Re: Another question about Oz

[Tater <tater@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:30 PM 9/19/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Nice history on the werewolf thing, tater. Personally, I'm with you--I
>figure Joss was just leaving his options open on the scratch issue
>(probably because they didn't have you to tell them all the details
><g>), but the lengths they went to get around it put me in the
>"scratches bad" camp. Particularly noticeable is when Ozwolf pins Faith
>in "Beauty and the Beasts", yet somehow doesn't break her skin, even
>though the Slayer-healing would take care of any mauling she might
>suffer.


I have a thing for werewolves. They're my favorite supernatural beastie. I
have lots of werewolf fiction floating around casa de veggie, and the odd
mythology reference.


>I suppose we can strain the fanwank and say that **the characters**
>didn't know whether scratching caused lycanthropy, either, especially
>since the legends had been wrong regarding the three-day moon.
>Therefore they took pains to avoid it, under a "better safe than hairy"
>policy.

That or they just didn't want to get clawed up by something with three inch
nails. Pain hurts.


>And I think the show might also have been cautious about this because
>Oz's lycanthropy (and thus Oz/Willow) was basically being played as a
>metaphor for HIV-positive romance. Showing him drawing blood would have
>been disquieting, given the analogies they were playing with.
>
>Or perhaps I'm overthinking again.

No, you may not be overthinking. I'll buy that explanation.


tater (Vegetables of the world unite!)