Giles in "Choices" vs "The Gift"

[Gum Gnome33]

Last night after work and before the tv networks started projecting results, (Yay, Obama!) I decided to rewatch the first half of "Choices." In honor of election day. (Yay, Buffy nerd-itude!)

It got me thinking about something I'd never really considered before: the extreme difference in position Giles takes when Willow is held hostage by the Mayor, as compared with his preparedness to kill Dawn when the world is at stake.

In Choices, when it's either Willow's life or the box of Gavrox, (what the heck is it called? I always think of Gravlox and want a bagel,) Wesley makes the compelling argument for destroying the box and not using it to free Willow. He reminds the group that if they hold on to the box and get rid of its contents, the Mayor will likely not be able to ascend and many lives will be saved. Their families, their friends, their loved ones. At this point the group doesn't really know if this ascention will result in a world wide apocalypse or a more local disaster, but in any case Wesley reinforces the one-for-many idea.

Giles is quick to dismiss him. He hardly even gives Wesley's argument any consideration, even before Oz destroys the spell's ingredients.

In The Gift, of course, Giles urges Buffy to consider that if Dawn dies before the ritual begins, the world will be saved. If she attempts anything else, "You'll fail. You'll die. We all will." The whole world will die painfully, including Dawn.

Buffy of course is consistent in these two scenarios. "Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her" is pretty much her stance both times.

But what about Giles?

A couple of things to consider: obviously the situation in Choices is not a perfect parallel with that in The Gift; in the former they know the box is key to stopping the ascention but there is still plenty of hope that there can be another way; really they know so little that the choices aren't quite so black and white. It isn't literally: "save Willow and we all die," or let "Willow die and we don't have to worry about the Mayor any more." Whereas in The Gift, the consequences of Dawn not being able to start the ritual are far more obvious, and the risk of opening the portal is known to be profound and potentially world-ending.

But while that's true, I have to wonder why there isn't some consistency with Giles' reasoning. Given his firm stance regarding the one-for-the-sake-of-the-world approach in The Gift, I would imagine that in season 3 he would have given Wesley's stance a lot more consideration, and at the very least, not have dismissed it.

What do you guys think? Is this simple lack of consistency in the characterization of Giles? Certainly wouldn't be the first time! Or is it that because there aren't perfect parallels here, Giles felt differently about each scenario? If so, shouldn't he have at least considered Wesley's pov?
Or is it something else? Is it precisely because of what Wesley suggested in Choices that Giles was quick to take the stance he did in The Gift?

Discuss! 🙂

 

[Kenimowy]

I think it might have a lot to do with the fact that Willow is a real person, flesh and blood, for her entire life.
Yes, Dawn is flesh and blood too, but I would assume that for Giles, the idea that Dawn wasn't always a real person and came to be by mystical circumstances probably was at the fore front of his mind. As he told Buffy "she's not your sister."

To Buffy, no matter how Dawn came to be, she was her sister, which is consistent in that Buffy has a strong sense of protection for those she loves and cares for. But to others that didn't have that sense of family ties to Dawn, the idea of her not really being real was probably a very big factor when facing the end of the world. Whereas with Willow, it would be much harder because there wasn't that whole mystical energy key bit to her, Willow was 100% a living being with no mystical connections to the end of world other than she was a hostage up for trade for one item of several that the Mayor needed. Dawn was the only ingredient. So her circumstances were a little different.

That would be my take on it 🙂

 

[Icarium]

Buffy of course is consistent in these two scenarios. "Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her" is pretty much her stance both times.

I really wouldn't call it consistency. In the case of Willow there was time to save her and then thwart the Mayor's plans in some other way later. If they had any commn sense at all they would have simply cut the Mayor to pieces when he came to twirl his moustache in the school library in GD I. Who cares if he is invulnerable when he is in little pieces scattered at the bottom of the sea or hidden in random locations around the world like the Judge?

In the case of Dawn the end of the world was minutes away and Buffy basically intended to die and doom the whole world for the sake of few minutes longer life for Dawn which was for me the dumbest and most disgustingly selfish ideas anyone ever had in this show, including the Big Bads.

As for Giles, if I recall correctly he showed some willingness to listen to Wesley but he also realized nobody else was going to support the idea. Plus, he likes Willow far more than he liked Dawn, the apocalypse wasn't imminent, so it wasn't really the same situation.

 

[YummySushiPJs]

I don't think there's a lack of consistency or anything to be honest. You do make a very interesting point about the two events though (I had never noticed it before). But I don't think they are comparible.

In the first example with Willow, Giles isn't interested in just letting her die, because he and the rest of the scoobies know that they will find a way to stop the ascention one way or another. They always find something. And of course, they did.

It is different with Dawn. They know from information from the Watcher's Council, that once Dawn's blood starts flowing, the walls between dimensions will crumble and the ONLY way to stop them is to stop the blood, by killing Dawn. Dawn is the ONLY factor. There is no other option. They tried hiding Dawn, it didn't work. Literally the only other (horrific) option is to kill her. Buffy doesn't allow this, so as we see, the apocolypse begins.

It's not so much that Giles was *choosing* to kill Dawn as the easiest option. He was simply presenting the facts to Buffy, that it was the only way to stop Glory's ritual. Which in itself brings an interesting question which I'm just going to start a topic about... 😛

I also agree with Icarium that Buffy's decision both times wasn't really "consistent." With Willow, she was just being a normal human being, of course she wouldn't choose to let Willow die when there were plenty of other options (and plenty of time) to stop the Mayor. With Dawn, she put her sister before the rest of the world. While this is understandable, from a non-involved point of view it is questionably selfish and foolish. Buffy herself comes to this realisation, I think it's in season 7. She says faced with the same situation now, (if it meant saving the world and killing herself instead wasn't an option), she'd let Dawn die.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

In season 3, they really didn't have much information regarding the ascention at all. Truthfully, the most they knew at that point was that that box contained something that was essential to it, as well as something that was likely difficult or impossible to replace. So assuming that they still had plenty of time to find another way to thwart the mayor was in actuality sort of a dumb thing to do. I mean, of course Buffy found a way, etc, but that was in spite of their lack of knowledge until the 11th hour. For all they knew at the time, the box was their last chance at saving the world. In that case you'd expect them to at least consider what Wesley was saying--especially someone like Giles who we now know is not averse to sacrificing one to save many. (@Icarum I'll have to watch again but I remember him holding his teacup to his face and looking very dismissive of Wesley's comments, then rushing to make the call when Buffy gives him the go-ahead.)

In season 5, they knew that Glory had a schedule to keep, whereas in Choices, they knew nothing. They actually did have a solid plan in place of killing Dawn. All they had to do was delay Glory and it'd be to late too perform the ritual. In other words, because there was a solid chance of stopping Glory without killing Dawn, one could argue that it's even more unlikely that Giles should suggest they kill her at all--I mean from a merely strategical standpoint.

Finally, remember this quote? Giles:

I've sworn to protect this sorry world, and sometimes that means saying and doing... what other people can't. What they shouldn't have to

I see no reason why that kind of thinking shouldn't have applied in Chosen. Again, I'm not saying it's what I would have thought, or what I would have done. But for a character to say the above words and so strongly believe that it's best to take the life of one to save many, it makes no sense to me that 2 years prior to that he'd not have even considered it.

To the point about Giles having an easier time stomaching the idea of killing Dawn because she is new to the world and not truly real: I sort of understand this perspective. But remember that Giles remembers knowing Dawn for just as long as he's known Willow, (longer by season 5 obviously). And undoubtedly he remembers having similar father-like feelings toward her that he has for Buffy; he displays this many times throughout season 5. So I don't really buy that in one case he couldn't consider a sacrifice but in the other he could.

The more I think about it, I call character inconsistency...

 

[Icarium]

I don't recall the Ascension ever being considered some global apocalypse kind of threat. Even Wesley refers only to Sunnydale being in danger, not the world. Which is a good argument for destroying the Box of Gavrock, of course, but not nearly as good as the argument for killing Dawn. Second "for all they know the apocalypse might start any second" isn't a convincing argument for sacrificing one's friend. I mean, they weren't such dumbasses because the plot said so they could have just attacked the Mayor five seconds after he let Willow go.

They actually did have a solid plan in place of killing Dawn. All they had to do was delay Glory and it'd be to late too perform the ritual.

Considering Glory killed like a hundred Knight who say Ni, I mean, Knights of Byzantium in five seconds or so I really wouldn't call it a solid plan. Stopping the Mayor who had no super strength or grossly overpowered minions was a far more realistic prospect and the main reason why there were many casualties in the end is because the Scoobies waited for the season final for no reason. 🙂

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I don't recall the Ascension ever being considered some global apocalypse kind of threat. Even Wesley refers only to Sunnydale being in danger, not the world.

Right, which is what I said in my original post; they aren't perfectly parallel scenarios. But undoubtedly if the mayor was successful, thousands of people would have been wiped out. Obviously not same scale, but it is the same principle, and I would expect that someone who believes so strongly in the "I have to make difficult decisions like kill one to save many--it's my job" (ie Giles) would have at least strongly considered Wesley's position.

Second "for all they know the apocalypse might start any second" isn't a convincing argument for sacrificing one's friend.

My point is that they knew nothing aside from the fact that the box could end the threat of an apocalypse. The very fact that they didn't know that failure to destroy that box wouldn't result in the death of thousands makes Wesley's argument not so ridiculous, as horrific as it obviously is. Again, I would expect Buffy to say "no way" and Giles to consider it strongly, having seen The Gift.

Considering Glory killed like a hundred Knight who say Ni, I mean, Knights of Byzantium in five seconds or so I really wouldn't call it a solid plan.

Fair point. If anything, I think this is the best argument there is as to why Giles felt differently in The Gift than in Choices.

Stopping the Mayor who had no super strength or grossly overpowered minions was a far more realistic prospect and the main reason why there were many casualties in the end is because the Scoobies waited for the season final for no reason. 🙂

This is true in retrospect but how much did the scoobies know about the Mayor's strength or abilities? And I'd argue that he had a much more solid team than Glory; Glory's minions were individually susceptible to bitca-slaps by Ben of all people, whereas the Mayor had tons of (undeniably stronger) vampires, and Faith. I mean, as of Choices, he had Faith.

Point is, stopping the Mayor wasn't much of a prospect at all until they had the box, simply because they knew squat about him or his plan. For all they knew, once he had the box he could blow up the town in seconds with the right spell. Again, I'm all for not killing Willow, but with stakes like that, Wesley doesn't look so ridiculous. And, again, with stakes like that, Willow would die anyway. Which is the same principle Giles is easily capable of coming to terms with, two years later. That's all I'm saying...

 

[EVIL UU]

The situation might seem similar but there is one crucial difference.

Willow is a human being, Dawn is not. Her entire existence is a lie, a manipulation. It doesn't mean she has no right to live but think about this: most vampires ( newly-risen) Buffy slays, like Dawn, have done nothing wrong either, she slays them because of what they are, not because of what they've done. What Giles suggests in "The Gift" is what Buffy's been doing since her activation, kill Dawn because of what she is, kill a non-human who's done nothing wrong to protect humans.

 

[whitewolf]

The situation might seem similar but there is one crucial difference.

Willow is a human being, Dawn is not. Her entire existence is a lie, a manipulation. It doesn't mean she has no right to live but think about this: most vampires ( newly-risen) Buffy slays, like Dawn, have done nothing wrong either, she slays them because of what they are, not because of what they've done. What Giles suggests in "The Gift" is what Buffy's been doing since her activation, kill Dawn because of what she is, kill a non-human who's done nothing wrong to protect humans.

But Dawn is human at this point. One of the monks who guarded the Key said she was human. The Vampire analogy isn't the same. The vampires are demons. There is no doubt that they would kill innocent people. Dawn, however, is an innocent.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=12094]whitewolf[/MENTION]

One of the monks who guarded the Key said she was human.

And you believe that brainwashing fish-god worshiping scum? Never trust fish worshipers man!

Dawn's the key, her entire character development, what little there is 'cause she's a glorified plot device, stems from the fact that she's not a human being, she's not real. Also, human blood doesn't open portals and humans are born, not made, given form, molded into flesh, right?

There is no doubt that they would kill innocent people.

Sadly, that's not canon anymore. Vampires have free will, they can choose not to kill, like Harmony. It blows, I know.

 

[kittenpoker]

What a great thread!!!! Thanks for the thought provoking-ness of this, gum gnome. (Great, now I'm gonna be stuck with deep thoughts all day) ;-)

I think a lot of things factor in here... willow was a scooby... part of a tight knit group... wes was an outsider - so I think maybe, the mere fact that he suggested it put everyone on the defense immediately - and made it seem purely cold and harsh and the philisophical layers of his line of thinking didn't really penetrate. All they heard was "lets just let willow die" (I think)

Also, character and story line evolution is a factor.... up till now it's more or less been a series of potential mini apocolypses which buffy stops with relative ease...

Glory sort of changes the whole game. Buffy is (for the first time, I think) - although I guess we could count Adam - but to a much greater degree with Glory - completely and utterly outmatched. She cannot defeat her. I think that kind of makes them take the leap from the kiddie pool into the ocean - more or less.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

wes was an outsider - so I think maybe, the mere fact that he suggested it put everyone on the defense immediately - and made it seem purely cold and harsh and the philisophical layers of his line of thinking didn't really penetrate. All they heard was "lets just let willow die" (I think)

Hmm this is a really good point. What bothers me about it, (even though I think you're spot on), is that the writers went for a "let's make Wes look unreasonable to further isolate him" pitch when they could have used it as an opportunity for Giles, (who we later find out is capable of thinking along the same lines), to see through the "dismiss Wesley" party line and lend some credit to his thoughts.

Glory sort of changes the whole game. Buffy is (for the first time, I think) - although I guess we could count Adam - but to a much greater degree with Glory - completely and utterly outmatched. She cannot defeat her. I think that kind of makes them take the leap from the kiddie pool into the ocean - more or less.

See while I totally agree with this, as I was saying in response to Icarium, the scoobies didn't know at all what the mayor's plan was or how powerful he was at the time of Choices. So while it makes sense to me that they'd think in extreme terms in facing Glory, it doesn't make sense that they so easily *wouldn't* when facing a completely unknown enemy. The Mayor could have been more powerful than Glory for all they knew. Of course, at that point they didn't even know who/what Glory was, (though shouldn't Giles have at least heard of her? Separate point...), but it could have at least occurred to them, since it was the first time their "big bad" wasn't just an old vampire or team of vampires and a vampire ex-lover--that perhaps they were biting off more than they could chew. I mean I would have just liked Giles to lend some consideration to keeping that box, given his personality (in retrospect) and what they were up against.

Sadly, that's not canon anymore. Vampires have free will, they can choose not to kill, like Harmony. It blows, I know.

That is something that the comic book writers have now decided is cannon, (and grrrrr, argh, Buffy is a murderer, etc), but as of The Gift, the MO of Buffy and co as it related to the morality of slaying was vampires yes, (unless chipped or souled), humans no.
As [MENTION=12094]whitewolf[/MENTION] said,

The vampires are demons. There is no doubt that they would kill innocent people. Dawn, however, is an innocent.

, this is the foundation upon which the show works, (and why the comics make no sense). It obviously allows for exceptions, (and that's what makes for a good story--keep a rule and earn the exceptions ie Angel and Spike), but they can't be based on nothing, (Harmony), otherwise everyone is a potential innocent.

Point is, if the group really believed at the time of The Gift that all vampires had free will as to whether or not they would kill, then morally speaking none of them would have a leg to stand on, least of all Buffy.

 

[kittenpoker]

What bothers me about it, (even though I think you're spot on), is that the writers went for a "let's make Wes look unreasonable to further isolate him" pitch when they could have used it as an opportunity for Giles, (who we later find out is capable of thinking along the same lines), to see through the "dismiss Wesley" party line and lend some credit to his thoughts.



I mean I would have just liked Giles to lend some consideration to keeping that box, given his personality (in retrospect) .

Yeah, I totally get this. The only argument I can make for why giles didn't lend more merit/consideration to wesley's suggestion comes back to what I said before....and for Giles, I believe there may have been yet another element influencing him...jealousy! His role - at least officially - had been usurped by Wes - and up until this point Wes really hadn't done anything to prove himself a capable or competent watcher.... So there may have been some "do this young arrogant and ignorant upstart is gonna come in here and suggest a plan of action that would put someone I love in danger...HELL NO!"

And we do see future evidence for jealousy affecting his decisions (I believe) in empty places.

 

[Icarium]

See while I totally agree with this, as I was saying in response to Icarium, the scoobies didn't know at all what the mayor's plan was or how powerful he was at the time of Choices. So while it makes sense to me that they'd think in extreme terms in facing Glory, it doesn't make sense that they so easily *wouldn't* when facing a completely unknown enemy.

Why not? Their initial assumption has never been "This bad guy is most likely almost invincible, let's base all our actions on that premise". Giles would go for the "ends justify the means" choice but only if that's clearly the case, no ifs, no buts. "For all we know he will kick our asses with ease if we try a frontal attack" isn't nearly good enough, IMO. Even Wesley doesn't say "Say goodbye to Willow" but "We will find another way to save her after we destroy the box", so he doesn't think the Mayor is unstoppable.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Why not? Their initial assumption has never been "This bad guy is most likely almost invincible, let's base all our actions on that premise". Giles would go for the "ends justify the means" choice but only if that's clearly the case, no ifs, no buts. "For all we know he will kick our asses with ease if we try a frontal attack" isn't nearly good enough, IMO. Even Wesley doesn't say "Say goodbye to Willow" but "We will find another way to save her after we destroy the box", so he doesn't think the Mayor is unstoppable.

I think you're not quite getting my point. Obviously no one thinks the mayor is unstoppable; but everyone should be aware that they don't know anything about him, and that should inform their decision making. Which is precisely, as you said, why Wesley doesn't suggest they let Willow die outright but that they consider the options. And considering Giles' stance in season 5, I'd think he'd have been the first to side with Wesley there.
They do know that this is the first time their major big bad hasn't been a vampire, and the first time they were up against something with far many more resources than the former big bads. I mean this is season 3 and, as kick as as she is, at this point Buffy's resume consists almost uniquely of vampires of various strengths. Again, while that doesn't automatically call for a pull-out-all-the-stops attack, it also doesn't mean they can afford to be cavalier or assume that they know what they're doing. At all. Which means that some perspectives that are not easy to swallow might need to be at least discussed, even if not ultimately accepted.

 

[EVIL UU]

Buffy is a murderer

Nah. You can't murder something that's already dead. Whenever Buffy stakes a vamp she simply banishes the demon that animates the human corpse. That's not killing.

That is something that the comic book writers have now decided is canon

Yeah, but this shit started in the show with soulless Spike helping Scoobies fight evil and take care of Dawn in season 6 and Harmony's story in BtVS and especially in AtS.

Spike. Why does it always have to be Spike? Goddamn wanker.

 

[whitewolf]

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION] You actually raise an issue that had kind of annoyed me. Why is Spike exempt from the normal rules? Before he gets his soul back he is just a demon. He may not be able to harm people, but it doesn't make sense that he would bother trying to help them either.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Spike's arc and evolution are different than those of Harmony (or a random vampire). The chip forced him to exist in a world of humanity, having been spared by humans. He fell in love, (a stretch yes, that's storytelling), which propelled his journey toward making "right" or "humanistic" decisions even while soulless, which was a long and admittedly rocky process.
The point is, whether you buy his evolution or not, a genuine attempt was made by the writers to demonstrate that there could be an exception to the rule, for the sake of telling a good story. Who wants to read (or watch) as foundations are set, rules are established, and then everything that happens stays exactly within expectations, within boundaries? There have to be exceptions, but the writers have to earn them by convincing us that there is something unique about a given character or his/her circumstance in order to propel a change. Maybe for some of you, the writers didn't earn that, and that is why Spike's story seems like too much of a stretch, and no different from learning that any random vampire can choose to do good. Quite a few fans do accept this evolution, however, which helps to solidify its merit, making it stand apart from the notion that any demon can be good.

In any case, I think it's easy to digest the idea of one or two exceptions to the lore, (Angel and Spike), for the story's sake, (two vampires falling in love with a slayer and the ways in which their lives are altered). But when just any vamp is neither good nor evil until proven otherwise, there's absolutely no foundation anymore to the show. And then arguing that it's ok to kill one character and not another is just a mess...

 

[dexeded]

[MENTION=11014]Gum Gnome33[/MENTION]

I just want to give you eternal rep.



Anyway, I personally think that Giles just made the smart and rational choices. It's pretty obvious that Buffy was wrong in The Gift. And I just think it would be ridiculous to let Willow die in exchange for destroying the Box of Gavrok when it seemed like only a portion of the preparations essential to the Ascention.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=12094]whitewolf[/MENTION]

He may not be able to harm people, but it doesn't make sense that he would bother trying to help them either.

I have a theory.

Why does Spike help Buffy and her minions? At first, because he doesn't want to be staked, afterwards because he wants to **** her, so with Buffy dead he has no reason to help, right?

Well, maybe he decides to give the next best thing a shot? Robot didn't work out but how about the closest thing to Buffy, the one that was made from her. Wait a couple of years until Dawn is all woman-sized and curvy and then change their relationship, you know, just like Xander.

I think that's a pretty compelling reason.
[MENTION=11014]Gum Gnome33[/MENTION]

So you propose a meta-explanation? I don't like it when people do that because there's no way to verify writer's intentions and also because it basically kills every discussion. Every meaningful thread on this board can be ended with because writers. Do we really want that?

Personally, I don't like the idea that Spike is special. It's baseless and it diminishes the character, hell, it completely ruins him. Spike helps Buffy not because he's good but because he has a good enough reason to do so - he wants to **** her. Yeah, it's pragmatic, it's opportunistic but it's the only explanation that makes sense.

He realizes that his chip doesn't work against Buffy, what's the next thing he does? He attacks an innocent. How's that for a change? No, Spike never changes.