Talk:Ring of Fire (Buffy comic)

Off Characterization
Here's why Dru and Kendra's characterization can be considered OOC:


 * (Breaking buffy out of prison)
 * Kendra: Hello, blondie. Miss me?
 * Buffy: Kendra? What are you doing here?
 * Kendra: Saving your ass.


 * (Later)
 * Kendra: This Kelgor has a wicked plan B.

That line sounds much more like Faith now doesn't it?


 * (To Willow) Kendra: You're a witch, ain't you?

A girl raised like Kendra would not use the word "ain't".


 * (Kendra tackles Xander out of the way of falling debris and windes up in a 'suggestive' position)
 * Xander: Thanks, Kendra. Say, after the kill-fest, you think mabe we could--
 * Kendra: No

Without missing a beat or even reacting. Ignoring the fact that, in terms of continuity, Xander and Cordelia were a quasi-item or an item (depending on when this is set), this reaction is the exact opposite of what occured in What's my Line part II

Which is as follows:
 * Xander: Welcome. So! You're a Slayer, huh? I like that in a woman.
 * Kendra: (nervous) Uh... I hope... I tank you... I mean, sir, um... I will be of service.
 * Xander: (looks at the others) Great! (to Kendra) Good. It's good to be a giver. (goes to the table)

Something is definitaly wrong there.

As for Drusilla--she starts out good...but degrades.

After Kelgor rises:


 * Drusiilla: You'rethe coolest new boy-friend ever.
 * Kelgor: Thank you.


 * Drusilla: Darling, I don't normally ask this on a first date, but... could you kill everyone here!

There's at least 2 more good examples of bad characterization, but that should be sufficient. Majin Gojira 16:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that Petrie could have done a better job in places with the characterisation. However regarding Kendra, you are basing all of your assumptions about her character from certain moments of "What's My Line I/II". It seems unfair to think you can know the sum of a person on first meeting them, first impressions are not necessarily accurate impressions. What about the development she has obviously undergone by the time she reappears in "Becoming I". That script shows that she is confident and comfortable around the Scooby Gang. In fact in my opinion her behviour in "Becoming I" makes more sense having read "Ring of Fire" (and seeing that she spent more time with the Scoobies off-screen). Here is some dialogue from Becoming I shooting script:


 * Kendra playfully scares Buffy


 * Buffy walks along.


 * She comes to a row of tall hedges. Stops, turning. Did she hear something?


 * Someone BURSTS out from between the hedges right behind her. She spins, takes an attack stance.


 * BUFFY: You know, polite people call before they jump out of the bushes and attack you.


 * ANGLE: KENDRA


 * Is the person facing her. She smiles.


 * KENDRA: Just wanted to test your reflexes.


 * BUFFY: (not angry) Would you like to test my face-punching? 'Cause I think you'll find it's improved.


 * KENDRA: I was on my way to your house. Saw you walking. Couldn't help myself.


 * BUFFY: Which begs the question and don't think I'm not glad to see you but why are you here? Wait. Let me guess. Your Watcher has informed you that a very dark power is about to rise in Sunnydale.


 * KENDRA: That's about it.


 * BUFFY: Great. Did he give you any idea of what this dark power is?


 * Kendra, and dating - During this scene she is obviously at ease in the comfort of Buffy, Willow and Giles.


 * KENDRA: (to Buffy) You think Angelus and the others are responsible for the theft of the tomb?


 * BUFFY: I'd bet folding money on it.


 * KENDRA: I can't believe you dated him.(off her look) I mean, he's got to be stopped.


 * Opposite sex


 * Regarding Xander's suggestive comments, it seems to me that he is joking (although dating Cordelia doesn't necessarily stop him finding Kendra attractive, this was already implied in the What My line text you quote above). It makes sense that as Kendra spends more time with the Scoobies she would become more confident in herself. Just because she was nervous when she first met Xander, and was unused to being around boys dur to her upbringing, doesn't stop her developing into a normal person as she spends more time around the opposite sex.


 * Character development


 * One of the major parts of the Buffyverse is that characters didn't remain static and unchanging. Characters learnt, and grew and changed. Just look at the first appearances and last appearances of Wesley (Bad Girls - NFA), Willow (Welcome to Hellmouth - Chosen), or Cordelia (Welcome to Hellmouth - You're Welcome). These characters underwent huge changes over time. Just because Kendra doesn't appear in many episodes does not stop her character being allowed to develop.


 * Drusilla


 * It makes sense that Dru would want to understate her insanity around Kelgor, someone she barely knows. I read lines like Darling, "I don't normally ask this on a first date, but... could you kill everyone here!" as delibarate exaggerations of sanity from the mind of insanity


 * -- Buffyverse 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are indeed a master of "Copy-Paste" technique. 'cept you forgot to edit the format for a non-scipted media (exactly how much space were you planing on taking up?)


 * Okay, to address your points, let me make a few more:
 * 1) Have you read the series in question? If you have, you'd know how Kendra had been turned, both vocally (in terms of the words chosen for her to say) and visually (style chosen for her), into a "Blaxploitation" hero. For example, her "splash-page" first appearance


 * 2) "Playing" example does not reveal anything relevant to the discussion, but only continues the 'friendly rivalry' Buffy and Kendra have.


 * 3) Dating: You do remember the part where she's not allowed to date, right? Or "I'm not permitted to speak with boys." Even in Becoming Part 1, she doesn't.


 * 4) Character Development: Yeah, and notice how it was in a different direction from Becoming Part 1. Need I remind you of the flaming interrogation technique? Yes, she indeed grew more confident and secure with her emotions in that short span we saw her, but not the level displayed in "Ring of Fire", and not in that direction. I mean, the last panel she's in has her lounging about with the others infront of the television...as if it was the most casual thing in the world. Set'soff my alarms.


 * 5) Drusilla: Understate her insanity?! Prove it. Name one instance of either interpretation you describe. Just one.


 * Majin Gojira 20:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I am a "a master of "Copy-Paste" technique" here is another paste:


 * Joss Whedon was quoted on the back of the book. He had this to say about "Ring of Fire": "Ryan Sook's pencils on Buffy are pretty thrilling - simultaneously dark and disarming, which matches the tone of both the show and the book. He and Doug Petrie are turning out the kind of wild adventures we wish we had the money for on the show. A tremendous lack of suck.".


 * Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He states he enjoyed what they produced, no comment on canonicity or anything raised here. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) I would rather celebrate a Blaxploitation hero who overcame stumbling blocks, than insist that someone was fundamentally socially incapable. All people have the chance to change.


 * Way to NOT answer any of the questions I raised. Concession Accepted. Have a nice day. Now, if you actually tried to prove that the Blaxploitation encarnation was present in Becoming part 1, you might get somewhere... Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(2) The 'playing' example (if you look closely at the dialogue) reveals that Kendra is not at all shy around Buffy, and in contrast is actually willing to challenge Buffy if only in a friendly rivalry type of way. You insist that Kendra was fundamentally socially retarded but the example suggests otherwise.


 * The issue is NOT whether she is shy around Buffy. My point was that, once again, your point was IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(3) So what if she wasn't allowed to date. Teenagers are not allowed to a lot of things that doesn't stop them from wanting to do them or even rebelling against their authority figures and actually committing the disallowed (e.g. fights, staying up late, drink, sex, smoking, drugs and so on). To claim that Kendra is somehow immune from sexual desire because she was not allowed is questionable.


 * You've completely missed the point, once again. Follow the thread, here: BECAUSE Kendra was banned from dating, she had no experience dealing with members of the opposite gender who were of the same age as she was and/or was sexually attracted to. Because she was unexperienced, she did not know how to behave around them--and (as exemplified already), was shy around them.
 * This does NOT mesh well with Ring of Fire's interaction with Xander. It was only been a month or two since they first met, and that is a drastic change in reaction.
 * Furthermore, there is no evidence that her reactions towards Xander have advanced in any way in Becoming Part 1. Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(4) I can't see one example of shyness/insecurity from Becoming I? Can you? She doesn't talk to any guys because there wasn't time. It is my guess that if she had featured in more episodes we would have seen her talk to guys and become increasingly calm doing so.


 * And because she did not, we cannot assume that she did, as explained above. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Characters can still develop when they are not seen. We do not know how Kendra behaved when she returned home, or what happened to her. For all we know Kendra could have rebelled against the ridiculous restrictions on her life.


 * But without evidence, you dare make the assumption that she had! Wikipedia is no place for assumptions or speculation. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reading way too much into moments like Kendra watching TV, its like one panel of Kendra lieing on the floor watching TV with the others. If I had didn't have a TV at home (I think Kendra once said she didn't have one) I think I'd be happy to watch a bit, amazed even.


 * And therefore, you would not lounge in front of it casually. You would move up close to it and absorb as much as you can. How a character reacts to even the smallest detail is important to their overall devlopment in a tight script/story. Ever single detail needs to be taken into account. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(5) Landau brought a great deal to the role of Dru, and not everything she said was complete whimsy, the actress had some normal lines, and just performed them in the weirdest ways along with changes in pitch, odd facial expressions and movements/dances... All you need is a bit of imagination to appreciate that Dru is not really that far out of character in "Ring of Fire".


 * No Evidence? Either address the point or conceed. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, this is ultimately my POV, and you have yours,


 * Mine just so happens to have supporting evidence, whilst your relies on speculation. Trust me, I'd love to accept "Ring of Fire" as canonical (for the moment Buffy punches down a stone wall--excelent evidence for my always stalled "Quantified Buffy Project"), but the inconsistencies in character development are to large for me to ignore. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

but I don't think it's appropiate to try and push your POV, the article has to remain neutral, and based on actual evidence (e.g. implying that Kendra was shy or socially limited in her appearance in "Becoming I" is inappropriate because it is simply untrue) -- Buffyverse 20:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (Note: I edited "Unappropriate" since thatis not a word) I'm notimpling anything, the evidence simply ISN'T THERE to support that she had developed as much as "Ring of Fire" shows. And if Kendra was NOT socailly stunted in terms of interactions with human beings who are not underlings or superiors, then do present evidence that she is not: even though I already posted a well known example of where she IS. Majin Gojira 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kendra's character development
I've just read over this little debate, and agree that some of characterisations seem slightly off. However I do think that can still be explained and even already hinted at by canon.

I always found the character of Kendra as very interesting, and think it would have greatly benefitted by a better actress, or perhaps Lawson was uncomfortable in the role because of the accent, I read somewhere she really didn't like it the accent, but it was a last minute decision by the Director or one of the prodcution staff.

During "What's My Line" Kendra gradually gained knowledge/confidence in herself as an emotional being, Buffy tried to encourage her to break away from her restrictive upbringing. Kendra was trained to be a robot-like slayer but Buffy helped her snap out of it.

Furthermore Kendra did spend the evening with the Scoobies off-screen after they seemingly vanquish Spike and Dru. Kendra may have ultimately even taken up Buffy's proposition since her Watcher was not there to stop her doing so:


 * BUFFY: "When this is over, I'm thinking pineapple pizza and teen video fest - possibly something from the Ringwald oeuvre."

The examples about Kendra as a socially limited come only from earlier parts of her appearance in "What's My Line", it seems to me that she had grown massively in confidence by "Becoming I", there is no indicator that Kendra is still the social retard in "Becoming I". Just because there is no time or need in the episode to feature Kendra and Xander chatting does not mean Kendra is still socially limited regarding talking with him. IMO the suggestion that "Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence" is ridiculous. The fact is people work with a limited amount of evidence, and there may always be evidence unknown, regarding anything. Nobody can presume to know all that is.

Ultimately you can't deny an existence to a character just because they don't show up in your face. There are plenty of things that could have happened to Kendra before "Ring of Fire". Characters don't go static in the Buffyverse just because they don't appear. E.g. Wesley doesn't appear after "Grad Day2" until "Parting Gifts" and has undergone massive character developments through those circumstances. In this case Wesley has been fired from the Council and has tried to to live as a demon hunter by himself in L.A. making him somewhat less smug and superior. With Kendra the change is not explained because we have no idea what happened to Kendra in the few months between "What's My Line" & "RoF", but judging from the end of "What's My Line", it is likely Kendra would begin to test the limits of how far she could reject her strict upbringing and explore herself as an emotional being as well as just 'The Slayer'. -- Paxomen 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it there a lot of instances where characters underwent changes not seen. Whedon decided to have have a gap between each season for the Buffyverse shows (the one exception being Angel Season 5 which takes place almost immidiately after Angel Season 4. All kinds of major behavious changes occurred, some more significant than Kendra gaining a bit of social confidence.

Anyway leaving long term off-screen developments aside, as paxomen points out the seeds for Kendra's changes seen in "Ring of Fire" are already sown in the episode "What's My Line". I had forgotten that they spent that night together and Buffy had suggested movies and pizza, but I think things like this justify the way the character was handled by Petrie. Also I think you really hit it on the head about Kendra understanding herself as an emtional being. The title gives it all away, not only Buffy is finding out 'What her line is', but also Kendra. Majin Gojira you seem to assume that Kendra's social awkwardness is who Kendra is as a person, but in fact the Kendra that arrives in Sunnydale is largely the one created by restrictions on the real her, thus her social awkwardness isn't really her, and the end of that episode gives her the opportunity to begin finding herself. I'm guessing this was all intended by the writers considering the name of the episode and all. -- Buffyverse 23:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wes was still wet-behind the ears, however nonetheless he underwent massive changes during that period. In Buffy Season 3 he had been confident that he could live up to his father, and perhaps even surpass him as a force for good. Although lacking practical experience, he was a deeply intelligent man with a vast knowledge of the supernatural, and a solid sense of morality. However his capability with knowledge and expectation that he could succeed led him to become pompous and at times downright arrogant. Being fired, and fighting alone in LA obviously crushed the man, and little of his pomposity/superiority survived in tact.


 * Most of the other character changes taking place during the unseen summers tend to be more subtle, but the changes are there: e.g. Buffy rejecting her life after she overcame a prophecy foretelling her death, Angel's decline into a raving animal in Hell, Fred's growth of tougher balls after her and Gunn are left in LA by themselves...


 * Writers in the Buffyverse are great believers in change and don't limit it to what is documented on screen, for example the development of Lindsey McDonald unseen for three years, goes from abandoning W&H to trying to take Angel and W&H down.


 * However, and this is what is important, the Buffyverse writer always tried to keep characters fundamental 'self' in tact, thus their are limits to how much characters can change. No matter how much Wesley changed, he was always a man who saw the need to try to do as best as he could for the greatest number. Xander always used humour to hide insecurity... Each character had fundamental characteristics that were not changed. I think that Kendra was not fundamentally changed (even including "Ring of Fire"), it's just that elements of Kendra's upbringing trapping her personality were overcome. In contrast I think Cordelia's character was unfortunely fundamentally changed, no matter how much affect the visions had on her ability to see the suffering of others, I still do not believe she could have become as noble as she did in Angel Season 3. The writers can always justify that change though with the 'Jasmine did it' argument.


 * As for the 'take evidence at face value' mention. I wasn't suggesting that we should deny evidence shown to us, I was saying we don't actually have all the evidence. Only pieces of it. For example regarding Kendra, the evidence we do have from "What's My Line" suggests that Kendra is discovering herself for the first time. Now what Kendra does when she returns home we have no idea. We are lacking that evidence. But we shouldn't assume, that the character is disallowed to undergo change from the early impression we got of her. Given the evidence we have from "Becoming" (where she appears very confident), we have to assume that in all liklihood things must have happened to her that continued her journey of self-discovery as opposed to her Watcher maintaining her robotic-style livlihood. We only have pieces but the pieces we do have suggest that Kendra would grow in confidence.. and not that she would remain static as a social retard. That's my take on it anyway.


 * How can you deny subjectivity relating to analysis of character's personalities. Just by saying 'Character X displayed odd behaviour" numerous subjective judgments are made. The complexities of such a task inevitably lead to subjectivity. There is no objective version of Kendra. People are complex, and I think the habbit of judging people based on how they first appear to you is not a good option to take (despite such behaviour being so common).-- Paxomen 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Paxomen 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here I am, and I really hate having to debate 2 people at once--it's not very productive. I'll try my best to keep the answers concise, but most of these answers stem from this question: "Okay, where's your evidence?".

1) I agree that there is characterdevelopment towards a looser style of slaying in Kendra. However, there is not sufficient evidence in either of her appearancesto support the degree and amount of change shown in "Ring of Fire". The stumbling around boys, for instance, showed no signs of development in either episode, so we CANNOT ASSUME that there has been as much development as displayed in "Ring of Fire". If you are making an assumption about a character, you've already lost this debate. Do NOT assume. DEDUCE!

2) Casual dismissal of taking the evidence as its displayed at face value (also known as Suspension of Disbelief methodology) will lead to ambiguisty and subjectivity, which are not so good. For a detailed outline of what I mean, see http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html Let metell you straight forwardly that there is little denying the effectiveness of this methodology in terms of analysing fiction through an objective lense. How can we discuss what has not been observed? It's like discussing the nature of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. We work with what we have. For this style of analysis, there really is no subjectivity--subjectrivity is the exact thing one tries to avoid with this methodology. Again, a flawed example is cited. If a characters behavior does not fit either what has come before AND what has come after, than it should be brought into question and discussed. http://www.atpobtvs.com covers a great deal of how TRUE subjective analysis should be handled, and they do NOT relate to things like characterization.They relate, largely to philosophical questions of 'right' and 'wrong', and largely, simply, displays the viewpoints apparently held by the characters. As for judjing people on how they first appear--it's sad, true and used by screenwriters CONSTANTLY. You can immediately "an overwhelmed Teaching Assistant named IRENE" very quickly. You know her age, level of education and race in one sentance, and the screenwriter uses that to their advantage.

3) The Wesley example is HIGHLY flawed, as he was STILL largely wet-behind the ears when he first teamed up with Angel and Cordelia. Character development is utterly worthless unless an audience actually SEES it happen. Even inferences and implications have to have evidence of their actually existance and he is excelent proof of that. All of his changes were shown on screen. There is a common contrivane in bad fanfiction that describes what you are aiming at (and that should tell you something right off the bat! ), where, for instance, Hermione Granger of Harry Potter goes through a complete character change through the course of a Summer--become an Emo/Goth/Punk/Socialite Airhaid without regard to herprevious characterization in the slightest. We do not see how this change came about, and your argument would support this type of characterization, if extended only slightly. What you propose for Kendra is almost as bad as what those writers do with Hermione. One Night, as you describe it, is not enough to show the profound changes in Kendra's attitude. Her instance with the Lizard-demons in disguise shown she has gone from 'Cautious Slayer' to even more reckless than Buffy--almost on par with Faith. And there is no evidence that supports such recklessness in her second appearance. As for changes in the show over the summer--they are not as drastic as Kendra's transformation in "RoF". They are all logical progressions of where we last saw them. Buffy's S2 return in "When she was bad" IS forshadowed in the last episode of Season 1, for example. At the end of Season 2, we find buffy doing what she was at the begning of Season 3--still on the run from her problems. Same goes for Season 3/4, except she's reached a comfort zone with her life. 5/6--she stayed dead the whole time. Need I go on?

That covers the major points, I think. Majin Gojira 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tiring of this debate because you are completely ignoring lots of key points that already been made:


 * Again. Pot. Kettle. Black. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ) Subjectivity You cannot make the judgment call on whether a character is behaving correctly or not without major subjectivity,


 * Outright Lie. We can compare how a charcter reacts to the same type of social stimuli. Psychology plays a big roll in analysing a character when you don't have the true scripts (and not fan transcripts!) in front of you. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * especially if that character only had about a total of maybe around 30 minutes of screen time on the show. You presume you know the character and can objectively say if she is behaving as she should or not from those 30 minutes (although really less because you repeatedly ignore her appearance in Becoming I).


 * Outright lie. I've already stated that characters, when they initally appear in a script, are meant to be known throug stereotypes and used a pretty good example of that. Want more? Every movie and TV series ever made is based around that concept. Furthermore, I am NOT ignroing her appearence there. You have yet to correctly sight anything of signifigance in the character's development from that episode that would support your statements, that is all. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To claim that anyone can be objective about these matters is pretty stupid. At least I understand that my opinions on Kendra are POV.


 * Ad Hominem. Either make a point or conceed. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ) Summer changes How on Earth was Buffy's change between Prophecy girl and WSWB foreshadowed, other than it being caused by her 'death' which was seen on screen? In PG, she burst out crying, and it seems she has been affected by events, but there is little hint that Buffy will turn into a major bitch unless I'm missing something? In fact it seems like she is getting over it by the end of PG, her last lines of the episode are


 * BUFFY: Sure. We saved the world. I say we party.


 * (looks at her tattered dress)


 * BUFFY: I mean, I got all pretty...


 * MS. CALENDAR: What about him?


 * (She indicates the Master's remains. They all turn and look)

''':::BUFFY: He's not going anywhere. Loser.'''


 * Do you remember how buffy delivered those lines...right? The camera angle change? The chord stuck? All of it screams "FORESHAWOING!" louder than a death metal concert. You're relying to much on what is written, and not on how it was displayed. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * BUFFY: I'm hungry. Is anybody else hungry? I'm really hungry.


 * Regardless all your other examples of the summer changes were about Buffy, and of course her changes are more likely to be foreshaodowed because she's the main character of the show.


 * I also used them because they were the most obvious and easily recalled. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Noone claimed that every character undergoes massive change every summer.


 * The point of the argument was lost in the examples, wasn't it? The point of the example was to show that character changes are forshadowed by degrees, not drastic changes offscreen. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Main characters have far more screentime (than characters like Kendra) and this means there is more opportunity to clearly signpost developments in their personalities, however recurring characters have less screentime, but sometimes still go through changes offscreen.


 * Let's ignore the lack of supporting evidence for the continuations of the threads in "Ring of Fire" for just a moment and take your examples under closer scrutiny. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You ignored the examples (given above) of Fred starting to behave meaner (she becomes willing to dish out vengeance) when her and Gunn were left in LA by themselves.


 * Admitedly, I missed it. I appologise for that, however, if you've payed attention to the Pylea arc at all--which, if you have the DVDs and listened to the bonus material, it was mearly re-affirmation of the hard life she lead in the HELL dimension. Overall, a falty example, since it was not really a change, but a regression. Do recall how she referenced, casually, the explosion of people's heads during that arc. Or her fun attempted murder in "That Old Gang of Mine". Selective memory strikes again! Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst this was a potential logical development of being trapped and helpless in Pylea, we don't know why the change only occurs only during this summer, perhaps because everyone has gone? Whatever the reason, the change takes place off-screen. You also ignored the example of Lindsey McDonald.


 * Missed, again, I appologise and will adress it now. Aside from stating that the timeframe was greater than Kendras (3 months vs. 3 years), do remember how he left on a life-seeking journey? And how his actions were later explained beyond his first re-appearance?


 * Here's another one: completely off-screen Amy Madison, goes from being a victim of unethical magic (The Witch), to someone who is willing to use unethical magic herself. IMO that change is as big as a teenager beginning to rebell against a ridiculously strict upbrining.


 * It'd be better if you did some searched through psychology reference material to support your claim, but that might be asking for to much. As for Amy, you're exagerating the unethicality of both situations displayed. She had access to magical power, and decided to use it. It's not a complex answer, it's a simple one. Nothing we saw of the real Amy showed any reservations against self-interesting ventures. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Buffyverse writers enjoy a fictional world with more depth they allow their characters to undergo developments even when they are not seen. Paxo already made clear that regarding Wesley he wasn't talking about whether or not he was still wet behind the ears, he was talking about Wesley's superiority/pomposity (which whilst still in existence, had nonetheless taken a major hit). Those changes took place off-screen.


 * And then I'd hit it with a "We saw those changes on screen in "Graduation Day part I/II". Where? After Buffy quites, he returns in part II having made the decision to work against the council. That may be seen as offscreen development, but you must compare his reactions to Buffy's quitting in part 1 to the reappearance in part 2. Character progression is NEVER skipped over. That's something writers call "Bad Writting". Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidence Maybe you should rewatch the episodes WML I & II, and Becoming I? Paxo already explained the evidence. Kendra's journey in "What's My Line" was all about her learning from Buffy that she needed to understand herself and her own emotions, this involved a conflict with the way she had been brought up by her Watcher up until that point.


 * and I can now state that you missed point #1: I do not disagree that she was freed up, but the degree of freedom displayed is far to much for the time alotted. It doesn't flow from either a writer's standpoint, or a psychological standpoint.Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I could go through all the script and explain how this happens, but maybe instead you should just rewatch the episodes. An inevitable contradiction was already setting up. Therefore before RoF she was already heading in a direction that would break away from her upbringing by her Watcher.


 * And you expect her to achieve full normality in less than 3 months? When there is no evidence of that continued normality later on? Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You go on about the flaws of assuming, but you yourself are assuming the character went into some kind of vacuum between her appearances in WML & Becoming I,


 * See the issue of "Bad Writting". Character development is useless unless there is at least an indication of it happening. And it gets especially bad when it is later ignored. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * which is not conforming with the direction Kendra was already beginning to take as WML ended. You once again ignored the fact Kendra did spend time off-screen with Buffy (and poss. even other Scoobies), and could have even accepted Buffy's suggestion of Pizza and movie since her Watcher was not there to tell her she couldn't.


 * Gee, the last scene we see of them together is Kendra being lead by Buffy to a Taxi, exactly how much interaction do you suppose they had? I am not ignoring that peice of evidence, It is simply irrelevant. Yes, she undergowes a change, but that change is not as drastic as shown in "Ring of Fire". Kendra still doesn't hug at the end of the episode, for instance. "I don't hug", for the exact quote. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You once again based all your assumptions about the character from her early appearance in WML, you seem to ignore her confidence in Becoming I, and I don't understand why.


 * I was hoping you'd provide a direct quote to support your statement. Since it is your evidence, you should provide it. I'm not going to do your work for you. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Admittedly she didn't have time to speak to boys in that episode. But she displayed signs of obvious growth, it was clear that she was no longer a tool of her Watcher.


 * Despite delivering a weapon and following his orders? He obviously still trusts her enough to go abroad unsupervised, so she's either a really good liar or she hasn't changed as drastically as RoF suggests. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless her communications with boys are limited with boys even in RoF:


 * She does spend some of the time with the whole Scooby Gang. However when Xander or Oz are present, Kendra looks either at noone or at one of the girls.
 * She exchanges no words with Oz. At one point she does interupt him about Giles abandoning them, but she completely ignores the joke he has just made.
 * Totality of exchange with Xander:


 * (she saves him by removing him from danger but at no point even looks him the face)


 * XANDER: (jokingly) Thanks Kendra, say, do you think after the kill fest we could maybe...


 * KENDRA: (abruptly, with a straight face, and looking completely away from him) No.


 * To bad that peice of evidence works in my favor and not yours. The first two do work in your favor, but are contradicted by the dialogue, as it displays a confidence someone with only months of "dating experience" would not show. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At no point she does have a direct exchange with Oz, and the only exchange she has with Xander involves her saying "No" to one of his jokes. That's it. That's the only interaction she has with boys in RoF. In the whole of the story she doesn't even look at one of the boys directly in the face, not even once. The closest she gets is when she is talking about Giles's duty to the whole of the Scooby Gang, she is almost looking at Xander if she turns by 90 degrees to her left.


 * Adressed above. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding recklessness, comparing Kendra to Faith in RoF, seems to me not only very very subjective' (which is strange since you seem to love objectivity so much and believe its possible regarding these matters), but IMO simply crazy. Kendra far from always being cautious Slayer,


 * http://www.atpobtvs.com/22.html#209p


 * even when she had been a tool of her Watcher at the beginning of WML, we saw several times that she was willing to beat down opposition first, ask questions later.


 * 'cept in RoF, she performs an action that would be leathal on a human on a subject she did not know was a demon. She may have felt he was 'dirty' like Willy the Snitch, but he was still human. If she incinerated Willy's skin, the situation would have been MUCH different. She lucked out through a reckless action. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And just because a character says something, doesn't mean you assume that's the truth. I'm guessing you are referring to her burning the demon regarding her 'recklessness', I've always read her line "Never said I knew", as misleading because whilst it's possible she didn't know burning him would bring out his true form, common sense from a reader concludes that either she was joking, trying to look cool, or trying to scare/intimidate/taunt the demon, or a combination of these factors).


 * Prove that she displayedany of those behaviors prior to that incident. Majin Gojira 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * --Buffyverse 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion
I just wanted to conclude that thanks to all your ingenious observations, I have finally understood your way of thinking, and come to my senses.


 * I do not appreciate your childish antics and extreme generalizations. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Subjectivity must die - People and characters are incredibly simple. So much so that spending 30 minutes with them is enough that, we can know exactly how they will behave even three months down the line given different situations. Stereotypes are accurate, first impressions are impressions.


 * It's more "Subjectivity shoud not be appart of Wikipediea articles", but this is still a grose oversimplification of my point. I was simply relating how screenwriting functions. Characters can and do develop over the course of a script, I do not deny that, but the basic facts and formula's of screenwriting rely on snap judgements. It's why evil people wear black most of the time. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is especially so in the Buffyverse, since the writes loved to employ the use of stereotypes and cliches and simple characters that had limited potential to learn from their lives.


 * You know as well as I do that Whedon prouds himselfon inverting convention, and this point is totally irrelivant and simply a method for you to vent your childish frustrations at being called upon to back up your statements.


 * Ultimately making an observation like "Kendra behaves out of character here" is not based on POV, not based on opinion, not an interpretation. It is science. I shall demonstrate my point in two ways. Firstly by looking at how characters do not change off-screen, and secondly by considering the development of Kendra's character.


 * Say that out loud for a moment. Feel funny? Well, you should. I've already stated the methodology for determining what is "In Character", and why it should be used. First of all, the "observation" you list is not--it is a statement. Kendra's words, her actions, her demeanor. THOSE would be observations to back up that statement. This is an encylcopedia, not a literature course. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Characters don't change off-screen - It was very clearly foreshadowed that Buffy would become a complete bitch.


 * You really love the hasty generalization fallacy, don't you? Simplifying what was going on in Buffy's psychy with the word "Bitch" implies much more than what actually happened. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was obvious, how did I miss it? It was all in the line delivery, the camera angles. It screamed out, "Buffy will start behaving like a bitch because she is angry with the world", and none of that change took place during the summer off-screen, it was all foreshadowed as loud as a death metal concert during the closing moments of PG.


 * From the way you state this, we all know that you are behaving in a sardonic, sarcastic and downright assinine. Which is rather sad, since you actually followed the argument this time instead of making something up. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred was tough to start with (putting the crossbow against that guy's neck) she hardly got that much tougher off-screen during that summer with Gunn and Connor.


 * In terms of capacity for violence, you are correct, however, you seem to be implying that I am denying the existence of character arcs, and that is hardly the case--I can break general heroic arcs down into two distinct patterns, if I may be allowed to gloat in the midst of your vitrol. Futhermore, Amy Acker states as much in the Season 4 DVD featurettes. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Amy's development from daughter of an evil witch who misused powers to someone willing to use magic to skip homework, that development all takes place onscreen in the appropriate and logical way.


 * I do hope I remembered to admit that it was subtle and done mostly through retconning dialogue, if not, then I do appologise again. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your right there's no difference between major and minor characters, even though minor characters have a fraction of the screen time their developments always take place with the same precision and efforts on behalf of the writers. E.g. Riley does not go through any character development between "Into the Woods" and "As You Were" off-screen.


 * That is actually an example you could have used originally--however, I would have pointed out that he did oblige with the "what happened in the downtime" dialogue to explain any changes that were made, just like Lindsey did. You can't put something on screen and expect people to "get it" -- unless it's non-sequitor humor, then it's ok. Pickles. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When he leaves in the helicopter, he is a broken man, reduced to getting vampires to suck on his arm for kicks, not knowing who he is, or feeling like he had a purpose, he goes to Brazil only because there's nothing else he can do. When he returns he is the exact same character, he has not gained any confidence, he pretends he has, but really his fake-wife is a vampire whore who he uses to get kicks when she feeds off his arm. Character development never ever takes place off-screen. Good writing is when characters remain exactly the same if they are not seen.


 * And speaking of non-sequitors...Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kendra was exactly the same in Becoming I - Kendra wasn't thinking or acting as an individual. The Watcher instructed her to jokingly scare Bufffy by hiding. Kendra was nervous, shy, and socially retarded throughout her entire appearance in this episode. She had ignored the lessons she learned from Buffy about emotion. She had not affectionately named a stake 'Mr Pointy'. She did not care for Buffy's safety as Buffy left the Library but was only thinking of the greater good and her duty as Slayer, as her Watcher had instructed her all her life. Also Kendra was overwhelmed by nervousness when she was in the library with Xander. Her appearance in Becoming I therefore does not bode well for the canonicity of RoF (I shall explain why RoF can be proved as uncanonical below). The reason Kendra behaved exactly the same in Becoming I, was because she did not learn anything during WML


 * Again, I did not deny that character development took place -- I denied the degree to which it is displayed in Ring of Fire. This is, if I can recall correctly, the second time I have made that statement. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kendra didn't learn anything during WML (as already demonstarted in text above). Also she did not spend a whole evening with Buffy off-screen the night before she left eating pizza and watching films. The two had not spent any time bonding off-screen during that time, and they were not noticeably closer the next day when she got a taxi home (Kendra's statement about not hugging Buffy proves as much).The Kendra that left Sunnydale had not learned anything or grown in any way. She accepted the ways in which her Watcher had taught her and saw no need for developing her own emotions and personality; therefore Petrie has objectively proven as a bad writer by daring to drastically change the character in RoF.


 * Blatant lie. I repeat, I did not deny character development, only the degree which it is displayed in "Ring of Fire". Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * RoF: Kendra the nymphomaniac" - She spent the entire comic flirting with Oz and Xander; she couldn't keep her eyes off them, especially Oz. She spoke to them loads. She deliberately jumped on Xander just for fun, and encouraged his dirty jokes finding them both extremely funny and extremely arousing, by saying that one word, "No", to Xander's flirty joke (which is the totality of the two characters exchanges in the whole comic), that proves that Kendra has undergone "drastic changes" regarding her interactions with boys.


 * Another Blatantl lie, and more below that aren't even worth commenting on (curse my need to have the last word!). Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * RoF: Kendra the pyromaniac" - Kendra obviously did not know that the demon would be brought to its true form as she flamed it. Flaming bad guys is what she usually does to dispatch them (she just forgot a lighter in WML), and it’s not like her Watcher could have had information like that at hand. Common sense might suggest maybe Kendra simply did no more than she was letting on, how wrong common sense is. After all common sense is not easily objectively explained. Common sense is therefore crazy talk, and ultimately common sense is wrong. There was no way that Kendra could have known he was a demon and when she said "Who said I knew", what she really meant deep down was "I didn't know, I was just chancing it, and by some magical coincidence I got lucky, and thankfully the bad guys still around to give some exposition".


 * RoF: Kendra the crazy rogue slayer" - Kendra has obviously turned into some kind of rogue slayer, and she doesn't talk about things like duty. Instead Kendra becomes exactly like Faith. In fact Petrie originally wrote the comic script with Faith in mind then just changed the name at the last minute when he realized that Kendra had been Slayer at that point. As a slayer Kendra is normally unviolent, takes no joy in pummeling, has no sense of humour.. yet Petrie dared to challenge these facts of her established chracter.


 * Case closed: RoF is uncanon" - We have scientifically and completely objectively come to the conclusion that RoF simply cannot be accepted as canon. Even if it was written by a ME member, even if Joss describes it as a "tremendous lack of suck". I must ignore these distractions, because I have made psychology tables, done experiments on the character, and ultimately proved that Kendra's actions are too flirty, too dangerous, too homicidal, too Faith-like. None of this is POV, opinion or interpretation. Objectivity proves it is uncanon. I'm going outside now to burn the comic in a flaming Ring of Fire.

--Buffyverse 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Joss's quote is STILL irrelevant, and his fetish for kick-ass women is well known (though nowhere near as bad as Frank Miller's Miho-Fetish). I do not appreciate the mockery, and it betrays your childishness and inexperience. You need to step back and go outside for a bit, did me loads of calming goodness. Without further preamble, though, I will accept your concession in this debate, but until Paxomen either shows some good evidence to counter the contradictions, or conceeds, I think the article itself should remain as "Still in debate". Frankly, I think this whole discussion should, after it has been settled for a few months, be removed if all parties are in agreement on it. Majin Gojira 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the sarcasm but the fact that these issues are POV is pretty much demonstarted by the fact of this very debate.
 * Just because something is in debate does not preclude that it is POV. Scientific debates occur all the time, then there is the infamous Creationism vs. Evolution "Debate". Majin Gojira 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally the more I look at RoF, the less I think Petrie overstepped the mark.
 * I must admit, that as I originally percievedthe grievances, you are parly correct. However, I still hold that once Kendra enters the picture--things for both her characterization and Drusilla's take a downward turn. Majin Gojira 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Therefore its best to either avoid all together in the real article, or dealing with in a very balanced way (probably best written by a more neutral party than me or you). Personally I think the mention is reasonably neutral at the moment. However wiki articles are not supposed to be self referential so there should not be any links in an article to its discussion page.
 * I did not suggest linking the article to this debate. I appologise if that is how it sounded, but I did not mean to imply anything of the sort. Majin Gojira 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus if there were links, people would see how childish we were being by spending time writing this much about something so pointless & trivial. -- Buffyverse 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're talking to a student of the infamous Star Trek versus Star Wars debates. Trust me, this is NOTHIN'! Majin Gojira 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ring of Fire (Buffy Comic).jpg
Image:Ring of Fire (Buffy Comic).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)