April 2002 posts
Ficlet -- Etrangere,
04:36:54 04/04/02 Thu
I just wanted to say I had just posted a new very small ficlet here :
http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=701047
for anyone interrested.
[>
I enjoyed that so much! Thank you! -- Marie, 04:50:25 04/04/02 Thu
And will you please add on to our Round Robin, which I'm going to re-post in a few minutes?
Marie
[>
Wow -- Vickie, 08:44:44 04/04/02 Thu
[>
That's really nice, Ete. -- Ian, 12:22:51 04/04/02 Thu
[>
sigh... that was great -- ponygirl, 18:50:38 04/04/02 Thu
Buffy's Day Off - Again! And a friendly
reminder of the... -- Marie, 05:03:19 04/04/02 Thu
...RULES
1. Keep it fairly short - just to give everyone a go.
2. Keep it consistent - your "bit" must follow on and make sense.
3. Number your posts in the message subject, so we know where we are.
4. Have fun!
Marie
[>
Buffy's Day Off - Parts 1-17 -- Marie, 05:06:51 04/04/02 Thu
Marie
Buffy sat back in the lounger with a sigh of relief. Dawn had just left for school, Willow for the
Library, and Buffy herself had the day off! She put the book she'd carried out with her down on the
grass, and lay back, for once content. No Big Bads to fight, Spike keeping a fairly low profile, Willow
and Tara starting to get along - even Dawn had been smiling this morning! She wasn't going to think
about Xander and Anya today, either. Not on her day off!
She'd almost dozed off, when a faint sound roused her. Lifting her head, she shoved her sunglasses
down her nose, and surveyed the peaceful garden, narrowing her eyes against the bright sun.
Sensing a sudden movement just behind her, she turned. "What the-"
julia
A brightly colored butterfly swooped past the tip of Buffy's nose. She reeled back against the chair in
startled shock. "Hey, now!" Just then a small black and white cat scampered around the corner of the
house. Meowing its attack, the cat leapt skyward, chasing the butterfly. Shaking her head in
amazement, Buffy reached for the portable phone next to the book in the grass. "Tara's never gonna
believe this one."
neaux
Tara's answering machine picked up. "Bummer," Buffy frowned. She sat back and hung up the
phone. Buffy shrugged and got cuddly with her book again. The quiet eventually overpowered her,
and her eyelids were heavy. She was dozing off and drooling when Spike burst through the door
under a flaming blanket.
Marie
He stood on the top step, and glared at her, smouldering.
"Don't you ever answer the bloody 'phone?" he snapped.
With a reluctant, but heartfelt, sigh, Buffy opened her eyes.
"Don't you ever get tired of me telling you to get lost?" she answered. "What do you want, Spike? And
it had better be good - it's my day off! "
GreatRewards
"Not anymore, pet" Spike replied.
Spike lit a cigarette and leaned against the doorjamb, being sure to remain well within the shadows
on Buffy's front porch. He was trying to look calm and suave, but it was obvious to Buffy that
something was bothering him and it wasn't just the fact that the sun was rising ever higher in the
morning sky, threatening what little shadow remained on the porch.
"If you've got something to say, spew it or get lost, Spike," spat Buffy. She was impatient to return to
her book.
"Ok, 'ere's the sitch", Spike began.
Dichotomy
"Last night, me an' Clem were playing a game of kitten poker..." he continued. Buffy stopped him
short with a disapproving frown.
"Hey, I was up. Had me a nice kitty of Siamese kitties..."
"Spike," Buffy interrupted, "the whole kitten poker thing is just way high on the creepy-meter, even
for you..."
"Whatever, your high and mightiness. But that's not the point," he spat back, crushing his cigarette
under his boot in exasperation. "The point is, Clem noticed that there was something a little 'off '
about the kittens."
matching mole
Buffy started to show a little interest. "Off? Or do you mean up?"
"Up? I don't follow, pet."
"You know," Buffy pointed skyward. "Up."
Just then a calico kitten dropped down out of the sky, swooped under the roof of Buffy's porch and
grabbed tenaciously to the first thing it saw, which happened to be the still smoking top of Spike's
head.
Farstrider
"What's all this, then?" asked Spike, reaching up and grabbing the kitten by the back of the neck. It
squirmed and scratched, trying to free itself from the vampire's grasp. "Ow, hey, stop it!" Spike
yelled, giving the kitten a shake and passing it from his right hand to his left. The kitten, seeing its
chance at escape, sunk its little teeth into Spike's left thumb. He jerked back, dropping the kitten to
the porch floor.
Landing on all four feet, the kitten immediately pounced on Spike's pant's leg, and climbed up the
vampire's clothes and into one of the interior pockets of his black duster. Almost immediately, the
sound of purring could be heard from the pocket. Spike just looked up at Buffy, who was trying hard
not to laugh at the resigned look on Spike's face.
"Looks like you've made a friend, Spike."
Liq
"Friend? Not bloody likely. This li'l furball is my stake in tonight's game... Owwwww!"
Spike dipped his hand tenuously into the duster pocket and carefully extracted the hissing, swiping
furball by the scruff of his neck.
"Guess Friend heard ya." Buffy snorted in a very un-ladylike manner. Leaning conspiratorially
toward the kitten, she whispered loudly. "Go for the inside of his arm, above the elbow... he HATES
that."
cat
Buffy was amazed and a little creeped out as the kitten stared directly into her eyes, and then did
just that. After getting a satisfactory yelp from the still smouldering Spike, the kitten looked back at
Buffy, gave her a conspiratorial wink, then bounded off after the errant butterfly. Buffy chuckled at
the miffed expression on Spike's face.
"Hey, at least it didn't take a really BIG bite!"
Spike just glowered at her amusement.
Ian
Suddenly, with a loud schpleck, the ground beneath the kitten's paws yawned open and swallowed
the kitten whole.
"Blimey! Did I just see that it?" exclaimed Spike.
"I..I'm not sure you did." said Buffy, her nose scrunched up quizzically. "But today I don't care. Today
I'm on a mini-vacation, and if anything Hell-Mouthy is going on, it'll just have to wait till
tomorrow."
"Buffy, the ground just ate the cat. Doesn't this fall into the heading of "Slayer, come save
me?""
"Hey," Buffy replied, "If you want to do something, go right ahead."
"Bugger that," spat Spike, "Let's go inside and get to the lovin'."
zargon
"Let's not and say we did--n't!" said Buffy, stepping out into the bright sunlight.
Spike stared at her hungrily with his penetrating dark eyes, sorry, that's Angel, eh hem, his
penetrating Icelandic baby blues.
"You're just a tease, pet," he said.
"Oh, look, Dawn's home from school!" she said brightly. "Hey, I know, why don't you watch her while
I go... that, um, thing… um, that I was planning on doing, down at…"
Deeva
"Hey Buffy. Hey Spike." said Dawn, as she passed Buffy, who was on her way into the house. Dawn
plopped down onto the chair that Buffy had just vacated and turned her attention to Spike.
"S'up Spike? Isn't it a little bright and shiny for you to be out and about?" she asked.
"I was already up and there's nothin' on the telly. So I came over to see what's the what at Casa del
Summers."
"Uh, right. You want me to believe that?"
Spike looked hard at Dawn. "You psychic now or somethin'? What do you think I was here for,
Bit?"
"Oh, I don't know." she mused. "Maybe a little Slayer action, Buffy lovin', Big Bad nasty. Whatever
you wanna call it." teased Dawn with the best fake innocent look on her face.
"DAWN!?!" choked Spike. "You...Where? I...Who? Where did you get that idea?"
Rochefort
"Hey!" said Spike but Buffy was already gone, escaping the responsibilities of adulthood in the form
of Dawn once again.
"Hey Buffy I--," said Dawn as Buffy shot by her. Dawn moped up onto the porch and sat next to
Spike. She whined.
"Platelet," Spike said to her absently, watching Buffy retreat. "It's going to drive me bloody insane,"
he said.
"I'm old enough to understand these things," said Dawn.
Spike clenched his fists as Buffy disappeared around a corner. He banged his head against the pole
of the porch. ... and felt something pop.
C'Ram
For the fourth time and counting, the vampire let out a short grunt of pain followed by a couple of
quick blinks which shortly transformed into a leering smile. He turned to Dawn, the grin turning to
horror.
"Dawn!"
She started at the sudden tone in his voice.
"Get inside now, lock yourself in your room and call somebody NOW."
Dawn didn't budge, treating him to a raised eyebrow of her own at the use of her name.
"What's with the dramatics? Why would I want to call anyone, when you know I'd rather hang with
you."
julia
"Bloody hell, girl! Get out of here," Spike ground out from between clenched teeth as his fangs tried
to descend. The scent of Dawn's rich blood wafted into his nostrils and ignited a firestorm of
bloodlust.
Dawn stood transfixed as she watched Spike struggle against the transformation into game face.
"But wha..." she trailed off and then began to back away from the now fully vamped bleached blond.
"Go!" he snarled. "Now!"
Liq
She reached the front door, realizing a split second too late that going into the house would seal her
fate.
She turned on her heels, spun to the left barely missing smashing into Spike as he lunged after her.
His momentum slammed him into the door while hers carried her off the porch and into the sunlight.
They turned at the same minute, staring at each other.
Neither noticed the tiny calico kitten peeking from the side of the porch.
clg0107
Spike clung to the porch post, trying to regain control. He didn't stop to ask himself why he was
fighting so hard, rather than giving in to the instinct. It was no use. He was shaking with the pent
up rage, and the hunger for warm living blood.
At that moment, another kitten dropped out of the limbs of the tree in the front yard, onto the porch
just feet from where Spike stood. Without missing a beat, he pounced on the furry animal, sinking
his teeth into its neck.
He drained the creature quickly, and then cast the now still form into the nearby bushes. "Don't
want Buffy or the Bit seeing that in front of their door"...He hadn't time to analyze that thought
either, when the world began to spin around him. He dropped to his hands and knees, trying to make
the dizziness stop, but it just kept increasing in intensity, until Spike blacked out.
Cat
Not having gotten inside yet, Dawn stared in horror as Spike went down, falling towards the
sunlight. She grabbed hold of him as the golden rays began to burn him. Seeing that the light was
steadily advancing, she knew the porch was no longer safe. Knowing that she was no longer safe
with Spike though, she questioned the wisdom of bringing him inside. Deciding that even though he
was evil, he was still her friend, she quickly got him inside and under cover. In the midst of this,
however, she failed to notice that Spike was not the only monster she allowed into the house, as the
calico, seeing its chance, darted inside too, before the door finished closing.
Meanwhile, Buffy was having a pleasant day. Making the decision to take a break, and not worry
about the rest of the world, had actually been very liberating. There were a hundred things she could
do; hang out at the mall, go to a movie, drop in unannounced on one of Willow's or Tara's classes. If
she wanted, she could go to the park, and while away the time daydreaming on a swing. Happy with
the day's potential, she sauntered off in the direction of the park.
Once there, she approached a swing with joy. She didn't even notice that the park was strangely
empty, very few people other than herself were there. Nor did she see all the feral eyes gleaming
from the cover of the bushes, shining with mischief.
Marie
Dawn stepped back from the basement door. Have I done everything I can? she wondered,
worried. He's unconscious - but for how long? And will those cuffs hold him, anyway? And note
to self - ask your big sister where the hell those cuffs came from! As she turned to the kitchen
counter and reached for the 'phone, her mind raced. Handcuffs, unconscious, crosses tied to the door
knobs. Should keep him there 'till Buffy gets back… where is she, anyway? She didn't even hang
around long enough to ask why I wasn't at school. I wanted to tell her about the disappearing
kittens! As she dialled, she forgot about the strange early-morning happenings as she
remembered the monster in the basement, and all she could think was, The chip's bust or
something! Oh, God, please make it start working! I can't lose Spike! Please!
Behind her, the kitten watched.
[> [>
Re: Buffy's Day Off - Part 18 -- O'Cailleagh, 05:41:29 04/04/02 Thu
Meanwhile, Anya was in the Magic Shop, counting the money in the cash register. It had been a slow
day and she needed all the fun she could get. She looked up as she heard the door open and in
walked Tara carrying Ms Kitty Fantastico.
"Tara! Thank the Pestilent Gods! I'm so bored-not even the money helps." Tara said nothing, she just
walked closer to the counter. "Tara?" said Anya. It was then that she noticed the odd look in Tara's
eyes. Tara set Ms Kitty down in front of Anya and began to chant in a low voice. Kitty's eyes glowed
and turned pink, Anya gasped. "What's happening?", she thought. "And why do those pink eyes look
so familiar?....Oh!", she started as the truth dawned on her, the cat's eyes were not the only thing
changing. Her formerly pointy ears were becoming longer,and her nose had started to
twitch........
[> [> [>
Re: Buffy's Day Off - Part 19 -- neaux, 07:45:01 04/04/02 Thu
"Oh my god!" Anya jumped back and nearly hit the shelves behind her. R.. Rrr... Raa..
(cut to the troika's hideout)
"Rabbits." Warren said with a nod. "Rabbits, Kitties, puppies, rats. You name it. Any type of
vampire morsel. and it will fall out of the sky. A great snack for vampies! and with the hunger for
blood.. we shall use all the vampires of Sunnydale to do our bidding!!"
"Muwhahahaaaa!!" Johnathan and Andrew chimed in as well. "Muwuwhahaahaaa!!"
[> [> [>
Re: Buffy's Day Off - Part 19 -- JCC, 07:45:09 04/04/02 Thu
Veins started to push out from Anya's face & Tara started chanting even louder in Latin. A bright
light shined from Anya's eyes and she felt power surge through her. Tara collapsed to the ground.
Miss Kitty Fantastico looked into Anya's eyes and hissed loudly. She ran towards the door in fear.
Anya left the Magic box.
Back at the Summers house, Spike woke up and started swinging at Dawn. He broke loose from the
cuffs and chased Dawn up the stairs. He grabbed her foot before she reached the door. Suddenly
Buffy ran in the door........
[> [> [> [>
Sorry, Neaux & I posted at the same time. Let's call mine Part 20 -- JCC, 07:47:09
04/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
Re: Buffy's Day Off - Part 21 -- matching mole, 12:45:35 04/04/02 Thu
Buffy called 'Dawnie? You still here? The park was kind of creepy in a Twilight Zone way. Then a
mole fell out of the sky and hit me on the head. Wanna see?"
Just then Dawn burst through the basement door. "Help! Buffy!" she cried out as she had so many
times before. A pale hand attached to a leather clad arm grabbed her by the back of the shirt and
began pulling her backward.
Without time for one of her famous quips Buffy leapt forward, pushing Dawn aside and swung at
Spike's head, forgetting the mole in her hand. The hapless creature bit down on the vampire's face
and remained attached as the vampire, the slayer, and the key tumbled down to the cellar.
[> [> [> [> [>
Part 22 -- Rochefort, 17:08:07 04/04/02 Thu
"Bloody hell!" moaned Spike from the Bottom of a Summers mole mess.
"Owwww," whined Dawn and then realizing where she was and who was under her screamed and
tried to scramble up. She stepped on Spike's face, already bleeding of mole bite.
Buffy stood up. "What's going on here?" she pierced Spike with her accusation. Spike slowly stood
up, looked around, and then sprung at Dawn.
Buffy, shocked, grabbed him in a hold and was ready to twist his head off when Spike managed to
choke out "...
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Part 23 -- Liq, 18:20:27 04/04/02 Thu
"Wait a min....... ahg ...ute." Getting the last syllable out was difficult working it's away around
slayer fist.
With a burst of energy, he gasped out, "Chip. Still. Working."
Buffy looked at him, her eyes slitted more dangerously than usual. No problem, since she released
the grip around his throat.
"Then why were you attacking --"
Her words were cut off my a female teenaged shriek.
"You are SO LYING, you rotten, you ROTTEN mean, Ugly vampire!"
"Whaddya mean Ugly?!" Spike snarled, causing his face to once again twist into bumpies and
fangs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Part 24 -- Sheri, 18:40:59 04/04/02 Thu
Spike couldn't remember ever being so insulted in his whole unlife. Well, there was that time that
Dru ran off with the slimey chaos demon guy. And the time Dru ran off with the head chieftan of a
tribe of flatulence demons. And the time Dru ran off with the 3 inch tall fear demon. And the time
that...
"I am NOT ugly!" snarled Spike "I'll have you know that I've got some of the nicest looking bumpies
arou--"
"Why the HELL are you chasing my little sister around in vamp face??!!" bellowed a rather
unimpatient Buffy.
Just then, the door bell rang. Dawn raced up to the door.
"Hi! I'm Bernadette from Mary Kay cosmetics!" said the the fur coat clad woman at the door.
Dawn grinned, "This is soooooo great! Come on inside, I know someone who can use your help!"
Dawn let the woman in, not noticing that Bernadette's chipmunk fur coat wasn't quite on the dead
side.
Spike screamed when he saw Bernadette's case full of colorful eyeshadows, lipsticks, and
nailpolishes.... but the sun was out, and he had nowhere to run!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Part 24 -- Rochefort, 19:18:10 04/04/02 Thu
"If you'd have allowed me a minute to explain...," said Spike, walking over to Dawn, "I'd have told
you that you had a weazle on your back that looked like it was up to no good, platelett." He walked
up to Dawn, who flinched, and he yanked off the little weazle. It screached and he threw it into the
other room. "I wonder what's with all the rodents."
"You mean...," said Dawn hopefully, "You weren't going to eat me?"
"Well I was," said Spike, and flashed her a charming smile. "Just for a second. But then I
remembered you were my little bit." He tossled her hair.
"So we can play make up now?" asked Dawn hopefully.
The smile faded off Spike's face. "Sure right," he said, "Let's play make up." He grabbed the Mary
Kay girl and sunk his teeth into her neck. Blood dribbling down his chin, he looked up and his eyes
met Buffy's....
"Spike," she said in a whisper, "no..."
Spike pulled away and swallowed a bit of blood. Wiped his mouth.
"Spike...," she repeated softly, looking away. Her bottom lip trembling, she searched for her
stake.
"Buffy," he said, "I uh... it was just a taste, I... I mean... ARGUGH!" he said clutching his head and
dropping the Mary Kay girl. Buffy didn't buy it. "We'll take the black nail polish," said Spike to the
Mary Kay Girl who screamed.
"Buffy no!" said Dawn and lept to grab Buffy's arm as she raised her stake.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That one would be 25 -- Rochefort, 19:19:27 04/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Part 25 -- Sheri, 19:41:49 04/04/02 Thu
Suddenly, the Mary Kay reps skin started to pull away from her body like a really messy banana
peel.
"Ish," said Spike, Dawn, and Buffy in unison.
Inside the skin, peered out the eyes of 27 growling kittens.
"Meow attack meow them meow!" said all 27 kittens in unison.
Suddenly, the chipmunk fur coat leaped up off the ground and flew at the extremely confused
vampire, key, and slayer.
"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
uh, that should have been 26... oopsy -- Sheri, 19:44:00 04/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Part 26 -- Liq, 19:47:29 04/04/02 Thu
"Awwww dammit!" Spike groused as he grabbed the Summers sisters by the elbows and yanked
them toward the stairs.
"And here I thought it didn't work anym---"
"Spiiiike....." Buffy would have glowered at him, had she been able to slow down with the running of
the stairs and all.
She chose, instead to point out to him that she was still holding the business-end of Mr. Pointy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Part 28 -- Rochefort, 20:16:56 04/04/02 Thu
The reached the top of the stairs and slammed the basement door.
"They're such cute little kitties," said Dawn smiling. "I wonder how they all got inside that
lady."
"See I KNEW there was something off about her! I knew it!" said Spike.
Buffy looked at him and raised an eyebrow.
"...which is why I bit her," said Spike, "Who knows how long she'd have gone around masquerading
otherwise."
Buffy narrowed her eyes. "Stay away from Dawn and in my sight until we figure out what's going
on. One false move and you're dust."
"Buffy," said Spike, "Like it's my bloody fault the chip stopped working. I'm still the same
Spike."
"How did it break?" asked Buffy.
"I was uh...," he looked at Dawn, "I was uh, nibblet and I here were playing checkers and um...,
and...," he dropped his shoulders, "And I hit my head over and over into the porch pole. Wish I'd a
thought a doin that back in season 4, but it's different now Buffy! I really did only bite her cause I
knew she was an evil kitten nest."
"I can't take any chances, Spike. Come with me to find Giles. We've got to find out about all the
small mammals."
"I'll stay and watch the kittens," said Dawn.
"You'll go to Willow's," said Buffy, "Now." And she walked out the door. Dawn walked past Spike.
"Buffy wants to believe you, Spike," she said.
"Yeah," he said, and sniffed. He followed her out the door and said to himself, "I want to believe me
too."
[> [>
Part 29 -- matching mole, 08:46:12 04/05/02 Fri
Meanwhile back at the magic shop...
"Calm down Anya." Tara tried to make her voice sound soothing but the transformation of feline
into rabbit had unnerved her as well.
"Calm down? How can I calm down when that supernatural lagomorph is sitting on the counter of
my place of business staring at me with those unearthly pink eyes and plotting scheme of pure evil?
Just look at it."
Tara obediently turned her attention from the histerical ex-vengeance demon to the rabbit. It was
sitting calmly and sniffing the jar of wolf bane by the cash register which was causing it's nose to
wrinkle in a most delightful way. Then Tara caught its eye and it unmistakeably winked at
her.
"Did you see that!" shrieked Anya. "It's up to no good."
"Yes I saw it," shushed Tara. "Now be quiet." Turning back to the rabbit she continued, "Do you
have anything to say for yourself."
"Well it's about time someone asked." The rabbit spoke with a very upper class British accent.
"Events are getting completely out of hand and all you people do is scream and act bewildered.
Although it is gratifying to meet someone who knows the word lagomorph."
[> [> [>
Re: Part 30 -- Liq, 11:04:58 04/05/02 Fri
"Mr. Travers?!" Anya and Tara chirped in stereo.
[> [> [> [>
Part 31 -- Rochefort, 12:18:11 04/05/02 Fri
While Tara and Anya talked to Mr. Travers the Bunny Rabbit, Buffy was marching quickly down the
road to find Giles.
"Buffy!" called Spike after her.
"I don't have time now, Spike," she said, "Just.... try not to bite anyone and we'll deal with it
later."
"But Buffy..."
"Spike! I may stake you, I may not stake you, I haven't decided yet. We need to go see Giles."
"Right. Walkin to England then are you?"
Buffy stopped. She turned and looked at Spike. He smirked and looked her over. "Quit it," she said
then, "Do you want to go to England?"
"To see Giles? Not really. It's just some weazles anyway."
"The trio I could handle, Spike. You, I could handle. I could even handle Double Meat. But these
cats and rats and elephants.... I really need Giles right now. I just do. It's my day off and I'm going
to England. And with your chip broken, you're not leaving my sight. So you're coming with
me."
"How convenient for you," said Spike, "You've got an excuse to be with me 24/7. We should have
thought of breaking my chip along time ago. Now when you never leave my side you can explain it to
your friends."
"You're a pig, Spike," said Buffy, and turned the corner towards the Sunnydale airport. Spike
hurried after her. (Luckily it was a REALLLLLY cloudy day).
"Buffy," said Spike, "Remember the Judge's arm and how Angel had to take a boat instead of a plane
in order to make the plot make sense?"
"You can ride in the bathroom, out of the sunlight."
"Ooh. We can join the mile high club."
What will they do once its over? -- The
Last Jack, 08:15:27 04/04/02 Thu
All good things must come to an end, and one day we will see Buffy stake her last vampire. Once the
series is over, what do you think the cast will do? Here are my predictions:
Sarah: She will probably make the jump to movies full time; this will probably be the last tv series
she does (unless they are guest shots on Joss's other series). Her movies so far have been kind of hit
or miss, but she has shown she can play a variety of different characers.
Alyson: Like Sarah, she will make the jump to movies full time as well. She has had better luck box
office wise, and I think she has the making of a terrific comedic actress.
Anthony: He will probably stay in England, doing various projects/series/plays (and the new Watcher
series, of course. And since in England series are only half of what they are here, he may do another
one)
Nick: Will probably get away from his Xander character to avoid getting typecast, maybe some
theater work. My guess he will probably stay in televison, maybe even work with Joss again.
Emma: From some interviews I have read, acting is only a temp job for her ;). I think she has got a
psychology degree or something, so my guess is unless something big comes her way after Buffy, she
will change careers.
James: James is in a unique position. He could play the same character over and over again and I
doubt anyone would complain. Don't get me wrong, I think he could do anything, and probably will,
but I wouldn't mind seeing him playing a Spike like character every now and then.
Michelle: Hmm, that one is tough. She has had sucess in both tv and movies, so will probably stay in
both until she gets older and decides what she wants to do.
Amber: Like Nick, will probably distance herself from her Tara character, unless she goes over to
Anthony's series (I know that was a rumor a while back about that, anyone wanna give me an
update?). Probably more tv and movie work, since she isn't as big as the rest of the cast.
Hmm, think that is everyone. Well, those are my predictions. Anyone want to add theirs?
[>
I have seen the future . . . -- d'Herblay, 11:34:56 04/04/02 Thu
Sarah: After her roles as Daphne in Scooby Doo: The Movie, Judy in The Jetsons: The
Movie, Betty in Archie Comics: Jughead's Revenge, and Cheetara in ThunderCats
2007! fail to capture box-office gold, silver, or even pewter, she returns to what was her true
métier, Burger King commercials.
Alyson: Has a successful career in movies, but does not make the transition to Aromarama-film (too
much asparagus in the diet). She lives in a secluded house in Beverley Hills with her butler, Barry
Sonnenfeld. She takes in a struggling screenwriter, but after he forgets to wear his water wings, the
police come for her. She stands dramatically at the top of the stairs and declares, "I'm ready for my
close-up, Penny Marshall."
Anthony: Rumors of a land called "England" prove unfounded as Anthony Stewart Head disappears
from the face of the Earth.
Nick: Develops a perilous addiction to Echinacea and Zinc Gluconate. Bankrupted, he is seen holding
up a Sharper Image outlet. He tries to flee to Mexico, but, due to a poor grasp of geography, is
captured in Albuquerque. After paying his debt to society and completing court-ordered rehab, he
stars in a Broadway revival of We're No Angels with Charlie Sheen and Robert Downey,
Jr.
Emma: Becomes the 47th President of the United States. While canoeing a river in Georgia, is
attacked by a killer rabbit. Martial law is declared. America's War on Bunnies is an undeniable
victory, but at what cost?
James: Makes his first appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman preceding Jack
Hanna. Is mauled to death by baby lemurs. Fiber optic cables worldwide are torn up as no one can
think of a reason to go online.
Michelle: Tries to shed her Harriet the Spy image by starring in Poison Ivy IX: Nipples, Nipples,
Nipples!. She becomes America's favorite sex-pot, only to parlay that new cachet into more
wholesome roles. She makes a series of romantic comedies with Danny Strong. (Strong himself
starred in several winsome comedies before losing 40 pounds to play a sensitive, humorous but
troubled National Parks ranger with cystic fibrosis, the role that wins him his first Oscar.
Buffy is largely remembered as the show that Danny Strong starred in before he became
Danny Strong, other than Clueless, which the French prefer.) These comedies are wildly
successful until the world, en masse, realizes that they're the same old Nora Ephron crap, just
directed by her sister Delia.
Amber: Becomes a devotee of Kiatsu therapy. While announcing the nominees for Best Actor (the
heavy favorite being Danny Strong to win his third Oscar for his role as a sensitive, humorous but
troubled crossword-puzzle designer with macular degeneration), she attempts to focus the audience's
healing energies to levitate the White House. Emma is unmoved.
[> [>
BWAAAH!!!!!Ow, ow, ow....(whimper).....duhrmmit! -- Doriander, 11:52:42 04/04/02
Thu
Lips...bleeding...chapped...lips...bleeding.
[> [>
Please please do one for AtS!! -- ponygirl, 13:01:47 04/04/02 Thu
And Joss, who I see retreating into a fortress-like castle, ballooning up to 300 llbs after his failed
attempt to make a Ice Capades version of Macbeth for Disney, aka Scotch on Ice.
A/S parallels -Lust? Vengence? Dark Love?
(very long/spoilerish) -- shadowkat, 10:02:28 04/04/02 Thu
Anya/ Spike parallels – Dark love? Love’s bitca’s? Love Scorned? Love Avenged?
First thanks to the Board for allowing these long posts and other posters.
WARNING – THE FOLLOWING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
Spike and Anya, our two demons, have been used as metaphors for twisted love since they were
introduced. They have represented almost every aspect of love imaginable in the Buffyverse – in
most cases the darker aspects. Their actions mirror each other as do the themes they represent.
Last night on the subway I read a poem by W.H. Auden, which made me think of Spike and Anya
and their current relationship with Buffy and Xander. I couldn’t get it out of my mind. It’s called
“More Loving One I Can Tell By”
Look up at the stars, I knew quite well
For all they care, I can go to hell
But on earth, indifference is the least
We have to dread, from man or beast
How should we like it, were the stars to burn
With a passion for us, we could not return
If equal affection cannot be, Let the more loving one be me.
Who are the stars in this relationship? Buffy and Xander? Or Spike and Anya? I believe the former,
but if the currently emasculated Spike and Anya were to recover their powers … At any rate, the
poem expresses the pain of unrequited/scorned love. The pain of loving something that could care
less. I know Xander has returned Anya’s affections, but from Anya’s pov Xander just scorned her in
the worst way possible. He left her at the altar. Told her that he could not marry her. The same
thing has happened to Spike, in As You Were, Buffy told him that she couldn’t love him. From Spike
and Anya’s point of view the line: “For all they care, I can go to hell” is an apt one.
Let’s back up to what Spike and Anya used to represent and in some sense still do. Both characters
were introduced on the show as demon villains, as metaphors. In several blurbs on FX, Joss Whedon
and Company have said that their demons are meant to metaphorically represent either an emotion
or fear of the characters. They explore the fear and it’s effects on the characters metaphorically
through the demons. We often use myths, legends, parables to explore subconscious fears and
emotions – it makes it easier for us to deal with them.
Back to Spike and Anya – what did they represent? Lust, Scorned Love, Infatuation, Obsession are
the words that come to mind. Twisted Love. The male and female equivalents of it.
When Anya was first introduced in the Wish – she was introduced as the Patron Saint of Scorned
Women or as Cordelia puts it: “She was, like... a good fairy. A scary, veiny... good fairy.” She tempts
her victim or as Anya would put it, her client, with a wish for vengence. Anya is the metaphor for
rage. She symbolizes the feelings we have when someone rejects us, scorns us, casts us aside.
Here is the scene between her and Cordelia:
Anya: Can I just say... Men.
Cordelia: Second it.
Anya: Apart from being without class, the guy's obviously blind. Deserves whatever he gets.
Cordelia: I'm not even thinking about him. I am past it. I am living my life.
Anya: Still, I mean... Don't you kinda wish...
Interesting scene. Anya, the demon, is saying take the easy way out. Scorn him. Make him suffer. At
this point Cordelia is attempting to do it the hard way, working past the pain. Later of course,
Cordelia gives in and makes an odd wish, which surprises Anya. She doesn’t wish to inflict harm
directly on Xander. She wishes that Buffy wasn’t there. Not because she sees Buffy as a rival, but
because Cordy can’t admit that Xander was ever worth her notice. Cordelia deals with rejection by
rejecting the rejecter. I scorn you!
I only liked you because someone else did. As Cordelia puts it: “ I never would've looked twice at
Xander if Buffy hadn't made him marginally cooler by hanging with him.” And then she makes her
wish, turning the Buffyverse into a dark alternate reality that doesn’t change until Giles smashes
Anya’s power center, effectively emasculating her. Rendering her human.
If Anya represents the woman scorned, Spike represents the male. Spike from the moment he was
introduced in School Hard was all about Lust. He and Drusilla were ME’s view of what “lust” looked
like in the flesh. Raging hormones. Forbidden love. Passion. Fire. Lust. In season 2 Spike with or
without Drusilla was Lust personified.
The first time he sees Buffy at the Bronze, he is stalking her in the shadows. Watching it again last
night – he reminded me of a sexual predator, a cat, circling its prey. He wanted her – that was
obvious. Sort of like you might want someone you see across the room – love at first sight? No. Lust.
Later in their fight scene in School Hard, everything about it is reminiscent of sexual foreplay. His
lines are crude and suggestive. In fact, if you think about it, all of Spike’s appearances as the Big
Bad, prior to his emasculation by the chip, are sexual. Their fight scenes are like foreplay. He even
describes them as such much later in Fool For Love.
Buffy: You think we’re dancing?
Spike: That’s all we’ve ever done. (leers).
But let’s go back to School Hard. In their fight scene, Spike is lecherous, crude and suggestive. The
scene is not your typical vamp/slayer battle. As the scene starts – Spike is straddling a long pole and
leering lecherously at Buffy. Stroking his chest.
Buffy: (holding the ax) Do we really need weapons for this?
Spike: I just like them. They make me feel all manly.
(He drops the pole and slowly steps toward Buffy. She drops the ax.)
Eventually he tries to ream her with a long wooden stud – her mother Joyce saves her, hitting him in
the head with the ax. Very sexual scene with all sorts of phallic symbols. If Anya represents what
happens when you scorn women – Spike represents what happens when you scorn me. He is the
lustful, leering, big bad wolf in the little red riding hood fable. And what’s interesting is that instead
of making him disgusting or ugly, the writers have controversially made him sexually appealing.
Sheila, the bad girl in School Hard, certainly does. He doesn’t force her to follow him, instead he
tempts her.
Sheila: Who are you?
Spike: Who do you want me to be?
Sheila: Did you see...
Spike: ...those two losers who thought they were good enough for you?
Sheila: What happened to 'em?
Spike: They got sleepy.
Sheila: Huh?
Spike: And you got something a whole lot better
The next time we see poor Sheila – she’s strung up as food for Spike’s Drusilla. But isn’t this a
digression from our main theme? Also where’s the parallel to Anya? Look again – Anya also believes
in tempting people to get what she wants. We saw how she tempted Cordelia in The Wish, became
her friend, gave her the amulet, and then poor
Cordy ended up getting what she wished for. Both Cordy and Sheila got exactly what they wished
for. Sheila – lust. Cordy – vengence. And both weren’t all that happy about it. Well Anya tempts
someone else, this round Willow, in Dopplegangland. She convinces Willow to use dark magic to get
her amulet back and ends up pulling SkankyWillow from Cordy’s Alternate Wish Universe into the
Buffyverse.
Back to Spike. In School Hard, and the episodes that follow up to and including The Initiative in
Season 4, Spike is the man who will not be rejected – who will force himself on you, takes what he
wants, and you’ll like it dang it! Oh he’ll try to tempt you first, seduce you. And when he gets what
he wanted…well, you’re cast aside. It’s important to note the similarity here – both Anya and Spike
react to rejection violently. They are like the stars in Auden’s poem – watch out – we burn! Don’t you
dare think of rejecting us! We control what happens here. We take what we want. We’re the ones
who do the rejecting.
Before we jump to Harsh Light Of Day, let’s take a brief moment and look at Lover’s Walk. If THE
WISH is about the consequences of vengence/scorn then Lover’s Walk is all about lust and who is the
villain? Old Spike. In Lover’s Walk – Spike kidnaps Willow and Xander – who are attempting to
suppress lustful feeling for each other. Spike want Willow to do a love spell to make Dru love him.
When he grabs Willow she’s busy doing a de-lusting spell. It’s ironic that she and Xander are
interrupted by Mr. Lust himself – Spike. And Spike, obliges them, by trapping them in an old
abandoned factory, alone, with each other, and their lust. Their lust is what places Cordelia in grave
danger and momentarily breaks up Willow and OZ. In Lover’s Walk – Spike also points out the lust
between Buffy and Angel, declaring that it’s impossible quell physical love, desire: “You're *not*
friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and
you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. (points at his temple) Love
isn't brains, children, it's blood... (clasps his chest) blood screaming inside you to work its will.”
This speech is not just about lust. It’s about unrequited passion. Passion suppressed, put on hold,
and how it works at you, makes you crazy. Makes you do the wacky. Is this love? Or is it infatuation?
Lust? (Now don’t flame me here – I’m not talking about B/S and A/X’s current relationships or Spike
and Anya’s current feelings. I’m talking about where they came from, because like Linda DeLurker
and cjl mention in their posts – to truly see these characters and understand where the writers are
taking them– we need to understand the metaphors upon which they were built.)
Lust is Spike’s driving force. Just as Vengence is Anya’s. And these emotions are the flip sides of
each other. Both are the dark side of love. The side that leads to rape, obsession, stalking, cheating,
scorn, etc. The type of love that anyone in their right mind should reject, because it is destructive.
Let’s jump to Harsh Light Of Day (HLOD). HLOD is all about casual sex, rejection and its
repercussions. It also deals with lust. The title itself symbolizes “rude awakening”. ‘Last night we
loved each other, it was intimate, it was wonderful – but now in the harsh light of day – everything
seems wilted, less romantic, and apparently what we thought was love was nothing more than a
quick roll in the hay.’ Three sets of characters are paralleled in this episode: B/Parker, X/A, and
S/Harmony. In each set up – the male rejects the female. And in each set up the female is the
initiator. She initiates sex. Harmony seduces Spike. Anya seduces Xander. And Buffy, although it is
a little foggy here, more or less gives into Parker’s ‘let’s connect routine’. Afterwards, all three
women realize that it meant more to them than it did to the guys. There is a twist. Two
actually.
I’ll start with Xander and Anya. In this scene – Xander makes it clear to Anya that he is not ready to
pursue a close relationship, that you need to build up to the sex not jump into it, but being Xander –
a normal 18 year old batch of raging male hormones, he is unable to resist a naked Anya forcing
herself upon him. Here’s the scene:
Xander: So the crux of this plan is –
Anya: Sexual Intercourse. I’ve said it like a dozen times.
Xander: Uh, huh. Just working through a little hysterical deafness here.
Anya: I think it’s the secret to getting you out of my mind. Putting you behind me. Behind me
figuratively. I’m thinking face to face for the actual even itself.
Xander: Ah right. It’s just that we hardly know each other. I mean I like you. And you have a certain
directness that I admire. But sexual interc—what you’re talking about well – and I’m actually
turning into a woman as I say this…
Interesting scene. Now let’s look at Spike. Spike gets his sexual gratification from Harmony. But it’s
not Harmony he wants. He’s settling for her. He wants Buffy. When he runs into Buffy and Parker
at the party, his comments make me think of Cordelia in the Wish running into Xander and Buffy
and Willow. He’s clearly envious. But hiding it.
Here’s the scene, Spike and Harmony have just run into Buffy and Parker:
Spike: Well this is interesting. Sort of a double date. (edited for length and emphasis) Let’s have a
look at the new boy.
Parker (holds out his hand): Hi, I’m Parker. (Spike looks at it in fascination for a second, then Parker
puts his hand down disconcerted.)
Spike: He’s got. What’s the word? Vulnerability.
Later, when Spike gets the gem that makes him invulnerable to sunlight, crosses, etc – he leaves
poor Harmony and pursues Buffy. Their fight scene is very similar to the one in School Hard. He
hurls sexual insults at her, reminding me of a rejected envious suitor. The rejected male. Like Anya
– Spike sees what he wants, can’t stop thinking about it, decides the best way to get rid of these
lustful emotions to either kill it or have sex with it. Neither gets love. Unlike Anya – Spike is still a
metaphor. Anya at this point is evolving beyond the metaphor – she’s becoming a full character.
Spike still represents lust , thwarted desire. He also echoes all the emotions rolling around inside
Buffy and Anya – that sex by itself isn’t really all that gratifying it’s just a poke, it’s just a moment
and in the Harsh Light Of Day it means nothing at all. Here’s the scene from HLOD:
Spike: So, you let Parker take a poke, eh? Didn’t seem like you knew each other that well. What did
it take to pry the Slayer’s dimpled knees?
Buffy: You’re a pig Spike.
Spike: Did he play the sensitive lad and get you to seduce him? That’s a good trick if the girl’s thick
enough to buy it. I wonder what went wrong. Were you to strong? Did you bruise the boy?
He states all of her fears, and to some degree echoes his own desires. He’s been thwarted and he
wants to kill her. Think about it – what do vampires do? In literature and myth – the vampire has
been linked with sexual desire, sexual death. They bite the neck and the girl swoons. For Spike
biting the girl on the neck is a sexual act and a violent one. It is I think often used as a metaphor for
rape as well as seduction. (Not always, of course, there have been exceptions.)
Both Anya and Spike try to fulfill their desires in this fashion. They don’t really understand love.
The emotion consumes them. But it is interesting that Anya in harsh light of day takes on the role of
the man – I’ll have sex with you and its over. Spike is still playing the male role here – except he’s
almost saying what’s in Buffy’s head – why did you lower yourself? Just as Anya once echoed what
was in Cordy’s head in The Wish. “He hardly seems with it”. Just as Anya’s role in this piece is lust.
I lust after you, Xander. So let’s do what’s necessary to stop it. In an odd way Spike and Anya have
flipped roles here. Spike is vengeful, angry, coming on the scene just as Parker rejects Buffy and
Anya is lustful, wanting to have sex with Xander. The two characters seem to mirror one another
and it is interesting that when both are emasculated so that they can no longer harm living things,
their metaphorical roles begin to diminish.
Why do I keep talking about emasculation? Why that word? Because prior to the removal of their
powers – Spike and Anya were forces to be reckoned with. And both powers were metaphorically
sexual in nature. Anya’s was green energy emanating from a heart shaped amulet on her chest – the
writers tend to refer to the female chest in a sexual way – see Fool For Love when Dru places Spike’s
hand on her chest to tempt him to drink. She does it in Crus as well. Spike’s sexual prowess appears
to be his fangs. But he’d been emasculated before – with a wheelchair. When he was confined to the
wheelchair, he could still harm things, but not physically and not without lots of help. Angelus
continuously derided him as “sit and spin”. But that was temporary. The government chip has
limited his ability to bite human things for a very long time. And In THE INITIATIVE &
SOMETHING BLUE, the characters refer it as a sexual castration.
THE INITIATIVE discusses amongst other things – date rape and objectification of women. It is in
this episode that Spike escapes his government containment cell to seek out Buffy and end his
obsession with her once and for all. But he doesn’t find Buffy, he finds Willow. And the scene that
follows is an interesting and oddly touching one between two insecure characters who are frustrated
with love and feel castrated by it.
*Spike has just tried to bite Willow and been, well, unable to perform.
Spike : I don't understand. This sort of thing's never happened to me before. (He's sitting on Willow's
bed.)
Willow : Maybe you were nervous.
Spike : I felt all right when I started. Let's try again. (He leaps on her and draws back immediatly.
He tries again and the same thing happens.) Ow! Oh! Ow! Damn it! (He gets up and kicks the
dresser. He starts to pace around the room.)
Willow : Maybe you're trying too hard. Doesn't this happen to every vampire?
Spike : Not to me, it doesn't!
Willow : It's me, isn't it?
Spike : What are you talking about?
Willow : Well, you came looking for Buffy, then settled. I--I... You didn't want to bite me. I just
happened to be around.
Spike : Piffle!
Willow : I know I'm not the kind of girl vamps like to sink their teeth into. It's always like, "ooh,
you're like a sister to me," or, "oh, you're such a good friend."
Spike : Don't be ridiculous. I'd bite you in a heartbeat. (Sits back on her bed again)
Willow : Really?
Spike : Thought about it.
Willow : When?
Spike : Remember last year, you had on that... Fuzzy pink number with the lilac underneath?
Willow : I never would have guessed. You played the blood-lust kinda cool.
Spike : Mmm. I hate being obvious. All fang-y and "rrrr!" Takes the mystery out.
Willow : But if you could...
Spike : If I could, yeah.
And I’d like to take a moment to point out – there is a similar scene between
Willow and Anya in Dopplegangland where they do dark magic. And later a comparison is made
between Anya and Willow in SOMETHING BLUE where Anya tells the gang that she also did magic
to counter rejection. So both Anya and Spike have at some point identified with Willow. Spike takes
the time in the above scene to discuss his inability to perform with her, making it clear that it’s “not”
her but him. Surprising scene. Why didn’t he just take off? He had to know that if Buffy showed up,
he’d be dust.
One final episode to ram the metaphors home: SOMETHING BLUE. This episode shows Spike and
Anya in an interesting light and emphasizes just how emasculated they are. They have lost their
power and in this episode are completely dependent on the SG.
First scene is between Spike/Buffy/Giles. Spike by the way is chained up in a bathtub in this scene,
drinking blood from a novelty cup called love your librarian. I’m not sure the writers could have
found a more emasculating/humiliating position for the poor guy. Here’s the scene:
GILES: Spike, we've no intention of killing a harmless creature. But we need to know
what's been done to you. We can't let you go until we're sure you're impotent.
SPIKE:Hey!
GILES:Sorry. Poor choice of words. 'Til we know you're...
BUFFY:Flaccid?
SPIKE:You're one step away, missy -
BUFFY:Giles, help! He's gonna scold me! (Spike tries to lunge but the chains hold him back.)You
know what? I think you don't want us to let you go. Maybe we made it too comfy here.
SPIKE:Comfy? Do I look comfy? I'm chained in a bathtub drinking pig's blood from
a novelty mug. Doesn't rate high in the Zagat's guide.
BUFFY:You want something nicer? (She leans over Spike, baring her neck to him.)
Ooh... look at my poor neck, all bare and tender and delicious...(Spike strains at his chains, wanting
it...)All that blood just pumping away...
Look at all the sexual innuendos. Buffy is flirting with the guy, egging him on. Knowing he can’t
hurt her. Knowing that he’s been completely emasculated. But has he? Here the metaphor is
beginning to shift. By stripping away the one thing that makes Spike a force to be reckoned with, the
writers can now explore the character. He is no longer just a metaphor for lust, for dark love, he is
now possibly about unrequited love.
Anya too has been stripped of her powers. She is now being explored in a different way. In
SOMETHING BLUE, she tries, unsuccessfully, to summon D’Hoffryn to help Willow and the gang.
Just as Spike tries, unsuccessfully, to help Buffy and the Gang in the fight. They’ve switched sides.
Why do they both help? Well Anya does because she has fallen for Xander. She is uncertain whether
her love is returned but she is willing to hang in there to see. And Spike? He doesn’t start helping
until Willow casts the spell and he falls for Buffy – at which point he reacts out of concern for Buffy
and by extension her friends. For the first time, the writers suggest that these two demons can
possibly rise above their metaphorical states to a higher more evolved plane. That they can rise
above lust and scorn and self-motivated/opportunistic love to actual, dare I say, redemptive love?
At the beginning of Season 4, both Anya/Spike are still fairly self-motivated. They are interested in
satisfying their own desires, whether those be sexual or otherwise. They are more or less metaphors
for lust and vengence. As we move through Season 4 and into Season 5, Anya and Spike start to
become more complicated. Anya becomes more than a metaphor for vengence, in fact I would argue
she moved past that metaphor by the fifth episode of Season 4. Spike has also moved past the
metaphor. His character is no longer just about Lust. But - they are both still primarily motivated by
love, love’s bitca’s if you will, whether that love be returned or unrequited. And I think also
somewhat similar in their relentless pursuit of it. But this has gotten quite long – so we will have to
leave that for the next essay, along with a couple of questions, first posed by Auden’s poem. If these
two were to achieve their desire, only to have it snatched away, how would they react? Would they
revert back to the metaphor? The cliché?
Hope this made sense. Sorry it is so long. Thanks again for reading. Looking forward to your
comments as always. (Although I think some of them may have gone to my head *G).
;-) shadowkat
[>
I just want to say... -- Deeva, 10:51:36 04/04/02 Thu
that I very much enjoy your thoughts and where the heck do you find the time to write and work on
all this! I only wish that I could gather my thoughts so well as you. And you kind of remind me of a
high school teacher (American Film) I had who was very fond of putting together and showing video
clips to back up his lectures. He used to say all the little phrases that you use, too. "Here's the scene",
"Let's take a look at it" & "Let's keep going". It was a good class and so are your writings. Keep up
the good work.
[>
Re: A/S parallels -Lust? Vengence? Dark Love? (very long/spoilerish) -- Anne, 12:27:54
04/04/02 Thu
Shadowkat, I love your stuff, which I read regularly both here and on the C&S board. This is the
first time I've responded, though, and I feel a little idiotic that the first thing I have to say is a bit of
a disagreement, but here goes.
Isn't the Auden poem about being on the receiving, not the giving end, of unrequited love? Not the
pain of loving without return, but of being loved with the type of purity, passion and intensity one
might expect of the stars -- a love beyond that of which one is oneself capable or perhaps deserving;
an unbearable love.
Whether one can apply this to the relationships in Buffy, I'm not sure. I actually have an opinion,
but I'm sore all over from the Spike-related wars that have been going on the past few days on the
boards, especially the C&S, and especially related to some future spoilers. I just don't feel like
fighting about Spike vs. Xander vs. Angel etc. etc. and I'm too depressed to jump into the fray. But
perhaps the alternate understanding of the poem I present provides some interesting food for
thought.
[> [>
Re: A/S parallels -Lust? Vengence? Dark Love? (very long/spoilerish) -- shadowkat,
12:51:43 04/04/02 Thu
The great thing about poetry is you can interpret it more
than one way. I think it means both. And I try to
interpret it both ways.
X/B are on the recieving end of demonic love which could
destroy them. OR you could say A/S are looking up at the
stars and not , be beyond them, are they undeserving? (shrugs) It's worth discussing at any rate. The
poem haunted me and I thought it fitting to the characters.
But your thoughts are valid too. As I say - it can be interpreted in more than one way.
Yep - depressed by the fray myself. I think people are overreacting to a bunch of poorly worded
spoilers and as yet to be seen footage. We forget that the final copy may be different than what was
shot. Also...we are only in
the middle of the book, a lot can happen between now
and May and next year. It's why I've decided to stay away
from spoilers from herein out, if I can. The character analysises have helped.
[> [> [>
Re: A/S parallels -Lust? Vengence? Dark Love? (very long/spoilerish) -- leslie, 15:00:27 04/04/02 Thu
This is weird--I have *always* taken that Auden poem as being unequivocally from the point of the
hopeless lover: "If equal affection cannot be/ Let the more loving one be me." I.e., it is better to have
the experience of totally loving someone, even if the degree of passion is not returned, than to to be
the recipient of such love and not have the capacity to return that passion. That it is rather
terrifying to be the object of that kind of passion: "How should we like were stars to burn/ With a
passion for us we could not return?" Because it is the nature of stars to be removed, inaccessible, to
"not give a damn" for human passion; whereas "on earth indifference is the least/ We have to dread
from man or beast." The point, though, is that stars cannot love, not that they will not love, or love
somebody else--in a way, they are in the position Buffy fears when she says that slaying is making
her "hard" (as stars are hard--sparkly and shiny, but impenetrable). Here on earth, in contrast,
everything is emotional, passionate, and thus messy.
Of course, one of Auden's big themes was the contrast between ideal and real love--the abstract
passion and the inevitability of its decay, but also the "pure" emotion versus its physical expression--
and, inevitably, postcoital triste. Something stars do not experience.
[>
Lovely ShadowKat, as usual -- LeeAnn, 14:36:38 04/04/02 Thu
[>
Re: A/S parallels -Lust? Vengence? Dark Love? (very long/spoilerish) -- lachesis,
16:21:25 04/04/02 Thu
Really interesting post - pretty much no such thing as too long for a well developed argument, with
quotes, imo! I often find the character parallels as absorbing as the relationships.
Just thought I'd offer up another poem, and a related parallel: poem 1st.
'Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell's despair.'
So sang a little clod of clay
Trodden with the cattle's feet,
But a pebble in the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:
'Love seeketh only self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another's loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite.'
(Blake 'The Clod & the Pebble' from 'Songs of Experience')
I like it, and though it's v. different to the Auden, I think it also illustrates the different kinds of love
we're talking about (as well as tying into your last post?)
Parallel: S/A both chose power over humanity in the past, and now that choice has been revoked. (As
they discuss in the Bronze in an episode whose name I totally fail to remember, you know the one . .
.)Of course, Anya got her humanity back, while Spike (at least in the physical and/or spiritual sense)
didn't.
Anya, returned to humanity, still had to work towards socialization (many laughs). Spike, 'impotent'
vampire, was always pretty socialized & able to deal with the conversing. To me, he paralleled Anya
by becoming acculturated - watching a lot of T.V. (particularly stuff which seems to require
emotional involvement) cooking (it may be only Weetabix, but it's still altering from the raw state)
and probably most significant, getting paid (bribed?)and buying stuff. And many more eg.s too. Of
course, he had to do all this, but just like Anya had to learn to talk to people like a person.
All this while learning to love! They have been busy bunnies. Of course, the major difference S/A is
the degree of their acceptance by the SG. Which I think we can put down to: she's 'human' he's not.
I'm bringing all this up because S/A have been showing us various other aspects of 'humanity' as a
quality since S4, and, as you say, demonstrating their progress through their attitude to love. (I
thought it was interesting that the dream OOMH was the first, I think, 'internal' portrayal of
Spike).
Anyway, bringing this up because - oh yeah - who else do we know that has recently had a profound
life choice revoked? Yep, our hero. Buffy made the ultimate choice, chosing, unlike S/A, to transcend
rather than to fall. But her choice has also been revoked.
So, imho, in S6 they form a triad. Like Anya, Buffy's physically/spiritually human. Like Spike, she
has had something taken from her that she didn't want to lose. But, unlike Anya, although Buffy is
'human' she is also, now, in a way, fundamentally alienated from the SG. (I don't mean they're not
friends. I mean that Buffy will always have been dead. She's gone beyond. They haven't). In her
separation from her peers, she's more like Spike.
Buffy may be physically/spiritually human. But she doesn't feel 'right'or even much at all - she's not
comfortable with her 'humanity'. And no wonder, when it is now so different from everyone else's:
resurrection isn't just for Christmas, its for life.
Spike & Anya (and Dawn, but that's a whole other big thing) have done a pretty comprehensive job
of pointing out that there's more to 'humanity' than just being/not being 'human' (quite aside from
the whole moral issue, see Faith). But Buffy's humanity has always been central to her self, and her
success as a Slayer. Losing it has always been her big fear. Love brought her to her gift. Can it bring
her back from it? S & A would seem to suggest so, and in the matter of choice, at least, Buffy
parallels them. But if so, should she be a star or a star-gazer (or a clod or a pebble)? It seems clear
that just sex isn't going to get the job done . . . .
Since there were such clear ideas above on love and it's importance for these two, I thought someone
might help me out on this one . . . but now it's late, and I'm rambling, and I didn't mean to go on so
long. So thank you, and goodnight.
[> [>
lovely posts (and poems) lachesis and shadowcat! -- ponygirl, 18:47:18 04/04/02 Thu
Kendra cast as Cordelia -- CitoLoco, 13:46:44 04/04/02
Thu
I may be the last person in the world to have just found out about this, but I read on IMDb that
Bianca Lawson, who played Kendra the Vampire Slayer, was the original choice for Cordelia, but
that she had to decline because she was contractually obligate to some tv series called Goode
Behavior, poor thing. I just thought that was interesting.
[>
Cordelia/Buffy casting -- Rachel, 14:00:28 04/04/02 Thu
AND the rumor mill has it that the actress who portrays Cordelia was originally trying out for the
role of Buffy. What a different world it could have been! Apparently, SMG's tae-kwon-do skills gave
her an edge for the Buffy role.
[> [>
Re: Cordelia/Buffy casting -- Darby, 14:06:18 04/04/02 Thu
But SMG was actually cast as Cordelia right up until the 11th hour when the PTB realized that they
had not found Buffy, and then the shift brought Charisma in.
It's interesting that they "settled" on Sarah.
Doesn't mean that the Bianca story isn't true, though. Maybe she was less stiff without the quasi-
Caribbean accent.
[> [> [>
Re: Cordelia/Buffy casting -- skeeve, 15:13:37 04/04/02 Thu
One of the benefits of playing Cordelia instead of Buffy is that CC gets steady work for ten years
instead of seven.
[> [> [> [>
I somehow doubt Charisma makes even half as much as SMG though. -- Ian, 16:51:02
04/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Now that she has a larger role on Angel -- aurelia, 17:41:06 04/04/02 Thu
I bet CC gets paid a lot more. Though still quite a bit less than SMG.
Fic: Leashing the Beast, Chapter Nine -
- Nos, 14:18:20 04/04/02 Thu
Chapter Nine is up, for anyone who cares and is following it here..Hope you enjoy...
Summary: In response to my own challenge *heh*, found on Crumbling Walls.
The Nerdy Three find out what Spike's chip does and formulate a plan to kill
the Slayer.
Rating: R for violence
http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=602842&chapter=1
Buffy The Vampire Slayer turned
Postmodernist -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:45:41 04/04/02 Thu
Recently I've been reading alot about Postmodernism in all of its various incarnations, trying to
grasp this elusive idea that seems to defy definition by its very own open endedness. I believe I have
a sound idea of what some of these incarnations are, but certainly don't doubt that my picture is far
from full.
That having been said, it occurred to me in my reading, that is relates to the current state of Buffy
in an odd way, a way that seems explain and articulate what I've voiced before as a fear as to the
direction of the show.
Let me start from the beginning. You all remember, right? The simplicity of the formula, good
Slayer and her good pals versus the unambiguously evil Master and his insideous minions. The
Master had a universally effecting plot, a scheme to destroy the world as we know it by returning to
it its former demonic inhabitants.
There is a groundwork laid here. The Watcher Giles, both explaining things to his Slayer and
expositiously to the audience, tells of the origin of vampires, their soulless nature, and how they are
not the mortal from whence they were created.
The first season's simplicity, the general purity of the characters, the distinct sides as defined by
an externalized and universal moral border, these all seem to characterize modernism and
Enlightenment philosophy as I understand them.
The second season continued the distinction of the sides but upped the ante in complexity and
character depth. The Angelus' Situation created complex and interesting conflict and tragedy
without dillineating from the distinctions of the sides. It still fit logically into the externalized
parameters set for the Buffyverse.
The third season suggested a number of things, foremost of them the capability of evil in human
beings, or soul having beings. It had been illustrated before, but never explored in the same
magnitude as when the characters of Faith and the Mayor came to fruition. I think a line from
Gingerbread illustrates this change of pace.
"Something with a soul did this?!"
Said by Buffy, in response to the murder of two children that appeared to have been committed by
human witches. It should be noted that in this case something with a soul DIDN'T do it, that it was
in fact a demon.
It still all fit within the original logic set up at the beginning. Human beings had the capability for
evil, but also for redemption, and the soul within them carried with it the weight of conscience,
caring about what you've done, a burden we've seen afflict numerous characters, Faith, Angel,
sometimes Lindsay. I must say that was something that made Lindsay interesting to me: as a being
with such capability, he could switch sides every day. He did several times if my memory serves me
correctly.
And then there was discord, at least for me. The vampire Spike got a little grayer due to the chip
implanted in his head by the Initiative. This raised a number of interesting questions, as it continues
to today, but simultaneously, for me, it contradicts a number of foundations that were previously
lain, and subsequently pulls me a little out of the suspension of disbelief upon which fiction depends.
In short, it makes me long for days past.
It makes me anxious and fearful, because of the direction that it SEEMS to be headed into, that of
lack of distinction between sides or humans and vampires, and consequently, lack of slayage. It
seems that rather than being a Slayer in a world where soulless vampires are externally defined as
evil and soul having humans as capable of good, Buffy will exist in a subjective reality, where the
badness of every vampire must be individually questioned, every vampire doesn't have a nature or a
moral compass but an individual propensity.
Spike is unrepentant, and I want him to stay that way. Its his choice because of what he is. The
day that Spike empathizes with the rest of humanity is the day Buffy's got to stop killing other
vampires, because they could possibly do the same.
I'm not saying that where they are now isn't interesting. I wouldn't still be watching if it didn't
intrigue me in some way, but sometimes the shift in paradigm causes me discomfort and nostalgic
longing.
Okay, there it is. Stone away, friends
[>
Enlightenment -- Sophist, 15:58:04 04/04/02 Thu
Just a quick note to your comments on the Enlightenment. What you described actually fits equally
the standard Western/Christian view. The Enlightenment secularized this view. Which one better
fits Buffy S1 is subject to interpretation.
Since I personally love the direction the show is taking, I guess that makes me post-Modernist.
Funny, since all my friends consider that I have a classic Enlightenment worldview.
[>
Re: Buffy The Vampire Slayer turned Postmodernist -- ravenhair, 18:37:35 04/04/02
Thu
Your comments reminded me of a Xander quote from Restless: "People can't do anything they want.
Society has rules, and borders, and an end zone."
The line distinguishing good from evil has certainly become obscured this season. No longer in high
school and dependent on Giles' instruction, the SG are left to make their own judgements. The
viewers' uneasy reaction to the ambiguous tone may very well be what the writers intended because
it is a reflection of the characters' own insecurities.
I think what we have to keep in mind in regards to Spike is that he is a unique vampire. There isn't
a whole population of chipped vamps taking residence in Sunnydale. And Spike is motivated by his
love for the Summers ladies, which keeps him from siding with the "black hats."
Personally, I'm enjoying the direction of the show. It's brought up interesting discussions such as
this one for fans and tons of drama for the writers to play with.
[> [>
It should also be VERY noted that I'm but a lowly 18 yr old Freshman college kid trying to
grasp... -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:54:56 04/04/02 Thu
the tough concept of what Postmodernism IS. Thus, my usage of it in that post and what I
understand the Enlightenment to represent might in fact be completely and totally wrong. I'm
trying, I really am.
It should also be noted that perhaps one of the reasons those insecurities of the characters and my
own toward the show are such a thorn in my side is the fact that I have the very same insecurities
about the world. Sometimes it seems to be an amoral, muddled and gray place, and that TERRIFIES
me when it does. Those are very depressing days.
[> [> [>
No postmodernism here, just an old cat with an opinion....;) -- Rufus, 19:49:40 04/04/02
Thu
I think that the soul being the only vehicle to redemption is comforting for some because as people
"we" have one. That also makes demonizing anyone without a soul easier to condemn. In reading
Joseph Campbell I found an interesting quote on demons....
From An Open Life..
Our demons are our own limitations, which shut us off from the realization of the ubiquity of the
spirit. And as each of these demons is conquered in a vision quest, the consciousness of the quester is
enlarged, and more of the world is encompassed.
They are symbolized in myth as monsters and demons, and in each age the characteristics change;
because as a people changes, so do its limitations.
Most of the vampires we see are the ones destined for an early end, so we never get to know them.
But they were once people and the demon they become is very much influenced by the limitations
they had as people. Getting the soul to take a hike, those limitations are never overcome and are
acted out upon in an immortal loop only ended in dust.
The Slayer was the answer to the problem of the vampire, but there is only "one girl" as an active
slayer at a time....until Buffy. Things in the Buffyverse stayed the same until a chance
happening...the watchers never got to shape the life of this one girl, and she got to grow and interact
in the world. If the answer to the problem of vampires was as easy as to kill them all, then why
didn't the world find out about this problem and the very simple solution? I think part of that was to
let society evolve without the weight of the knowledge of a threat that may have frozen the evolution
of man. The Slayer ends up the sacrifice to the worlds peaceful enjoyment of life.
The first hint that things would change came with the vampire with a soul, Angel. But even with a
soul, Angel still had demons, still had limitations that he now had to overcome to become the person
he has the potential to be. Now we have a vampire without a soul showing us that as much of a
demon the vampire is, they still are reflections of our own limitations, they do what we do, they kill,
they cheat, they wallow in their limitations. With a soul we appear to have the choice to overcome
that temptation to let our demons overrun our lives. Spike is showing us that maybe a vampire can
do the same.
The chip is the key to the situation with Spike, it started a situation where Spike has been forced to
change. Now, we have to find out if that change can be sustained. One other thing that I noticed in
"An open life" it reminds me of Spike and Dawn...
Toms: I like that story about Padmasambhava, who went to Tibet and was faced with all of these
demons, and evil deities of the Bon tradition. He basically transformed them into protectors of the
dharma, and that's exactly what we're talking about.
Campbell: That's an old mythological trick. The savior hero overcomes a demon and then makes
him the protector....
The Buddha had conquered Sticky Hair(demon). And then what did he do? He made him the
guardian of that wood. It's giving due recognition to the monster; dealing with it, and then giving it
its place. Its place might be the very same place it had all along, only now you've recognized that
place and its importance. Do you see what I mean?
Toms: And the relevance to that in everyday life is that so often we tend to repress our demons and
shove them into the background, push them into the closet and not deal with them.
Campbell: And they become monsters.
Toms: And what could be the creative adventure becomes the journey through hell. Why do you
think we continue to repress our demons and not deal with them?
Campbell: Because they ask for a larger dimension in our lives than we're willing or able to give.
I mean, it's important to hold a form and not just to explode. But in doing that, you should know
what the powers are that are being asked to hold back, because recognizing them is part of
integrating them. And the form that you're holding is held in relation to what it's not
doing.
Toms: Say that again.
Campbell: What?
Toms: Say the same thing again differently. How's that.
Campbell: Well, I think you have to control your life; you can't let all of your impulse system
take over. You wouldn't have a life. You'd go to pieces.
Everyone that Buffy encounters shapes the person she becomes. Just because they may look like
monsters or demons doesn't mean that they have no importance past the kill. Spike's situation is so
compelling because he is a demon, unashamed of what he has been...can he change that? Shoving
him our of her life hasn't helped the situation for Buffy it only looks like it will get worse. Spike will
end up going from a protector to a monster....all because Buffy repressed the thought that he may be
more than a demon.
[> [> [> [>
wow, I totally thought I replied to this two days ago...(just a little note) -- yuri, 10:40:09
04/06/02 Sat
That always happens to me. I think I sometimes accidentally cut out at the modify/approve stage.
Anyway, I thought this was really interesting, Rufus. Do you think Vampires could go the way of the
Sticky Hair? What would be thier responsibility?
P.S. I'm working in a bookstore right now and have just used my employee discount to buy my very
first Joseph Campbell, thanks to this board.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: wow, I totally thought I replied to this two days ago...(just a little note) -- Rufus,
13:47:17 04/06/02 Sat
I think that through unforseen circumstances that one Vampire may go the way similar to "Sticky
Hair". There will be more to this story than that one parallel. For the most part the mythology of the
show has been allowed to remain intact, that except for some exceptions to the rule, vampires as a
whole will do evil instead of good. I think that as Giles said in the case of being able to get one demon
to change sides will serve a higher purpose and I will be happy with that, just like I was happy
another demon got his soul back. The responsibility of both will be to fight the good fight instead of
just living as people, forgetting their past.
Which book did you get?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
a handfull, maybe -- yuri, 18:53:51 04/08/02 Mon
Not many more than a (debatably)lucky few could get all sticky hair up on us(ew), right? And if this
is true, where is Joss going? To finally make the statement that it is okay to kill and destroy those
who still have "potential for good" if someone deems it necessary? I don't disagree with this, (I
disagree with corrupt, biased decisions like the death sentence is today, and those are an inevitable
downside to accepting that sort of destruction) but I bet a bunch of primetime viewers would. It'd be
interesting, but contradicting, I think, to a lot of stuff we've seen on the show. Maybe. would it?
Anyhow, I got The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion. Good
choice for my first step in to his work?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I don't have that one....you will have to tell me what you thought of it. -- Rufus,
23:44:15 04/08/02 Mon
You will have to tell me. I've read Power of Myth, Hero with a Thousand Faces, Thou art That, An
Open Life....I have Creative Mythology and are getting a book: The Philosophies of India by Heinrich
Zimmer and Joseph Campbell. I've also got a few on the way like...Scapegoat Complex : Toward a
Mythology of Shadow and Guilt (Studies in Jugian Psychology by Jungian Analysts by SB
Perera...sounded interesting.
As for the show and killing. I think that JW uses all the mythological tricks in the book to progress
his stories, a bit of one thing here a bit of something else there. One thing he said on the DVD was
that in the Buffyvers nothing is as it seems. So we have lots of stuff to pick apart and argue over.
That's where personal opinion and ethical standards can collide. Who do you kill? Why kill one
demon not the other? Why is it verbotten to kill a human if you are a Scooby? I'm just loving this
season because It's like walking on logs in a logjam, you may end up under the jam and out of
luck.;)
[> [> [>
It should terrify. -- Tar, 20:16:00 04/04/02 Thu
The world is, as you so aptly put it, "an amoral, muddled and gray place". I would like to believe
that there is a clear divining line between Good and Evil. That Giles was right and the Good Guys
and Bad Guys are easily recognizable by their attire. But I know this isn't true.
I've also realized I don't care for fairytales. Somewhere along the way, I outgrew them.
Shows that refuse to acknowledge the gray seem like a sham, a poor imitation. While I enjoyed the
original Buffyverse with its clear demarcations of Good/Evil, I'm more challenged and fascinated
with how it has evolved to reflect my own insecurities back at me.
Right there with you, it TERRIFIES.
(as for the post-modern stuff, I'm going to abstain. Else I"ll get a severe migraine and start
mumbling about Ayn Rand)
[> [> [> [>
Re: It should terrify. -- ravenhair, 21:05:52 04/04/02 Thu
Reading this discussion along with hubby who says:
Is it about Foucault, the idea of Foucault, Foucault's ideas, or the idea of Foucault's ideas?
Passing the aspirin your way, Tar...
[> [> [>
PostmodernismS -- Jon, 13:24:42 04/05/02 Fri
Making that big scary word plural may take the pressure off. It seems like postmodernism is
probably a massive misnomer, ultimately, especially if one harbors the illusion that it is one
monolithic philosophical outlook. Of course this is coming from someone whose graduation from
college was delayed 6 months due to a paper on Derrida that he couldn't write (finally kind of did but
only kind of).
That "Slayage: An Online Journal of Buffy Studies" site seems to like postmodern takes on Buffy. I
get the impression that that site doesn't universally appeal to everyone around here, but I've found it
amusing and diverting. There's an article there that I thought was particularly good and it actually
reflects a lot of what you wrote. It's here:
http://www.middleenglish.org/slayage/essays/slayage1/bretonmcmaster.htm
[> [> [> [>
Re: PostmodernismS (warning: poster is drunk!) -- Slain, 14:40:56 04/05/02 Fri
I'm probably a bit too far gone in the alcoholic deparment to really venture any kind of coherent
analysis - but it seems to me that postmodernism is most relevant to the style of Buffy more than the
actual individual plot arcs. That is, when I think of postmodernism I think of the way that Buffy has
referenced culture old and new, and its relationship to the horror genre. As with all topics, I've
written something on the subject (www.daydreamnation.co.uk/buffy/buffypostmodern.html), which is
more based on what I learnt analysing literature (Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie, that kinda
thing) than the philosophical side to postmodernism.
Anyway, I think postmodernism is similar to that old adage about the Sixities - if you think you
understand it, then you really don't get it. ;)
About Slayage, personally while I think their analysis is great, I find their tone too academic - you've
gotta use a bit of Buffyspeak if you're going to write about Buffy, and loosen up a bit. Use a
contraction for once. ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
Cheers! -- Jon, 15:27:33 04/05/02 Fri
Happy for drunk you. Me, I'm ducking low in my cubicle, trying to eek my way through the last
couple hours.
Thanks for the essay link. Nice checklist. I found this line particularly useful: "Essentially
postmodern texts are supposed to do things for the sake of it, and not encourage the idea that there's
always some intangible inner meaning to be dragged out."
Yes! This is one reason why I tend to be most interested in the discussions on this board that revolve
around competing interpretations of images, lines of dialogue, what have you from Buffy episodes.
They're not interesting because one of the ideas is bound to "win out" and be established and codified
as the right idea. They're interesting because the play of the ideas opens up multiple depths and
meanings that render Buffy (the show) more alive. Not that I mean to diss discussions that are bent
on establishing "the absolute truth" of some Buffy pheonemon or other - I'm just talking personal
preference.
It seems like the big texts of postmodern theory often come across as big & scary even though at the
heart of them is this rather heartening idea that the crisis imposed on people by the existentialist
realization that existence preceeds essence (and that truth is created, is artificial) doesn't have to be
a CRISIS. Sorry, long sentence. That the multiplicity of truths one encounters in the world can be a
kind of playground or verdant garden. Previous to the opening of this garden/playground, however,
you get your experience of nausea and chaos. I think these themes are really coming to the fore this
season with the much discussed, ongoing break down of the absolutes in the Buffyverse.
Sorry, too much condensed there probably. Anyway, yes, Buffy and postmodernism, woo-hoo!
Jon
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Cheers! too. -- yuri, 12:20:22 04/06/02 Sat
It seems like the big texts of postmodern theory often come across as big & scary even though at
the heart of them is this rather heartening idea that the crisis imposed on people by the
existentialist realization that existence preceeds essence (and that truth is created, is artificial)
doesn't have to be a CRISIS.
Wow, very well put. I'm only now beginning to understand what people mean when they say
"existentialism" and "postmodernism" (I don't say that I'm beginning to understand what those two
things are, just how they are used, blah blech)... but generally existentialist crises are seen as so
dark and lonely and terrible, and it always seemed to me that they don't have to be that way. I
really didn't understand that postmodernism at all approached that issue, but your statement above
is deeply intriguing to me, perhaps I should take another look at some of those big and scary
text.
And to Slain -- you're so right about the way to write about Buffy. The best way to discuss
anything is in its own language. I've always appreciated the tone and syntax of your essays for that
exact reason. And big yay for posting drunk, makes the rest of us feel validated.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
huh? -- anom, 13:16:31 04/07/02 Sun
"'...the crisis imposed on people by the existentialist realization that existence preceeds essence (and
that truth is created, is artificial) doesn't have to be a CRISIS.'
'Wow, very well put.'"
It is? I don't understand it at all--"existence precedes essence"? Maybe I need those terms defined, or
at least the 2nd one. It sounds like it means that you are before you are what you are. And if
that's what it means, why does it (even if it doesn't have to) become a crisis?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Boring philosophical definitions -- Sophist, 16:37:24 04/07/02 Sun
I hope I can state this correctly; there are many who can correct me if I get it wrong.
In traditional Western philosophy, human nature is defined by an immaterial soul, an essence. An
essentialist philosophy (doesn't have to be Western) says that humans are defined by an unknowable
essence that is necessary for human life to exist.
Existentialism denies all this. It says that existence comes first. There may be some indefinable core
of humanity, but it comes as a natural consequence of being a living human. There is no divine
spark; there are no absolute truths.
One consequence of this philosophy is that there are no absolute standards or rules for people to
follow. We are free to act but in a sense we are condemned to be free, that is, we have no choice but
to make decisions and act upon the basis of limited information and without the certainty of
guidelines. Nevertheless, we are responsible for our actions even if we make the wrong choice
because we lacked information or an absolute moral guide.
It is called a "crisis" because many people react with anxiety to the responsibility of making choices
under these circumstances.
Did this help or did I make it worse?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Boring philosophical definitions -- anom, 21:59:33 04/07/02 Sun
"Did this help or did I make it worse?"
I'm not sure, Sophist, but thanks for trying. You said:
"Existentialism denies all this. It says that existence comes first. There may be some indefinable core
of humanity, but it comes as a natural consequence of being a living human. There is no divine
spark; there are no absolute truths."
Not sure I get this. Are the 2 ideas supposed to be mutually exclusive? If existence comes 1st, why
does that mean there can't be a divine spark or absolute truths? If existence comes "before" essence,
that sounds like essence is also real, so where's the contradiction?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
OK......now I'm getting anxious......;) -- Rufus, 22:29:29 04/07/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Essentially anxious -- Sophist, 10:47:24 04/08/02 Mon
I knew that sentence was mushy when I wrote it, and you rightly picked up on that. I was fudging
because I'm not sure all those who claim to be existentialists would give exactly the same
answer.
Let me start with what the existentialists were arguing against. In Christian metaphysics, the soul
comes first, before our humanity. It is the soul which makes us human. By putting existence first,
the existentialists converted "essence" from a sine qua non of humanity to a problem of
biology.
For most existentialists, I think the answer is clear: although we don't know exactly what makes us
"alive" (science can't yet answer that question), there is no God or divine spark. "Essence" is simply a
loose term for our lack of complete understanding, not a real thing like a soul.
Most existentialists are atheists. They deny absolute Truth because the lack of any divine being
means that truths (note the plural in contrast to the singular, and the small t) are socially
constructed by humans.
Most people see the 2 beliefs as contradictory. I believe there are some who have tried to reconcile
Christianity with existentialism precisely in the way you suggest, i.e. by arguing that there is a
divine spark imparted after we are alive. I don't know much about this, so can't say much more. It
doesn't seem to have convinced many.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Christ, Plato, Aristotle - all those dudes... -- Jon, 12:08:52 04/08/02 Mon
What would existentialists do with Plato's famous allegory of the cave? They *might* insist that the
shadows flickering on the wall are not illusions but things-in-themselves that must be actively
engaged - and that the world outside the cave (where the light is shining in from) is a pie in the sky
illusion. I imagine there are many other things they would do with that story though.
Is it Aristotle who claims that for every thing we encounter on earth, there is an ideal form in some
higher realm from which the thing we're encountering descended? That's exactly the kind of idea
that Nietzsche and his existentialist followers very deliberately turned upside down (with
postmodern philosophers joining in somewhat differently since for them the idea of inverting or
simply changing polarity on pre-existing binary oppositions is, well, boring I guess). (I'm going to get
in trouble for that last sentence, aren't I?)
So you get Nietzsche's will to power welling up out of our desire, our unconscious, and our biology
and in its striving for power it generates our moral, ethical and theological systems. We do not
receive these systems from above, from some unearthly realm. They don't fall off a tree of absolutes.
They grow up out of the earth.
Kinda sounds like Giles pronouncement to the SG that the world did not begin as a garden, but as a
hell realm ruled by demons & vampires, doesn't it? And what does that mean for the future of the
Buffyverse? An where does the cross derive its anti-vampire power from? Is it something innately
holy about the cross - or is it that the human will to power finds super-powerful manifestation
through that symbol?
Rambling Jon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Quick Q from someone who hasn't taken philosophy yet -- yuri, 18:27:16 04/08/02
Mon
Is it Aristotle who claims that for every thing we encounter on earth, there is an ideal form in
some higher realm from which the thing we're encountering descended?
I just haven't heard about this before, does he mean, like, if there's a nice banana sitting on your
kitchen counter, there's a truly perfect banana sitting on some impeccable kitchen counter in some
higher realm, or just that more essential, universal things like love and beauty exist in a more pure
and divine form there?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
(that sounds very facetious but I am truly curious about the concreteness(hehe) of A's
philosophies) -- yuri, 18:33:41 04/08/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Don't wanna step on Jon's toes -- Sophist, 19:44:59 04/08/02 Mon
but I guess I'm sorta doing that by responding here.
Plato was the one who argued that there were ideal Forms for every concept. According to Plato, we
say that something is a book because we compare it to the ideal Book. The ideal Book embodies all
that is perfect about books. Every actual book resembles the ideal Book to a greater or lesser
extent.
Plato believed that the Forms actually existed. This later became known (somewhat ironically to us
today) as philosophical realism. They were called "realists" because they believed the ideal Forms
were actual or real. Thus, there is a real, existing Good or Truth. Or banana. This, by the way, tied
in nicely to a lot of Christian doctrine, so a lot of early Christian metaphysics is Platonic (technically,
Neo-Platonic, but hey, how many angels can dance anyway?).
Philosophy being what it is, and monks having too much time on their hands to think about stuff like
this, there is an opposing school called nominalism. Nominalists believed that these ideal Forms
were merely names (nominus is the Latin for name) and did not actually exist. They also reconciled
their view with Christianity and considered Aristotle as their inspiration.
More obscure details are available upon request.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You'll like my current essay, then... -- Slain, 18:47:35 04/08/02 Mon
I'm writing something on existentialism in Buffy, coming at it from a literary analysis background (I
studied Satre, Kafka, Dostoyvesky, Ralph Ellison and Milan "Bloody" Kundera as existentialist
writers). Currently it's called Existential? Totally! or Authenticity is a Bitch.
There's the stuff about your authentic self; everyone has an authentic, true self buried under all the
layers of society. An existentialist has to break through to an understanding of this self, to be
concerned with your existence, not your essence. Then there's the catchphrase "No one can take the
other's dying away from him" (Heideiggger), meaning that your own life and your own death is yours
to live and to make sense of; which is interesting when compared to "Death is your gift" and Buffy's
enforced reincarnation.
Thankfully I've still got my notes, anyway, though I've lost that damn cool essay I wrote on 'The
Invisible Man' by Ralph Elliston and 'The Trial' by Franz Kakfa. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If I understand -- ravenhair, 13:36:00 04/08/02 Mon
Existence = our biology; the simple acknowledgment of our life on earth. We eat, sleep, work, play
like any other.
Essence = the makeup of our being: spiritual convictions, personal morals, and personality.
If there are no absolute truths or rules then is there such a thing as a "wrong choice"? Because a
decision did not have the desired effect, does that necessarily make it wrong or merely a
consequence?
*sigh* What a way to start the week, eh? :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You hit the nail on the head -- Sophist, 14:16:41 04/08/02 Mon
The principle criticism of existentialism, as of all relativist theories, is that it has no means of
deciding whether acts are right or wrong.
Without wading too deep into this, relativists have several responses:
1. The fact that we lack absolute moral standards is a condition of reality. To complain about it is
like complaining about gravity. We can't just invent something and call it an absolute, when it is
nothing more than a fiction, because we want a simple answer.
2. Each person has to decide for him/herself what is right and wrong. We can't adopt a God's-eye
view of RIGHT and WRONG because we aren't God (most would add, and there is no God).
3. Individuals make these determinations based upon social constructs of right and wrong. In the
best cases, these are achieved by consensus after thoughtful discussion.
Whence the anxiety that anom first asked about.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If that's correct then the loss of the soul when a vampire is created... -- Rufus, 02:02:54
04/09/02 Tue
Causes a schism in the essence where spiritual convictions, personal morals are seperated from the
personality. The personality goes on without the guidance of personal morals and spiritual
convictions?
[> [> [>
Transformative Hermeneutics and You -- Grant, 18:46:30 04/05/02 Fri
The simplest way to think about postmodernism is that it puts quotation marks around everything.
The postmodern theory holds that there are no capital-T Truths, as all facts are muddled in
perspective. Each perspective holds its own biases and interests, so in the postmodernist world truth
and facts become merely reflections of individual or societal biases. To the PoMos (the word really
cool people use to refer to postmodernists), there is no way to determine which of many rival
interpretations and definitions is the true one, and thus reality becomes a kind of social construct
which people and groups are constantly changing and redefining in order to secure a priveleged place
for themselves.
The end sum of this is, as I stated earlier, that PoMos love to put quotations marks on everything.
Basically any kind of abstract value or idea gets quotation marks. "Community" gets quotation
marks, because my idea of "community" may not be the same as your idea of "community." Because
there are no objective truths in this system, everything becomes a kind of political power struggle.
PoMos claim that non-Pomos--people who think there are Truths--object to the quotation marks
because the status quo gives them a position of power and privelege. And in the end, nobody ever
really believes in any of their ideas and values. People only have certain ideas and values because
those are the ideas and values that give them power and privelege.
Postmodern thinking has become the mainstream in academia these days, and that makes sense in a
way. Given how militant a lot of professors are about the concept of Academic freedom, they would
clearly support a theory that says that all ideas are equally valid. It also fits the obsession of
scholars to constantly analyze and redefine everything. Of course, science and math are pretty much
excluded from this, as those subjects firmly believe in the idea of concrete facts. After all, no matter
how much you argue that Newton was a part of the aristocracy trying to support the white male
hegemony you're not going to change the law of gravity. Of course, there has been a bit of insurgence
by PoMos into math recently, with new math courses that teach kids that there is no wrong answer
and two plus two can equal three as long as you try real hard, but that is more related to the current
self esteem push in k12 education and the fact that everybody hates math.
Postmodernism does have several problems, though. Primarily, the central tenet of postmodernism is
that there are no concrete and universal truths. However, this itself is a declaration of a concrete and
universal truth (it's like that whole the first rule is there are no rules thing). Another criticism of
mine is that the vocal postmodernists tend to belong to the school of thought that believes social
sciences are the same as hard sciences and thus need their own really complicated vocabular. That is
why some fun words like hermeneutics, paradigm, and hegemon have become common. Of course, all
these words really mean very simple things, but you get less people arguing with you if they can't
actually understand what you are saying.
The biggest criticism of postmodernism on a more philosophical level is that it is a form of arrogant
nihilism. By declaring that every idea is of equal value, PoMos essentially declare that every idea is
worthless. Once that happens, any kind of intellectual or moral rigor quickly goes out the window.
Feelings and personal experience become more important than evidence. My own personal
viewpoints, no matter how wacky, become completely valid because there are no longer any
standards. I can redefine and tear down values at will, simply stating that they are part of some sort
of oppressive hegemonical hierarchy trying to keep me and others like me down. And I certainly can't
declare one idea better than another, because who am I to say what definition of the word "better" is
the write one?
To get away from the rambling that I hope in some way helped you develope an idea about
postmodernism and back to one of your original points, I don't think that postmodernism was really
the originator of greyness and moral complexity, particularly in drama. Postmodernism is very
recent, but I could point to a large number of morally grey literary figures throughout history.
Shakespeare, for example, often made his villains the most vivid characters in his play. Characters
like Falstaff and Edmund also argued very eloquently and forcefully against definitions of what the
Truth was. However, the difference between them and PoMos is that they still believed that there
are universal and concrete Truths. They may have disagreed about what these Truths were, but they
never would have argued that everyone could have equally valid individual truths.
And that is something that I feel is also true about BtVS, which is why I would not call it a
postmodernist show. Spike may have some views and ideas that are different from mainstream
society, but I think that he would argue that his ideas are the Truth rather than that there is no
Truth.
[> [> [> [>
Thanks to everyone who gave me a better understanding... -- AngelVSAngelus,
21:19:12 04/05/02 Fri
I guess I wasn't really trying to say that the characters had postmodernist attitudes so much as I
meant that the show itself seems to have taken on the idea of more individualized morality. Demons
and humans have equal ability to do good. It seems rather similiar to me to what you were saying
was the philosophical Postmodernist position on truth.
Xander, Anya, and gender reversal (*
spoilers through Hell's Bells longish *) -- Alvin, 15:22:48 04/04/02 Thu
There's been a lot of talk on the board lately about Spike/Buffy and how the gender roles in their
relationship are switched, that he's the loving, caring one while she tends to come for sex, then
dresses and leaves. While I agree with the idea that their gender roles are reversed, I thought it odd
that there wasn't a parallel relationship like there usually is such as Buffy/Riley and Spike/Harmony
in early S5, and then it hit me that Xander and Anya have reverse gender roles also, and in fact have
been since the beginning.
After all, it's Anya who asks Xander to the prom and it's she that asks him for sex. In many TV
comedies, there's a scene where the woman asks a man in for drinks. While she's getting the drinks,
the man strips down in the livingroom because he thinks she asked him in for sex. Woman walks in
with drinks, sees naked man, drops drinks. I know I've seen this in an episode of Friends, and in
other shows as well. Now in THLOD, Anya comes to Xander's basement, he goes to get juice, she
slips out of her dress, he turns around, sees her, and sprays juice across the kitchen. His reply to her
blunt suggestion that they have sex? It was "more romantic" that Faith's.
Being sexually agressive is usually the man's place, but for these two it's Anya who's more sexually
active and dominant. In Pangs she goes to the construction site to oogle Xander. I forget the episode
name, but Willow once made a comment about "brand-spanking new relationship". Anya answers
back with "Oh, yes, Xander and I enjoyed the spanking" and his facial reaction implied that he was
the spankee, not the spanker. There was also the time when Xander and Anya had a fight in the ice-
cream truck. The reason for the fight? Xander had been tired the night before and wouldn't have sex
with her; he had just wanted to cuddle.
Usually, it's the man who is the social oaf while the woman is the "civilizing" influence. In this also
their roles are reversed. It's been a standard joke for the last three years that Anya will make a
socially rude comment while Xander corrects her. In fact, this happens about every other
episode.
Male partial nudity is more acceptable than female partial nudity on TV. It's not unusual for a TV
couple to have the man jump out of bed wearing only his boxers while the woman will have on a
night gown or robe. In OMWF we see Anya get out of bed in basically a bra and short shorts while
Xander has on a two piece pajamma set. In the entire "I'll Never Tell" song and dance, Anya has
shoulders, arms, stomach, back, and legs bare. Xander has his hands and face showing. Also, her
sleepware is red while his is a more neutral green.
In both the Duplicate and OaFA we see Anya being upset and paniced and Xander calms her down
and soothes her. Her attempts to comfort him after the Ono Factor fail. He's the one who invites her
over for dinner and makes her waffles in the morning. In their relationship he's the caring and
nuturing one.
But it's in Hell's Bell that the gender roles are fully reversed. We start off seeing Xander looking
for his cuff-links which appear to also be ear-rings. Usually, it's the bride's father thinking the
groom and his family aren't good enough; here it's Mr. Harris concerned about "circus people" coming
into the family. Traditionally, the bride's father pays for the wedding, but Mr. Harris complains
(several times) that he is paying for the wedding.
In the standard TV wedding show we would get to see a nervous groom followed by shots of the
bridesmaids helping the bride dress. Here we had a nervous Anya practicing her vows followed by
shots of Buffy helping Xander into his sash, coat, and tie.
We also have Willow as "best man" which as Xander's best friend, which I can see. I also would not
have thought about Willow dressed like a Maid of Honor except Willow in her comments about the
dress draws attention to it. As best man she thought she'd be dressed like like Marlene Dietriech.
Instead, she's dressed like Buffy. To an outside observer it would appear that the groom had a Maid
of Honor.
Also, in the false visons Xander recieved, the roles were also reversed. He was a stay-at-home
husband while she was the family breadwinner. He was no longer interested in sex so she had an
affair. Finally, he attacked her with a frying pan rather than a more "manly" weapon.
So I think that Xander/Anya and Spike/Buffy have a lot in common. I knew ME always stands
things on their heads but it wasn't until today that I realized that Xander/Anya have been upside
down for years, and I never noticed.
James. Video. Go see if you want. --
Liq, 18:58:52 04/04/02 Thu
here!
[>
My Media Player "Cannot Open the File" -- Darby, 20:43:46 04/04/02
Thu
I know, I'm nothing but trouble, but I don't usually have this problem...I don't know offhand which
MP version it is, but not being able to open the file seems a weird glitch.
[> [>
It requires RealOne player. Click on the icon at the site Liq gave, if you dare. -- CW,
21:07:33 04/04/02 Thu
[>
my realplayer keeps giving me an error. -- Solitude1056, 21:14:08 04/04/02 Thu
[> [>
You need to upgrade to Real One .... link on zee page -- Liq, 01:19:28 04/05/02 Fri
[>
Re: Chocolate Jesus -- Dead Soul, 21:49:48 04/04/02 Thu
I'm sitting here in my warm comfy bed, eating strawberries, humming Chocolate Jesus, watching the
Monty Python Story and anticipating watching, for the first time ever, the first season of Angel.
Just had to share the contentment. Thank you Liq and thank you all for making a rainy cold night
something to be treasured.
Dead Soul
p.s. I think I've inadvertantly outed the Spikeho within. Oh well.
[> [>
Re: Chocolate Jesus & ? for Liq -- ravenhair, 11:38:52 04/05/02 Fri
JM's "chocolate jesus" was my fave of the vid's too. :-)
For Liq, when will live feed of JM's 14 Below performances become available? As soon as his April
20th date or too ambitious?
[> [> [>
Re: Chocolate Jesus & ? for Liq -- Liq, 13:35:03 04/05/02 Fri
We're testing on 4.20, but the first available webcast will be in early summer. I might release the
4.20 stuff too, depending on how it turns out and if James likes it, as well as some of the others who
are going to be there that night.
[>
Vid available in a larger window tomorrow for faster connections -- Liq, 02:17:28
04/05/02 Fri
[> [>
Ok, now this is no longer true... email me if you want to know why -- Liq, 11:00:21 04/05/02 Fri
[>
Re: James. Video. Go see if you want. -- Purple Tulip, 14:29:42 04/05/02 Fri
Thanks you sooo much for posting this!!!!! I've been curious about what James' real voice sounds like,
and he sings amazingly:) What's the name of his band? Or is it just him? Have they released any
cd's? God, I wish that I lived in California so I could go hear him play! Thanks again:)
[> [>
Re: James. Video. Go see if you want. -- Liq, 14:52:52 04/05/02 Fri
It's always been him solo but new band information is coming up in the near future. There are no
plans for a CD at this time, just our song clips available online.
[>
Has James Marsters released a CD? -- Rachel, 15:55:15 04/05/02 Fri
[> [>
nope ... no plans of a CD in the works -- Liq, 17:00:34 04/05/02 Fri
A look at Spuffy love (long) -- Mr
Gordo, 20:22:08 04/04/02 Thu
The relationship was very much one of two predeters who were equally matched and loved a good
brawl. It has been confirmed Buffy finds violence a turn-on regardless of Spike when she indulged in
sex with Riley in The i in team and WTWTA immediately after a battle (it was actually intercut in
TIIT which suggests thatis how we are supposed to perceive it).
In School Hard Buffy and Spike are both happy to throw aside their weapons in order to prove they
are up for a challenge. Their first real interaction which was semi civil was in Becoming Part 2 when
the two team up against Angel. It is made clear that Spike is not acting out of noble intentions but
because of sexual jealousy. As Buffy puts it "you want my help cause your girlfriends a big ho". The
two are clearly uncomfortable together although Spike is flirting slightly with remarks such as
"hello cutie". He ends up abandoning Buffy to Angelous with little concern but Dru is clearly not
happy. When they go to Brazil she dumps him because of his sexual interest in Buffy. Spike himself
had not yet acknowledged his feelings but a perceptive Dru was absolutely correct.
In Lovers Walk Spike returns to Sunnydale a drunken, self-pitying mess. He no longer as the old
swagger even but is "a shell of a loser" in Buffy's eyes. He cries over his loss and indulges in whisky
before having the bright idea of using a witch for a love spell. He kidnaps Willow and Xander and is
pretty brutal as he makes death threats and holds a broken bottle against poor Willow's face. But his
soft side emerges as he whines about Dru and Willow stares in amazement as the softer side of the
Big bad makes itself known. She even gamely attempts to comfort him. Spike seeks out Joyce for
some motherly nurturing suggesting he is closer to his human roots then he might want to admit. He
goes on to have a massive brawl with Buffy and Angel and gets his rocks back. He has rediscovered
the big bad that Dru finds such a turn-on and is off to hurt her until she likes him again. There is no
suggestion of forcing her love but rather he is seeking to make her rediscover it by proving he can be
a bad boy for her which obviously appeals.
He returns in THLOD with Harmony having been dumped. He is clearly unintersted in Harm and
blatently using her for sex as Dru has gone off him again. He has no respect for Harm who takes on
his usual role in relationships and has no respect for herself. Rather she lets Spike ill-treat her and
he is happy to make his scorn clear "I love sypillos more than you". Harmony is clearly just a
convienience. He is happy to bump into Buffy again and the two of them check out each others dates
in the Bronze and diss them in a suspiciously flirty manner. Buffy goes on to mock Spike for having
been dumped by Dru. But Spike is more than ready to returm her insults. He gets the gem and
eagerly challenges Buffy to a fight. During the fight he mocks her past relationship with Angel and
her naivity with Parker but he is eventually beaten.
He's back in The Initiative and looking to seek out Buffy. But after having the chip implanted he is
even unable to harm Willow. Confused he makes his exist.
He comes to the scoobies for help in Pangs and ends up chained in the bathtub. In Something Blue
he ends up kissing Buffy following a spell of Willow's. Their relationship is foretold to some extent
when Buffy flirts with a helpless Spike taunting him with her exposed neck. She also admits to
Willow that Riley may be to tame for her standards and she needs passion and intensity. She and
Spike indulge in lots of kisses whilst under Willow's spell and discuss a normal life together which
includes a wedding. Once the spell wears off both characters make exaggerated faces representing
their disgust.
Spike contines disliking Buffy throughout season 4 but he also gets to know her and the scoobies
better. In WAY he encounters a suspiciously randy Buffy who tempts him with sexual come-ons then
laughs in his face. Faith is actually in Bufy's body but I don't believe Spike was ever made aware of
this as no one except Faith was even aware of their little encounter. But Spike is clearly ready to
engage in sexual banter in Superstar when he strokes Buffy's cheek and is very flirtatious. He ends
up siding with Adam and betraying the scoobies.
In seaosn 5 he is still hating Buffy who has little respect for him and is happy to dole out punches in
Real Me to get her aggression out. Spike is being treated more and more like Dru behaved towards
him. An annoying puppy dog to be tolerated or discarded as the female sees fit. Not surprisingly this
brings his feelings to the surface when he rants to Harmony that Buffy is haunting him and then has
a dream in which Buffy is overcome with sexual desire for him and he tells he he loves her "god I
love you so much".
He is not happy about his newly discovered feelings and behaves very much like a teenager with a
crush. He hangs around outside Buffy's house and fantasises about killing her (okay perhaps not the
typical teenager lol). In Family he is thrilled when Buffy is attacked by demons and her life
threatened. But he is frustrated to find that he simply can't go through with his death wishes for her
and ultimely ends up saving her.
In Fool For Love the first big Spike episode we learn the true origins of the self-proclaimed loves
bitch. He was a romantic poet who was very much the underdog in his society and seized upon Dru
as his salvation. His life was given a purpose when he bacame a member of a gang/family. They were
ruthless and vicious and expected similiar behaviour from Spike. He embraced his new role and
became an arrogant thug with no respect for his previous interest in poetry and the finer things in
life. He sees Angelouses talk of artistic kills as unmanly as he calls him a poofter (English term for a
gay man). "Sorry did I sully our good name we're vampires" he scornfully tells Angelous and he has
no time for torture etc. He is interested in fighting and becomes obsessed with slayers as equal
opponents rather than drawing out the kill with humans which is Angelouses preference. Dru is first
turned on by Spike in a moment of violence when he kills a slayer and the two make love with Spike
having proved himself.
But back in the present he is lost and has no real direction. He attempts to come on to Buffy who
tells him "you're beneath me". He overcomes his inner demon and his wish to kill her but instead
William emerges as he quietly comforts a tearful Buffy in a stunning climax.
He is still a tormented vampire though and is shown stealing photos of her, not to mention her
knickers. He even lurks outside her house and tortures himself by watching her sleep with Riley. He
lets Buffy discover Riley's dirty little secret and Riley ends up drinking with Spike. A perceptive
Spike notes that he has the better deal as Riley knows Buffy will never really be his and it's just lust
between them. Spike then stops himself and notes that actually he too would be happy to settle for
just physical intimacy with Buffy.
He tries to impress Buffy in Triangle by going against his nature and not feeding off disaster victims
but Buffy is sickened that Spike even considered it.
In Cheeckpoint Spike gets in Buffy's way in a fight hoping for her "heartfelt gratitude". But Buffy
isn't intersted in being saved by a man and dismisses Spike as "getting in my way".
In Bloodties Spike protects Dawn as he realises Buffy wouldn't want her sister to be hurt. He
inadvetently helps her discover the truth of her origins. Buffy is disgusted with Spike and more than
ready to dish out the punishment but Spike forces her to acknowledge that she should have told
Dawn the truth rather than "play a round of kick the Spike". Spike ends up trying to protect Buffy
against Glory and failing miserably wheb he is knocked out.
In Crush he sincerely asks Buffy to acknowledge his contribution but she is utterly bemused and
Xander calls him "evil dead" and basically tells him to get lost as he isn't good enough to hang
around with them. Dru then returns to Sunnydale deciding she has changed her mind and fancies
having Spike back. Harmony addresses the audiences feelings when she reminds Dru of how she
callously broke Spike's heart and mistreated him. But Spike isn't interested in addressing Dru's
treatment of him, he is seemingly just glad to have her back. He embraces his return to evil and has
once again found his place that the chip denied him. He feeds of a helpless victim in the Bronze after
some hesitation.
But Spike is still obsessed with Buffy. He chains up both girls in his crypt and begs Buffy for a
crumb of her affections. She is unintersted and in desperation Spike makes the romantic gesture of
offering to kill his ex! Buffy is not impressed! Spike ends up ranting about the women in his life and
acknowledges his current behaviour is demaning and he accuses Buffy of having emasculated him.
He can't bring himself to kill either girl though but Buffy is still not interested and deinvites him
from her house.
In IWNTLY Spike has nothing left. No family, no friends, no girl. Even Dawn turns her back on him.
He recruits Warron to make him a Buffybot to solve his problems.
Unsurprisingly the relationship is doomed to failure. He ends up being kidnapped by Glory and in a
moment of selflessness doesn't reveal Dawn's origins because he knows it would "kill Buffy". He is
very sweetly thanked by the true Buffy who is genuinely grateful. She goes on to trust him with
Dawn's welfere and he is included in the flight from Glory because Buffy recognises him to be a
useful fighter. Spike is ultimaltely rewarded by being invited back into Buffy's house. He goes on to
risk his life to save Dawn but fails her. Buffy sacrifices her own life and Spike breaks down and is
genuinely lost.
In season 6 Spike has kept his promise to Buffy and he is protecting Dawn and fighting with the
scoobies. But Xander soon corrects him on his belief that he is now considered one of the gang. Spike
is considered so unimportant no one bothers to tell him about the ressurection of Buffy. He is
genuinely bewildered at her return and the two of them bond over their feelings of alienation. In Life
Serial he takes her for a night of drinking. Buffy is dissullushined at his idea of evilness and
dismesses him as completely lame.
In ATW she is tempted by Spike though and in OMWF she gives in to her desires and kisses
Spike.
I'll have to finish this tomorrow as it's 5:30 in the morning in England and I should get some
sleep.
[>
Re: A look at Spuffy love (long) part two -- Mr Gordo, 11:39:15 04/05/02 Fri
Sorry for spelling mistakes I had to leave in a hurry yesterday and had no time to check. Anyway
this is the final part.
In OMWF Spike saves Buffy and makes it clear that he considers it important that one of them is
living. But Buffy is freaked by her desires and now no longer even wants a semi friendship with
Spike.
He asks what the kiss meant in TR and she plainly tells him it meant nothing. But at the end of the
episode she is back in Spike's arms looking for comfort.
In Smashed Spike is desperate to address where his life is going and he confronts Buffy about her
actions towards him. She takes no responsibility for them but rather punches him and calls him an
"evil disgusting thing" when he rather pathetically tries to assert himself with the statement "a man
can change". Buffy has categrised Spike as evil and is not willing to acknowledge that people cannot
be put into boxes and dismissed. Spike believed he was a man in Buffy's eyes according to The Gift "I
know I'm a monster but you treat me like a man". Now she has unequivecally told him he is an evil
vampire. Perhaps that is his place after all. He tries to play at being a vampire again after he
believes the chip no longer works. He is truly grey now and fits in neither world. He has to talk
himself into biting the victim and seems unsure. He later calls Buffy and tries to be sinister and evil
but she totally misses it. At the end of the episode Buffy makes a perceptive comment. "Poor Spikey
can't be a human, can't be a vampire. Where the hell do you fit in?"
Spike has changed his attitude aftter Buffy's dismissal. He is no longer gentle and concerned,
treading carefully around a traumitised Buffy. He is now punching and taunting Buffy like the old
days. He has proven her theory. All vamps and demons can be categrised as evil and incapable of
change (her attitude to Faith in Sanctury is also pretty harsh). Spike tells Buffy she is now no better
than him. She has been brought back as a demon and has no right to feel superior to Spike whether
he is a demon or not. Buffy takes him at his word and jumps him.
In Wrecked Spike is crude and gloating which I always found inconsistent. I would have preferred
more of a sense of joy and awe. But anyway he is royally tackless and pisses of Buffy who tells him
he was just convienient and if he tells anyone what they did she will kill him. She ends up going to
him for help with Dawn but is still uneasy around him.
In Gone he is the dirty little secret she is happy to indulge in when she becomes invisible and feels
her actions are of no consequence. Spike has had enough. He realises that he wants more from Buffy
than she is prepared to give and tells her to leave him alone.
But they are still drawn to each other in DMP. Spike tease Buffy about being on the same level as
him before sincerely telling her she can do better than this job and it will drag her down. The two of
them end up going at it by the dumpsters and Buffy is feeling so hopeless even sex with Spike isn't
fixing her problems and making her feel better.
In Dead Things the two of them are connecting a little more. Spike is thrilled when they have a
conversation and they also indulge in a bit of kink with handcuffs.
But this episode also contains two very disturbing scenes of emotional and physical abuse.
In the Bronze Spike tells Buffy her place is in the darkness with him. They are both social outsiders
who need each other. He then tells her to look at her friends and acknowledge how much she loves
getting away with public sex right under their noses. Spike is hamering into Buffy's self-esteem and
telling her sex with him is wrong and that's why it appeals. He has obviously decided that Buffy
prefers him evil and wants him to do these things and following Buffy's negative reinforcement this
is somewhat understandable.
Later in the episode Buffy believes she has killed Katrina. She is torn apart by guilt and wants to
confess and get a sentence she believes she deserves. Imprisoment. Spike forcibly tries to restrain
her and Buffy's own self-hatred is unloaded onto Spike. She pummels him whilst screaming he is an
evil thing and they have nothing in common. Very similiar to Faith's attack of self-loathing in WAY.
Of course Spike is happy to take the beating believing you only hurt the one you love.
These two clearly have serious issues but there is a scene offering hope. At Spike's crypt both are
attracted to each other whilst a song plays in the background about the barriers falling down.
Foreshadowing perhaps?
In AYW Riley is back in town and his perfect relationship with Sam just reinforces how much Buffy
is not happy about dating Spike. She eventually dumps Spike realising that she cannot keep using
his feelings to reinforce her self-esteem as it is destroying them both.
Buffy's behaviour towards Spike is friendly in Hell's Bells and she admits to missing him. It seems
she has rediscovered her humanity to some extent and seeing Spike as a friend rather than her
punching bag and cause of all her problems is helping.
But she slips in NA. She bumps into Spike and is friendly at first. But when Xander and Willow turn
up she trashes him and accuses him of being up to no good in order to justify the fact that she
lowered herself into talking to him. Not nice! In her delusions she dismisses Spike from her life as
too complicated and he rants about how she has destroyed him and made him her sex slave. He also
tells Buffy she is addicted to misery and needs to stop hiding in fear of her friends rejection. It's time
to be honest and face her feelings!
Personally I think B/S could be great together. Buffy needs to work out her issues just as much as
Spike does. She is in a mess right now and her treatment of Spike was unhealthy and it was "killing
her". But this was a symptom of her current depression Not the cause. In the future I have hope for
Spuffy. Who's with me?
Just wanted to add I hope I do not come across as being overtly harsh on Buffy. Along with Spike she
is one of my favourite characters and whilst I do not alway agree with her actions I usually
sympathise and see where she's coming from. I have defended Spike a little more as his actions can
be harder to grasp. I don't see either character as intentionally emotionally abusing the other.
[> [>
Sorry, haven't had time yet to read your post, but had to say how much I love your posting
name! -- Rob, 13:05:57 04/05/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Well you know I thought it was time Mr Gordo got some recognition -- Mr Gordo,
14:40:45 04/05/02 Fri
His value contribution to the show is far too often shamefully overlooked. Anyway sorry about
appalling spelling in first post. In case no one realised I am a chronic insomniac and had to dash of
quick last night as I had an early start today.
Totally OT......talked to WW on the
phone...... -- Rufus, 21:26:57 04/04/02
Thu
I'll be visiting her tomorrow evening or the next evening. If you have greetings or anything to say
mail me and I'll take them to her.
[>
She wanted to tell everyone she misses them.... -- Rufus, 21:29:27 04/04/02 Thu
I found out where she was and gave the nurse my real name and of course they didn't know who I
was.....as soon as I said tell her it's "Rufus" she got all excited and I was able to speak to her. She
wanted to tell everyone that she will be okay but will be in the hospital for awhile. I will find out
more when I see her.
[>
Re: Totally OT......talked to WW on the phone...... -- Cactus Watcher, 21:37:33 04/04/02
Thu
How did she sound? I would expect she'd be pretty weak.
I've sent her an e-mail, but please give her my best wishes anyway. I'm sure she'll really appreciate
your visit.
[> [>
Re: Totally OT......talked to WW on the phone...... -- Rufus, 21:42:47 04/04/02 Thu
Surprised I tracked her down....;)
[> [>
can we send getwell flowers 'n chocolates 'n stuff? -- The Second Evil, 21:45:36 04/04/02
Thu
I also sent an email, but in case she hasn't gotten it, do let her know that she's getting good thoughts
from me 'n the Peanut Gallery. ;-)
(And email me offlist if you've got location & hospital & room number for sending getwell gifts - my
mother was in the hospital for a long time last year, so I know that those rooms can be awfully bare
and that can make it all the more depressing... needs ballons! flowers! banners! singing gorillas! we
can provide!)
[> [> [>
Clem-impersonating strippergrams? -- d'Herblay, 21:56:06 04/04/02 Thu
Maybe she'd prefer flowers.
When you get an address, email me as well,
please.
And pass on my love and best wishes.
And get her a laptop! There must be curative powers in chat! I've often heard it remarked that chat
is like a drug . . . er . . . medicinal in nature.
[> [> [>
I'm going on Saturday........mail me Sol I don't have your addy -- Rufus, 22:57:40 04/04/02 Thu
I was so surprised to find her on my first try that I didn't ask any questions.....silly me. Mail me and
I'll send you the hospital info.....
[>
Yeah ! She's better ! :) -- Ete, 02:37:23 04/05/02 Fri
Her partner told us she still had tube and couldn't speak last time. I'm really reliefed she's getting
better. You really must tell her how much we love her, miss her and hope she recovers soon and
well.
This board is not the same place without her.
[> [>
Re: Please include my best wishes for a speedy recovery -- Brian, 03:48:46 04/05/02
Fri
[>
Glad to hear she's better -- Kimberly, 06:06:36 04/05/02 Fri
Give her our best wishes and we're sending her our prayers, good wishes, positive energies, Omm's,
or whatever version thereof she prefers.
[>
Just got back home..... -- Rahael, 11:38:26 04/05/02 Fri
dH emailed me with the bad news while I was away, but I was away from keyboard.
I'm so sorry that I cannot go and visit her personally. Rufus, please let her know that I am thinking
of her. So fond of dubdub; such a lovely person, and so supportive and helpful to me on occasions too
numerous to count.
Glad she's getting better, though this is still melancholy news.
[>
Best wishes to WW. I hope she gets well soon... -- Eric, 11:51:37 04/05/02 Fri
[>
Re: Totally OT......talked to WW on the phone...... -- Cynthia, 17:40:08 04/05/02 Fri
I am sadden to read this news. I've enjoyed Wisewoman's messages very much.
I hope her recovery is a smooth, speedy and complete one.
Please let her know that I hope to see her back here soon.
OT but Voy-relevant -- The Second
Evil, 21:38:18 04/04/02 Thu
In case you haven't heard about webbugs, they're a new type of two-way cookie that tracks where
you go on the internet and sends information back to a main location. They can't do anything, really -
they just report where you go and how long you stay there. I've got a new little program on my
system to track these things (although I've not yet figured out how to block them or get rid of them)
and it appears that our lovely little splash ads at the top of the Voy addpost pages uses a type of web
bug. Here's a report just from Voy pages:
------------------------------------------------------------
Suspicious images found during this session:
Source Document Properties Image URL
http://www.voy.com/63079/748.html Once, Domain, TPCookie (c3195141=59; c319514795=64;
c319514850=64; c319514852=64) http://www.clickxchange.com/fd.phtml?act=319514.850
http://www.voy.com/63079/752.html Once, Domain, TPCookie (UID=tf10xb2a-2163-10158166714984-
fk; IMP=j0ti-3izc7-qfsajcy-) http://www.qksrv.net/image-579777-5924455
http://www.voy.com/63079/749.html Once, Lengthy, Domain http://www.staffordconsolidation.com/7-
26finaidlower3.gif
http://www.voy.com/63079/ Once, Lengthy, Domain
http://www.sandesa.com/sfbanner/las_vegas_vacations.gif
http://www.voy.com/63079/753.html Once, Domain, TPCookie (UID=tf10xb2a-2163-10158166714984-
fk; IMP=j0ti-3izc7-t82kpebq-) http://www.qksrv.net/image-579777-5924455
http://www.voy.com/14567/40159.html Once, Domain, TPCookie (c3195141=59; c319514795=64;
c319514850=64; c319514852=64) http://www.clickxchange.com/fd.phtml?act=319514.852
Property name Description
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiny image is tiny, so is probably not meant to be seen
Protocols image URL contains more than one Web protocol name (e.g., "http:" twice)
Cookie image URL overlaps with the cookie field too much
Lengthy image URL is unusually long
Domain image comes from a different domain than the main document
Once image is used only once in the document
TPCookie image comes from a different domain than the document and manipulates a cookie (Third
Party Cookie)
Recognized compares the URL against a set of recognized Web sites
------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2000, 2001 Privacy Foundation. All rights reserved.
Right-click in this window to configure Bugnosis.
Help / Readme File (on this computer)
Bugnosis Web site
[>
mostly in "confirmation page" for adding new post -- The Second Evil,
21:42:19 04/04/02 Thu
This is what I got when I added the page - note that one of the things found really is a web bug.
Damn those programmers! *sheesh* If I find out how to block or stop these things, I'll let anyone
know who's interested.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bugnosis analysis of: Message Posted - ATPoBtVS Discussion Forum
(http://www.voy.com/cgi/addpost-14567)
*** images may be Web bugs. * images are suspicious.
Properties Contact Image URL
*Tiny, Once, Domain http://www.sandesa.com/sfbanner/hula.gif
***Once, Lengthy, Domain http://www.handheldcomputerdepot.com/HCDBnrB468x60.gif
Property name Description
------------------------------------------------------------
image is tiny, so is probably not meant to be seen
image URL contains more than one Web protocol name
image URL overlaps with the cookie field too much
image URL is unusually long
image comes from a different domain than the main document
image is used only once in the document
image comes from a different domain than the document and manipulates a cookie (Third Party
Cookie)
compares the URL against a set of recognized Web sites
[>
Damn -- LeeAnn, 21:43:50 04/04/02 Thu
[>
Re: OT but Voy-relevant -- Cactus Watcher, 21:44:04 04/04/02 Thu
My web 'watch dog' frequently reports that it's blocking sites attempting to access my computer
when I'm here. Is that part of the same thing?
[> [>
I'd guess... yup. -- The Second Evil, 21:46:58 04/04/02 Thu
[>
Help! -- Darby, 05:48:54 04/05/02 Fri
My wife is a programmer / web designer / systems analyst, and most of our friends are computer
grinds of one sort or another, so I've got some experience with this type of discussion, but I can
barely follow what you're trying to alert us to here. Would anyone care to try it in English?
[> [>
Re: Help! -- CW, 09:12:50 04/05/02 Fri
Voy (or someone else paying Voy) is tracking our web use through a cookie (program) implanted on
our computers when we post. It's designed to send someone a list of sites we've been, maybe as often
as everytime we click on a new item on this board. It's not that unusual. But, it's clear that part of
the problems Voy has with its busiest posting boards is that this tracking enterprise gets overloaded.
In other words, it's their own greedy #@%!?&*! fault.
My post refers to a third party which is trying to get direct access to our computers, at least mine for
sure, when we're surfing here. It's likely that some other cookie sends a message to voy which sends
a message to someone else that we're here and what our virtual address is. My 'watch dog' is a
program that prevents that kind of third party access.
[> [> [>
And... (for beginners) ... also, mild rant. -- The Second Evil, 10:20:05 04/05/02 Fri
"Web bugs," as they're currently called, are a cookie just like any other cookie - something deposited
on your system by a webpage so that when you return, the page "recognizes" you. Yahoo uses
cookies, as do most other "portal" type pages (like MSN) where you can change things to suit your
preferences. Cookies, mind you, will not a) eat your email, b) trash your harddrive or c) total your
car. They are little hitchhikers on the conversation between your computer and the server of the
page you're visiting. In most cases, cookies are relatively harmless. Web bugs are still harmless, but
they're far more annoying. For starters, web bugs don't just activate when you reach a certain page -
in other words, they're not one-way. Normally, when you go to a page, the webpage says "have you
been here before?" and your computer checks your cookie files to see if a file name matches the one
requested by the webpage. If it's there, there's minimal conversation and the webpage gets
rearranged just so.
Web bugs, though, don't stop talking when you leave the page - that's what's intrusive about them.
Once those cookie-bugs are on your system, they record where you go the whole time you
are online, and then they send this information back to their point of contact. The main use for
this information - currently - is for marketing schemes. So there's some bozo in a marketing office
somewhere saying, "gee, the folks on this philosophy board for Voy forums also go to Salon.com,
Slate.com, and read an awful lot of online newspapers - wonder how we could market to them?"
For those of us who surf the web a lot - as well as value our privacy and our freedom - such tiny
developments are bothersome, and preventing/blocking/disabling them now are a high
priority. The free market may reign in the western world, but I don't want Microsuck or any other
software company saying, "let's put this on permanently and track what our customers are doing,"
anymore than I care to have my government do the same... and I've no interest in some wiseass -
who doesn't value personal freedom on the internet - deciding that this would be a great way to track
- and punish - anyone who accesses certain sites. Yeah, so child pornography is a bad thing, but do I
agree that a web bug that reports someone's visiting such sites should be used as the basis to shut
down that person's internet access or confiscate their computer or search their home? And even if we
agree that child pornography is bad, what about those of us who own a gun, or participate in
consentual BDSM, or are gay or lesbian? There are plenty of folks out there who'd just love to
prevent us deviants from even reading about those topics online. For that matter, there's
plenty of folks who'd love to prevent us philosophers from even reading - let alone talking - about
such devilish things as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (she walks! she talks! she has sex! she fights back!)
or Harry Potter.
And what starts in the free market will invariably be considered a technology useful for government
stuff, too, once it's shown to work. No point in government spending the R&D on such a technology
when marketing companies will do it for them for free. That make more sense to you about why I felt
it necessary to alert folks? ;-)
[> [> [> [>
Thanks for the reminder #2. -- CW, 15:18:35 04/05/02 Fri
I don't really 'surf' that much. I go to the same places all the time. But, it's easy to accidently hit
sites, you'd just as soon not go. Having that recorded is a genuine violation of privacy. And the
commercial use of the information gathered from our net use isn't much better. I entirely agree with
you on this issue. Sooner or later it's going to be fought out in court, and it is going to be
messy.
As an example, for those who've been reading BtVS stuff on the net for just a short time, before the
WB bought it out Buffy.com used to be a porno site!
[> [> [> [>
cookies vs. webbugs? -- anom, 22:39:58 04/06/02 Sat
"In most cases, cookies are relatively harmless. Web bugs are still harmless, but they're far more
annoying."
I have my browser set not to accept cookies--does that work on webbugs or not?
Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article
from Slate.msn.com -- Rufus, 22:51:27 04/04/02 Thu
http://slate.msn.com
culturebox
Confessions of a Spoiler Whore
The pleasures of participatory TV.
By Emily Nussbaum
Posted Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 8:00 AM PT
I know too much. Each Tuesday night, as I scurry to my friends' apartment to watch Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, I carry more information than could possibly be good for me. I know the title of the
episode to come, the name of the writer, often the basic plot. Occasionally, if I really can't resist, I've
already read the "wildfeed"—the transcription of the episode pulled down from the satellite dish.
And while I try to avoid the spoilers—plot revelations that ruin surprise twists—it's hard! Harder
than Willow trying not to use magic! My friends and I watch the show together, and I struggle not to
be too annoying.
Then the next day, it's over to the VIP archives board—the storage Web site for online posts by the
Buffy writers and directors. Especially prized are the rare days when creator Joss Whedon shows up,
making inside jokes about goats and hinting at (or lying about) future developments. And then to the
official news group. If I'm really feeling crazed, I cruise the Buffy recaps at Television Without Pity
(a community of gimlet-eyed TV viewers, covering about 40 different shows)—or visit one or two
other Buffy sites, each with their own flavor of fan analysis, from teen gush to hyperintellectual.
Finally, I read the original shooting script, checking for stage directions of the sex scenes and lines
that were cut in editing.
In the early days of the Web, there was a lot of chatter about how it would supercede television—that
supposedly bland, passive art form. But instead of replacing television, the Web has embraced it.
And without anyone really paying heed, the viewers at home have become two parallel audiences:
the isolates and the plugged-in. And God help me, plugged-in is better. It's hard, at first, to think of
television as a participatory habit. It's supposed to be solitary and disposable. But being plugged-in
turns television into a shared event, much like movies or going to the theater. Like literary criticism,
it provides tools of analysis that alter the whole experience of watching: giving access to the process,
not just the results. At the most basic level, being plugged-in means becoming invested in the
creation of the show, rather than simply a passive recipient. (It might also mean becoming an
obsessed nerd, but then, powerful medicines always have side effects.)
The resources aren't hard to find. On the most obvious level, there are news groups and Web sites for
every show out there: Just search Google for ER or Ed, or name your poison. You can start with the
official site, but the really good stuff is put out by fans. (A few official sites are worth checking out—
the HBO Sopranos site, for instance, contains "FBI files" that supplement the show itself—but most
are just PR.) Fan sites generally contain basic info (a summary of each episode), interesting
apocrypha (a list of phrases Bart has written on the blackboard in The Simpsons), insane apocrypha
(photos of real-life people who resemble Simpsons characters), links to other sites, offers to purchase
"swag" (merchandise) and bootlegs, fan fiction, analytical essays, and discussion threads.
But these sites are just the gateway drug. The real action online comes from access to the writers,
directors, actors, and staff of the shows—as well as to scripts and other behind-the-scenes materials.
Not every creator goes online, of course, or posts online. (Although some lurk under pseudonyms.)
But when they do—as with Freaks and Geeks, where creators responded regularly to fans on the
official Web site during the show's run—it's a jolt of electricity. Discussion groups usually ban fan
fiction, so writers can lurk without risking legal issues about "stealing" ideas. Aaron Sorkin has
posted online; so have members of the production teams of ER, Friends, The Simpsons, and pretty
much every Trek spinoff. Sometimes the feedback is instantaneous: On the official Buffy site, a
writer will often drop in the night a show is aired, answering questions about an ambiguous line or a
matter of "canon." These appearances can set off waves of debate, as when Buffy scribe David Fury
made remarks comparing one character to a serial killer, creating speculation among fans about
internal disputes within the Buffy creative team. Or they can be unsettling, as when formerly
anorexic Sopranos star Jamie-Lynn Sigler posted a plea for fans to stop harping on her weight. I
doubt The Honeymooners' cast and crew had to face this type of meshugas.
Such access leads to one peculiar side effect: the tendency to imagine oneself as a part of the team
producing the show. Indeed, some fans seem to believe that they are being unfairly cut out of the
creative process—"Didn't we tell them not to use that word?" raged one Television Without Pity post
when Angel's latest episode overused the word "champion." Whole sites are devoted to lobbying for
one plot twist or another. If on one level this is slightly nuts, on another, it actually creates a
heightened recognition that the show is not simply a polished, finished project created by an invisible
committee. Reading an edited-out line in the shooting script—such as Buffy character Tara's recent
cut statement, "I'm a fag, sweetie"—can offer a level of insight into the writer's original intentions,
much like scanning an original manuscript for the editor's hatch marks.
And indeed, the online fan base does occasionally have a direct effect on the show, in the convention
known as the "shout-out": a character named after an online poster, a playful reference to an
Internet joke, or occasionally, a direct satire of the online herd. ("Worst! Episode! Ever!") The most
startling such shout-out occurred just last week, when Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing creator who
sparred with posters on Television Without Pity (back when it was called "mighty big tv"), struck
back at his tormentors—by enlisting them in a subplot on his show. When White House Deputy
Chief of Staff Josh Lyman discovers a critical Web site devoted to him, he becomes tangled in its
byzantine internal politics, then (like Sorkin) sees one of his posts end up in the newspapers.
Lyman's special tormentor, the moderator of the site, is portrayed as a muumuu-clad, chain-smoking
dictator—a nasty slap at Sorkin's own nemesis at Television Without Pity. The majority of the site's
posters were amused, but a few took umbrage. "Glark" (the technical director of TWP) responded
online: "If 'we' at TWOP are the TV critic terrorists and we've gotten under his skin enough that he's
changing the way he writes and shoe-horning these plots into the show then—ladies and
gentlemen—the terrorists have already won."
For better or worse, no TV writer had that kind of intimate access to viewer reaction 15 years ago.
Such accountability between writer and audience might in time make television better—or it might
just make the creative process messier. A TV episode discussed on the Internet begins to shred into
discrete pieces: a script, a stage direction, a chunk of a larger story arc, a segment of a particular
writer's portfolio. There's a loss to this—online viewers may turn into mere sourpusses (just as some
academics find it hard to take pleasure in reading anymore), and writers can be swayed by
ephemeral opinion. But there's a gain, too: a truly enthusiastic, demanding audience—one that takes
television seriously enough to expect it to be excellent.
[>
Re: Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article from Slate.msn.com -- Masq, 09:39:44
04/05/02 Fri
Hmmm... I don't know. There are good sides and bad sides to fan "participation". Art is an expression
of its creators, and although television is a commercial medium that needs to appeal to its audience
to survive, I get rankled at the idea of fans who think they have a "right" to dictate how a show
should go. Our analyses here at ATPo add to our own appreciation of what is already up there on the
screen, but should we be allowed to believe we have the right to alter it to our own personal
liking?
Can you imagine some of the more brilliant t.v. shows of the past getting caught up in fan opinion?
How would Lucille Ball have been pressured to act? We may have lost a lot of her comic genius to
fans with no comic sense at all.
Likewise, Joss has a unique vision about his shows, a place he is going, a tale to tell. There is
something to be said for a non-interactive medium, for sitting back and getting swept up in the tale.
Sure, we can discuss it with other fans both during and after, and make it a group process among
ourselves, but trying to dictate to writers and producers how things should go only makes their job
that much harder.
Individual fans have very different ideas about how things should go. Trying to placate some, or
worse, all of them, turns a story into mush.
[> [>
Re: Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article from Slate.msn.com -- CW, 10:04:26
04/05/02 Fri
I knew a number of companies that went out of business, by trying to follow the wishes of their most
vocal customers too closely. Sometimes getting more of 'this or that' ruins the balance that makes it
all work and be popular with people in general.
[> [> [>
Re: Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article from Slate.msn.com -- Rob, 10:22:38
04/05/02 Fri
The problem with giving into fan demands, for the most part, is that not all fans have the same
brain, so to speak. Just look at some of the topics debated here...Spike and Buffy's relationship, for
example. When it first started, many posters here were against it, and many supported. And now,
with the decision for them to break up, there is the same sort of support and anger from the different
sides. It's impossible to please all the fans all the time, and therefore, it's best, I believe, to just
ignore the fans. I feel like I'm sounding way too harsh saying it in those words, but really, I think,
it's the best policy--although, as a fan myself, sometimes I wish they could listen to me and do what
I want them to do! And I'm sure everyone here feels the same way.
Regarding spoilers, again, it's a touchy issue. I understand why many writers would be against it.
They work hard to create surprises, twists and turns in their show only to discover that millions of
people on-line already know what is going to happen! I'm sure it's very frustrating. At the same time,
a huge amount of the fans on-line spend their time looking for spoilers. So they do want them.
Should the fans be denied them?
Again, I think it is best to have the control lie in the hands of the creator. I agree, as writer myself,
with Joss, in not liking spoilers as an idea. But, at the same time, as a viewer, I like reading the
spoilers as well.
Maybe the best solution would be to convince ME to have a new episode, every day of the year,
indefinitely. That would reduce the need for spoilers, which, frankly, is mostly just a reaction to
having to wait so dang long between episodes!
And is there a solution to the pleasing-the-fans thing that would be pleasing to the fans? No. Joss
has always said that he doesn't always give the fans what they want, but what they need. Just think
about all the things that would not have happened on the show, had the writers solely depended on
fan opinion--the whole Dawn/Key thing wouldn't have happened, for one, nor would have Willow and
Tara's relationship. If it were up to some fans, Angel never would have left Sunnydale for L.A. And,
as I said before, for every group of fans who don't like a plot point, there's another whole contingency
of people who do.
I'm sure if you look real hard, you'll find a whole group of people who loved "Wrecked." Maybe.
;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Re: article from Slate.msn.com -- Robert, 10:52:57 04/05/02 Fri
>> "I'm sure if you look real hard, you'll find a whole group of people who loved "Wrecked." Maybe.
;o)"
I liked "Wrecked". Furthermore, I've thoroughly enjoyed every episode from seasons 5 and 6.
Seasons 1 through 4 each included one or two episodes that did not like and would not want to view
again.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: article from Slate.msn.com -- Rob, 20:11:08 04/05/02 Fri
Actually, I am a "Wrecked" fan also, and even more shocking..."Doublemeat Palace"! Fans of these
episodes seem so hard to find! Actually, I have yet to see a "Buffy" episode that I find completely
unredeemable. Some, like "Bad Eggs," or "Go Fish," I will admit, are pretty close. But I always find
even the faintest glimmer of goodness in everything. With that said, I thought "Wrecked" and DP
both had more than just a faint glimmer of goodness. I am adoring the sixth season! I agree with
you...the fifth and the sixth, have so far, been my favorites.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I love DmP ! Not Wrecked, though, Wrecked bad, DmP pretty -- Ete, 01:47:15 04/06/02
Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Of burgers & buffalo wings... -- ravenhair, 18:15:47 04/06/02 Sat
Another DMP fan here! :-)
"But what about the cherry pie?"
I enjoyed Wrecked as well, but the ending was so bizarre with Buffy huddled in bed clutching to a
cross and garlic hanging from the windows. Spike loves garlic! Those onion blossoms and buffalo
wings are drenched in garlic! LOL
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The garlic thing seemed funny to me also... -- Ixchel, 20:55:45 04/06/02 Sat
For the same reasons.
I think I'm in agreement with those who stated the garlic and crosses were more about keeping Buffy
_in_ than keeping Spike out.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [>
DmP, Go Fish, Bad Eggs -- matching mole, 07:16:25 04/07/02 Sun
Virtually all of my offline Buffy associates liked DmP, considering it, as do I, one of the best episodes
of the season.
I'm really curious to see 'Bad Eggs' again some day which I have almost completely forgotten.
Everyone keeps citing it as the classic 'bad episode' and I don't remember what happened beyond the
most general, broad outlines.
I liked 'Go Fish' as well. Cordelia saying that Xander is free to date other fish is a priceless moment
in BtVS history.
[> [> [> [>
Fan/author interaction -- matching mole, 11:45:43 04/05/02 Fri
There seem to be two separate issues here, linked by the common theme of artist/audience tension in
content and presentation. Spoilers are kind of baffling to me. For me the main point of any sort of
narrative art is in the experience: reading, watching, listening, whatever. Deliberately seeking out
detailed information about an episode in advance seems, for me, to obviate the main point of
watching it. But that's just my personal preference and I'm not a fanatic about it. For example,
knowing that the last episode of season three contained the graduation ceremony and the mayor's
ascension wouldn't really bother me but knowing more specific details would.
Given that I think that being spoiled is generally not a good thing I do think it is kind of weird that
ME (or anyone else) would seek to avoid the leakage of spoilers on artistic grounds. I can see that
they would want viewers to see epospdes uncluttered with preconceptions but in actuality they have
little control over how the episodes are viewed. A viewer could tape the whole season and then
watch it backwards. They could watch every second episode. They could watch it with the sound off.
I can see wanting to avoid spoiler release on financial grounds if it hurts ratings or as a courtesy to
fans who want to stay spoiler free.
The more interesting issue to me is audience involvement in creating the story. It could be that the
internet has the possibility of changing our whole concept of art which, I think, is heavily influenced
by the technology that produces it. We think of the artist as coming up with something, recording it
(by writing it down, painting it, filming it, whatever) and then it is presented to the audience.
Creation and appreciation are separate events. The greater the technological hurdle between
creation and presentation, the greater the remove between artist and audience.
Now think about story-telling or folk music in low technolog societies. The story teller is creating, to
some extent, at the exact place and time that the audience is hearing the story. She can change a
detail, even change the ending based on her perception of the audience's reaction. The same tune
may end up with a myriad of different lyrics, some only slightly different, others having no
resemblance at all. A lot of this is due to the artist but I'd bet that the audience has a big influence
as well.
In technological societies this does occur. Charles Dickens developed his serially published novels
based on the audience reaction to early parts. Not that he changed the ending or anything but he
did increase the participation of characters that were particularly popular. The return engagement
of Skip in AtS may be a similar phenomenon.
Now I'm not advocating that the fans get to dictate the show, just that two way interaction between
artist and audience is a good thing and that our perception of a largely one way relationship is, to a
certain extent, a technological artifact. Computers make editing almost anything (music, film, text)
much easier than it was. Maybe someday soon we'll think of films, records, books much like verbal
stories: things that can change and evolve with the artist and the audience.
Just some far out thoughts for a Friday afternoon.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fan/author interaction -- leslie,
17:50:45 04/05/02 Fri
I agree with you about the increase of audience interaction as the result of evolving technology, and
a kind of return to the situation of folktale narration in low-tech societies. However, I also think it's
important that the stories that *are* told in these low-tech environments are not "new" stories--
they're traditional, almost everyone in the audience already knows the plot through long exposure,
and the delight in the story-telling comes from the *process* of narrating, not in the surprise of a
novel plot twist. A good story-teller tells the same old story, but makes it real through the
elaboration of detail, the vividness of characterization, and yes, the awareness of audience response
and incorporation of audience feedback. Audiences of traditional stories generally do NOT want
novelty--think about telling a child a story and making a "mistake" or leaving something out--the kid
invariably responds by saying "No, that's not right--you left out [X]" and often will refuse to let you
go on until you rectify your error. In a sense, this is like watching a television episode having been
"spoiled." You know what's going to happen; you derive your pleasure from seeing *how* it
happens.
The idea of a linear and novel plot is really a fairly new occurance--by which I mean, post-
Enlightenment and Western. People who live in traditional story-telling societies listen to a story in
a linear fashion, it's true--you can't contravene the directional nature of our experience of time--but
they tend to hold the entire overall plot in their heads as they listen, and thus are often more capable
of appreciating techniques such as structural echoing and foreshadowing as the story unfolds that
we, who value narrative novelty, can only see in retrospect.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fan/author interaction -- JM, 09:26:02 04/06/02 Sat
Actually I can think of one area of modern art that is very like folk story telling, IMO at least.
Shakespeare. Mostly on stage, but also in film adaptations. I thought about this a lot when I read a
conservative commentator's critique on a play I saw. I'm rather interested in the, more intellectual,
conservative art critique. I often don't agree, especially with their dislikes, but their takes are
usually novel. They're coming at the works from a different worldview and philosophy than most
mainstream critics. I'm especially interested to read reviews of works that they liked that have been
dismissed by the majority of critics. Not so much ones where they appreciated a conservative
message, but ones where a certain character dynamic resonated with them or a particular scene
tickled their funny bone. These are often elements that have gone unexplored by other critics.
Anyway this was a review by a commentator whose international affairs pieces I always find very
intellegent. I was excited to read his article but completed disagreed with his dislike for the
performance. It was our local troop's production of "Merchant of Venice." In highschool, this work
was my first serious foray into the Bard and will always have a special place in my heart. I've seen
three or four versions over the years, and this one was unparalleled. It had me near tears in several
places and choking back sobs during the court room scene. I was almost too exhausted after the
production to catch that last train home.
Since our takes were so divergent I took some time to consider what in particular I disagreed with.
His central objection was not the quality of the production, but the director's take. He objected in
principle to the subversion of the Shakespeare's original intent. And it's a valid observation. There
are the traditional discussions of the author's real views on anti-Semitism. There is also the popular
modern exploration of homoeroticism in Antonio's relationship with Bassanio. This production
played up both elements, but also introduced a radical reinterpretation that I've never seen before.
It's a very direct opposition to the implied text, but was a very effective dramatic choice. Jessica and
Lorenzo are not played as saccharine, star-eyed lovers, but as a couple whose relationship is rapidly
deteriorating but are trapped in it all the same. Not a jot of dialog is ommited but the emotions with
which the actors embued the lines make all the difference. Each discussion is a more bitter
exchange of ironic insults, Lorenzo, not even realizing at first how his words are affecting his wife.
Jessica descends into grief and guilt at her betrayal of her father and Lorenzo into almost abusive
frustration at the unexpected difficulties of an inter-racial romance.
So, yes, he's right, this isn't what Shakespeare was trying to portray. But I couldn't agree that such
a subversion was a travesty, or even arrogant self-referentialism on the part of the director. Almost
every Shakespeare production I've ever seen has had elements of this approach. The most obvious is
in the costumes and settings, which are usually a deliberate anachronism or an acknowledgement of
how the modern stage customarily challenges the confines of the traditional theatre-in-a-box of the
Victorian era.
I don't think that these challenges to tradition and the text are necessarily snide post-modern irony.
What is occurring is a dialogue with the audience. The majority of the audience is familiar with the
work. Most know every plot-point, many know the most famous lines. More than a few are aware of
every departure from the text. They recognize a modern reinterpretation when they see one. The
directors are choosing to connect with the audience by using the frame work of a familiar story,
almost a cultural myth, to explore themes and issues that are relevant to our times. Instead a static
revival, it's an organic experience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Great post! -- Rahael, 11:14:25 04/06/02 Sat
I like your point that existing, and traditional interpretations are yet another resonance that all
productions of Shakespeare (both traditonal and non traditional) have recourse to. So we all know
the controversies regarding Shylock or Othello when we view a new production.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fan/author interaction -- leslie,
21:09:28 04/06/02 Sat
The interesting thing about Shakespeare, though, is that virtually all *his* plots were retellings of
traditional stories. Even the histories are based on Holinshed's _Chronicles_, the earliest parts of
which are based on Geoffrey of Monmouth's _Historia Regum Britanniae_, which was in turn based
on, basically, Welsh legend. Now, you can argue about the validity of a modern interpretation of
Shakespeare's authorial intentions in King Lear, for instance, but you can just as easily argue about
the validity of Shakespeare's interpretation of the Celtic legends surrounding Llyr the sea god and
his daughter Creiddylad. Or the Iron Age Celtic chieftain Cunobelinus, who turns up in the
Mabinogi as Cynfelyn, and who turns up in Shakespeare, via Holinshed, as Cymbeline. I still want to
know how the idea of a mobile army of trees, which originates in the poem "Cad Goddeu" by the
seventh century Welsh poet Taliesin, turns into Birnam Wood in Macbeth. (My guess is it must be
somewhere in the Scottish section of Holinshed, which was not by Holinshed but by someone else
whose name escapes me at the moment. Taliesin, although a Welsh-language poet, spent much of his
professional life in what is now southern Scotland, the kingdom of Rheged.) And then JRR Tolkien
decided that Shakespeare got it all wrong and went back and read "Cad Goddeu" for himself and
thus we get the Ents. (Of course, Tolkien also decided that Wagner got the whole Nibelungen thing
wrong and so wrote the whole Lord of the Rings, too.)
I'm not sure where I am going with this, aside from the fact that Shakespeare himself was working
within a traditional, just-emerging-from-oral-narrative tradition himself; the fact that he has been
apotheosized as The Master of the English Language has made us, from this perspective, tend to
overlook his own traditional roots.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article from Slate.msn.com -- mundusmundi,
12:02:37 04/05/02 Fri
I agree. There's a difference between respecting your audience's wishes and respecting their
intelligence, and personally I'll opt for the latter. For the most part, ME has shown great restraint at
not catering to the worst impulses of its viewership (my own impulses frequently ranking among
them) while recognizing that it has a large contingent of thinking viewers across the board.
As for spoilers, I must confess to being somewhat hypocritical -- loathing them in principle while
reading them on occasion. When able to resist, nothing beats the pleasure of being surprised by what
I see on screen, and both Buffy and Angel are shows whose impact relies a great deal
on surprise. All the "trollops" around here are very considerate and careful about revealing plot
secrets; many, like dubdub, even make humorous light of their "addiction." But I loathe the
overinflated self-importance of some of the spoiler czars at other sites and no small part of me wishes
that they could just be ignored. As suggested before, perhaps Joss could release a syllabus at the
start of every season, making us aware of every plot point well in advance, thereby eliminating the
nefarious trafficking of the spoiler trade.
Hehe. Just kidding. Sorta. ;)
[> [>
Re: Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article from Slate.msn.com -- Lilac, 12:22:11
04/05/02 Fri
I find myself seeking out spoilers, but then not putting a lot of credence into them. I have found that
often, when the reality finally shows up, it only superficially resembles the spoiler. So I try not to get
too emotionally invested in any "news". I can understand why the people creating the shows are
annoyed by spoiler leakage, but I find it enhances the experience rather than diminishes it.
I think the issue of fan opinion directing the story flow of a program is an entirely different question.
Particularly in the case of the ME shows, I don't think that the general population can do as well as
the official writers. I certainly wouldn't have thought that Angel could sustain his own show,or that
Cordelia could be developed from someone who was amusingly nasty to someone who has taken her
considerable personal power and turned it the power of good. Much though I liked Spike when he
showed up as a villian, I would never have anticipated his development into a romantic lead. Nor
would I have ever imagined sweet Willow going down the dark paths she has taken. And I am sure
that whatever direction ME takes its characters in next, it's not something I am anticipating. And
that's great and that's why I find the shows so engrossing.
[> [>
Well said Masquerade. Especially about the "mush" factor. -- Ixchel,
23:06:48 04/05/02 Fri
I certainly wouldn't want me in charge of the story. I don't think I could be nearly cruel enough to
the characters to sustain interest (though I've had my moments).
BTW, thank you for such a fascinating and engaging board.
Ixchel
[> [> [>
You're welcome. : ) Although I think it's the posters that make it so engaging and
fascinating -- Masq, 17:48:58 04/06/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>
But you make it possible. And considering the posters here, I'll add mind-expanding. --
Ixchel, 15:29:38 04/07/02 Sun
[> [>
Absolutely agree Masq! -- shadowkat, 08:27:25 04/06/02 Sat
I totally agree - I believe I read JM say in an interview
somewhere how he didn't tell the writers what to do with his character because being a writer
himself - he understood that in this case he was being paid to act and they were being paid to write.
"They can do it a lot better
here than I can".
The main problem with daytime soap operas is that they do cater to their fans. They change
characters and story arcs to please them. It's why I no longer watch. (blushing to
admit I did). I think the biggest mistake a writer can make is to write stories around fans wishes - if
the story is a good one and told well - the fans will enjoy it. The fans can choose to watch or not to
watch.
One of the things I like about Buffy is the impression that Joss Whedon does not cater to his fans at
all. If he did,
the show wouldn't be as interesting as it's become in my opinion or as multitextured.
[>
Re: Confessions of a Spoiler Whore......article from Slate.msn.com -- Masq, 09:48:31
04/05/02 Fri
Hmmm... I don't know. There are good sides and bad sides to fan "participation". Art is an expression
of its creators, and although television is a commercial medium that needs to appeal to its audience
to survive, I get rankled at the idea of fans who think they have a "right" to dictate how a show
should go. Our analyses here at ATPo add to our own appreciation of what is already up there on the
screen, but should we be allowed to believe we have the right to alter it to our own personal
liking?
Can you imagine some of the more brilliant t.v. shows of the past getting caught up in fan opinion?
How would Lucille Ball have been pressured to act? We may have lost a lot of her comic genius to
fans with no comic sense at all.
Likewise, Joss has a unique vision about his shows, a place he is going, a tale to tell. There is
something to be said for a non-interactive medium, for sitting back and getting swept up in the tale.
Sure, we can discuss it with other fans both during and after, and make it a group process among
ourselves, but trying to dictate to writers and producers how things should go only makes their job
that much harder.
Individual fans have very different ideas about how things should go. Trying to placate some, or
worse, all of them, turns a story into mush.
Current board
| More April 2002