|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:01:50 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he said 'footwear' which must be a pun on soles/souls and the conversation about buying shoes. Do you think the 'rays' count as fishes all round his head?
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:02:13 GMT -5
I've said (upstairs on Part 33) that I'm blind and incapacitated by (my own) Spike Sniveling Whenever y'all are done discussing the finale, come join the ongoing discussion of the usual demented things upstairs on Part 33) especially as some people are complaining of whiplash from having to switch back and forth so as not to miss anything. Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:02:55 GMT -5
DEBORAH says: "I don't understand, Spring. Are you saying that Spike's declaration that Buffy really didn't love him was a misunderstanding on his part?" No. I don't think Buffy loves Spike the way Spike wanted her too. I am just saying that Buffy had come to a place in her life where she understood that she wasn't "completely baked" enough as a human being to really, truly, totally love anyone - and that she was leaving herself open to any and all possibilities - maybe the day will come when she truly totally wants to love another in a deep, adult, all-out way. Maybe it won't. Maybe it will be Angel. Maybe it won't. Maybe it could have been Spike. Maybe not. Maybe someone else. She just left it totally open, in my mind. Spring Summers
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:03:27 GMT -5
Or shan - shoe.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:05:14 GMT -5
There were some really good posts earlier that got me thinking about the Whedon School of Female Empowerment... My first reaction was to feel somewhat miffed at the implication that females HAD to share great power to be effective as leaders. A good leader can share some things, should delegate others, but in the end, the leader is alone to fight, make difficult decisions, and live with the consequences. One reason that I've always liked Buffy as a character and a show is that she is a heroine who has always shouldered the burden and could fight on her own as well as alongside others. But then I realized that Buffy is NOT a great leader. A great warrior and soldier, but she has only been successful at leading when she has relied on her closest friends as her generals and captains. The Slayer was not created to lead; but to follow orders and slay monsters. It is to Buffy's credit that she did her very, very best to lead an army of insecure girls and save them and the world. I compared the Slayer Line to hereditary monarchies up through the Victorian era. Sometimes young girls ended up sitting on thrones and ordering the affairs of nations. Unlike Buffy, they were trained from early childhood to be aware of the possibility that they might, as relatives of a king, ascend to a throne; and to learn to accept and properly wield authority for the benefit of all. Buffy had absolutely no training, no inkling that anything other than a rather vapid American teenaged lifestyle awaited her until she became a Slayer. Buffy had absolutely no choice in becoming a Slayer; she couldn't run off and live in a nunnery or abdicate, no matter what she did, while she lived, she was The Slayer. We know she regretted her lack of freedom, she struggled fiercely to have a mere veneer of normality, an occasional date or evening at the Bronze between stalking demons. She occasionally raged against her role; but almost always fulfilled it with great strength and honor. But in the end, this last season, the role of the Slayer was killing Buffy from the inside out; exhausting and isolating her almost beyond endurance. (did anyone notice how old and tired Buffy looked in the first scene?) I think the most important aspect of Buffy's gift to the Potentials all over the world, to young girls and women everywhere, was not the importance of sharing power; but the gift she had been denied for more than seven years: the freedom of choice. Of course, the importance of making and keeping friendships and connections cannot be denied in the BUFFY mythos. What distinguished Buffy from the other Slayers we have seen was not just her rebellious attitude but her back-up cavalry of Scoobies. If Buffy had not had that ability to make and keep friends, she would have died at the Master's hands; because Xander would not have been there. If Buffy did not have the ability to also inspire love, Sunnydale would have been consumed by Ubervamps; even the army of 20-odd Slayers could not have stemmed the tide of thousands of Ubervamps. But Buffy inspired Spike to reach for her and then to reach for heaven... But that's a matter for another post. Gail
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:05:48 GMT -5
There are 2 new interviews on NPR about buffy. One is a conversation with David Lavery (professor of English at Tenn State) the interesting thing here is the 4 or 5 call ins. One is a women professor with some provocative thigs to say about Buffy and female empowerment and wearing High Heels to Slay.(may 20,2003) the other is a review by David Bianculli (NY post(?) critic) who reviews Buffy and 24.(may 21 2003) I have attempted to post the link below but i am sure you can get it by going to NPR.com and typing in buffy. discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1262180ellie
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:06:10 GMT -5
I thought that the irrevocable alteration in the Slayer line was just an opportunity for TFE to kill the line. I thought that it meant the TFE was never able to locate Potentials until the disruption. Once it could, TFE had the Bringers and Caleb hunt and kill the helpless girls before they could gain their powers. But by giving all the girls the power, there are too many Slayers to face and kill. Hunting and killing them now would be..., not impossible, but harder. And the purpose for activating the SiTs was so there are enough that a Potential could decide to reject or not prioritize their Slayerdom.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Apr 14, 2004 0:06:47 GMT -5
Miguel - I agree with your take on this . . . and FYI - it looks as if everyone has moved on to the next part (33) above . . . come join us.
|
|