knowledge of right and > >wrong, it isn't a conscience, it isn't the memories, ideas, personality, or > >beliefs of the human. To have a soul is to have an innate appreciation for > >life and it's struggles. That's it. > > > > That's not what has been said on or about the show, though. > We know the soul isn't knowledge of right and wrong. Spike, and other vampires, clearly understand that they are evil and despise good. They know the difference. We've seen that vampires and their human counterparts share identical personalities right down to the quirks. So, the soul isn't the essence of the person. There's only one thing left. The soul is life itself. That's why the other people who sold their souls to the same guy that Gunn did died when he took their soul out. Souled vampires are still dead because the demon soul is dead. That is, it has no respect for life. > > > >It's not that the soul doesn't matter. > > You just said in your prior post that it is more interesting to you if it > doesn't matter. Let me clarify then. I think the soul *does* matter. But it doesn't make Souled Spike a completely different person from non-souled Spike. It doesn't make Angel a completely different person than Angelus. It doesn't make it any easier to make the right choices. It does give the vampire a mortal human perspective to their evil activities which has been lacking since they became undead. My point is that while it is supposed to matter to fans and it > does matter to Buffy, ME has made it so it matters very little or not at all to > most of the characters, which makes it less important in the grand scheme of > things on the show. I agree. It's hard to be interested in something that most of the > characters don't care about, and that even Buffy barely cared about until > "Him." Right. Which is why you have to wonder about the canon thing. > > If having the soul doesn't mean a thing then why does Spike have to do anything > with it? If he's no different than he was last April, if his ability to embrace > the cause of right for the sake of right is unchanged, then what is there to > "do" with the soul? It has not changed him anymore than my latest hair dye has > changed me. > I think having a soul changes his perspective. It changes the way he sees his past, I suppose, but it doesn't change anything else about him. It's a passive thing. The actual change part is up to Spike. He can choose to change his behavior based on his new world view, or not. It doesn't make him any more inclined to be good than he was before. > Why else would they have given him the soul? It sure wasn't so Buffy could > have a vampire boyfriend in Season 7. They have not gotten them together and > if they do, it will be so late in the game that one can't really allege that > having Spike as a romantic partner was necessary to S7. If it wasn't because > it's the only way Spike can be redeemed, then it seems like that whole > cliffhanger at the end of S6 was a giant waste of time. > Well, Spike hasn't been redeemed, yet. And maybe he won't be, either. What will that say about his soul? > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > > > >

2003-03-12 21:40:48-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (metrix007@yahoo.com)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, hence the mystical element.

2003-03-12 21:40:48-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (metrix007@yahoo.com)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, hence the mystical element.

2003-03-12 22:11:22+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) >Date: 3/12/2003 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303121246.7ad20000@posting.google.com> > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >news:<20030312103633.08589.00000171@mb-ml.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) >> >Date: 3/12/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303120134.2276a1a8@posting.google.com> >> > >> >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >> >news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... >> > >> >> My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year >with >> >> soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in >Beneath >> You, >> >> it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul >from >> >> Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. >One >> >> 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, >and >> in >> >> which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken >> care >> >> of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang >> for >> >> the remainder of the season. >> > >> >That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the >> >viewer "wants" is a boring show. >> > >> >> Thus you're saying that one 60-second scene (or even 30 seconds if 60 is >too >> long) would sap so much life from the show and be so excrutiatingly tedious >> that it would ruin the episode and yay, the very series? > >It wouldn't be the length, but what was said in it. It wouldn't take >very long for them to reduce the delicate frustratiness to a sort of >boring procedural activity. > OK, I have to ask. What is "delicate frustratiness"? Is it how I felt when my angel-fleece sweater got mysteriously worn down near the shoulder, causing a shiny patch to appear when I wear it? <snip> > >Hmmm... I'm going to go out on a limb here, based on reading your >messages for a few months now... Spike is your fave character from >TV's Buffy. > Andrew is giving him a run for his money. >Now, you may construe from my pseudonym that I favour the character >Willow of TV's Buffy. And guess what!? I don't think enough time has >been given to the "new" Willow - I am not a Willow fan and guess what. I agree with you. Well, actually, the issue for me is not "time." Spike and Willow have been given plenty of "time" on the show, imho. The problem with how their storylines have been handled is an issue of Quality, not Quantity. I was very frustrated, early this season, with the uninteresting way Willow's return was handled. It should have been explosive. Fraught with crackling intensity. We should have been white-knuckling. The Dark Goddess returns! Has she been tamed? Ahhhhhhgggghhh! But nah. They make lame welcome signs and Buffy plays handsies with her on a bed. Not even a "Keep the hell away from me, psycho-bitch!" from Dawn, whom Willow tried to personally murder? Nope. Man was that a let down. >I think it is possible to make a case >for there being a "new" Willow now, much >like there's a new Spike. Mmmm...imo not really. Willow started out good, and she's basically good now. She has a soul. If anything, I'd say New Willow started after she attacked Glory. That's when the ingestion of evil magic began. No matter, though, what could have been a fascinating and intense homecoming was real anticlimactic. >Basically, your favourite character is the one that you wish the show >was all about. So the show is all about Faith, is what you're saying, which is why it's reasonable to see how her return impacts the characters, as Jane E. said? It's taking the easy way out to get ME off the hook by saying Ol' Rosie wuvs Spike, and if every character and story doesn't revolve around her widdle Spike, she says there is a problem with the writing. However, it's not the case. There have been big deficiencies with the writing of Willow, Dawn, Xander and Giles as well. Buffy, Principal Wood and Andrew are the only ones who have had decent character development...and Buffy just makes the cut, as she has jerked back and forth a bit. And don't get me started on Giles. I posted my irritation over the Giles storyline and made people mad. I guess people figure eh, I'm a Spikeophile, let her rail away, but when I bitch about Giles' handling, that's just going too far. :) >Not that there should be no other characters - but they >should all have the decency to talk about little else apart from how >intriguing and interesting your favourite character is! > That's a charming and humorous satire on my Spike Fixation (tm) but in all effective humor there must be an element of truth and sadly, there isn't any truth here. With the exception of Dawn and Buffy who have emotional ties to Spike, what should be interesting to the Scoobs is not Spike himself, but the fact of a vampire *seeking* a soul. That has been treated with the kind of intellectual curiosity that's ... not. >And yet each time Willow's situation is developed, I get a huge kick >out of it, possibly because it is so tantalising and not properly >"dealt with." It's a matter of mileage varying. It's not extensive dialogue that I'm interested in, but believable and interesting character reaction. Case in point: Dawn's double take when Spike said he got his soul for Buffy. Or Andrew's glowing face when he thought Dawn was the new Potential. Both show us without a word how the character feels about the revelation that has occurred in the scene. Plus in Andrew's case, it helped spawn A/D shipper speculation, and we were overdue for a new source of unconventional shipper fic. >This is why Andrew's Ricki Lake routine with Xander and >Anya made me laugh so much - people *never* talk openly like that on >Buffy! > Sure they do. Dead Man's Party, Revelations, Selfless, New Moon Rising, Yoko Factor, Grave. >Maybe with Spike, they are taking the frustration thing too far (at >least for someone with your particular... enthusiasm for the >character.) > >But the opposite (as demonstrated by Xander/Anya) is that Buffy and >Spike have a proper chat, mull things over, maybe a cup of tea, more >chat, some sex... Buffy was not the problem. We got Buffy's response to the revelation of Spike's soul. We did not get Dawn's, Xander's, Willow's or Giles'. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 22:11:22+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) >Date: 3/12/2003 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303121246.7ad20000@posting.google.com> > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >news:<20030312103633.08589.00000171@mb-ml.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com (Wally Rosenberg) >> >Date: 3/12/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <a6dd0bff.0303120134.2276a1a8@posting.google.com> >> > >> >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >> >news:<20030311133754.12283.00000319@mb-cu.aol.com>... >> > >> >> My problem with the handling of Spike's arrival in Sunnydale this year >with >> >> soul is not that it was "not in the forefront" as you put it...in >Beneath >> You, >> >> it *was* in the forefront...but that we never got reaction re the soul >from >> >> Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Willow. It needn't have taken a lot of time. >One >> >> 60-second scene in which an announcement is made to the entire group, >and >> in >> >> which each person responds in his or her different way, would have taken >> care >> >> of it, and would have set up his relationships with the rest of the gang >> for >> >> the remainder of the season. >> > >> >That makes me think of what Jane said in the interview - what the >> >viewer "wants" is a boring show. >> > >> >> Thus you're saying that one 60-second scene (or even 30 seconds if 60 is >too >> long) would sap so much life from the show and be so excrutiatingly tedious >> that it would ruin the episode and yay, the very series? > >It wouldn't be the length, but what was said in it. It wouldn't take >very long for them to reduce the delicate frustratiness to a sort of >boring procedural activity. > OK, I have to ask. What is "delicate frustratiness"? Is it how I felt when my angel-fleece sweater got mysteriously worn down near the shoulder, causing a shiny patch to appear when I wear it? <snip> > >Hmmm... I'm going to go out on a limb here, based on reading your >messages for a few months now... Spike is your fave character from >TV's Buffy. > Andrew is giving him a run for his money. >Now, you may construe from my pseudonym that I favour the character >Willow of TV's Buffy. And guess what!? I don't think enough time has >been given to the "new" Willow - I am not a Willow fan and guess what. I agree with you. Well, actually, the issue for me is not "time." Spike and Willow have been given plenty of "time" on the show, imho. The problem with how their storylines have been handled is an issue of Quality, not Quantity. I was very frustrated, early this season, with the uninteresting way Willow's return was handled. It should have been explosive. Fraught with crackling intensity. We should have been white-knuckling. The Dark Goddess returns! Has she been tamed? Ahhhhhhgggghhh! But nah. They make lame welcome signs and Buffy plays handsies with her on a bed. Not even a "Keep the hell away from me, psycho-bitch!" from Dawn, whom Willow tried to personally murder? Nope. Man was that a let down. >I think it is possible to make a case >for there being a "new" Willow now, much >like there's a new Spike. Mmmm...imo not really. Willow started out good, and she's basically good now. She has a soul. If anything, I'd say New Willow started after she attacked Glory. That's when the ingestion of evil magic began. No matter, though, what could have been a fascinating and intense homecoming was real anticlimactic. >Basically, your favourite character is the one that you wish the show >was all about. So the show is all about Faith, is what you're saying, which is why it's reasonable to see how her return impacts the characters, as Jane E. said? It's taking the easy way out to get ME off the hook by saying Ol' Rosie wuvs Spike, and if every character and story doesn't revolve around her widdle Spike, she says there is a problem with the writing. However, it's not the case. There have been big deficiencies with the writing of Willow, Dawn, Xander and Giles as well. Buffy, Principal Wood and Andrew are the only ones who have had decent character development...and Buffy just makes the cut, as she has jerked back and forth a bit. And don't get me started on Giles. I posted my irritation over the Giles storyline and made people mad. I guess people figure eh, I'm a Spikeophile, let her rail away, but when I bitch about Giles' handling, that's just going too far. :) >Not that there should be no other characters - but they >should all have the decency to talk about little else apart from how >intriguing and interesting your favourite character is! > That's a charming and humorous satire on my Spike Fixation (tm) but in all effective humor there must be an element of truth and sadly, there isn't any truth here. With the exception of Dawn and Buffy who have emotional ties to Spike, what should be interesting to the Scoobs is not Spike himself, but the fact of a vampire *seeking* a soul. That has been treated with the kind of intellectual curiosity that's ... not. >And yet each time Willow's situation is developed, I get a huge kick >out of it, possibly because it is so tantalising and not properly >"dealt with." It's a matter of mileage varying. It's not extensive dialogue that I'm interested in, but believable and interesting character reaction. Case in point: Dawn's double take when Spike said he got his soul for Buffy. Or Andrew's glowing face when he thought Dawn was the new Potential. Both show us without a word how the character feels about the revelation that has occurred in the scene. Plus in Andrew's case, it helped spawn A/D shipper speculation, and we were overdue for a new source of unconventional shipper fic. >This is why Andrew's Ricki Lake routine with Xander and >Anya made me laugh so much - people *never* talk openly like that on >Buffy! > Sure they do. Dead Man's Party, Revelations, Selfless, New Moon Rising, Yoko Factor, Grave. >Maybe with Spike, they are taking the frustration thing too far (at >least for someone with your particular... enthusiasm for the >character.) > >But the opposite (as demonstrated by Xander/Anya) is that Buffy and >Spike have a proper chat, mull things over, maybe a cup of tea, more >chat, some sex... Buffy was not the problem. We got Buffy's response to the revelation of Spike's soul. We did not get Dawn's, Xander's, Willow's or Giles'. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 22:19:29+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (dunce@nomail.com)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:11:28 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > ><dunce@nomail.com> wrote in message >news:3e6f372e.8690600@news.hfx.eastlink.ca... >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" >> <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message >> >news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... >> >> "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... >> >> > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message >> >> > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> >> > >> >How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character >> >fundamentally changed? >> >> >> >> I'm just going to jump in here and offer my quick two cents. > >Hey, that's the beauty of usenet! ;) >> >> Dawn hasn't changed anyone's character any more or less than any other >> person on BTVS. You could argue that the group dynamic hasn't changed >> at all with the inclusion or removal of any one character. Oz' leaving >> didn't have a huge impact on the group. > >Oz had an enormous impact on the storyline and on our view of the >Buffyverse. He was a live, human, counterpart to Angel. He was the first >character that was introduced that made everyone watching the show think >"Hmmm....maybe all demons and monsters shouldn't just be ruthlessly >slaughtered and disregarded. Maybe they have redeeming qualities, maybe >they can be reformed, maybe they can be controlled." > >Oz is the only redemption success story. I loved the Halloween episode where >he sits in the tub and says "I'm not going to change. I'm not going to >change." He can control his inner beast, he knows that. He just has to >believe it. > >The Initiative's treatment of Oz was the final straw for Riley. For >everyone. There was no question anymore that maybe the Initiatives ideas >weren't all bad, or that they weren't completely evil. Another huge turning >point in the season and in the Buffyverse. The answer to the demon problem >in the Buffyverse isn't rehabilitation or demon boot camp. The power, >force, and subterfuge of the United States Military isn't as effective as >Buffy alone. > >And to top it all off, Oz was funny, packed with common sense, and he played >in a band. > Hey, I'm not knocking Oz as a character but his absence from Sunnydale was barely noted by anyone except Willow. Nobody killed a baby deer to perform a spell to bring him back, if you get what I mean. The only character that was really indespensible was Buffy herself and that was just because it was her show. ;) > >The question is if Oz had never >> left and they had never introduced Tara (and Willow's homosexuality) >> would any of the group dynamics have been different in season's 4, 5, >> and 6? I don't think so. The addition of Tara opened up a new view of >> Willow's character but didn't really have an impact on any of the >> major events in the seasonal story arcs. > >Tara was a witch. A witch who believed in Willow's power and her power to >be a successful witch. Until Tara, most of Willow's spells were mish-mash >and disaster. Tara gave her the confidence, the help, and the knowledge >that turned Willow into the most powerful witch in the Buffyverse. Now, if >that isn't major storyline and character impact, I don't know what is. Willow was already heavy into magic at the time. She was powerful enough to attract D'hoffryn's attention. If Oz had never left would Willow's progression in the black arts been slowed at all? If Glory had sucked out Oz' brain, wouldn't Willow have done the exact same thing as she did for Tara? >> >> Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's passive/aggresive tendencies. The >> way that Willow talked in a baby voice, called her "Dawny", and >> constantly spoke down to her could not have been done with any other >> character. > >Willow was always passive aggressive. Always used baby talk. Ask Rose. But we never saw such a blatant and demeaning display of this until she started in on Dawn. >> >> Dawn was the first female in Xander's life who he didn't regard in >> some sexual capacity. Throughout the series we've seen Xander's >> various feelings and fantasies for Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Faith, >> Joyce, Jenny, Tara, Anya, and various demon women. Xander was aware of >> Dawn's crush on him but never responded to it in any other way than >> that of a big brother. We never would have seen that with any of the >> previously mentioned women. >> >This much may be true, but what's the point? Xander is capable of caring >about a female and not taking what his penis thinks into consideration? Not >much of a reason to introduce a whole major character, imo. I don't think this is the only reason why Dawn was introduced, just a way that her character was used in relation to another character. > >> The way that Buffy kept ignoring her responsiblities to Dawn and >> foisting them on to Giles in season 6 were used to illustrate Giles' >> reasoning to leave Sunnydale. > >Giles is a big shmuck. He has as much responsibility to Dawn as anybody >does with Joyce out of the picture. I still can't believe that's the reason >ME gave for him to abandon a sucidally depressed Buffy, manically magic >Willow, and Dawn the Klepto to go horse back riding in England.

2003-03-12 22:19:29+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (dunce@nomail.com)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:11:28 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > ><dunce@nomail.com> wrote in message >news:3e6f372e.8690600@news.hfx.eastlink.ca... >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" >> <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >"NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message >> >news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... >> >> "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >news:<EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com>... >> >> > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message >> >> > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... >> >> >> >> > >> >How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character >> >fundamentally changed? >> >> >> >> I'm just going to jump in here and offer my quick two cents. > >Hey, that's the beauty of usenet! ;) >> >> Dawn hasn't changed anyone's character any more or less than any other >> person on BTVS. You could argue that the group dynamic hasn't changed >> at all with the inclusion or removal of any one character. Oz' leaving >> didn't have a huge impact on the group. > >Oz had an enormous impact on the storyline and on our view of the >Buffyverse. He was a live, human, counterpart to Angel. He was the first >character that was introduced that made everyone watching the show think >"Hmmm....maybe all demons and monsters shouldn't just be ruthlessly >slaughtered and disregarded. Maybe they have redeeming qualities, maybe >they can be reformed, maybe they can be controlled." > >Oz is the only redemption success story. I loved the Halloween episode where >he sits in the tub and says "I'm not going to change. I'm not going to >change." He can control his inner beast, he knows that. He just has to >believe it. > >The Initiative's treatment of Oz was the final straw for Riley. For >everyone. There was no question anymore that maybe the Initiatives ideas >weren't all bad, or that they weren't completely evil. Another huge turning >point in the season and in the Buffyverse. The answer to the demon problem >in the Buffyverse isn't rehabilitation or demon boot camp. The power, >force, and subterfuge of the United States Military isn't as effective as >Buffy alone. > >And to top it all off, Oz was funny, packed with common sense, and he played >in a band. > Hey, I'm not knocking Oz as a character but his absence from Sunnydale was barely noted by anyone except Willow. Nobody killed a baby deer to perform a spell to bring him back, if you get what I mean. The only character that was really indespensible was Buffy herself and that was just because it was her show. ;) > >The question is if Oz had never >> left and they had never introduced Tara (and Willow's homosexuality) >> would any of the group dynamics have been different in season's 4, 5, >> and 6? I don't think so. The addition of Tara opened up a new view of >> Willow's character but didn't really have an impact on any of the >> major events in the seasonal story arcs. > >Tara was a witch. A witch who believed in Willow's power and her power to >be a successful witch. Until Tara, most of Willow's spells were mish-mash >and disaster. Tara gave her the confidence, the help, and the knowledge >that turned Willow into the most powerful witch in the Buffyverse. Now, if >that isn't major storyline and character impact, I don't know what is. Willow was already heavy into magic at the time. She was powerful enough to attract D'hoffryn's attention. If Oz had never left would Willow's progression in the black arts been slowed at all? If Glory had sucked out Oz' brain, wouldn't Willow have done the exact same thing as she did for Tara? >> >> Dawn was used to illustrate Willow's passive/aggresive tendencies. The >> way that Willow talked in a baby voice, called her "Dawny", and >> constantly spoke down to her could not have been done with any other >> character. > >Willow was always passive aggressive. Always used baby talk. Ask Rose. But we never saw such a blatant and demeaning display of this until she started in on Dawn. >> >> Dawn was the first female in Xander's life who he didn't regard in >> some sexual capacity. Throughout the series we've seen Xander's >> various feelings and fantasies for Buffy, Willow, Cordelia, Faith, >> Joyce, Jenny, Tara, Anya, and various demon women. Xander was aware of >> Dawn's crush on him but never responded to it in any other way than >> that of a big brother. We never would have seen that with any of the >> previously mentioned women. >> >This much may be true, but what's the point? Xander is capable of caring >about a female and not taking what his penis thinks into consideration? Not >much of a reason to introduce a whole major character, imo. I don't think this is the only reason why Dawn was introduced, just a way that her character was used in relation to another character. > >> The way that Buffy kept ignoring her responsiblities to Dawn and >> foisting them on to Giles in season 6 were used to illustrate Giles' >> reasoning to leave Sunnydale. > >Giles is a big shmuck. He has as much responsibility to Dawn as anybody >does with Joyce out of the picture. I still can't believe that's the reason >ME gave for him to abandon a sucidally depressed Buffy, manically magic >Willow, and Dawn the Klepto to go horse back riding in England.

2003-03-12 22:20:25+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >Giles is a big shmuck. He has as much responsibility to Dawn as anybody >does with Joyce out of the picture. Preach it. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 22:20:25+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >Giles is a big shmuck. He has as much responsibility to Dawn as anybody >does with Joyce out of the picture. Preach it. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 22:44:46+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 1:47 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <KImcndykzMSHNvKjXTWcoA@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030312130857.10347.00000406@mb-fh.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >> >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only >reason >> Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's >heads >> and chortle behind his hand later. > >There is a difference between Angel/Angelus, it's the same difference that's >between Faith "I staked the deputy mayor and enjoyed it a little too much" >and Faith "I'm fresh out of prison and feeling the redemptive urge." A very >fine line. > Well, would you say that Angelus is capable of having a change of heart, refraining from hurting people on general principle and accepting punishment for his actions? > > And so it >> really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating >up a >> thing, she was beating up a man > >If you're referring to "Dead Things" (the only incident in which I feel >Buffy gave Spike more than he deserved, or asked for) whether he was a >soulless thing or a man is irrelevant, imo. Well, many posters here disagree. They will say she wasn't right to do what she did, but you can't call Buffy a batterer because Spike was a soulless thing, not a person. Some even felt she didn't do a thing wrong because it's right for a slayer to hurt a vampire. > She was wrong no matter what >she thinks or what he is. I don't recall even the most rabid Spike hater >defending her actions that night. I do. > >They managed it, didn't they? Because Spike definitely changed between the >beginning of season 4 and the end of season 6. > He became better but he did not and could not become good. He did not and could not be redeemed. That was the whole point of Spike's arc in S6. It was also the point of the AtS ep "Disharmony." Sooner or later she will turn on you, it is her nature, Angel said. It was a foreshadowing, a warning if you will, of what was to come re Spike. > If they didn't think the lack of >> soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. >> >No, if they think that simply *having* the soul is that important they can >have him repent and be reformed in five >minutes. I've never alleged that they thought that. What I'm saying is that if the soul is not what enables a vampire to repent and truly change and be good, then there was no reason not to redeem Spike without getting him a soul. Over and over we redemptionists have been lectured, even by ME producers, that this would violate canon. >That would be a big cheat. >It makes soulless Spike and soulless >Angel innocent of all evil actions. Well, I think they are innocent of what their soulless counterparts did, but that's besides the point right now. >The soul is merely the essence of life. It isn't knowledge of right and >wrong, it isn't a conscience, it isn't the memories, ideas, personality, or >beliefs of the human. To have a soul is to have an innate appreciation for >life and it's struggles. That's it. > That's not what has been said on or about the show, though. > >It's not that the soul doesn't matter. You just said in your prior post that it is more interesting to you if it doesn't matter. My point is that while it is supposed to matter to fans and it does matter to Buffy, ME has made it so it matters very little or not at all to most of the characters, which makes it less important in the grand scheme of things on the show. It's hard to be interested in something that most of the characters don't care about, and that even Buffy barely cared about until "Him." >It does matter. For what? If old Spike was capable of being a good, altruistic, selfless man without a soul, then who cares if he has one or not? >It's just not ME's >mystical answer to the get out of jail free >card. True, although that makes no sense to me. They say you can't be good without a soul yet hold you responsible for not being good without a soul. It's like blaming a blind man for not having 20/20 vision. >Having the soul really >doesn't mean a thing, it's what Spike >decides to do now that he has it that >will make the difference. > If having the soul doesn't mean a thing then why does Spike have to do anything with it? If he's no different than he was last April, if his ability to embrace the cause of right for the sake of right is unchanged, then what is there to "do" with the soul? It has not changed him anymore than my latest hair dye has changed me.

2003-03-12 22:44:46+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >Date: 3/12/2003 1:47 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <KImcndykzMSHNvKjXTWcoA@comcast.com> > > > >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >news:20030312130857.10347.00000406@mb-fh.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >Date: 3/12/2003 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <Osednbfhx8Wd8PKjXTWcqw@comcast.com> >> > >> > >> > >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >news:20030312104501.08589.00000174@mb-ml.aol.com... >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >> >Date: 3/12/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >Message-id: <07ydnUqWAqeF2vKjXTWcpQ@comcast.com> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >> >news:20030311172416.09499.00000250@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >> >> >> >From: "DarkMagic" slnospambilan@comcast.net >> >> >> >Date: 3/11/2003 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time >> >> >> >Message-id: <9oednRixYr1TwvOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:20030311170211.09499.00000246@mb-fk.aol.com... >> >> >> >> Shannon wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So there is no difference at all between Angel and Angelus, and the only >reason >> Angel acts different when his soul is gone is too screw with everyone's >heads >> and chortle behind his hand later. > >There is a difference between Angel/Angelus, it's the same difference that's >between Faith "I staked the deputy mayor and enjoyed it a little too much" >and Faith "I'm fresh out of prison and feeling the redemptive urge." A very >fine line. > Well, would you say that Angelus is capable of having a change of heart, refraining from hurting people on general principle and accepting punishment for his actions? > > And so it >> really must be true that Buffy IS a batterer, because she wasn't beating >up a >> thing, she was beating up a man > >If you're referring to "Dead Things" (the only incident in which I feel >Buffy gave Spike more than he deserved, or asked for) whether he was a >soulless thing or a man is irrelevant, imo. Well, many posters here disagree. They will say she wasn't right to do what she did, but you can't call Buffy a batterer because Spike was a soulless thing, not a person. Some even felt she didn't do a thing wrong because it's right for a slayer to hurt a vampire. > She was wrong no matter what >she thinks or what he is. I don't recall even the most rabid Spike hater >defending her actions that night. I do. > >They managed it, didn't they? Because Spike definitely changed between the >beginning of season 4 and the end of season 6. > He became better but he did not and could not become good. He did not and could not be redeemed. That was the whole point of Spike's arc in S6. It was also the point of the AtS ep "Disharmony." Sooner or later she will turn on you, it is her nature, Angel said. It was a foreshadowing, a warning if you will, of what was to come re Spike. > If they didn't think the lack of >> soul mattered, he could have repented and reformed in five minutes. >> >No, if they think that simply *having* the soul is that important they can >have him repent and be reformed in five >minutes. I've never alleged that they thought that. What I'm saying is that if the soul is not what enables a vampire to repent and truly change and be good, then there was no reason not to redeem Spike without getting him a soul. Over and over we redemptionists have been lectured, even by ME producers, that this would violate canon. >That would be a big cheat. >It makes soulless Spike and soulless >Angel innocent of all evil actions. Well, I think they are innocent of what their soulless counterparts did, but that's besides the point right now. >The soul is merely the essence of life. It isn't knowledge of right and >wrong, it isn't a conscience, it isn't the memories, ideas, personality, or >beliefs of the human. To have a soul is to have an innate appreciation for >life and it's struggles. That's it. > That's not what has been said on or about the show, though. > >It's not that the soul doesn't matter. You just said in your prior post that it is more interesting to you if it doesn't matter. My point is that while it is supposed to matter to fans and it does matter to Buffy, ME has made it so it matters very little or not at all to most of the characters, which makes it less important in the grand scheme of things on the show. It's hard to be interested in something that most of the characters don't care about, and that even Buffy barely cared about until "Him." >It does matter. For what? If old Spike was capable of being a good, altruistic, selfless man without a soul, then who cares if he has one or not? >It's just not ME's >mystical answer to the get out of jail free >card. True, although that makes no sense to me. They say you can't be good without a soul yet hold you responsible for not being good without a soul. It's like blaming a blind man for not having 20/20 vision. >Having the soul really >doesn't mean a thing, it's what Spike >decides to do now that he has it that >will make the difference. > If having the soul doesn't mean a thing then why does Spike have to do anything with it? If he's no different than he was last April, if his ability to embrace the cause of right for the sake of right is unchanged, then what is there to "do" with the soul? It has not changed him anymore than my latest hair dye has changed me.

2003-03-12 22:52:15+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > > >The inital reactions were probably pretty >similar. I think it was dramatically necessary to show these reactions. And to write the characters as having reactions more intense than "so what"? >Especially Xanders. If >you recall, at the end of the day he pretty much thought Angel was a >vampire, souled or not. That was five years ago, before he got engaged to a recently ex-serial-killer-demon. It would be a shame if the characters haven't changed a bit since S2. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 22:52:15+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > > >The inital reactions were probably pretty >similar. I think it was dramatically necessary to show these reactions. And to write the characters as having reactions more intense than "so what"? >Especially Xanders. If >you recall, at the end of the day he pretty much thought Angel was a >vampire, souled or not. That was five years ago, before he got engaged to a recently ex-serial-killer-demon. It would be a shame if the characters haven't changed a bit since S2. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-12 23:44:21+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sfadnWIRdJI9ufOjXTWcoA@comcast.com... > Mostly I was intrigued ... that Joss > walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from > scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi > type story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return > makes on other characters. (Snip) > What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What > the hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be > cool? You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory? Dawn is Joss' darling. A darling is a line, a scene or a character the author has included which he just loves but unfortunately doesn't actually add anything. Joss said at the time of Dawn's introduction that he always wanted Buffy to have this relationship. If we take this as being true then it seems reasonable to assume that when Joss was first constructing the series he intended to include a sister. Maybe he was overruled or talked out of it by David Greenwalt who had more experience in television and who was there ostensibly to hold Joss's hand and provide guidence. Maybe he realised the difficulties they'd have trying to make a younger sister part of the show; difficulties the writers have been struggling with ever since her introduction. Following Faulkner's advice they killed that darling. Once Joss had gained more experience and was more confident, the idea of giving Buffy a sister came back up. Barefacedly introducing a previously non-existent sister into show continuity as if she had always been there is the sort of 'gimmicky' idea that appeals to Joss. If this had genuinely been a story about Buffy and her magic sister then the season could have been fascinating but instead of killing his darling and doing something else with it he choose to reanimate her. > What impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the > storyline, none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened > exactly as it would have without Dawn. What impact has Dawn made on the > other characters? None, everything happened to them exactly as it would > have without her. The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. It wasn't done because it made a really good Buffy story. They tried to avoid highlighting changes in the past to minimize the resistance to accepting her as Buffy's true sibling; because effectively they were cutting us off from the Scoobies. Instead of us knowing what happened because we'd been there through seasons One to Four we would only be able to be told about any changes in the history. If they don't raise the issue it's easier to ignore that you're actually a stranger to these characters now. If there had been big differences in the situations and relationships of the Scoobies in the Dawnverse from what we had just seen in Buffy vs Dracula she would have made an ongoing and obvious impact but they didn't want that. So Dawn's there and hasn't affected the past but if she hasn't done that the character herself can't really be allowed to affect the present either. She can only react to being the Key because that's the only new thing in the situation. > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in > the course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic > since Season 3. Despite what Jane Espenson said about the writing of individual episodes and not introducing monsters just because that would be 'cool' the season arcs often contained events that happened purely because 'it would be cool'. They wanted Buffy to die at the end of Season 5 because 'it would be cool' not because it would be meaningful later on. Buffy's depressed. Buffy dies. Buffy's resurrected. Buffy's depressed. It lead nowhere. The whole method of Buffy's death clearly wasn't planned very far in advance which is why it didn't make sense. They hadn't set it up. They just knew they were going to kill off Buffy. It was coincidental that they were introducing Dawn at the same time. (Snip) > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > everyone goes through as they grow up. Ssssh, Dawn's always been there. You're meant to ignore the double think involved in the past having played out exactly the same except with Dawn there. The Scoobs can't be allowed to question the Dawn situation because we know from experience once they start doing that they'll end up resolving it and that would stop Dawn from being Buffy's little sister. Dawn's role in Season 5 was as McGuffin that had to be protected. In Six the only use the writers could find for her was as designated victim. The problem is that Dawn would naturally spend most of her time away from the Scoobies following her separate concerns. As we saw in All The Way if you focus on Dawn you split the show, immersing us in Dawn's life away from the Scoobies. If you keep her with the Scoobies then her presence tends to be forced and she has little to do. > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. BtVS has never delt well with the effects new characters would have on the established ones or on the balance of the show itself. Jenny Calender's techno-pagan could have cut in on Willow's web research role and Giles spell casting role but because she was mainly a love interest rather than an active Scoob it didn't hurt them. Willow's growing interest in magic did undercut Giles spare use of it, eventually becoming a story problem. Pairing up Willow with Tara diluted Willow's presence by sharing out some of her key characteristics. A shy girl into magic with another shy girl into magic. The introduction of Riley directly stripped Xander of his soldier guy skills. If he'd stayed around in Season 5 as the same guy he was at the end of four he could well have leached away Buffy's chief characteristic as vampire/demon fighter. He didn't have much else. I think they were lucky with Jenny and Oz rather than it being planned. It sounds like they've stripped away some of Willow's role and given it to Dawn. Suddenly Willow's not good at Latin and Dawn's taking chunks out of her research role and casting spells. Also she seems to have stolen some of Xander's insight role, getting Willow to think about the portal problem. Faith had her own role as wild Evil Slayer and now Repenting Evil Slayer. Dawn's role is made up of bits of existing roles which have already been reacted to when they belonged to their original owners. Dawn's introduction didn't change anything so she can't be allowed to affect anything afterwards. The Scoobs can't be allowed react to Dawn's insertion because that would draw attention to both their lack of action in resolving the situation and highlight that we don't really know what they think happened in the past. Dawn's presence in the gang is forced and when her world is the focus of attention it splits off from the rest of the show. There's no role vacant for Dawn to take apart from victim. Apart from the shoplifting arc which went nowhere there's nothing for the characters to react to. It's the concept itself that's the problem. You just can't stick a new character into the very centre of a working show without changing anything. Maybe the reason Dawn's still around apart from Joss liking the character is they thought she had spin-off potential. As the series drew to a close there was a possibility of Slayerizing Dawn. That's what Season 7 looks like a set-up for. If they killed off most of the girls available to be the next Slayer it would seem less of a coincidence if Dawn got powered up. Even Potential doesn't exclude that possibility. Some people would have objected to the coincidence of Dawn even being a potential Slayer. But they're on a Hellmouth, Dawn's got some indeterminate status as a mystical object, there are only a few proto-slayers left, Faith's coming to town and there's the possibility of all sorts of magic flying around. It could still happen. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-12 23:44:21+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sfadnWIRdJI9ufOjXTWcoA@comcast.com... > Mostly I was intrigued ... that Joss > walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from > scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi > type story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return > makes on other characters. (Snip) > What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What > the hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be > cool? You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory? Dawn is Joss' darling. A darling is a line, a scene or a character the author has included which he just loves but unfortunately doesn't actually add anything. Joss said at the time of Dawn's introduction that he always wanted Buffy to have this relationship. If we take this as being true then it seems reasonable to assume that when Joss was first constructing the series he intended to include a sister. Maybe he was overruled or talked out of it by David Greenwalt who had more experience in television and who was there ostensibly to hold Joss's hand and provide guidence. Maybe he realised the difficulties they'd have trying to make a younger sister part of the show; difficulties the writers have been struggling with ever since her introduction. Following Faulkner's advice they killed that darling. Once Joss had gained more experience and was more confident, the idea of giving Buffy a sister came back up. Barefacedly introducing a previously non-existent sister into show continuity as if she had always been there is the sort of 'gimmicky' idea that appeals to Joss. If this had genuinely been a story about Buffy and her magic sister then the season could have been fascinating but instead of killing his darling and doing something else with it he choose to reanimate her. > What impact has Dawn made on Buffy? According to the scripts and the > storyline, none. Nothing changed about Buffy's life. Everything happened > exactly as it would have without Dawn. What impact has Dawn made on the > other characters? None, everything happened to them exactly as it would > have without her. The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. It wasn't done because it made a really good Buffy story. They tried to avoid highlighting changes in the past to minimize the resistance to accepting her as Buffy's true sibling; because effectively they were cutting us off from the Scoobies. Instead of us knowing what happened because we'd been there through seasons One to Four we would only be able to be told about any changes in the history. If they don't raise the issue it's easier to ignore that you're actually a stranger to these characters now. If there had been big differences in the situations and relationships of the Scoobies in the Dawnverse from what we had just seen in Buffy vs Dracula she would have made an ongoing and obvious impact but they didn't want that. So Dawn's there and hasn't affected the past but if she hasn't done that the character herself can't really be allowed to affect the present either. She can only react to being the Key because that's the only new thing in the situation. > Go ahead and argue that without Dawn Buffy wouldn't have had to sacrifice > herself to save the world. Willow wouldn't have brought her back and then > gone evil, blah, blah, blah. That's all true. But both of those things > were very likely to happen without Dawn. Buffy had already died once in > the course of duty. Willow has had issues with power, control, and magic > since Season 3. Despite what Jane Espenson said about the writing of individual episodes and not introducing monsters just because that would be 'cool' the season arcs often contained events that happened purely because 'it would be cool'. They wanted Buffy to die at the end of Season 5 because 'it would be cool' not because it would be meaningful later on. Buffy's depressed. Buffy dies. Buffy's resurrected. Buffy's depressed. It lead nowhere. The whole method of Buffy's death clearly wasn't planned very far in advance which is why it didn't make sense. They hadn't set it up. They just knew they were going to kill off Buffy. It was coincidental that they were introducing Dawn at the same time. (Snip) > Dawn's existence has never even caused the character's to question their > version of reality, the sanctity of their own memories and personal lives. > Even that much might have served as a metaphor for the soul-searching > everyone goes through as they grow up. Ssssh, Dawn's always been there. You're meant to ignore the double think involved in the past having played out exactly the same except with Dawn there. The Scoobs can't be allowed to question the Dawn situation because we know from experience once they start doing that they'll end up resolving it and that would stop Dawn from being Buffy's little sister. Dawn's role in Season 5 was as McGuffin that had to be protected. In Six the only use the writers could find for her was as designated victim. The problem is that Dawn would naturally spend most of her time away from the Scoobies following her separate concerns. As we saw in All The Way if you focus on Dawn you split the show, immersing us in Dawn's life away from the Scoobies. If you keep her with the Scoobies then her presence tends to be forced and she has little to do. > So, my question is how can Whedon understand that he needs to devote an > entire episode to Faith's return and her impact on the lives around her > while at the same time defending the creation of an entire character that > has had no impact on the world whatsoever? Unless, we find out that > everything that has gone wrong in the Buffyverse from Season 5 onward is > somehow the fault of the spell that created Dawn and altered reality. BtVS has never delt well with the effects new characters would have on the established ones or on the balance of the show itself. Jenny Calender's techno-pagan could have cut in on Willow's web research role and Giles spell casting role but because she was mainly a love interest rather than an active Scoob it didn't hurt them. Willow's growing interest in magic did undercut Giles spare use of it, eventually becoming a story problem. Pairing up Willow with Tara diluted Willow's presence by sharing out some of her key characteristics. A shy girl into magic with another shy girl into magic. The introduction of Riley directly stripped Xander of his soldier guy skills. If he'd stayed around in Season 5 as the same guy he was at the end of four he could well have leached away Buffy's chief characteristic as vampire/demon fighter. He didn't have much else. I think they were lucky with Jenny and Oz rather than it being planned. It sounds like they've stripped away some of Willow's role and given it to Dawn. Suddenly Willow's not good at Latin and Dawn's taking chunks out of her research role and casting spells. Also she seems to have stolen some of Xander's insight role, getting Willow to think about the portal problem. Faith had her own role as wild Evil Slayer and now Repenting Evil Slayer. Dawn's role is made up of bits of existing roles which have already been reacted to when they belonged to their original owners. Dawn's introduction didn't change anything so she can't be allowed to affect anything afterwards. The Scoobs can't be allowed react to Dawn's insertion because that would draw attention to both their lack of action in resolving the situation and highlight that we don't really know what they think happened in the past. Dawn's presence in the gang is forced and when her world is the focus of attention it splits off from the rest of the show. There's no role vacant for Dawn to take apart from victim. Apart from the shoplifting arc which went nowhere there's nothing for the characters to react to. It's the concept itself that's the problem. You just can't stick a new character into the very centre of a working show without changing anything. Maybe the reason Dawn's still around apart from Joss liking the character is they thought she had spin-off potential. As the series drew to a close there was a possibility of Slayerizing Dawn. That's what Season 7 looks like a set-up for. If they killed off most of the girls available to be the next Slayer it would seem less of a coincidence if Dawn got powered up. Even Potential doesn't exclude that possibility. Some people would have objected to the coincidence of Dawn even being a potential Slayer. But they're on a Hellmouth, Dawn's got some indeterminate status as a mystical object, there are only a few proto-slayers left, Faith's coming to town and there's the possibility of all sorts of magic flying around. It could still happen. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-13 00:14:07+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com... > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht > > news:EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > 'mechanical' death. > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. I didn't mention vamped. Buffy was sort of vamped in 'Nightmares', but I don't count that one. > > > > > > > > > > Responsibility for your own family is far more important emotionally than > > the rest of the world. > > Blood is thicker than water. > > I don't agree with that. And I don't think Buffy would agree with that, > either. Buffy has had to choose many times between seeing to it that Dawn > and Joyce were safe and leaving to save the rest of the world. And it's not > like she wouldn't have cared for any helpless teenager being stalked by a > crazed God who wanted to destroy the world. Family is always something special. > > > > > Yeah. But why should they have bothered to question their version of > reality > > at all once they knew the truth. Once you get the facts, why reflect on it > > further? > > Because some freakish entity knows enough about every single personal > incident of their intimate existences to create an entire human being that > knows everything? > What entity has that kind of power? What has been spying on them all these > years to that extent? If that isn't the damn creepiest thing you can > imagine, what is? I don't think it was a mere spy job.... I think the magic just took the necessary info from reality itself, and projected it into the key, like Dawn's existence is an extra layer projected upon the already existing reality. Maybe that's what the key is all about. Energy, knowledge. A reflection of the universe itself. The fact that Dawn isn't totally omniscient is because she had to be the part of a kid sister. > > > What's done is done. No use crying over spilled milk > > > True. The Key is here to stay and I'm not crying, really. I just want to > understand Whedon's rationale. There is a biography coming out soon. ;) > > > > > > -- > > > > > Shannon > > > > > > > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum > up > > a > > > > > little!" > > > > > > > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you > > here." > > > > > > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address > >

2003-03-13 00:14:07+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com... > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> schreef in bericht > > news:EuadnbOvZo7pzPOjXTWcoQ@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4ldn2$216nb0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for every > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > 'mechanical' death. > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. I didn't mention vamped. Buffy was sort of vamped in 'Nightmares', but I don't count that one. > > > > > > > > > > Responsibility for your own family is far more important emotionally than > > the rest of the world. > > Blood is thicker than water. > > I don't agree with that. And I don't think Buffy would agree with that, > either. Buffy has had to choose many times between seeing to it that Dawn > and Joyce were safe and leaving to save the rest of the world. And it's not > like she wouldn't have cared for any helpless teenager being stalked by a > crazed God who wanted to destroy the world. Family is always something special. > > > > > Yeah. But why should they have bothered to question their version of > reality > > at all once they knew the truth. Once you get the facts, why reflect on it > > further? > > Because some freakish entity knows enough about every single personal > incident of their intimate existences to create an entire human being that > knows everything? > What entity has that kind of power? What has been spying on them all these > years to that extent? If that isn't the damn creepiest thing you can > imagine, what is? I don't think it was a mere spy job.... I think the magic just took the necessary info from reality itself, and projected it into the key, like Dawn's existence is an extra layer projected upon the already existing reality. Maybe that's what the key is all about. Energy, knowledge. A reflection of the universe itself. The fact that Dawn isn't totally omniscient is because she had to be the part of a kid sister. > > > What's done is done. No use crying over spilled milk > > > True. The Key is here to stay and I'm not crying, really. I just want to > understand Whedon's rationale. There is a biography coming out soon. ;) > > > > > > -- > > > > > Shannon > > > > > > > > > > Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum > up > > a > > > > > little!" > > > > > > > > > > Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you > > here." > > > > > > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address > >

2003-03-13 00:31:22-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <m3u1e9c4vo.fsf@panix.com>, Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote: > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > > > At what point did soulless Angelus ever seek out and obtain a soul for > > himself > > and then reveal that to the Scooby Gang? > > Factually correct but pointless answer: In "Passion", when he > approached and grabbed the Orb Of Thessula, saying to Jenny, a member > of the Scooby Gang, that it contained his soul. > > What do you mean, "That's completely different and utterly > irrelevant"? It's not irrelevant. It's wrong. He never says that it contained his soul. �If memory serves, this is supposed to summon a person�s soul from the ether. Store it until it can be transferred.� It doesn't get his soul until Willow does the spell to plant it back into him, and then in only holds it temporarily, maybe for a second or two. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 00:31:22-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <m3u1e9c4vo.fsf@panix.com>, Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote: > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) writes: > > > At what point did soulless Angelus ever seek out and obtain a soul for > > himself > > and then reveal that to the Scooby Gang? > > Factually correct but pointless answer: In "Passion", when he > approached and grabbed the Orb Of Thessula, saying to Jenny, a member > of the Scooby Gang, that it contained his soul. > > What do you mean, "That's completely different and utterly > irrelevant"? It's not irrelevant. It's wrong. He never says that it contained his soul. �If memory serves, this is supposed to summon a person�s soul from the ether. Store it until it can be transferred.� It doesn't get his soul until Willow does the spell to plant it back into him, and then in only holds it temporarily, maybe for a second or two. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 00:48:49-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > every > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > hence the mystical element. But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first just means you don't stay entirely dead. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 00:48:49-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > every > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > hence the mystical element. But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first just means you don't stay entirely dead. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 04:58:14-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<UXGdnUVBAfcrWPKjXTWcqQ@brightview.com>... > DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:sfadnWIRdJI9ufOjXTWcoA@comcast.com... > > Mostly I was intrigued ... that Joss > > walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from > > scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi > > type story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return > > makes on other characters. > > (Snip) > > > What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > > story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > > else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What > > the hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be > > cool? > > You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory? <SNIP a well thought out post> > > Sleeper Thanks. That too was a good read. And I think you're right. Ken

2003-03-13 04:58:14-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<UXGdnUVBAfcrWPKjXTWcqQ@brightview.com>... > DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:sfadnWIRdJI9ufOjXTWcoA@comcast.com... > > Mostly I was intrigued ... that Joss > > walked into the story meeting erased everything and made them start from > > scratch. Essentially, she said, he took what was a complicated sci-fi > > type story and made it very simple focusing on the impact Faith's return > > makes on other characters. > > (Snip) > > > What is most interesting though is that Whedon understands that the real > > story here is Faith's return, Faith's try at redemption, and how everyone > > else accepts or rejects it. Which leads me to wonder about Dawn. What > > the hell was he thinking? Besides a teenage sister for Buffy would be > > cool? > > You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory? <SNIP a well thought out post> > > Sleeper Thanks. That too was a good read. And I think you're right. Ken

2003-03-13 05:14:22-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (metrix007@yahoo.com)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > > every > > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > > hence the mystical element. > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > just means you don't stay entirely dead. Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me.

2003-03-13 05:14:22-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (metrix007@yahoo.com)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > > every > > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > > hence the mystical element. > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > just means you don't stay entirely dead. Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me.

2003-03-13 06:23:44+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: Ian Galbraith igalbraith@ozonline.com.au >Date: 3/12/2003 6:10 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <djjv6v05gj8jq54f9s8jcfa6d3m4tvvtcg@4ax.com> > >On 12 Mar 2003 15:45:01 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >[snip] > >>I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the >revelation >>that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It >>makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that, or >>wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact >>that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. > >Because thats a can of worms they don't >want to open? Then they shouldn't have had him seek a soul. Then...no can of worms. > Because given >what it took Spike to get to that point was >unique and unlikely to be >replicated that its a non-issue? The Scoobs don't know that when Spike first comes back. >Because the majority of the >characters don't care, as evidenced by >Shannon's examples. Exactly. The majority of the characters don't care. That is what I have been contending throughout this threadlet. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-13 06:23:44+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Thinking about Jane's interview >From: Ian Galbraith igalbraith@ozonline.com.au >Date: 3/12/2003 6:10 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <djjv6v05gj8jq54f9s8jcfa6d3m4tvvtcg@4ax.com> > >On 12 Mar 2003 15:45:01 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >[snip] > >>I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the >revelation >>that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It >>makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that, or >>wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact >>that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. > >Because thats a can of worms they don't >want to open? Then they shouldn't have had him seek a soul. Then...no can of worms. > Because given >what it took Spike to get to that point was >unique and unlikely to be >replicated that its a non-issue? The Scoobs don't know that when Spike first comes back. >Because the majority of the >characters don't care, as evidenced by >Shannon's examples. Exactly. The majority of the characters don't care. That is what I have been contending throughout this threadlet. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-13 06:29:47+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >Well, Spike hasn't been redeemed, yet. And maybe he won't be, either. What >will that say about his soul? It would say nothing. However, if your POV is ME's (and I don't think it is), then the rape scene was a complete waste of time, and the cliffhanger was a total red herring, Spike spent weeks in the basement and days being tortured for nothing (James Marsters said he had to go through pain to be redeemed), and basically the whole damn plotline is a throwaway. "Gee let's have Spike try to rape Buffy just to make James and Sarah miserable and freak out the audience members." "Heh heh, yeah, that will be funny." No, I don't buy that. I put it down to simply doing the storyline badly. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-13 06:29:47+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >Well, Spike hasn't been redeemed, yet. And maybe he won't be, either. What >will that say about his soul? It would say nothing. However, if your POV is ME's (and I don't think it is), then the rape scene was a complete waste of time, and the cliffhanger was a total red herring, Spike spent weeks in the basement and days being tortured for nothing (James Marsters said he had to go through pain to be redeemed), and basically the whole damn plotline is a throwaway. "Gee let's have Spike try to rape Buffy just to make James and Sarah miserable and freak out the audience members." "Heh heh, yeah, that will be funny." No, I don't buy that. I put it down to simply doing the storyline badly. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-13 07:09:05+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Sleeper wrote: > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro of Dawn a retcon. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-13 07:09:05+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Sleeper wrote: > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro of Dawn a retcon. Rose Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat anyone else better." Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady

2003-03-13 12:20:15-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > > > every > > > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > > > > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > > > hence the mystical element. > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 12:20:15-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > > > every > > > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > > > > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > > > hence the mystical element. > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 13:10:52+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On 12 Mar 2003 15:45:01 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: [snip] >I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the revelation >that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It >makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that, or >wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact >that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. Because thats a can of worms they don't want to open? Because given what it took Spike to get to that point was unique and unlikely to be replicated that its a non-issue? Because the majority of the characters don't care, as evidenced by Shannon's examples. -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:10:52+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On 12 Mar 2003 15:45:01 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: [snip] >I disagree. And in any case, they most certainly didn't address the revelation >that a vampire CAN get himself a soul voluntarily without being cursed. It >makes them all seem pretty stupid that they wouldn't even react to that, or >wonder how many other vamps were trotting off to get souls, and what impact >that has on their being, oh, vampire killers. Because thats a can of worms they don't want to open? Because given what it took Spike to get to that point was unique and unlikely to be replicated that its a non-issue? Because the majority of the characters don't care, as evidenced by Shannon's examples. -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:10:54+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up >sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with >Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she >feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy >people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how >that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't >even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the >devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. Because that was the point at which everything seemed hopeless. She literally lost all hope at that point. -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:10:54+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:38:54 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up >sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with >Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she >feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy >people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how >that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't >even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the >devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. Because that was the point at which everything seemed hopeless. She literally lost all hope at that point. -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:23:18+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:35:45 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Because the truth is Buffy doesn't *know* what having a soul means. She >knows it made Angel not Angelus and that's about it. That's all any of us >knows for sure. We can, have, and probably will, continue to speculate >about it, but I think Buffy gave Dawn the only honest answer she could give. An interesting thought. At a meta level we can discuss what having a soul means and make a hard and fast rule that it functions as a conscience. WIthin the reality of the show as you say the characters could not be nearly as certain what it means. [snip] -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:23:18+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:35:45 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Because the truth is Buffy doesn't *know* what having a soul means. She >knows it made Angel not Angelus and that's about it. That's all any of us >knows for sure. We can, have, and probably will, continue to speculate >about it, but I think Buffy gave Dawn the only honest answer she could give. An interesting thought. At a meta level we can discuss what having a soul means and make a hard and fast rule that it functions as a conscience. WIthin the reality of the show as you say the characters could not be nearly as certain what it means. [snip] -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:30:15+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On 12 Mar 2003 22:11:22 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: [snip] >I am not a Willow fan and guess what. I agree with you. Well, actually, the >issue for me is not "time." Spike and Willow have been given plenty of "time" >on the show, imho. The problem with how their storylines have been handled is >an issue of Quality, not Quantity. I was very frustrated, early this season, >with the uninteresting way Willow's return was handled. It should have been >explosive. Fraught with crackling intensity. We should have been >white-knuckling. The Dark Goddess returns! Has she been tamed? Why should it? -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 13:30:15+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On 12 Mar 2003 22:11:22 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: [snip] >I am not a Willow fan and guess what. I agree with you. Well, actually, the >issue for me is not "time." Spike and Willow have been given plenty of "time" >on the show, imho. The problem with how their storylines have been handled is >an issue of Quality, not Quantity. I was very frustrated, early this season, >with the uninteresting way Willow's return was handled. It should have been >explosive. Fraught with crackling intensity. We should have been >white-knuckling. The Dark Goddess returns! Has she been tamed? Why should it? -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 14:12:29-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <b4qk7u$21vhgd$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de>, Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote: > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht > news:130320031220150585%dsample@synapse.net... > > In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > > > > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > > > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > > > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. > > > > The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. > > Due to the vamp blood you drank before kicking it finally. The vamp blood doesn't kill you. You're going to die whether you drink it or not. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 14:12:29-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <b4qk7u$21vhgd$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de>, Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote: > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht > news:130320031220150585%dsample@synapse.net... > > In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > > > > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > > > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > > > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. > > > > The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. > > Due to the vamp blood you drank before kicking it finally. The vamp blood doesn't kill you. You're going to die whether you drink it or not. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-03-13 14:13:43+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:51:03 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Plenty of meaningful conflict might have arisen from the magic, know-it-all, >new person in their midst, but none ever did. So, like I say, what was the >point of Dawn from Whedon's point of view? Consider: They have memories of knowing Dawn all her life, they like her. There couldn't be any conflict actually with her. I suppose they could have made Dawn unlikeable but that would have rendered other parts of the arc untenable. -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 14:13:43+11:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Ian Galbraith <igalbraith@ozonline.com.au>)


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:51:03 -0500, "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: [snip] >Plenty of meaningful conflict might have arisen from the magic, know-it-all, >new person in their midst, but none ever did. So, like I say, what was the >point of Dawn from Whedon's point of view? Consider: They have memories of knowing Dawn all her life, they like her. There couldn't be any conflict actually with her. I suppose they could have made Dawn unlikeable but that would have rendered other parts of the arc untenable. -- Ian Galbraith Email: igalbraith@removeozonline.com.au "Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment. You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without working at it." - Players: The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

2003-03-13 19:53:57+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht news:130320031220150585%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > > > > > > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > > > > hence the mystical element. > > > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. > > The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. Due to the vamp blood you drank before kicking it finally. > > -- > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > Quando omni flunkus moritati -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-13 19:53:57+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht news:130320031220150585%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > In article <c52a4e65.0303122140.7c440678@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > > news:<120320031853113537%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > > In article <MvWcnZSeY4ZeL_KjXTWcqw@comcast.com>, DarkMagic > > > > > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > > > news:b4nvp3$21jal0$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are hundreds of 'magical ways' for Buffy to die, but for > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > magical death there's probably more than a dozen chances of a more > > > > > > > 'mechanical' death. > > > > > > > In S1: Drowning, in S3 (alternate reality albeit): Snap of the neck. > > > > > > > In combat the chances for a physical injury are greater. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just being vamped is a mystical death. > > > > > > > > > > No. First you die a quite normal death from exsanguination. > > > > > > > > No. Being vamped entails drinking the blood of a vamp while alive, > > > > hence the mystical element. > > > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. > > The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. Due to the vamp blood you drank before kicking it finally. > > -- > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > Quando omni flunkus moritati -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-13 19:58:44+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> schreef in bericht news:20030313020905.27610.00000169@mb-mc.aol.com... > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole > >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put there. > I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro of > Dawn a retcon. A pseudo one. > > > Rose > Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat > anyone else better." > Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-13 19:58:44+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> schreef in bericht news:20030313020905.27610.00000169@mb-mc.aol.com... > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole > >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put there. > I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro of > Dawn a retcon. A pseudo one. > > > Rose > Higgins: "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether I treat > anyone else better." > Doolittle: "I see, the same to everyone." -- My Fair Lady > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-14 00:18:03+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht news:130320031412294631%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <b4qk7u$21vhgd$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de>, Wouter Valentijn > <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote: > > > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht > > news:130320031220150585%dsample@synapse.net... > > > In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > > > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > > > > > > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > > > > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > > > > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. > > > > > > The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. > > > > Due to the vamp blood you drank before kicking it finally. > > The vamp blood doesn't kill you. You're going to die whether you drink > it or not. Yes, I agreed with you. First you get attacked and sucked dry within an inch of your life. You drink the vamp blood while still being alive. Death sets in, because of the blood loss. Hello new vampire. > > -- > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > Quando omni flunkus moritati -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-14 00:18:03+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht news:130320031412294631%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <b4qk7u$21vhgd$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de>, Wouter Valentijn > <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote: > > > "Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> schreef in bericht > > news:130320031220150585%dsample@synapse.net... > > > In article <c52a4e65.0303130514.1d689021@posting.google.com>, JoshB > > > <metrix007@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message > > > > news:<130320030048493870%dsample@synapse.net>... > > > > > > But you still die from the blood loss. Drinking the vamps blood first > > > > > just means you don't stay entirely dead. > > > > > > > > Hmm, but your blood would be infused with vampire blood, which makes > > > > it mystical. Sure you may die, but as you die, the vamp blood starts > > > > doing its thing, which is pretty mystical to me. > > > > > > The mystical bit comes after you're already dead. > > > > Due to the vamp blood you drank before kicking it finally. > > The vamp blood doesn't kill you. You're going to die whether you drink > it or not. Yes, I agreed with you. First you get attacked and sucked dry within an inch of your life. You drink the vamp blood while still being alive. Death sets in, because of the blood loss. Hello new vampire. > > -- > Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net > Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ > Quando omni flunkus moritati -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-15 00:49:14+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


kenm47 <kenm47@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:4c527512.0303130458.9148d80@posting.google.com... > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<UXGdnUVBAfcrWPKjXTWcqQ@brightview.com>... > > You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory? > > <SNIP a well thought out post> > > Thanks. You're very welcome. > That too was a good read. I'm glad to hear it. When I write these things I always feel that I use so many sub-clauses and conjunctions that people will need a jungle guide to follow what I'm trying to say. > And I think you're right. Maybe. Who knows if we'll ever get the real why of it. But it feels right, doesn't it? Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-15 00:49:14+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


kenm47 <kenm47@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:4c527512.0303130458.9148d80@posting.google.com... > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<UXGdnUVBAfcrWPKjXTWcqQ@brightview.com>... > > You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory? > > <SNIP a well thought out post> > > Thanks. You're very welcome. > That too was a good read. I'm glad to hear it. When I write these things I always feel that I use so many sub-clauses and conjunctions that people will need a jungle guide to follow what I'm trying to say. > And I think you're right. Maybe. Who knows if we'll ever get the real why of it. But it feels right, doesn't it? Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-15 00:49:23+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030313020905.27610.00000169@mb-mc.aol.com... > Sleeper wrote: > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole > >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. > > I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro of > Dawn a retcon. Ooh, tricky one. I guess it comes down to precisely how *you* define retcon. I think I'd go with it being just a straight break with continuity albeit one with an in show explanation. One of the reasons I don't take part in those 'list your favourite seasons' threads is because I find it hard to think of Season 5 as really being a season of Buffy. The break is too big for me. It looks a lot like BtVS, and sounds a lot like BtVS but actually it isn't BtVS. It's a different show pretending to be Buffy. Maybe I should adapt Smaug's theory about A:tS and BtVS taking place in different realities. Each season of Buffy takes place in a different 'verse. Hey, wait that could solve season plot holes too. Each episode of Buffy takes place in a different reality. Now I think of it you can solve problems in episode logic by assuming that each act takes place in a different reality, each scene, each shot, each frame, each field, each scan line, each change in energy level ... Mwha Mwhaa MWHAAAA HA HA!!!! Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-15 00:49:23+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030313020905.27610.00000169@mb-mc.aol.com... > Sleeper wrote: > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The whole > >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. > > I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro of > Dawn a retcon. Ooh, tricky one. I guess it comes down to precisely how *you* define retcon. I think I'd go with it being just a straight break with continuity albeit one with an in show explanation. One of the reasons I don't take part in those 'list your favourite seasons' threads is because I find it hard to think of Season 5 as really being a season of Buffy. The break is too big for me. It looks a lot like BtVS, and sounds a lot like BtVS but actually it isn't BtVS. It's a different show pretending to be Buffy. Maybe I should adapt Smaug's theory about A:tS and BtVS taking place in different realities. Each season of Buffy takes place in a different 'verse. Hey, wait that could solve season plot holes too. Each episode of Buffy takes place in a different reality. Now I think of it you can solve problems in episode logic by assuming that each act takes place in a different reality, each scene, each shot, each frame, each field, each scan line, each change in energy level ... Mwha Mwhaa MWHAAAA HA HA!!!! Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-15 00:49:34+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > Sleeper wrote: > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The > >whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do > >this. > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > there. You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection too; despite her true history. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-15 00:49:34+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > Sleeper wrote: > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The > >whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do > >this. > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > there. You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection too; despite her true history. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-15 02:01:51+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The > > >whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do > > >this. > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > > there. > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there all > the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection > too; despite her true history. > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of the Scooby gang. > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-15 02:01:51+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The > > >whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do > > >this. > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > > there. > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there all > the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection > too; despite her true history. > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of the Scooby gang. > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-15 02:03:18+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:f8ucnUfqJPBs6u-jXTWcog@brightview.com... > > Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030313020905.27610.00000169@mb-mc.aol.com... > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The > whole > > >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. > > > > I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro > of > > Dawn a retcon. > > Ooh, tricky one. I guess it comes down to precisely how *you* define retcon. > I think I'd go with it being just a straight break with continuity albeit > one with an in show explanation. One of the reasons I don't take part in > those 'list your favourite seasons' threads is because I find it hard to > think of Season 5 as really being a season of Buffy. The break is too big > for me. It looks a lot like BtVS, and sounds a lot like BtVS but actually it > isn't BtVS. It's a different show pretending to be Buffy. > > Maybe I should adapt Smaug's theory about A:tS and BtVS taking place in > different realities. Each season of Buffy takes place in a different 'verse. > Hey, wait that could solve season plot holes too. Each episode of Buffy > takes place in a different reality. Now I think of it you can solve problems > in episode logic by assuming that each act takes place in a different > reality, each scene, each shot, each frame, each field, each scan line, each > change in energy level ... Mwha Mwhaa MWHAAAA HA HA!!!! Multiverse or Hypertime. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address >

2003-03-15 02:03:18+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:f8ucnUfqJPBs6u-jXTWcog@brightview.com... > > Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030313020905.27610.00000169@mb-mc.aol.com... > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. The > whole > > >Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism to do this. > > > > I've always thought this too, which is why I've always called it the intro > of > > Dawn a retcon. > > Ooh, tricky one. I guess it comes down to precisely how *you* define retcon. > I think I'd go with it being just a straight break with continuity albeit > one with an in show explanation. One of the reasons I don't take part in > those 'list your favourite seasons' threads is because I find it hard to > think of Season 5 as really being a season of Buffy. The break is too big > for me. It looks a lot like BtVS, and sounds a lot like BtVS but actually it > isn't BtVS. It's a different show pretending to be Buffy. > > Maybe I should adapt Smaug's theory about A:tS and BtVS taking place in > different realities. Each season of Buffy takes place in a different 'verse. > Hey, wait that could solve season plot holes too. Each episode of Buffy > takes place in a different reality. Now I think of it you can solve problems > in episode logic by assuming that each act takes place in a different > reality, each scene, each shot, each frame, each field, each scan line, each > change in energy level ... Mwha Mwhaa MWHAAAA HA HA!!!! Multiverse or Hypertime. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address >

2003-03-15 22:55:34-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> writes: > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > [...] > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > all > > the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection > > too; despite her true history. > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not exclude > the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of the Scooby > gang. It doesn't exclude the Scoobs' emotional bond, but it sets the audience up to see that bond as something foisted on the Scoobs, as a kind of brainwashing that the Scoobs need to overcome before they can be whole. That was a big problem with the S5 arc, especially the climax in "The Gift". The Scoobs may not have felt that Dawn had been a mere glowing ball 8 months earlier, but the audience knew it and saw Buffy's choices in the context of it. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-03-15 22:55:34-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


"Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> writes: > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > [...] > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > all > > the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection > > too; despite her true history. > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not exclude > the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of the Scooby > gang. It doesn't exclude the Scoobs' emotional bond, but it sets the audience up to see that bond as something foisted on the Scoobs, as a kind of brainwashing that the Scoobs need to overcome before they can be whole. That was a big problem with the S5 arc, especially the climax in "The Gift". The Scoobs may not have felt that Dawn had been a mere glowing ball 8 months earlier, but the audience knew it and saw Buffy's choices in the context of it. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-03-16 23:48:22+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Tom Breton" <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> schreef in bericht news:m3adfwt16x.fsf@panix.com... > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> writes: > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > [...] > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > > all > > > the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection > > > too; despite her true history. > > > > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not exclude > > the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of the Scooby > > gang. > > It doesn't exclude the Scoobs' emotional bond, but it sets the > audience up to see that bond as something foisted on the Scoobs, as a > kind of brainwashing that the Scoobs need to overcome before they can > be whole. > The knowledge came, but the emotion stayed. > That was a big problem with the S5 arc, especially the climax in "The > Gift". The Scoobs may not have felt that Dawn had been a mere glowing > ball 8 months earlier, but the audience knew it and saw Buffy's > choices in the context of it. > > -- > Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-16 23:48:22+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Tom Breton" <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> schreef in bericht news:m3adfwt16x.fsf@panix.com... > "Wouter Valentijn" <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> writes: > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > [...] > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > > all > > > the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional connection > > > too; despite her true history. > > > > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not exclude > > the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of the Scooby > > gang. > > It doesn't exclude the Scoobs' emotional bond, but it sets the > audience up to see that bond as something foisted on the Scoobs, as a > kind of brainwashing that the Scoobs need to overcome before they can > be whole. > The knowledge came, but the emotion stayed. > That was a big problem with the S5 arc, especially the climax in "The > Gift". The Scoobs may not have felt that Dawn had been a mere glowing > ball 8 months earlier, but the audience knew it and saw Buffy's > choices in the context of it. > > -- > Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-17 00:55:37+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. > > > >The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism > > > >to do this. > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > > > there. > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > > all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional > > connection too; despite her true history. > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters their conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and actions) because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them she's still Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of > the Scooby gang. It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success or failure. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-17 00:55:37+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. > > > >The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism > > > >to do this. > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > > > there. > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > > all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional > > connection too; despite her true history. > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters their conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and actions) because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them she's still Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of > the Scooby gang. It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success or failure. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-17 09:17:55-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (bergeg@parl.gc.ca)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > "NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > > The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events > > in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for > > example Spike, which you used in another thread. > > > > If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more > > different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2 > > Not really. Buffy would have been seriously pressed to fight off Spike, > Druscilla *and* Angel. Spike evened up the odds of her success in that > battle. If you're going to argue that the season could have been played out > without Spike or Druscilla at all, it certainly could have. But would it > have been as interesting, as much fun, taught us as much about > Angel/Angelus, or Buffy as it did, or made for as many funny and memorable > scenes? Arguably not. I wouldn't argue about that, but then, BtVS wouldn't be the same without Dawn as well. Buffy would be a very different person without a child to raise, and would actually be "dead again" in Bargaining Part II without Dawn. Talking to Xander, Willow, Anya and Tara didn't help Buffy, but the sister she sacrificed herself for could reach her, moments before she would've fallen again from the Tower. > What did Dawn's appearance in Season 5 teach us > about Buffy, or anyone else, for that matter? What scenes including Dawn > are so incredibly funny or poignant that they virtually define the essence > of the story or the B-verse for you? I know you hate the episode, but the scene in 'The Body' where Buffy tells Dawn about Joyce IS one of the most poignant of the series, because we knew Dawn's fragile emotional state regarding her own identity when she learned of her mother's sudden death. The scene I mentioned earlier in Bargaining Part II. The scene in Blood Ties, where she learns who she is ("Is this blood ?"). The end of "The Gift" (which although didn't make sense, was still strong emotionally). "Potential", which was a great episode exploring the feelings of both an overshadowed sibling or a sibling who feels left out. > > Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force > > behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state > > of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted > > by Riley, > > See, again, I have to disagree. Buffy stopped letting her guard down, or > allowing herself to depend on a boyfriend, when Angel became evil. Riley > left because Buffy didn't love him and he couldn't deal with it. It had > nothing at all to do with Dawn. I again MUST disagree. Buffy let her guard down with Scott Hope, and got hurt. She let her guard down with Parker, and got hurt. She let her guard down with Riley at first as well, until the end of Season 4. When Joyce got sick, Buffy wouldn't let herself feel her own fears because she had to be strong. For whom ? For Dawn. So she walled up the fear inside. When she learned her sister was not real and that she was targeted by a hellgod, she couldn't tell anyone because it might mean death for Dawn. So she walled up those feelings as well. I'm not saying that Dawn's presence accounted for everything Buffy kept from Riley, but she hadn't been there, Buffy could have been the one to need comfort as opposed to the one giving it. Buffy would not have had to hide anything regarding the key/Glory to Riley. He might have felt more in the loop, more needed. > the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the > > World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much > > about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same > > place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full > > episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to > > saving the world. > > > Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up > sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with > Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she > feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy > people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how > that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't > even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the > devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. She fell apart when she went outside and saw what Glory did, and realize that she had Dawn and there was nothing Buffy could do. It had EVERYTHING to do with Dawn. Buffy questioned her purpose in the world because of her sister, something she never did beforehand, even with Angel. > > Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree > > that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put > > in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or > > Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once > > were. > > So, you're saying the gang needed a Mary Sue. Fine. Why make it Buffy's > sister? Why make it the Key? Why not just introduce a Mary Sue every > episode they need one? Why not make the Key any teenager in need? Show me > that the fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister affects the storyline in any way > other than the blood/portal thing, which makes no sense. Let me again answer in kind. Why couldn't Spike be a random vampire every episode ? What did the fact that Angel was his sire change in the show ? It added depth. The fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister changed the storyline because Buffy cared more about her than any other Mary Sue. Would Buffy had gone to save random Mary Sue in OMWF or would she had gone to Spike's instead for a kiss ? Would she have become as depressed in Season 6 without being responsible for a child ? Would she have needed to work at the Doublemeat Palace ? Would Giles have felt that she was shirking every responsibility if she had none ? Most probably not. > > In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the > > dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone > > but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel). > > How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > fundamentally changed? Buffy fundamentally changed from a headstrong independant person to a responsible parent. Willow did, as well, taking the parent responsability when Buffy was gone. Spike showed he could care for someone other than Buffy (although Dawn WAS mini-Buffy :P). The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as a big brother.

2003-03-17 09:17:55-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (bergeg@parl.gc.ca)


"DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > "NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > > The arguments you use against Dawn having an influence in the events > > in the Buffyverse could be used against ANYone's influence, for > > example Spike, which you used in another thread. > > > > If Spike hadn't been there there might have been a hundred or more > > different ways that Buffy could have stopped Angel in Season 2 > > Not really. Buffy would have been seriously pressed to fight off Spike, > Druscilla *and* Angel. Spike evened up the odds of her success in that > battle. If you're going to argue that the season could have been played out > without Spike or Druscilla at all, it certainly could have. But would it > have been as interesting, as much fun, taught us as much about > Angel/Angelus, or Buffy as it did, or made for as many funny and memorable > scenes? Arguably not. I wouldn't argue about that, but then, BtVS wouldn't be the same without Dawn as well. Buffy would be a very different person without a child to raise, and would actually be "dead again" in Bargaining Part II without Dawn. Talking to Xander, Willow, Anya and Tara didn't help Buffy, but the sister she sacrificed herself for could reach her, moments before she would've fallen again from the Tower. > What did Dawn's appearance in Season 5 teach us > about Buffy, or anyone else, for that matter? What scenes including Dawn > are so incredibly funny or poignant that they virtually define the essence > of the story or the B-verse for you? I know you hate the episode, but the scene in 'The Body' where Buffy tells Dawn about Joyce IS one of the most poignant of the series, because we knew Dawn's fragile emotional state regarding her own identity when she learned of her mother's sudden death. The scene I mentioned earlier in Bargaining Part II. The scene in Blood Ties, where she learns who she is ("Is this blood ?"). The end of "The Gift" (which although didn't make sense, was still strong emotionally). "Potential", which was a great episode exploring the feelings of both an overshadowed sibling or a sibling who feels left out. > > Dawn DID have an impact on the events, she was the driving force > > behind everything happening in Season 5, INCLUDING the emotional state > > of Buffy, who had to be strong for Dawn instead of getting comforted > > by Riley, > > See, again, I have to disagree. Buffy stopped letting her guard down, or > allowing herself to depend on a boyfriend, when Angel became evil. Riley > left because Buffy didn't love him and he couldn't deal with it. It had > nothing at all to do with Dawn. I again MUST disagree. Buffy let her guard down with Scott Hope, and got hurt. She let her guard down with Parker, and got hurt. She let her guard down with Riley at first as well, until the end of Season 4. When Joyce got sick, Buffy wouldn't let herself feel her own fears because she had to be strong. For whom ? For Dawn. So she walled up the fear inside. When she learned her sister was not real and that she was targeted by a hellgod, she couldn't tell anyone because it might mean death for Dawn. So she walled up those feelings as well. I'm not saying that Dawn's presence accounted for everything Buffy kept from Riley, but she hadn't been there, Buffy could have been the one to need comfort as opposed to the one giving it. Buffy would not have had to hide anything regarding the key/Glory to Riley. He might have felt more in the loop, more needed. > the only reason why Buffy went comatose in Weight of the > > World and threatened to quit Slaying if Dawn died. We learned so much > > about Buffy's state of mind then, namely that she wasn't at the same > > place she was back in Season 2. And Weight of the World was a full > > episode about how the insertion of Dawn affected Buffy in regards to > > saving the world. > > > Maybe that's the way you saw it. I saw it as a convoluted and jumbled up > sort of birth/death cycle metaphor that actually had very little to do with > Dawn. We learned that Buffy feared having to destroy her sister, but she > feared having to destroy her boyfriend, too. Buffy fears having to destroy > people she cares about. That's no revelation to me. And I don't see how > that shows her in a different place than she was in Season 2. Buffy didn't > even fall apart when Dawn was taken. It wasn't until she saw the > devastation Glory brought to the KoB that she shut down. She fell apart when she went outside and saw what Glory did, and realize that she had Dawn and there was nothing Buffy could do. It had EVERYTHING to do with Dawn. Buffy questioned her purpose in the world because of her sister, something she never did beforehand, even with Angel. > > Her part in Season 6 and 7 was lessened, but never even to the degree > > that Xander's part was ever lessened. And being available to be put > > in danger is still a big part in the Scoobies lives, since Willow or > > Xander aren't as prone to be targeted (or as useless) as they once > > were. > > So, you're saying the gang needed a Mary Sue. Fine. Why make it Buffy's > sister? Why make it the Key? Why not just introduce a Mary Sue every > episode they need one? Why not make the Key any teenager in need? Show me > that the fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister affects the storyline in any way > other than the blood/portal thing, which makes no sense. Let me again answer in kind. Why couldn't Spike be a random vampire every episode ? What did the fact that Angel was his sire change in the show ? It added depth. The fact that Dawn is Buffy's sister changed the storyline because Buffy cared more about her than any other Mary Sue. Would Buffy had gone to save random Mary Sue in OMWF or would she had gone to Spike's instead for a kiss ? Would she have become as depressed in Season 6 without being responsible for a child ? Would she have needed to work at the Doublemeat Palace ? Would Giles have felt that she was shirking every responsibility if she had none ? Most probably not. > > In anyway, I'd argue that Dawn's presence had more influence on the > > dynamics of the group and the emotional status of Buffy than anyone > > but the original group (Giles, Xander, Willow and Angel). > > How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > fundamentally changed? Buffy fundamentally changed from a headstrong independant person to a responsible parent. Willow did, as well, taking the parent responsability when Buffy was gone. Spike showed he could care for someone other than Buffy (although Dawn WAS mini-Buffy :P). The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as a big brother.

2003-03-17 19:10:39-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


Growltiger wrote: > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, bergeg@parl.gc.ca wrote in article > <24ab6293.0303170917.13964e5c@posting.google.com>... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > > The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to > > being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as > > a big brother. > > > > Willow is a parent figure? She and Tara became parent figures over the summer while Buffy was dead.

2003-03-17 19:10:39-05:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


Growltiger wrote: > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, bergeg@parl.gc.ca wrote in article > <24ab6293.0303170917.13964e5c@posting.google.com>... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > > The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to > > being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as > > a big brother. > > > > Willow is a parent figure? She and Tara became parent figures over the summer while Buffy was dead.

2003-03-17 19:16:27+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, bergeg@parl.gc.ca wrote in article <24ab6293.0303170917.13964e5c@posting.google.com>... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > > "NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > > news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > [snipped] > > > > How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > > fundamentally changed? > > Buffy fundamentally changed from a headstrong independant person to a > responsible parent. Willow did, as well, taking the parent > responsability when Buffy was gone. Spike showed he could care for > someone other than Buffy (although Dawn WAS mini-Buffy :P). > > The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to > being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as > a big brother. > Willow is a parent figure? I suppose the driving with Dawn and crashing an automobile whilst in an altered state, trapping Dawn and Buffy in a cave with creatures attempting to kill them, and, of course, her attempting to destroy the world in which Dawn lives entered into your estimation of Willow's parental skills. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-03-17 19:16:27+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, bergeg@parl.gc.ca wrote in article <24ab6293.0303170917.13964e5c@posting.google.com>... > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > > "NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > > news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > [snipped] > > > > How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > > fundamentally changed? > > Buffy fundamentally changed from a headstrong independant person to a > responsible parent. Willow did, as well, taking the parent > responsability when Buffy was gone. Spike showed he could care for > someone other than Buffy (although Dawn WAS mini-Buffy :P). > > The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to > being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as > a big brother. > Willow is a parent figure? I suppose the driving with Dawn and crashing an automobile whilst in an altered state, trapping Dawn and Buffy in a cave with creatures attempting to kill them, and, of course, her attempting to destroy the world in which Dawn lives entered into your estimation of Willow's parental skills. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-03-17 20:35:22+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:gcycnenpmLH_geijXTWcow@brightview.com... > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. > > > > >The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism > > > > >to do this. > > > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > > > > there. > > > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > > > all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional > > > connection too; despite her true history. > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters their > conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and actions) > because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them she's still > Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Hmmm... Recently acquired sister now. Just a new character like in the past Oz or Riley etc. Only Dawn is special because of her position of need as a child (and the being a sister part). > > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of > > the Scooby gang. > > It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success or > failure. Intent? Who do you know that was their intent? > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-17 20:35:22+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:gcycnenpmLH_geijXTWcow@brightview.com... > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time sister. > > > > >The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a mechanism > > > > >to do this. > > > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially put > > > > there. > > > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been there > > > all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same emotional > > > connection too; despite her true history. > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Past > > tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters their > conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and actions) > because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them she's still > Buffy's real been there all the time sister. Hmmm... Recently acquired sister now. Just a new character like in the past Oz or Riley etc. Only Dawn is special because of her position of need as a child (and the being a sister part). > > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part of > > the Scooby gang. > > It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success or > failure. Intent? Who do you know that was their intent? > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address

2003-03-18 01:24:32+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b5585m$24nvmn$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > news:gcycnenpmLH_geijXTWcow@brightview.com... > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time > > > > > >sister.The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a > > > > > >mechanism to do this. > > > > > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially > > > > > put there. > > > > > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been > > > > there all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same > > > > emotional connection too; despite her true history. > > > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > > Past tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > > > They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters > > their conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and > > actions) because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them > > she's still Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > Hmmm... Recently acquired sister now. > Just a new character like in the past Oz or Riley etc. > Only Dawn is special because of her position of need as a child (and the > being a sister part). What? I don't understand. Is this you agreeing with me? > > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > > > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part > > > of the Scooby gang. > > > > It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success > > or failure. > > Intent? Who do you know that was their intent? As I said 'You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory?' I was speculating as to what their intentions were in introducing Dawn. That is, I was making statements about their intent. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-18 01:24:32+00:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message news:b5585m$24nvmn$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > news:gcycnenpmLH_geijXTWcow@brightview.com... > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time > > > > > >sister.The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a > > > > > >mechanism to do this. > > > > > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially > > > > > put there. > > > > > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been > > > > there all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same > > > > emotional connection too; despite her true history. > > > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > > Past tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > > > They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters > > their conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and > > actions) because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them > > she's still Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > Hmmm... Recently acquired sister now. > Just a new character like in the past Oz or Riley etc. > Only Dawn is special because of her position of need as a child (and the > being a sister part). What? I don't understand. Is this you agreeing with me? > > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > > > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part > > > of the Scooby gang. > > > > It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success > > or failure. > > Intent? Who do you know that was their intent? As I said 'You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory?' I was speculating as to what their intentions were in introducing Dawn. That is, I was making statements about their intent. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-03-18 06:51:08-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (bergeg@parl.gc.ca)


Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid> wrote in message news:<MPG.18dfbed4ba72a1989e64@netnews.attbi.com>... > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, bergeg@parl.gc.ca wrote in article > <24ab6293.0303170917.13964e5c@posting.google.com>... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > > > "NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > > > news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > > > [snipped] > > > > > > How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > > > fundamentally changed? > > > > Buffy fundamentally changed from a headstrong independant person to a > > responsible parent. Willow did, as well, taking the parent > > responsability when Buffy was gone. Spike showed he could care for > > someone other than Buffy (although Dawn WAS mini-Buffy :P). > > > > The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to > > being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as > > a big brother. > > > > Willow is a parent figure? I suppose the driving with Dawn and crashing > an automobile whilst in an altered state, trapping Dawn and Buffy in a > cave with creatures attempting to kill them, and, of course, her > attempting to destroy the world in which Dawn lives entered into your > estimation of Willow's parental skills. What I said was "Willow did, as well, taking the parent responsability when Buffy was gone." When Buffy came back, she became an addict. And of course, parents get addicted and mistreat their child sometimes. But in anyway, I meant that Willow became a parent during the summer of Buffy's death. I wasn't talking during the addiction.

2003-03-18 06:51:08-08:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (bergeg@parl.gc.ca)


Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid> wrote in message news:<MPG.18dfbed4ba72a1989e64@netnews.attbi.com>... > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, bergeg@parl.gc.ca wrote in article > <24ab6293.0303170917.13964e5c@posting.google.com>... > > "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<A0CdnZN8LaRO7fKjXTWcrg@comcast.com>... > > > "NightBaron" <bergeg@parl.gc.ca> wrote in message > > > news:24ab6293.0303120746.4f77a107@posting.google.com... > > > [snipped] > > > > > > How so? How has the group dynamic changed? How has anyone's character > > > fundamentally changed? > > > > Buffy fundamentally changed from a headstrong independant person to a > > responsible parent. Willow did, as well, taking the parent > > responsability when Buffy was gone. Spike showed he could care for > > someone other than Buffy (although Dawn WAS mini-Buffy :P). > > > > The group dynamic changed completely, from being a gang of friends to > > being a family, with Willow and Buffy as parent figures and Xander as > > a big brother. > > > > Willow is a parent figure? I suppose the driving with Dawn and crashing > an automobile whilst in an altered state, trapping Dawn and Buffy in a > cave with creatures attempting to kill them, and, of course, her > attempting to destroy the world in which Dawn lives entered into your > estimation of Willow's parental skills. What I said was "Willow did, as well, taking the parent responsability when Buffy was gone." When Buffy came back, she became an addict. And of course, parents get addicted and mistreat their child sometimes. But in anyway, I meant that Willow became a parent during the summer of Buffy's death. I wasn't talking during the addiction.

2003-03-18 20:34:46+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:LVidnRVRY9876eujXTWcqQ@brightview.com... > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b5585m$24nvmn$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > news:gcycnenpmLH_geijXTWcow@brightview.com... > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time > > > > > > >sister.The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a > > > > > > >mechanism to do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially > > > > > > put there. > > > > > > > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been > > > > > there all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same > > > > > emotional connection too; despite her true history. > > > > > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > > > Past tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > > > > > They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters > > > their conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and > > > actions) because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them > > > she's still Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > > > Hmmm... Recently acquired sister now. > > Just a new character like in the past Oz or Riley etc. > > Only Dawn is special because of her position of need as a child (and the > > being a sister part). > > What? I don't understand. Is this you agreeing with me? No, not really. You said 'been there all the time', and I said: 'recently acquired'. > > > > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > > > > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part > > > > of the Scooby gang. > > > > > > It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success > > > or failure. > > > > Intent? Who do you know that was their intent? > > As I said 'You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory?' I was > speculating as to what their intentions were in introducing Dawn. That is, I > was making statements about their intent. Ah, okay. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address >

2003-03-18 20:34:46+01:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht news:LVidnRVRY9876eujXTWcqQ@brightview.com... > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > news:b5585m$24nvmn$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > news:gcycnenpmLH_geijXTWcow@brightview.com... > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > news:b4tu5n$22rdk9$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> schreef in bericht > > > > news:bgidncvNA-5h6u-jXTWcpQ@brightview.com... > > > > > > > > > > Wouter Valentijn <Wouter.ValentijnNOT@12move.nl> wrote in message > > > > > news:b4qkh6$227k1l$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > > > Sleeper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >The point was to give Buffy a real been there all the time > > > > > > >sister.The whole Key/Glory/Monks shtick was cooked up merely as a > > > > > > >mechanism to do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Err, Dawn's existence is an extra layer on reality. Artificially > > > > > > put there. > > > > > > > > > > You're being too literal. The Scoobs see her as Buffy's real been > > > > > there all the time sister and you're supposed to have the same > > > > > emotional connection too; despite her true history. > > > > > > > > The Scoobs SAW her as Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > > > Past tense. Once they knew the truth, they knew the truth. > > > > > > They know on some intellectual level what she is but it rarely enters > > > their conscious thoughts (as far as we can tell from their words and > > > actions) because emotionally their feelings haven't changed. To them > > > she's still Buffy's real been there all the time sister. > > > > Hmmm... Recently acquired sister now. > > Just a new character like in the past Oz or Riley etc. > > Only Dawn is special because of her position of need as a child (and the > > being a sister part). > > What? I don't understand. Is this you agreeing with me? No, not really. You said 'been there all the time', and I said: 'recently acquired'. > > > > > The audience knew it all along. The truth I mean. But that does not > > > > exclude the emotional bond. She became a part of that family. A part > > > > of the Scooby gang. > > > > > > It was a statement about their intent. Not an evaluation of it's success > > > or failure. > > > > Intent? Who do you know that was their intent? > > As I said 'You want to hear my completely unsubstantiated theory?' I was > speculating as to what their intentions were in introducing Dawn. That is, I > was making statements about their intent. Ah, okay. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > -- Wouter Valentijn www.ZeppoDunsel.nl Delete NOT in e-mail address >

2003-04-10 17:20:13-07:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>With Faith atoning for a single event, it takes on a much more >symbolic state to me. What single event was that?????????

2003-04-10 17:20:13-07:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>With Faith atoning for a single event, it takes on a much more >symbolic state to me. What single event was that?????????

2003-04-10 17:20:14-07:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>> What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? > >Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the >lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the >potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised >more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than >anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They >haven't even been asked on the show itself. and Dawn's does not?? Of course it does. Buffy has one more person to worry about

2003-04-10 17:20:14-07:00 - Re: Thinking about Jane's interview - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>> What about the fact that sometimes a character is just interesting? > >Dawn *isn't* interesting. An interesting character would impact on the >lives and behavior of the people around her. She certainly has the >potential to be interesting. In fact, I think Dawn's existence has raised >more interesting questions about the workings of the Buffyverse than >anything else ever did. But those questions haven't been answered. They >haven't even been asked on the show itself. and Dawn's does not?? Of course it does. Buffy has one more person to worry about