Buffy’s scar

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Forgive me if we have discussed this before, but I can’t recall…

In “Harsh Light Of Day,” Parker notices Buffy’s scar on her neck, where Angel bit her.

Is this scar ever referenced again? If so where?

I also forgot how much it sucks watching Buffy mope over a f*ck boy like Parker.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Nope. In fairness, Parker was the last muggle No-Mag that Buffy dated. Then again, Buffy loved her camisoles, so the scars must have faded/glamoured away.

Yeah, it's pretty out of character for say, first season Buffy to be that obsessed or that naive with a boy. But then again, Freshman Co-eds losing all sense and going to through a lustful harlot phase/Rumspringa is true to the college experience. For what it's worth, Sarah hated that story line, for the same reasons.

 

[November]

Scars do fade more after the first year or so.

Buffy wasnt just moping over Parker, she was moping over the "normal guy" not being into her. More proof of her alone being the "one girl in all the world", the one girl who protects the world but doesn't belong to the world.

The excessive lust for Riley works after she goes through that again.

 

[NotASlayer]

Ordinary scars do, as @November said, fade over time and this was still a fresh one; a few months old. Plus, Buffy is a Slayer and Slayers have above average healing abilities; they can recover from a nasty fight in a day or two. I would expect, given their healing factor, that a scar would completely disappear before too long.

EDIT: Oh, the very similar mark Buffy got from Dracula quickly vanished. He did not feed on her anywhere near as much as Angel did though.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

To elaborate; Parker would have noticed. Pre-masquerade Riley would have noticed, but wouldn't talk about supernatural in front of a civilian. Spike wouldn't have cared. Robin was a one off.

 

[thetopher]

The bite is last referenced by Dracula early on in S5; I guess because it was a 'near death' feeding for Buffy unlike, say, the bitings Riley was getting in the Vamp-Tramp House later on.

I think its fair that a near-death thing like that should leave some kind of mark. The Master fed off of Buffy but only for a moment, then she passed out from shock and drowned.
But Angel's feeding lasted way longer, it was as consensual as we see any vampire bite get; it was, in many ways, that last forbidden horizon that Bangel crossed, Buffy surrendering herself to Angel to feed on, knowing that she she could die, to save his life.


(I'm sure there's some fan theory as to why this scar is the reason Buffy can 'feel' Angel around when he's nearby (being a creeper in 'Pangs' for instance) but its just one of those theories that is grist for the fan-fiction mill.)


Also we know that slayers can and do pick up permanent scars; Buffy in 'The Wish' had a bad one on her mouth for example, so their healing factor obviously has its limits.
I always assumed that Buffy would have a scar from the bullet she took in S6 from Warren's gun and maybe a small one from the 'mis-stake' incitant in 'Fool For Love'.

And in many a fan-fic Faith has a scar on her stomach from the near-fatal knifing of 'Graduation Day'; even though there's zero evidence in-show it was clearly a very deep wound from a possibly magical cool-looking weapon, makes sense that it would leave a mark.

 

[hoponlilmama]

Maybe it's me, but I didn't think they had any chemistry.
I add nothing else to the conversation because the scar question has been answered. 😁


Did I mention Parker is a tool?

 

[thetopher]

@NotASlayer It's certainly possible that the scar was pretty new- it would've happened during S1-2 of Buffy & The Cleveland Hellmouth or something. But as I remember it was nasty enough to be permanent.

I'm not opposed to 'all wounds fade leaving no scars' being part of the slayer package but I also figure that slayer is human+ in all things, human to the max in terms of strength, agility, endurance, toughness etc but we know there's an upper limit on what they can do in all those categories.
I think that should apply to regeneration as well, probably because it makes the most sense, consistency-wise. And yes I know the show wasn't known for its high levels of consistency but whatever.
Hope that makes sense.

As for Parker and his appeal for Buffy; he was humorous, unassuming, faux-deep and non-threatening ('vulnerability' for the term Spike used, deliberately); he also looked like Xander's cousin in terms of looks/behaviour. Basically he was a million miles away from Angel or anything like Angel and that was his subconscious appeal.

In 21st century parlance Parker radiated beta-male male feminist energy along with the accompanying sleazy/douche-y dark side. He was obviously douche-y, after the fact, and yet Buffy's tendency to focus on her faults/flaws in a relationship is part of her character throughout the show.
I didn't think any of the Buffy/Parker stuff was out-of-character, I think it highlighted a flaw of Buffy's she conquers by the end of S7.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Oh yeah, Buffy v. Dracula. I choose to believe that was a Crossover episode, which explains a lot of it's weirdness. But, yes, Dracula noticed the scar.

I'm pretty certain Wish Buffy had a totally cool scar.

I'm more inclined to believe that Buffy has a glamour. Either a supernatural glamour that keeps people and demons from perceiving her as the Slayer, or just by being a hot girl who dresses like a streetwalker, which draws attention from the stake that just dropped out of her bag. Could be both, actually.

 

[NoShip]

Forgive me if we have discussed this before, but I can’t recall…

In “Harsh Light Of Day,” Parker notices Buffy’s scar on her neck, where Angel bit her.

Is this scar ever referenced again? If so where?

I also forgot how much it sucks watching Buffy mope over a f*ck boy like Parker.

I think what confuses people is that the fans care about continuity way more than Whedon.

Whedon wrote Buffy like a comic book. Each Beat and Scene and Act had to have its emotional high. Just like a comic book.

And, just like a comic book, the plot holes and continuity fails don't matter because they will be explained or corrected in a later issue or episode, and, if they are not, the audience will just move on to the next emotional high in the next storyline.

To answer your question: the scars appeared or disappeared according to the needs of a particular script. There was no continuity and Whedon has never indicated that he cated, one way or the other. The scars reappeared in Buff v Drac, nevet, as far as I remember, to appear again.

Buffy and Parker: a blatant example of Whedon's actual opinion of young women.

 

[RachM]

NotASlayer Parker is a predator.

Eh, that's a bit extreme. Parker wasn't "preying" on anyone, he was manipulating young women and using his "charm" but he's no worse than your average Beta Frat Bro. Nothing about him suggests predatory behaviour.

 

[garfan]

I think what confuses people is that the fans care about continuity way more than Whedon.

Whedon wrote Buffy like a comic book. Each Beat and Scene and Act had to have its emotional high. Just like a comic book.

And, just like a comic book, the plot holes and continuity fails don't matter because they will be explained or corrected in a later issue or episode, and, if they are not, the audience will just move on to the next emotional high in the next storyline.

To answer your question: the scars appeared or disappeared according to the needs of a particular script. There was no continuity and Whedon has never indicated that he cated, one way or the other. The scars reappeared in Buff v Drac, nevet, as far as I remember, to appear again.

Buffy and Parker: a blatant example of Whedon's actual opinion of young women.

I think it was about season 5 that the fans stopped being willing to do that

 

[thetopher]

The think about continuity is that its something that gets more important/noticeable as the season continues for the viewership and inversely got less important for the writers. Not many fans see huge issues in the first, say, 3 seasons. The high school/establishing years are fairly solid in terms of of that sort of thing; especially character-continuity,; the most important kind in a show like this.
Then in S4 there are a few cracks caused by the initiative but the season tries hard for the feeling of continuity because of the change of setting; so lots of callbacks and nostalgic bits.
In S5 there are more continuity issues (as well as world-building issues/holes) but there is a sense of history binding the characters together, emphasised by the idea of family, hence some more nostalgia and continuity callbacks.

S6 is a different networks so much less continuity so much so that it starts to break emersion for some plus the emphasis on theme over character consitency starts to really bite.
S7 there is a return to callbacks but only in the most general and thematic way to fit in with the season; other continuity is ignored completely and the season feels disjointed and a little phony but stills feels a bit more Buffy than the previous season, so many fans are grateful for that at least.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Yeah what about Buffy's scar, do you mean like Harry Potters scar?

 

[KaitKat]

I think that Buffy’s reaction to Parker has so much more to do with the Angel/Angelus trauma than Parker himself. It’s the first time Buffy was intimate with a guy since Angel and she once again woke up alone and the sweet guy she was getting to know was scum, to put it nicely since what I really want to call him probably wouldn’t be allowed on here.