Scythe Matters

[nerd4hire]

You could find all kinds of analogies or interpretations. One of them would have to fit. For example, water is in a toilet resevoir. The toilet flushes. The resevoir refills.

Moving along then. The transmogrification conduit in Shadow shows us what they're calling a conduit is actually part of a larger more complex operation moving energy along it like a chain.

The power for the spell comes first from Sobek. It could possibly be interpreted something like this. The power hits the crystal, something happens. "The Gem is fire". It hits the stone. Something happens. "The stone is base". It hits Glory. Something happens. Giles says something like, "It would take a witch of enormous power to do this spell". The power hits the cobra. The spell turns the snake into a larger, more demonic creature.

Now what I'm suggesting with the Scythe spell is perhaps something similar happens. There is a possible power source in Buffy season 7. It is presented in a way to suggest it wouldn't be unreasonable to think of it as such. It is described as something like, "the well of the slayer's power", and "the source of her truest strength."

So perhaps the power comes from "the source", it hits the scythe, it moves out of the scythe, into Willow, then out to the potential slayers.

True, the Get it done spell, says we need a catalyst, and there doesn't appear to be one, but I'm told we can blame that on the props department. 🙂 J/K.

My opinion: this kind of stuff is often left to interpretation. It's done on purpose. They want to leave openings in the canon for future writing. They also want to allow people of different external belief system such as Wicca, Christians, buddhist yak sniffers or whatever else, an opening to intepret the text to fit their beliefs.

Bottom line: They don't offer up a visible, undeniable catalyst in Get It Done. I'm not sure we have to do it here. It could be off-screen, or perhaps it's in Willow. If someone wants to insist it's vital to produce one though, I'll try to find a way.

 

[The Arcane]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean BEG. Are you saying the power could return to the source, if the source was the scythe, but it couldn't return if the source was external. What about a system of water conduits that circulates water from a source through the pipes and pumps to feed a fountain then returns to the source. Is that possible? Hang on TW's getting pouty, I have to go visit him.

I don't do pouty. My sister took all the poutiness in our family. I took the confidence! 😉

Yes TW I was impressed with the Wicca explanation for the Get IT Done spell. It doesn't explain the Transmogrification conduit, but I'm sure if we put our minds to it we'd find a way to do that too.

Already done. As i said above, the transmogrification conduit was no different to any other kind of conduit, other than it's properties and strength meant that it was most suitable for spells using transmogrification energies.

Obviously in real life there is no such thing as transmogrification, changing a living thing into another living thing, outside of nature anyway. However it is quite common that a certain spell will require specific ingredients, including the possibility of a specialist type of catalyst or conduit. In the case of the crystal in Shadows it was simply the most appropriate type of conduit for the energy it was supposed to direct. That really isn't all that complicated to work out and the text does most of that for you, assuming you have some kind of prior knowledge of the lore. The basic rule holds true though. The conduit, in this case the crystal, would have to have no magickal power of it's own, only the potential to channel it.

Now, as for the rest of your post, i'm more than happy to help you get an answer to this theory, as i've been trying to do all along. However we are going to have to come to the agreement that wiccan lore is a fundamental part of the show we are discussing and that has to play a part in our discussion.

The reason i'm adamant about this is very simple. In eight years and twelve seasons of Buffy and Angel the writers never once directly contradicted true wiccan lore. Not once did i notice a line that was an absolute fabrication of the belief system i have studied. They certainly expanded on it and turned it into a fantasy, which was necessary of course to make the show exciting and so much fun to watch, but when it came to the basics they stuck to the facts. Something i was very pleased about, and i have no doubt that the large number of the fanbase who are also of a wiccan faith shared that gratitude.

The writers took the time to learn the basics and no matter how fantastic the magick became they never once turned the rules around. Something a certain other show about three witches certainly cannot claim. So i hope you understand why i'm so certain that Anya was talking about two seperate things when she said those two sentences in Get It Done. And, despite the way Emma delivered them, the text clearly shows that there were two sentences with a full stop clearly in between.

For one of the writers, in this case Doug Petrie, to directly contradict such a fundamental wiccan lore as the fact that a conduit and a catalyst could never be the same thing would be a kick in the teeth to all the hard work that everyone else had done over seven seasons of Buffy.

Now, if he had written Anya saying the line ...

Anya: "Of course a conduit and a catalyst are the same thing, dumbass!"

... then i would be extremely disappointed but i could not argue with you that they really were going against the facts. However, as we have said, the lines go ...

WILLOW
Magick works off physics.
ANYA
Not without a catalyst. If you're talking about transferring energies, you need some kind of conduit.
WILLOW
Like a Kraken's tooth...

Two sentences that the actress in question managed to blur into one onscreen. Now, given that the show has never broken basic wiccan law before and that it had no good reason to this time, do we assume that the writer got it wrong or that Emma didn't say it all that clearly and she actually was stating two seperate facts? I'd have to go with the latter because the alternative would be ludicrous.

How it should have sounded onscreen was like this ...

WILLOW
Magick works off physics.
ANYA
Not without a catalyst. (BEAT) If you're talking about transferring energies, you need some kind of conduit.
WILLOW
Like a Kraken's tooth...

Oh, and as far as the catalyst in that spell goes, it is the sand that Willow pours onto the ground. As i said, powders are commonly used as catalysts in many spells and forms. I see no reason to doubt that this is the case here too. The question is where and what the conduit is suppose to be. I would still maintain that, excluding the apparent laughable possibility that the prop simply wasn't remembered (because that could never happen), it was simply on Willow, maybe as an amulet around her neck and we simply did not see it.

 

[Nighthawk]

Oh, and as far as the catalyst in that spell goes, it is the sand that Willow pours onto the ground. As i said, powders are commonly used as catalysts in many spells and forms.

Dawn said the powder was to act like a barrier. What do you make of that?

 

[The Arcane]

Dawn said the powder was to act like a barrier. What do you make of that?

The circle was the barrier. A circle is a protective form that keeps things either inside or outside in many ancient cultures and religions, including wiccan.

The powder was the catalyst but the shape it was poured in acted as a barrier to keep the portal energies contained inside.

 

[Nighthawk]

So then the powder was both the catalyst and the barrier?

 

[The Arcane]

Depends on how you look at it but not really.

The sand was the catalyst and would have been even if Willow had just poured it into a big pile on the floor. However, she formed it into a circle and it was the shape that acted as the barrier for the energy.

See the difference?

 

[Nighthawk]

I do see a difference, but had Willow just poured a big pile on the floor what would have been the barrier? The sand was kind of the barrier...

 

[The Arcane]

That is kind of the point, NightHawk. If Willow had just poured the sand in a pile on the floor then there would have been no barrier and the energies released would have been able to expand outwards in all directions, out of control. That is exactly why she chose to create the circle in the first place. To maintain control once the spell had begun.

However, it is important to understand that it is the circle that is the barrier and the sand that is the catalyst. it might not seem like much of a difference but in wiccan lore it is all important.

Nerd4hire, i may have come up with an alternative that would allow your theory for the scythe to work. It entails totally disregarding what Anya said in Get It Done, but hear me out.

Now, as you know, my issue here has been that you are trying to connect Anya's words from one episode (Get It Done) to the events of Chosen, despite the fact that i've tried to tell you that you are basing that connection on a misunderstanding of what Anya was saying. What if we simply leave that out of the scythe theory altogether?

I have hopefully made it clear that the scythe cannot be a conduit, simply because in magickal terms a conduit cannot contain energy unless a spell is in progress. The scythe clearly contained energy at all times.

Now, the only reason you have convinced yourself that the scythe is a conduit is that you are using Anya's words as a guide. My suggestion is to let that go.

As we have agreed on, every spell is different and every spell has it's own properties. Anya was talking about a specific spell during Get It Done and therefore there is no guarantee that anything she said even remotely relates to what Willow did in Chosen. Not every word spoken on the show has to relate to something else in a later episode, correct?

So forget about the term conduit altogether. If you want to create an airtight theory for the scythe then you have to avoid using terminology that can be disputed. A conduit, by it's accurate definition in magickal terms, is one thing that the scythe could never be.

So how about we work out what exactly it could be?

The scythe is either one of two things. Either it is a source of slayer energy, in which case the power is simply imbued within, as i have previously suggested, or it is a energy tap. An object that can connect to an energy source on a permanent basis without channeling it anywhere, unless someone, like Willow, releases it.

Now, in true wiccan lore there is no actual equivalent of an energy tap. However, the function i have described is similar enough to that of a conduit to work to your theory without disregarding actual wiccan fact.

So, would describing the scythe as a "tap" into the energy of the slayer power work for you?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Actually I just remembered in Doppelgängland Willow and Anya have to pour sand on a painting of Anya's necklace to get it back, but it touches Willow, and so Vamp Willow is brought into our world! So it would not be the first time sand has been used to transport a person!

 

[The Arcane]

Actually I just remembered in Doppelgängland Willow and Anya have to pour sand on a painting of Anya's necklace to get it back, but it touches Willow, and so Vamp Willow is brought into our world! So it would not be the first time sand has been used to transport a person!

You do realise though that in that example again the sacred sand is acting as the catalyst, correct? There is actually no evidence that a conduit is even necessary for that spell but if one was needed then i would have to assume that it would be the bones that we see Anya using as they have the physical form to act as a conduit.

The reason i am trying to clarify each of these examples is that we seem to be moving further and further away from the topic of the thread, each time a new spell example is mentioned, and the matter is getting more and more confused by details that don't apply to the scythe. No two spells are necessarily alike in the process they are carried out, the only constant are the terms used and what they accurately refer to.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Yeah I did, lol, I was just giving another example, to back up the sand as a catalyst theory 🙂

 

[The Arcane]

LOL, thought as much. I didn't imagine that you would have confused that point yourself but i thought i'd better clarify for the sake of anyone coming into this thread late! 😀

 

[nerd4hire]

OK so here's why I sometimes have a problem when some one tells me you can't believe such and such in that work of fiction, because it contradicts something I read one time.

I think it goes to a place that's kind of vain, a little presumptuous, and a lot flawed.

I'll give you an illustration, and perhaps you'll understand what I mean, and why I want to move on from this.

I inquire, "If Willow needs a conduit and a catalyst in 2 different locations, where are they in the spell?"

You reply the sand is the catalyst and something - I'm still not sure what - is the conduit. You tell me the lack of clarity as to what the conduit is, a mistake of the props department. I find that humourous, and chuckle. You bristle at that, and ream off a list of continuity errrors from other episodes.

Here's the problem though, in order to have a continuity error, you have to have an error.

You assume there's an error, because you can't find a snug fit for the precise details of wiccan magic as you understand them.

But there isn't necessarily an error, it's only an error to those who allow their external belief system to force it to be.

Myself and BEG can watch that scene and say Willow is the conduit.

A sub-theme of the whole kitchen scene was Willow's reluctance to look inside herself for the answer. When Anya mentions the conduit and the catalyst, it's almost like Willow's eyes light up. We see that as an indication of Willow saying to herself something like, "Hey, I can do that. I can find that in me. It was there all along, and I just didn't see it."

You can't tell us we aren't allowed to think that, because it contradicts your external belief system, or tell us your interpretation of the scene is more valid than ours, based on nothing more than your religious belief.

Someone else might watch that scene. They might see Dawn and Kennedy as the catalyst, with Willow as the conduit. They can do that. The scene is vague and open to interpretation. Some might see some kind of catalytic convergence between Willow and the girls so they are both the catalyst, and Willow is the conduit. They're not incorrect, just because your belief system tells you they are.

A physicist might see the same scene, and propose a theory where the sand is both catalyst and conduit. He might say "hey this fits in well with my theory of sub-atomic hyper-activity. down a neutral field." or some such thing. Why can't he do that? Because Wiccan law says he can't. Are you going to tell him Wiccan lore has jived in the past with Buffy stuff, so only Wicca matters. I've heard physists complementing stuff like Fred's theory for being current and accurate with what's happening in the field. He could just go, "right back at ya."


Some of us are perfectly happy with our interpretations of that scene. We don't see a continuity error, because we don't see an error. You can't come to us and say, "Yes there is, because my church, or coven, or whatever says so." Well you can say that, but we'll laugh at you.

Imagine this...

Joss is reading up on Vampire lore. He comes across the bit that says Vampire's have horrible breath. Now, he doesn't have to say, "Oh, that means we have to write Angel out of the script, because Buffy would retch if he got close." He just ignores that bit, and moves on.

Here's the thing. The writers deal with the problem of appealing to many different belief systems by making this stuff intentionally vague. It allows people to interpret it however they want. You interpret the text. It fits stuff from your external belief system. Good for you. Enjoy yourself, just don't presume to tell me how to enjoy myself.

For example the one thing I know for sure about all Buffyverse conduits is something goes in, and then it goes out. The scythe does that. I can call the scythe a conduit.

Now, if that contradicts your religious beliefs I can't help you. All I can do is allow you to interpret the handle to the scythe as neutral if you want. If that's not good enough I'm sorry, but I'm moving on.

I'll be moving along to discuss dark energies next I think.

 

[The Arcane]

I'm not asking you to apply the precise details of my belief system or any other. I'm asking you to acknowledge that the writers chose to do so and that the issue we are discussing is one of the basic laws. Something so very basic to somebody of a wiccan faith that it is like one of the writers suggesting to you that throwing fuel on a fire would put it out or that breathing water is a good way to go.

You have admitted that you have little or no knowledge of wiccan lore and yet you will not listen to somebody who does when he tells you that it is fundamentally impossible for a single object to be both a catalyst and a conduit. Nor will you listen when i tell you that when you are talking about an object used by a witch a conduit is a very specific thing and one of it's most important properties has to be that it has no power stored within. That is the type of object that Anya was talking about in Get It Done and no amount of your speculation will change that fact.

Simply put, Anya and Willow were talking about an object to be used as a spellcasting conduit and that object, whatever it was, had to abide by the rules as dictated by wiccan lore. How do i know this? Because that is how the writers on Buffy and Angel always worked. Why, on this one occasion, do you assume that Doug Petrie chose to go against that system when there was absolutely no need to do so.

I've explained to you why you are wrong in your usage of the terminology. I've tried to give you a viewpoint that includes information you are not privvy to yourself as a non-wiccan. I've even come up with a similar theory that could help you bypass your misunderstanding altogether.

It's up to you now as to whether you choose to listen or continue on with this theory using flawed ideas.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

One thing the Watcher, I believe that one thing can't do both, but you also just cant say because how something works in the real world that is how they work the Buffyverse, I mean I know they are very good at keeping to the principles of Wicca, but they do change things to meet their needs, I mean the concept of Spells in the real world is the same as a Christian prayer, but in the buffyverse, we see a very drastic physical effect when a spell is cast!

 

[The Arcane]

But the writers had always stuck to the basics of wicca beforehand, BEG, and they always did after.

In fact, if you read it correctly Doug Petrie even sticks to the rules in Get It Done. It's only the fact that N4H is choosing to hear it the way he does, not that the writer made a mistake. 😉

 

[nerd4hire]

In fact, if you read it correctly Doug Petrie even sticks to the rules in Get It Done. It's only the fact that N4H is choosing to hear it the way he does, not that the writer made a mistake.

Define correctly.

It keeps sounding like you're saying "There are two interpretations. Mine is the correct one. The other is not."

I can't help thinking that sounds kind of vain?

 

[The Arcane]

Define correctly.

It keeps sounding like you're saying "There are two interpretations. Mine is the correct one. The other is not."

I can't help thinking that sounds kind of vain?

All i can say here is too repeat what i have said time and time again. My interpretation allows for the basic rules of wicca to be adhered to, in the same way that the writers of Buffy and Angel ALWAYS chose to do on the show.

Your interpretation asks us to ignore one of the most basic wiccan laws, asks us to ignore the true meaning of conduit when used in relation to a magic spell and asks us to assume that the writer, for no reason whatsoever, decided to ignore the efforts that all the other writers had previously gone too to make the wiccan dialogue believable to those in the know.

As i have said, if the text had absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt ignored wiccan lore and Doug Petrie had decided to use his own ideas, then i would back down on this.

He didn't. He wrote a dialogue between Anya and Willow that 100% sticks to the rules when you accept that Anya made two seperate statements together.

You are choosing to maintain, for the purposes of this theory of yours, that Anya was referring to a single object. One that was both catalyst and conduit. Great for your theory but absolutely ludicrous for the consistency of the wiccan lore for the rest of the series.

So yeah, if you want me to be honest i am absolutely certain, with no doubt in my mind that i am correct and you are mistaken. If you think that makes me arrogant, well, i am! But then i'm hardly ever wrong so i've got reason to be! 😉

 

[nerd4hire]

Speaking of vanity...

I've been posting support for most of what I've said so far concerning Buffyverse conduits.

I ask you for support and all I get is an explanation that seems to say, you don't have to offer any. You seem to be telling me something is true because you say it is. I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept that. I'd really like to see support for this one in particular.

one of the most basic wiccan laws,

I'd also like to see some support for how a neutral conduit works in Wiccan magic, specifically in reference to Wiccan magic spells.

To be honest I can't find anything like that, which strikes me as odd considering it's supposed to be one of the most basic Wiccan laws.

What I can find are Wiccans using conduits to kind of like join with energy. One guy had a staff, and he said he connected to the energy of the sun, or some such thing.

I'm still looking for a Wiccan spell to transfer energy in a manner similar to what I see done in the Buffyverse. I can't find one. Again...that's odd, if it's a basic wiccan law

What I can find are examples of magic from other disciplines where conduits are used. Here's one -

In order to cast any sort of spell, from the simplest cantrip to the most powerful summoning spells, you must have a power source to provide the raw magical energy and a conduit to focus and transmute the energy into the desired result. This principle is similar to the usage of electricity. If you wish to light up a room you need a power source (an outlet of some sort) and a conduit (the power cord and/or light bulb

).

?Magic and the Library

Notice I emboldened the word Light Bulb? Guess why I did that?

And no, your interpretation doesn't "allow for the basic rules of wicca to be adhered to", it demands it.

Again I ask, what if someone has expertise in a different field of expertise than you claim to have. I gave the example of physics. What if he has a different opinion than yours? What if he says, "Buffy has always stayed true to the basic tenets of my field also." Is he allowed to trust his interpretation even if it contradicts yours, or does your interpretation trump his? Hey...I'm just asking.

 

[The Arcane]

Well, for one thing, everything i know of wiccan lore was learned from books and i have no idea as to whereabouts you would find that kind of information on the internet. Don't get me wrong, i know it's bound to be out there somewhere but as for websites and the like you probably have as much chance of tracking the information down as i do. Ten years ago, when i was studying wiccan lore properly, was a good few years before i had anything at all to do with the internet. In fact i only do these days because my work demands it.

There is one site i'm familiar with, the Occultopedia, which may provide you with the information you want but i have never had chance to check through it properly.

You won't find a spell in reality anything like similar to the sort of thing that you see on Buffy for very obvious reasons that shouldn't even need mentioning here. It's mostly all fantasy. Magick of the kind Willow does is not real, never has been, and i'm surprised you need that to be stated. Wicca is a spiritual belief that connects you to nature and the world around you. The spells are generally along the lines of hexes, fortunes and the like, not transforming snakes into Key hunting monsters. Real life magick is not what we see on Buffy. However the terminology is very real and has it's own set of rules and guidelines.

There is likely a very good reason why you won't find a website explaining why a catalyst and a conduit cannot be the same thing. To anyone who is informed enough to be checking out those websites i would imagine something like that is blatently obvious and would need no confirmation. Again, it would be like telling a trainee fireman that you don't put out a fire with tissue paper. The basic natures of a catalyst and a conduit prohibit them being the same thing so anyone stating that fact would probably get the reply "Well, duh!!!" from a fellow wicca.

As for why you highlighted the term "light bulb", gotta say i'm drawing a blank. In the analogy the light bulb would be the end process of lighting up the room, just sending electricity through a cord wouldn't do much good on it's own, correct? Well, that is exactly what a conduit does. It channels and directs magickal energy to a desired place or purpose as i have already stated and given examples of (the spell to switch Buffy with the demon and the spell to create the snake demon in Shadows). I have previously made it very clear that a conduit can also have the end result of amplifying the effects of the energy.

To simplify the analogy, sometimes a conduit merely transfers the energy (like plugging a power lead into the socket on the wall to transer the electricity) and sometimes it can amplify it to a desired state prior to leaving the conduit (adding the light bulb to the end of the power lead to create the light). There is absolutely nothing there that goes against anything i've said previously.

N4H, i'm not here to prove a religion to you and frankly i could care less i you are willing to believe a word i say. I offered you knowledge that i know to be correct, what you now do with that is up to you because this time i really am done with this thread. When my word and my knowledge of my personal belief system starts being questioned i think it's time i politely exit the conversation before i really do lose my temper.