August 2002 Archives - Page 10
Who watches the Watchers? Um, that would be us... -- KdS, 05:53:03 08/16/02 Fri
Revival of archived threads seems to have become impossible again, so I hope no-one minds if I post this:
Sorry if this is a little late, but it's taken me a while to plan and write this...
I went away on Wednesday after reading the Watchers Council topic planning to write a defense of the Council, but after some thought I realised I really couldn't. I don't think the Council is, or has ever been, consciously evil in the way some posters here seem to suspect. What I do believe, however, is that it is a highly decadent organisation that is already well on the way to the collapse predicted, according to Rob, in "Fray". Before I get into the argument I would like to stress that I believe that much of the mystery and confusion concerning the Council is because ME has always been more interested in character development than in creating a coherent background "mythos". In many ways, the Council is whatever Joss & Co. find most convenient that week for Buffy and friends' emotional journey. This doesn't stop us trying to tie everything together though - I think we all love the challenge.
For most people, the first time they worried about the Council was "Helpless". I've addressed the Cruciamentum business quite exhaustively in the "Low Points" thread below, so I won't go into it again here. I think that there were early warnings in "What's My Line". The most important was that none of Buffy, Giles, Kendra, or the shadowy Zabuto seem to realise that there are simultaneously two Slayers. The result is that, through bad luck, Buffy and Kendra assume one another to be demonic in nature and come close to killing each other. When they seek Giles's advice, please note that he appears to immediately call Zabuto directly. He also seems to know Zabuto on a personal level. There is no report to or via a higher authority. Probably at this stage ME still considered the Council to be a loose-knit secret society rather than the centralised parapolitical organisation it eventually developed into.
The crossover of "Who Are You" and "Sanctuary" was the point where I personally bailed on the Council and considered it actively evil. I can see justification for killing Faith, but the Collins squad's casual attempt to kill Wes, Angel, and Buffy destroyed my sympathy completely.
Quentin's climbdown in "Checkpoint" changed my opinion. The fact that he backed down with such ease, and that (so far) the Council has made no further attack on Buffy or Faith, convinces me that the core Council is not casual about killing Slayers or other human beings. This leads me to the following reappraisal of WAY?/Sanctuary.
The Collins crew's capture of "Faith" from the SDPD in "Who are You?" seems well-organised and planned. It also suggests that the plan of the core Council was not to kill Faith. Remember, she had been in a coma for nine months with a Council operative on the nursing staff. There would have been countless opportunities to quietly snuff her out, and given the situation it's unlikely that either the Sunnydale authorities or the Scooby Gang would have been seized with the desire to investigate or avenge her death. Yet Collins et al were reduced to planning to kill "Faith" because she was too hard to control, despite the fact that the Council has drugs capable of temporarily destroying a Slayer's power with no long-term effects. In LA, killing Faith would not have been difficult, even after her adoption by Angel. If Angel's life was valued, she could have been shot with a high powered rifle from a nearby roof-top. If Angel's life wasn't valued, the man drives a convertible and leaves it parked in the street! Gelignite. Radio-controlled detonator. Bang. Faith&Angelburger
Instead they attempt to suborn Wes before making a frontal attack on the AI offices. Even if they weren't aware of Buffy's presence, they are three humans against at least two superbeings. Even more idiotically, Weatherby tries to kill Wes before he has had any opportunity to help or betray them, ensuring his non-co-operation. This conduct is not the plan of calm, collected assassins, this is the behaviour of low-grade thugs out of their depth and out to wipe out any witnesses to their embarrassment.
The picture I get of the Watchers' Council is a once-mighty organisation that has now become disfunctional and decadent in practically every way associated with organisations at the end of their natural life. From the Kendra debacle, the Gwen Post disaster and the situation in "Checkpoint", we see that the core Council habitually keeps necessary information from the grassroots, either through sclerotic bureaucracy or the desire to exercise power. The core Council, I believe, has become preoccupied with maintaining its monopoly of knowledge and its internal politics and has lost track of the objective. From Giles's and Zabuto's entirely private hashing out of the situation in WML, it appears that the grass roots have consequentially lost trust of the centre and have developed their own ad hoc networks of co-operation and information sharing. Faith is reduced to destitution in S£ because nobody at the core realises that she has no means of support. (I'd like to have seen scenes from FHT to "Bad Girls" in which Giles made increasingly farcical telephone attempts to screw some money for Faith out of the bureaucracy). The paramilitary wing of the organisation has devolved into small groups of hard men who are good at intimidation and unsubtle murder but fall apart when faced with a real challenge or a morally ambiguous situation and are too proud to seek new orders. I wholeheartedly accept Rook, Wizardman and Cleanthes's argument about the low prestige of hands-on Watching. This is the only non-villainous explanation of what I consider the Council's least forgivable act - placing a man as professionally and personally inexperienced, inept and unstable as Wesley in charge of Buffy and Faith, especially given their previous experiences with authority in "Helpless" and "Revelations". (It's possible that there may have been a nepotistic element here, which again fits in with the idea of a decaying organisation).
As far as my personal judgement of Quentin Travers goes, I'm more charitable than Rob but much less than George. I don't see Quentin as the leader of the Council, or even a high-ranking member. (I see this belief as a misunderstanding of some ambiguous lines in "Checkpoint"). Instead I believe that he is something along the lines of "Slayer Management", a position devoted to doing all the messy unglamorous things the core Council don't want to. I believe that Quentin is a frustrated idealist who genuinely wants to return the Council to its former glory. Unfortunately, like many isolated idealists he has become a fanatic disastrously lacking in elementary human decency. I don't believe his actions in "Checkpoint" were in any way a test. He genuinely wanted to break Buffy to the saddle and his climbdown was largely a pragmatic decision. He recognised the threat to the world from Glory and he also recognised that to push Buffy any harder would be to ignite a pointless all-out war that he might not win or even survive. Moreover, I do give him enough credit to believe that he genuinely doesn't want to kill her or Faith, although the death of either Slayer would probably not send the Travers household into mourning.
As far as some of the unanswered questions go, I think that Giles didn't tell the Council about Buffy and Angel's romantic relationship until very late on, probably after "Becoming". I think that he recognised that the Council's response to Buffy's style of Slaying would be to whisk her away for forcible reeducation and he didn't want that to happen. Most of his reports during Seasons 1-3 were probably very economical with the truth. Similarly, neither Buffy nor Giles attempted to gain financial help from the Council during S6 because that would mean dealing with Quentin and his conditions would probably involve Buffy taking up a more traditional (read monastic) lifestyle.
Can the Council be redeemed? Personally, I think that a major Council-related arc would be interesting but very complex to write. A monolithically EEEEEVIL and corrupt organisation gives a classic but predictable storyline. A decadent organisation would provide a complex story line that would probably take a very long time to work out satisfactorily. The Council probably consists of an unpredictable mixture of frustrated idealists working within the system (Quentin), frustrated idealists bypassing the system and creating their own (Giles and Zabuto), lazy and self-satisfied careerists (most of the upper echelons), consciously corrupt and self-serving opportunists (Gwen) and quite probably some truly scary out-and-out whackos. Which of these people do you try to get on your side and how? Messy politics are interesting to intelligent people, but I can't see the mass audience staying for a storyline closer to "Yes Minister" than anything seen in the fantasy genre before.
A couple of final tangents that I couldn't fit in earlier: firstly, I've read fanfics and essays which suggest that Quentin is Wes's father. I'd like to dismiss this as far too soapy and cliched for ME. I hope they never go that route. Secondly, the big unanswered question for me is the relationship between the Council and The Initiative. Did they know about it and what was their attitude? One wonders if maybe a group of renegade Watchers got fed up with the inertia of the Council and went to some US parapolitical body as the most powerful agency they could think of.
[>Great post. -- Sophist, 08:07:24 08/16/02 Fri
[>Yeah! What Sophist said. -- Dead Soul, 09:07:18 08/16/02 Fri
[>I third that emotion! and a comment... -- tim, 12:47:15 08/16/02 Fri
As a political science grad student, the story arc you propose would fascinate me, but I guess I'm in a distinct minority there. Too bad. :)
As to the Council-Initiative connection, at the end of Primeval, the committee chair comments, "Maggie Walsh's vision was brilliant but ultimately, insupportable" (quote from Psyche). This leads me to believe the Initiative was her brain-child, though getting some kind of backing, or even inspiration, from disgruntled Council-ites is certainly plausible.
Thanks for the great read!
--th
[> [>Initiative -- meritaten, 22:36:32 08/16/02 Fri
No one in the inititave seemed to know what a Slayer was. Also, their perception of "HSTs" was VASTLY different from the Council's. So, I have a hard time believing that they were connected with the Council. I think they just recognized a problem and attempted to address it.
[>Re: Who watches the Watchers? Um, that would be us... -- Robert, 13:57:39 08/16/02 Fri
>>> "... I think that a major Council-related arc would be interesting but very complex to write."
This would be GREAT! It would be a good fit for the Ripper series, if that ever comes to pass. Also, your description of the bureaucracy of the Council is very close to my sentiments.
[>Thanks for the kudos -- KdS, 07:20:24 08/17/02 Sat
As far as "Ripper" goes, I'd love to see a "Scouring of the Council" arc but I've heard that the BBC are only planning to make six episodes - nowhere near enough time to do it well.
Re the Initiative - thanks for reminding me about the Initiative's lack of knowledge of Slayers. It does make it unlikely that any Watchers were involved, but I'd still love to know if they knew about it...
Finally, rereading my post I'd like to clarify that my very harsh judgement of Wesley was entirely of his personality in BtVS S3 - he's come a long way since. Sorry to any Wes fans who were upset.
[>Excellent points -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:22:49 08/17/02 Sat
Well done, KdS; the problem with bureaucracies is not that they suddenly turn evil (Bwaa-hah-hah!) but that the members, over time, slowly come to confuse their own well-being and the organization's survival with the mission. Once a shop reaches that point the rationalization piles deep. The organization begins to do harm in it's own defense. It claims, then, that it's survival is essential to accomplishing the mission, so anything it does to keep itself going (and add to its own power) is then moral and justified. . .
Regarding the "center controls information for power, the active agents develop their own networks to compensate" dynamic I think you're spot on. I worked for a governmental bureaucracy once (God forgive me). To do your job you HAD to develop your own (and forbidden) back channel information conduits, working with friends in key offices. (ALWAYS treat the secretaries well . . . ) Secondly, the information network of corridor talk was ALWAYS faster and more accurate than the official word from the front office. So that's something I hope ME explores, either in BtVS or Ripper.
GOOD SOUL BAD SOUL?(POSSIBLE SPOILAGE FOR S7) -- PLAINJANE, 09:19:15 08/16/02 Fri
If Spike does get re-ensouled is it possible that he could get the soul of a mass murderer or is it a given in buffyverse that when you are re-ensouled you get your old soul back?
[>"We will return your soul" (end of Grave) -- Caesar Augustus, 17:07:16 08/16/02 Fri
[>Why are "souls" available for instant recall anyway? -- cjl, 07:10:43 08/17/02 Sat
Accepting, a priori, the existence of the soul, isn't it supposed to be the great plan of the Universe that when a person dies, the soul either goes to its great reward (Western theology), or goes back into the cycle of birth and death (eastern theology)? Even if the person's life ended unnaturally--by vampire bite--what evil has this person done to keep the soul stranded in the Ether, unable to move on to Heaven/Nirvana/the next life? Spike is a perfect example. William's soul has been drifting around in limbo for 120 years? Why? What did he do? Is the very act of becoming a vampire enough to prevent your soul from moving on?
As C.A. pointed out, Lurky told Spike point blank "We give you back YOUR soul"--but the idea of a vampire receiving someone else's soul is interesting, and Joss has hinted at this in the Angel comics. I'd go even further with this idea, and have Angel meet up with someone who is the reincarnation of Liam...
[> [>Souls of the vamped -- KdS, 07:24:17 08/17/02 Sat
Don't have time to check an actual quotation, but I remember Angel's soul being said to have been dragged "from the ether" in BtVS S2.
Yes, it does seem unfair about the souls of the vamped being trapped in limbo, but no-one ever said the Buffyverse is fair. It's actually implied fairly strongly in Stoker's Dracula that the soul of someone who has become a vampire is only released to the afterlife when the vamp is killed and the last thread severed - in fact that's suggested as a major reason for killing vampires.
[> [> [>Re: Souls of the vamped = damned -- wiscoboy, 10:48:04 08/17/02 Sat
But doesn't the release of the soul only happen to those that were taken unwillingly? I believe the souls of those who have asked to be taken are sent to damnation. This would explain how a DEMON would have the power to restore Spike's soul.
[> [> [> [>Re: Souls of the vamped = damned -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:24:59 08/17/02 Sat
Or, maybe the ether is where all souls go when they die.
Sadomasochism Metaphors in BTVS & ATS - dark sexual underbelly (Intro) -- shadowkat, 10:01:02 08/16/02 Fri
Sadistic and Masochistic Metaphors in BTVS & ATS The dark sexual underbelly
Horribly bored so I'm entertaining myself with yet another monstrous post about my favorite shows. Beware this post unlike my other ones is truly monstrous in every possible meaning of the word and is not for the easily offended or faint at heart.
(Masq thanks for your indulgence!)
WARNING spoilers through Season 6 of BTvs and Season 3 Ats. Very long involved, at times scholarly, essay about sado-masochism. Not a pro-ship post! If you find sado-masochism or skewering ships in any way offensive you might want to skip it. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for the board, but after seeing the 1000th thread on AR scene and the trolls, I figure what the hell. This by the way is NOT about the AR scene. Mature readers only, please. Not posting this essay to any other boards. If you want to ask first!
Btvs and Ats quotes from Psyche Transcripts
****************************************************
INTRODUCTION
I intended to make this essay about Guilt. But something else keeps erupting from my brain. Disturbing me. Not letting me alone. Like some hazy dream that you have in the early hours of the morning just before waking. "How can anyone dream or fantasize about a murderer in a sexual way? That is just sick." Oh lord the dark things that hide within our minds. "How can anyone get off on torture? Bondage? Pain?"
So I rolled up my sleeves and did a little research on the internet.
1. SEXUAL FANTASIES & FANFIC
We are odd creatures. At times strait-laced and puritanical in our tastes and other times? Somewhat uninhibited, with odd animalistic, even primal desires. Like our forebears. Last night flipping channels I caught a brief documentary on the History channel about cannibalism in folklore and mythology and how possibly in our collective consciousness we share a common fear or desire for this. The examples they used ranged from fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel & Gretel to legends of ancient tribes who ate people. If that's trueŠmaybe there's a common repressed desire for other things as well? Did you know that several of our fairy tales were erotic stories filled with S & M motifs? In the earlier versions of Sleeping Beauty she was not awakened by true love's kiss, she was awakened by the birth of a child. The Victorians were the ones who cleaned up the tales for kids, but if you look closely you can see some of the earlier more risqué images remain. The Vampire has always been a sexual metaphor and a violent one at that. As has the werewolf. Both creatures created as metaphors for our more primal, darker urges.
Many people on the boards cannot understand the erotic appeal of Buffy/Spike relationship. That is sick, they say. Is it? Or is it merely human nature to be intrigued and attracted by something raw and dangerous? In the books Secret Garden and Forbidden Flowers, Nancy Friday, a licensed psychoanalyst, collects and analyses sexual fantasies from her patients and female correspondents.
Here is a quote from her book, Forbidden Flowers, p. 6: "all women have sexual fantasies, though sometimes they won't admit it, even to themselves. Fantasies are make-believe states used to enhance reality. Her fantasy provides a safe way to explore the erotic possibilities of a situation that might be very threatening or guilt-producing if she acted it out. A fantasy can give a woman an added sense of life and all its possibilities. It is the unexamined corners of the mind that breed neurosis and fear not the portions of ourselves that we know, recognize and accept." She states that the most important thing to remember about fantasies is that "they are not facts, deeds, they are NOT acting out."
When we watch Buffy The Vampire Slayer and fantasize about Angel or Spike or Drusilla it is just that a fantasy. Spike is not real to us. As Nancy Friday states "summoning up an image in our imagination does not mean we want to bring it into reality". The fanfic you've read, be it slash, straight, S&M, whatever, is just that someone's fantasy. It says very little about the personal and private practices of the writer or their beliefs. Any more than a Stephen King or Thomas Harris novel says anything about the homicidal tendencies of those writers. All they are doing is sharing their opinions and fantasies of the characters with you. You get to make the choice whether or not to read them.
I think many people in our society have troubles with this idea. They believe that if you fantasize about something you will make it real you will hunt it in your every day life. I can tell you from personal experience this is NOT always the case. Very few of us do.
So why do people online feel this desire to declare almost defensively that they would never want Spike in their house? Last time I checked Spike was a fictional character who was portrayed by a delightful actor on a TV show. Hate to tell you this but he ain't coming to your house, he does NOT exist. Now if you said you didn't want someone like Charles Manson in your house or a lion from the zoo or a senile police dog I'd agree. Me neither. Why are we condemning people for their fantasies? Or ourselves for our own? Are we afraid of looking at that dark sister or brother self that hides inside?
As Faith would say "What are you afraid of B? Afraid you might like it?"
In BTVs and Ats the writers wickedly bring our fantasies to life and twist them into nightmares. None of the love relationships on this show are healthy or beautiful. All have some dark negative aspect to them. Some are hidden beneath layers of metaphor, others almost too real. But before we get to Btvs and Ats a little historical perspective on S&M and what it means psychologically.
2. SADOMASOCHISM A HISTORICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
In the 19th century, psychologist Krafft-Ebing named a deviant sexual disorder he'd discovered - sadimasochism after Sade and von Sacher-Masoch. He identified it as two distinct but related sexual anomalies in his Psychopathia Sexualis of 1885:
Sadism "is 'the experience of sexual pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment inflicted on one's own person or when witnessed by others, be they animals or human beings...It may also consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy others in order thereby to create sexual pleasure in oneself." Sadism refers to the Marquis de Sade, a novelist of the late 18th century. Sade was pre-Victorian. 120 Days of Sodom his major work was published in 1785. He lived from 1740-1817. His novels Justine and Juliette were as much for social satire and philosophical parable as they were comments on sexual depravity and violence.
The Marquis de Sade was institutionalized for daring to write about such a topic and daring to do it in an erotic manner. Ironically, after his death, his wardens made money off of his writings. His name now is used to describe the very things he wrote about. For more information on Marquis de Sade see the dark film Quills with Geoffrey Rush.
Masochism "was where someone 'is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex; of being treated by this person as by a master, humiliated and abused. This idea is coloured by lustful feeling; the masochist lives in fantasies, in which he creates situations of this kind and often attempts to realise them'." Masochism refers to Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, (1836-1895) a 19th century novelist of Venus in Furs. (This was a semi-autobiography describing the Mistress slave relationship. The woman is the mistress, the man her sex slave often allowing her to beat him and handcuff him, etc.) It was published in 1869. His works dealt more with flagellation, being beaten up by cruel lovers than the sexual genitalia acts described by Sade. This seemed to be the trend for pornography in the Victorian age.
Source: "Deviants Dictionary, a project that aims eventually to provide a comprehensive and interactive on-line encyclopaedic dictionary of BDSM-related terms, an 'encyclopervia' of the Net."
Remember the dates that these two ideas were introduced. Sadism in 18th century 1785. Masochism in the 19th century 1880s. Also a little hint on where I'm going with this when were our two vamps turned??? Angel in 1753 and Spike in 1880.
Freud is the psychologist who decided Sadism and Masochism were more closely linked not two separate anomalies. 'He who experiences pleasure by causing pain to others is also capable of experiencing pain in sexual relations as pleasure. A sadist is simultaneously a masochist, though either the active or the passive side of the perversion may be more strongly developed in him. ' Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
Havelock Ellis, another psychologist, in 1940s, theorized that 'The masochist desires to experience pain, but he generally desires that it should be inflicted in love; the sadist desires to inflict pain, but in some cases, if not in most, he desires that it should be felt as love'. 'The sadist by no means wishes to exclude the victim's pleasure, and may even regard that pleasure as essential to his own satisfaction' 'Sadism and masochism may be regarded as complementary emotional states; they can not be regarded as opposed states.' Havelock Ellis 1942, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, New York: Random House.
A sadist can't exist without the masochist and the masochist cannot exist without the sadist according to Ellis.
In Btvs and Ats I would argue that the relationships and characters often break down along these lines. One character tends to dominate while another takes a lesser role. This often leads to what Havelock Ellis would call the S&M relationship. In Btvs/Ats this relationship is depicted as unhealthy. It is also largely depicted as unhealthy in most fan-fiction.
TBC - PArt I coming - shadowkat
[> PArt I: Vampires as Metaphor (1 -2 B/A, A/D/D/S) spoilers to season 6 -- shadowkat, 10:04:29 08/16/02 Fri
BTVS & ATS S&M RELATIONSHIPS & OTHER DARK SEXUAL METAPHORS
Part I: Vampires as the perfect Sadomasochists
Vampires as a group make the perfect metaphor for sadomasochism. The very act of biting a human or getting bit yourself and turned = sadomasochism. It also has that cannibalistic urge behind it alluded to in the History Channel documentary I saw the other night. But I'm not sure I even have the stomach to analyze that one.
Someone can't remember who (sorry I think it was purplegirl) posted that Bram Stoker created the dark twisted vision of the vampire as a metaphor for the repressed sexuality of his fellow Victorians. Stoker did not let his vampire become reflected in a mirror the view was since the Victorians couldn't handle the reflection of their dark sexual urges, the vampire, which was the epitome of those urges, should not have a reflection. Stoker's Dracula was a sensual creation, the definition of evil, he floated into the woman's bedchamber and seduced her with an erotic bite on the neck. In Buffy vs. Dracula Dracula floats into Buffy's room and enthralls her, leaving a "love bite" which she delicately hides from her human boyfriend with a scarf. This is very similar to the behavior of Stoker's heroine Mina who similarly hides her "love bites" with scarves.
In some fan-fic the vampire's bite is on the thigh or genitalia, but the effect remains the same. In Ats Angelus bites the gypsy girl Darla gives him on the thigh, and then bites Darla on the neck, a favor she returns as they begin to have sex. (Dear Boy).
1. BUFFY & ANGEL Star-crossed lovers? Or Twist on Lolita?
Lolita is a book by Vladmir Nabokov, it was made into a film by Stanley Kubrick in the 1960s. The book is about a professor who becomes obsessed with his landlady's daughter, a 14 year old named Lolita. In the movie, he first sees her sitting, with long blond pigtails, sucking a lollipop. In Becoming Part I of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Angel first sees Buffy who has just turned 15 sitting on the stairs, with long blond pigtails, sucking a lollipop. He falls in love and pursues her all the way to Sunnydale. Determined to help her. Is Lolita's protagonist sadistic? No. He does however portray an unhealthy desire for teenagers as does Angel.
Unfortunately, helping is not enough for Angel. He also sleeps with the girl which is the act that robs him of his soul. The metaphor is a tricky one. I sleep with the guy and he turns all evil. The ultimate nightmare. But it's an extended metaphor works on multiple levels and they are very clever with it because the last thing they want to do is alienate all those teenage fans. Yet at the same time isn't the story also the guy's ultimate nightmare? The girl you have a crush on prefers the older hunky college kid, senior, or teacher? You know he's evil. So why doesn't she? Why doesn't she notice you? And they don't stop there, they turn the knife one more time Why don't you see the pretty redhead who adores you but does have a bit of a Crush on the mysterious school librarian?
The Dark Fantasy of lusting after the teenage girl and the teenage girl lusting after the older guy is played out in Buffy/Angel. There's nothing wrong with this fantasy. How many people have had a crush on someone older than them? David Boreanze was at least 26-27 years of age when he played the role. Yet all these teenage girls were in love with him. He was playing a 245 year old vampire. I remember having a Crush on Shawn Cassidy, Peter O'Toole, Scean Connery and Harrison Ford with the exception of Shawn Cassidy they were my mother's age. Buffy had a similar crush on Angel, puppy, school girl , romantic love with dire consequences.
Also let's not forget - *cough * daddy issues * cough* - Buffy has major unresolved issues with her father. She keeps trying to resolve them by going after older men. Older men that inadvertently hurt her. If you think about it every guy she's been sexually involved with has been older than her and they all without exception have left or rejected her. A psychologist might argue that she seeks this out, replaying subconsciously her father's rejection over and over again until she can somehow come to terms with it. Her sexual relationship with Angel while appearing nice and puppyish on the surface is actually rather dark they can't consummate their love without him turning evil. When they do consummate it in Surprise, he turns nasty and literally insults her performance and degrades her. For a while in Season 3, they go back to the puppy platonic romance, but this is equally painful and at times sadistic In Enemies, he pretends to beat her up and brutally kisses Faith to lure Faith into giving herself away. In Prom he agrees to go to the prom, then turns her down, breaks up with her, then shows up again. When he becomes human and they consummate their love in I Will Always Remember You Angel takes off the next morning, leaving Buffy alone in bed to fight the big evil alone. Ignoring the fact that she is actually more physically equipped to do it. When he discovers he cannot fight the big evil without being fatally injured, he nobly decides to turn back time, effectively erasing their time together from everyone's memories but his. Once again "daddy" is making the decision to leave for "Buffy's" own good, she does not get a voice in the decision. This behavior continues until Buffy and Angel part ways for good a scene that occurs off stage in Season 6.
As Angelus Angel plays the role of sadist with Buffy. He tells Dru and Spike in Innocence that he wants some time with the slayer he doesn't just want to kill her, he wants to torture her. Emotionally. Mentally. And Physically. Dru hisses that he wants to do to Buffy what he once did to her. In later episodes, we see Angelus attempting to accomplish this task. He stalks her, leaves little gifts for her. Dark gifts. He threatens her friends. Kills her favorite teacher Jenny Calendar. (Passion) Attempts to kill her friends. Attempts to torture or kill her. Engages in nasty word play contests with her. (IOHEFY, Killed BY Death, Becoming Part I) Captures her mentor, Giles, and tortures him. (Becoming Part II) Spike doesn't understand this. Why not just kill her? Spike as is made clear in What's My Line Part II isn't really much for the pre-show. Sadism doesn't appear to be his thing. Dru on the other hand totally gets it Drusilla prefers to torture things and to receive torture.
2. ANGELUS & DARLA AND DRU, & SPIKE The Sadomasochist Family
If any metaphor screams S & M it is the vampire. Think about it for a minute. A sadist gets pleasure from causing pain. A masochist gets pleasure from enduring pain. The vampire gets pleasure from all the things we aren't supposed to like, the unhealthy, repressed, demon part of our psyche. I remember a friend of mine got into an email discussion about S&M and finally backed off stating fairly clearly that she sooo did not want to go there. Most (not all) sadomasochistic relationships end badly. These aren't healthy relationships and can quickly devolve into something real reminiscent of what happened in Reprise in Ats, Seeing Red, or even Crush. As Drusilla states about vampires Btvs & Ats's metaphor for sadomasochists or sexual deviants "we can love quite well just not very wisely." (Crush Season 5, Btvs).
(Brief aside: The problem with S&M in our society a problem that Ann Rice hints at in her Interview with the Vampire series is it is often, inaccurately, identified with homosexuality. Hate to break this to you but Heterosexuals do S&M as often as homosexuals do. Nor are most homosexuals or gay couples into this practice. Unfortunately media has given us a negative impression of S&M and identified it with homosexuality. I recently got into a heated argument with a friend of mine regarding this issue and was unable to convince her that I knew for a fact that homosexuals often had long-lasting healthy relationships that did not involve S&M. Just as there were healthy long-lasting relationships that did involve it. Judging what others do in the privacy of their bedroom is never a good thing. What I admire about Whedon's exploration of this topic is that he did not give it the cliché homosexual vampire slant. He avoided it. Even though the slash fiction writers go there all the time. Most of the slash writers by the way are woman writing about men, not unlike Ann Rice. Their fiction often details practices that they are unfamiliar with and are nothing more than fantasies. Remember what Nancy Friday said having a fantasy does not make it real. While Whedon has no trouble exploring S&M's dark side, he does not do it through homosexual relationships, say what you will about Tara and Willow their relationship was not sadomasochistic. Unhealthy? Yes. But not in that way. Just as not all S&M is unhealthy, not all unhealthy relationships are S&M.)
Angel was heavy into S&M. We see it first in What's My Line Part II where Dru gets off on torturing Angel and Angel taunts Spike with their erotic fun. Spike isn't really into torture, unless of course he's being the one tortured. Spike isn't a sadist as much as a masochist from what I've seen on the show. Not that it matters. Vampires by their very nature are a little bit of both.
Spike the masochist. I do not know how much research the writers did on the Victorian era, but from what I've read Victorians favorite form of sexual deviance was "masochism". They were somewhat repressed sexually. The male as redcat describes in a very good post several archives back, neurasthenic male rather was portrayed as weak in the 19th century. Loving poetry. The Mama's boy. In the pornography of the era, masochism was in. In fact Masochism takes its name from the 19th century writer -Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.
People have argued that Spike is more like the Marquis de Sade. I beg to differ. The show provides us a massive amount of evidence showing Spike to be more like Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. In Smashed Buffy accuses Spike of being in love with her because he is "in love with pain." "You only love me, because you like to be beaten down. Whose the sick one in this relationship?" She screams this at him between punches. To which he smartly replies: "Hello Vampire! I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side." In their relationship Buffy is the Mistress of Pain and Spike the Sex Slave. (More on the twists and turns of this baby later.) Earlier in What's My Line we're told that Spike isn't much into torture but it is Drusilla's thing. Angel even suggests that this may be the problem Spike has with Drusilla. He can't keep her satisfied like the sadist Angelus could. We see much later how true this is in Innocence through Becoming Part II.
Later in Lover's Walk Spike claims Dru left him because he wasn't evil enough for her. And maybe she'll take him back if he chains her up and tortures her. People read this as evidence that Spike was a sadistic fiend, well yeah but he's talking about Drusilla. Drusilla clearly wasn't happy with anything less. In What's My Line she mentions missing the branding iron Spike had in Prague. In Lie to Me she misses leeches.
Drusilla is a true sadomasochist. She likes inflicting pain and enduring it. Spike seems less into it for some reason. Something the writers capitalize on in later episodes showing the eventual rift between Spike and Dru. I'm not saying he isn't sadomasochistic in his own right, he is. Just leans more to the masochistic side than the sadistic.
Angelus is the poster child for sadism. When Spike in FFL's flashbacks suggests fists and fangs, Angelus would prefer artistry, slow torture. In Dear Boy and other ATS flashbacks, we see Angelus slowly torturing Drusilla. When Darla asks when he plans on killing her, Angelus mentions that he'd rather turn her, killing her would just end her torment. In the background we see an insane human Dru struggling to deal with the two vampires in front of her. Later, when Darla brings Angelus the gypsey girl, Angelus and Darla bite each other while having sex clearly enjoying the pain and pleasure. Finally in Revelations Giles tells Buffy that Angelus tortured him for hours for his own pleasure, a scene we watched a portion of in Becoming Part II. And in Ats Sleep Tight as well as a few other interesting episodes, Angel states that he can keep someone alive indefinitely with blood transfusions an eternity of torture. He threatens Lilah with this type of torture in Sleep Tight and with another type of torture in Blood Money.
Darla is also a sadist. She enjoys torturing her victims. In her relationship with Lindsey in ATS we see an insane now human Darla come onto the human lawyer Lindsey, he's turned on until she bites him. Even human, part of Darla gets off on inflicting pain. As a vampire she enjoys being on the receiving end. Angelus appears to prefer inflicting pain to enduring it. Both as ensouled and without a soul. We see him get off on torturing Linwood in The Price (Season 3) and enjoy burning Darla and Drusilla (Season 2 Ats). Not that he minds enduring the torture that much. When captured by Holtz in one of the flashbacks, he pretty much states "torturing me isn't all that effective, vampire."
When we see flashbacks of these characters we are made increasingly aware of their dark sexual activities, their deviant ways. The vampire, Btvs and Ats tells us is a twisted version of the human. Therefore, the vampire will enjoy sex in a deviant twisted manner.
TBC 3-4 of Part I, shadowkat
[> [> So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- VHF, 17:48:19 08/16/02 Fri
I am just wondering why you feel that way. Because, in terms of evil actions there would be no way Buffy would take Dawn to stay with Spike or would be pained he left town if Spike tried to turn her or kill her. In term of pure evil intent AR, even if it was intentional, in no way compares to attempted murder or vamping.
[> [> [> Re: So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- demon's shadow, 05:55:44 08/17/02 Sat
Why didn't he just vamp her turn her into a vampire like himself - solve all his problems? Us demons have been trying to figure this out forever. A slayer to our number?
Great!!! Stupid vamp.
Because one is metaphorical and one is actual. And us demons would have been much happier!
VHF - this was discussed thoroughly in the archives. In the archives several of us explained our thoughts and feelings on this scene. If you want to see those go down further on your own post on this topic and see Sophist's suggestion - he includes a link to these archives. Or do a little work and hunt the archives yourself - D'H does a wonderful job organizing them. They are in June.
shadowkat is tired of discussing this point over and over again. Bored now.
[> [> [> [> Re: So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- Rendyl, 07:44:13 08/17/02 Sat
****VHF - this was discussed thoroughly in the archives. In the archives several of us explained our thoughts and feelings on this scene. If you want to see those go down further on your own post on this topic and see Sophist's suggestion****
****shadowkat is tired of discussing this point over and over again. Bored now****
While I feel it might have been more appropriate for VHF to start a new thread since his subject was not the point of your essay I still balk at any attempt to censure the other posters on the board. Recommending the archived threads is fine, but demanding people drop a subject just because you, I, or anyone else is tired of discussing it is rude and unacceptable. If we don't want to discuss a topic all we have to do is just not read or reply to the posts on it.
Ren
[> [> [> [> [> just passing by... -- ponygirl, 08:08:48 08/17/02 Sat
I think shadowkat (or her demonic persona) was explaining why SHE was choosing not to reply to to VHF. The 'kat, I've noticed usually tries to reply to all the people who post questions about her essays. I'm sure no one would try stop you or VHF from discussing this topic again.
pony (better to beat a dead horse than a live poster) girl ;)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- Arethusa, 08:09:00 08/17/02 Sat
VHF keeps trying to bring this up, even though (s)he's already been told this was discussed thoroughly. Like I (Medusa) did in another thread, shadowkat is saying she's bored with the discussion. She's not telling VHF to drop it. Although that's a good idea. Rehashing old controversies ad nauseam decreases the quality, variety and civility of exchanges on the board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> thank you, Aerusa said it better than demon's shadow did -- shadowkat, 08:46:14 08/17/02 Sat
Apologies to Ren.
I've been trying to reign my demon in, where can you find good muzzels?
Seriously though for the best discussion of this topic? See the archive thread Sophist lists in VHF's thread below. I'll say nothing more on the topic than what I said in my essay.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it's relevant that VHF also started that archived thread to which I linked. -- Sophist, 11:41:56 08/17/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> zargon deserves the credit for June's archives -- d'H-something or other, 10:13:02 08/17/02 Sat
[> Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- shadowkat, 10:06:26 08/16/02 Fri
3. SPIKE & BUFFY: The MISTRESS & SERVANT Relationship
The Spuffy relationship reminds me of the description of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novel Venus in Furs. When Spike first states that he is in love with Buffy, no one can quite believe it. What does he see in her? All she does is beat him up. Well, duh.
Let's look at the relationships that work for Spike Drusilla, she was a tad sadistic, while we seldom saw it we can assume she enjoyed torturing and controlling him, playing dark mummy to her sweet dark knight.
Harmony on the other hand was a problem. Harmony is also a masochist. Two masochists aren't really conducive to a relationship. It worked for a little while Spike got to take out his fury towards losing Dru, being dumped, getting a chip, out on Harmony. Then he just got annoyed. There was no love in their interaction. The sadism as Havelock Ellis theorized isn't really much more than cruelty without love attached. Most sadomasochists don't get much out of torturing someone who doesn't enjoy the torture. Spike was just cruel to her, not sadistic so much as plain mean. Saw her as an object. An annoying object. He actually had more affection for the Buffbot than Harmony.
In his relationship with Buffbot, it has been noted that he was practicing being with a human. Possibly. I think he wanted someone who would fight him, beat him down, then have sex. The Buffbot does fight him. Flings him across the room then pounces. Not unlike Buffy does in Smashed.
In interviews, Joss stated he wanted to explore Buffy's dark side in Season 6. So Buffy was the sadist and Spike was the masochist in most of the scenes. What about the Bronze scene in Dead Things? Was that really sadomasochism? Not sure. It does appear they flipped roles there. Also what about the fact he handcuffs her in Dead Things? Again a flip? Perhaps they played both roles? Havelock Ellis and Freud both comment on how sadism and masochism isn't easily separated. The people involved may in fact enjoy playing both roles. But from the episodes Smashed through Dead Things, I was under the impression that Buffy was the one in control here. In Normal Again, Spike even confesses that she has "turned him into her sodding sex slave." In Gone, he barely is able to throw her out and only succeeds in doing so after she's had her invisible way with him. And in AYW, she uses him for sex, beats him up, humiliates and breaks up with him telling him that she is only using him. She seems to hold the reins and certainly is the one doing the bashing. It's not until Seeing Red's infamous attempted rape scene that we see Spike being violent back.
Seeing Red may be the writer's attempt to comment on the negative repercussions of an S&M relationship. Or at least one writer's personal experience of the repercussions of this type of relationship.( If so, it was an extraordinarily brave thing to do and as others have stated possibly a huge miscalculation. BTVS being a horror show there was no other possible conclusion, he'd either bite her or try to force himself on her once she spurned him. I would have preferred the metaphorical biting for reasons stated in the archives, but it's done, willing to see where they go with it.) In Seeing Red Spike tells Buffy that he wants to make her feel it, like she did before. Their relationship has always been violent. They both get turned on by the violence. Buffy realized this long ago in Bad Girls with Faith. "Come on, don't tell me you don't get off on it?" Faith states. Then later in Where the Wild Things Are the writers make an obvious parallel between Buffy and Riley fighting demons and having sex. Spike alludes to this tendency in Fool For Love and in OMWF "We've always been dancing" in FFL and "You have thoughts you'll misbehave, Be your willing slave" in OMWF. In fact Buffy herself questions her attraction to their violent sex in Dead Things : "Why do I feel this way? Why do I let Spike do these things to me?" "Why can Spike hurt me?" and "The only time I feelŠanything is when I'm with him." Unfortunately violent sex can lead to unsafe situations. While Buffy admits she can never fully trust Spike enough to love him, she must trust him a little or she would never have entered into an S&M relationship with him. S&M requires an element of trust.
Trust. The difference between healthy and unhealthy S&M relationships is just that trust and consent. If the couple has a group of safe words and does explicitly trust one another than S&M can be a deviant but fairly healthy sexual practice. If however there is little to trust in the relationship if it is a love/hate relationship based purely on sex, then S&M is not only unhealthy it can be quite dangerous. This is the relationship Spike and Buffy are in. Spike trusts Buffy not to stake him, but should he? We are given reasons why he shouldn't in both Dead Things her dream sequence and the alley scene, and in AYW where she uses him for sex and does consider letting her ex kill him. Buffy trusts Spike not to hurt her or any of her friends, she believes she can control him and he's too incompetent to hurt anyone with the chip in place. Should she? She doesn't really know what he is or isn't willing to do. In Smashed he tries to kill the girl, yeah he hesitated, but he still did it, the chip was the only thing that stopped him. In AYW he is dealing demon eggs, yeah the episode is poorly written but that was the intent. She realizes in AYW that trusting him is not a good idea. Spike on the other hand never gets the whole trust thing, which is partly why the attempted rape happens. In S&M it is imperative that both parties not only trust one another but understand what trust means and know when "no" means "no". Because in S&M there are situations where "no" may actually mean "yes" as well as one's where it means "no"..
Spike was clearly out of line in SR, I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it, but by entering into a sadomasochistic relationship with a vampire who could hurt her Buffy was setting herself up for a fall. As Spike states in Smashed: "Hello? Vampire. I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side. What's your excuse?" It's a bit like playing with fire sooner or later, you will be burned. This in a nutshell is the danger of S&M. It could very likely lead to a situation you can't get out of. Buffy is right when she tells him "I should have stopped you long ago." Actually Buff, you shouldn't have let him in. You initiated things honey. Don't believe me? Ask yourself who kissed who in OMWF, TR and Smashed. And who unzipped who's zipper? (Do not misunderstand me I am not in any way condoning Spike's actions I'm just saying, get in a cage with a cheetah, even a muzzled one? Don't be surprised if you get bit. And that in a nutshell is one of the many reasons why I HATE that scene.)
Not all S&M leads in this direction. If you're dealing with someone who isn't a demon or caged animal, it may actually not get all that dangerous. Control is very important. But do beware of the dangers involved particularly if the relationship outside of the sex is an unhealthy one and to quote James Marsters : "Can you really think of anything remotely healthy about that relationship for either character that you would wish on your best friend?" (see www.bloodyawfulpoet.com, Shore Leave Transcripts). Outside of the Incredible Sex? Think about it. They didn't talk. She beat him up most of the time. He made snarky comments that embarrassed her. He couldn't hang out with her friends. She couldn't hang out with his. (They tried, Life Serial's card game and OAFA's birthday party. He ironically did a better job of it.) They hated what each other stood for and resented having to sink to each other's level. In Tabula Rasa he's running from a loan shark and brings the loan shark down on Buffy and her friends. In Smashed, Buffy beats him up and calls him an evil soulless thing. When he discovers he can hit people he goes off to bite one and is horribly disappointed when he can't. In Wrecked he smugly tells her that she will crave him. She tells him he's disgusting and convienent. In Gone she invades his crypt and manhandles him before telling him who she is. In Dead Things, he seduces her on the platform in the Bronze and suggests she can only be happy in the darkness with him. Nothing healthy about it. OTOH of all of Buffy's relationships Spike actually seemed to understand her. He accepted her darkness even encouraged it. Quite the reverse of Angel and Riley. Wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been a demon? If he had a soul? Would it have worked? Will never know.
4. RILEY and THE VAMP TRULLS = Feeling Needed
Riley is a lot like Spike in the sense that he truly is a masochist. In Season 5, part of Riley's difficulty with Buffy is that once his super-powers are removed he can no longer keep up with her. She can as Spike would put it "bruise him".
Buffy, worried about hurting Riley, apparently starts pulling back. In their sex scenes at the beginning of Season 5, The Real ME, OOMM, Riley is almost competing with her in bed, seeing who can keep going the longest. Then after the chip is removed, we start seeing her make comments like: "yes that was relaxing" before turning over on her side, away from him. She treats him a bit like a reliable puppy dog. Riley craves passion.
So Riley goes to the vamp trulls. The first of these he meets in Willy's bar, while nursing a drink. He's just heard from Dawn how upset and traumatized Angel always made Buffy feel, while Buffy feels comfortable and casual around him (Shadow). Feeling unneeded, he goes to the bar and Sandy, the vampire that VampWillow turns, comes on to him. He lets her bite him right before staking her. His comment "sorry this will never work, I know you only want me for my body." But as he later tells Buffy in Into The Woods at least they want me.
For Riley the pain is a demonstration of being wanted. He wants to feel something. In Season 5, Riley is depressed, he feels useless, every thing has become meaningless. His friends tell him that he has become nothing more than "true love's mission". "You used to have a mission, Riley. Now what are you? The mission's true love?" (Season 5, Btvs)
Riley is a lot like Buffy in Season 6, craving something but uncertain what it is. Have you ever craved something? You try ice cream, you try television, you try everything, but nothing fulfills your need? That's what happened to these two people. First with Riley in Season 5 then later with Buffy in Season 6. They both wanted to feel something other than just being numb of being a waste of space. So Riley goes to the vamp trulls. When they bite him, he feels their need, he feels that he has a purpose, that somehow he is sustaining someone. And the pain? It makes him feel alive. Bit like asking someone to pinch you.
The masochist may often need someone to pinch them. They desire pain to feel alive. To feel love. To feel needed. Some masochists can't experience an orgasm without pain. In Btvs this type of pain is shown as unhealthy. As Giles states it is an ambiguous evil, the vamp trulls, and usually harmless, but it can get dangerous if one of the trulls loses control and takes more than they should. Riley is so far gone, he doesn't care, begging the trull to bite harder. When Buffy finds him he's in what appears to be a dope den, surrounded by thin husks of vampires and their patrons. The vampires get off on the blood, the patrons on the sensation their sucking provides them. The perfect S&M metaphor. A consensual relationship with mutual needs met.
When Buffy confronts him on this he tells her he just wanted to understand what the appeal was, why she preferred Angel, even possibly Dracula to him. She denies this. But he senses what Spike early states she requires a bit more monster than he can give her. She requires the adrenaline of the danger, the sadist in her man. Oddly enough of the rejections Buffy has suffered Riley's is the most similar to her father's. Riley appears to leave for the same reasons she feels her father left because she couldn't satisfy his needs, wasn't what he wanted, was too "primal" for him.
5. VAMPWILLOW - The Sadist
While an argument can be made that Angelus, Spike and the other vampires are mostly sadomasochists, VampWillow is pure sadist. The sadist gets off on torturing others.
Vamp Willow is Willow's vampire self. In Buffyverse the vampire is a twisted version of the human. The human's deepest and darkest desires are reflected in the vampire's persona. Willow clearly has a desire to inflict torture on those who once tortured her. We see this desire occasionally jump to the forefront of her mind. In Earshot, she gets off on her interrogation of Jonathan. And in some of the earlier episodes of Season 6, doped up on magic, she tortures the denizens of the Bronze. (Smashed, ALL THE WAY). What holds Willow back is her conscience, her soul. Guilt. The magic washes the guilt away when she becomes DarkWillow allowing her to torture Warren in Villains, Rack in Two to Go, and Giles in Grave.
Before we ever meet DarkWillow we meet VampWillow in The Wish and in Dopplegangerland. In The Wish, VampWillow gets a great deal of enjoyment out of torturing a chained up Angel, flinging burning matches on his chest. Later in Dopplegangerland we watch her break the Mayor's minions fingers and bite poor Sandy in the Bronze. When she refers to her world the Alternate Universe of the Wish she says - "we could ride people like ponies".
VampWillow does not require the other person to enjoy the torture she dishes out. Actually she seems to prefer it if they don't. This is a sadistic personality. Very different than the sadomasochist, who gets off when they do enjoy it. In comparison Spike is more of a sadomasochist in Seasons 5 and 6. Not a sadist. VampWillow, however, is a sadist in the truest sense of the word.
Vampires in conclusion have been used effectively by BTVS and ATS to demonstrate the unhealthy aspects of sadomasochism. Of addictive love or self-centered immature love. When two people don't so much love each other as crave one another. The type of love that is a fire in the blood. S&M often is the unhealthy result of that type of love at least in the troubled world of BTVS.
END OF PART I.
Part II: Slayers, Witches and Werewolves will be posted laterŠdepending on what responses if any I get to Part I.
Looking forward to your comments as always.
;-) shadowkat
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- Dead Soul, 11:16:05 08/16/02 Fri
Amazing essay - so much to think about and reread and consider that I can't comment now - have to let it percolate a little.
I am truly blown away.
Dead (forgot to use a safe word) Soul
[> [> Wow. And WOW again! -- Sebastian, 11:40:30 08/16/02 Fri
Part II: Slayers, Witches and Werewolves will be posted laterŠdepending on what responses if any I get to Part I.
I, personally, will go insane if you don't post Part II. ;-)
As usual, I'm blown away by your essay. Excellent reading!
- S
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- LadyStarlight, 12:32:03 08/16/02 Fri
Another incredible essay, 'kat. A very balanced exploration of the 'darker' side of the Buffyverse. Looking forward to Part II.
Also, historical tidbits, so it's all good! ;)
[> [> Excellent work ! -- Etrangere, 12:58:01 08/16/02 Fri
I hardly see anything to add, it's brillantly written, very perceptive and complete. Love the explanation about wanting to be hurted to feel like you're needed. And offcourse, the nuance between fantasies and reality... so few people get that.
Most people won't understand that all the fetishist regalia and the SM rituals are about making sense, about meaning something about the relationship between the persons.
keep it coming, i love this essay ;)
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- ponygirl, 13:46:37 08/16/02 Fri
First of all great essay shadowkat! I'm so glad you wrote it.
I tend to agree with Willow, "It's not the violence. It's the power." I would extend that to the sexual relationships you mention, that's it's not so much the pain but the control. I did some very superficial research on the S&M scene a couple years ago for a tv show I was working on. Nice people, though I was glad it was mainly phone interviews 'cause I'm a blusher! Most of them prefer to discuss the bondage/domination/submission aspect which is all about layers of consent and trust, rather than true S&M which apparently is relatively uncommon. And they emphasize that despite appearances there is a great deal of power in the submissive role, the dominant partner is required to abide by the limits set, the lines can get awfully blurry as in all relationships.
To bring this back to your essay, I would suggest that many of the relationships are about dominance and submission rather than actual S&M. Angelus was definitely a sadist, just Drusilla was most certainly a masochist, but I don't consider Angel one, though he definitely seems to assume the dominant position in a relationship. Buffy and Angel's relationship in s1-3 could be seen as Buffy moving from the submissive to the dominant partner. As you note it is a relationship of unequals, which Angel seems to encourage, he's older, he witholds information, physically he towers over her. As Angelus he continues to have the upper hand, constantly taunting Buffy (as Faith would in s3) that she isn't ready. He is the one in control. Until finally Becoming 2 when Buffy asserts her control, first in her willingness to kill Angelus, and then in sending Angel to hell (she has him close his eyes first, his trust in her is absolute). When Angel comes back in s3 he is greatly weakened and Buffy is often in a caretaking role, she has reversed the balance of power. Buffy's actions in Graduation Day in offering her blood to Angel seem on the surface an act of surrender but in many ways it is a complete assertion of dominance (and tellingly the real end of their relationship, 2 doms aren't going to work). Buffy sets the limits, "you don't have to drain me", she hits him when he is unwilling and finally the act itself is one of the most sexual we have ever seen Buffy experience.
Buffy, in her relationship with Riley, seems to be repeating some of the patterns from B/A. He's older, he's concealing things from her, and his physical type seems to suggest Angel's. But she never surrenders control to Riley. Just the opposite. Riley, too, seems to be uncomfortable in a submissive role. I don't see his adventures with the vamp 'hos as Riley's masochism but rather his attempt to assert control. He can't control Buffy, but he can with the trulls -- their need for him is greater than his for them, just as his need for Buffy will always outweigh hers for him.
Well, I wanted to talk about B/S and how I think Buffy's unease in seeing herself as the dominant partner, as opposed to the good/submissive girl she had tried to be in her past relationships contributed a great deal to her self-loathing, but really I've rambled on too long. Great essay 'kat, looking forward to more!
[> [> [> Thanks ponygirl gave me fodder for part II -- shadowkat, 17:25:40 08/16/02 Fri
I think Angel has a more sadistic urg than you might think - it comes out more in ATS than in Buffy, partly b/c he is so subdued with Buffy and weak when he returns. But if you watch some of the episodes after Darla becomes a vampire in Season 2 ATS and some of the epsiodes after Connor is lost in Season 3 Ats - you definitely see that this tendency is not relegated to the vampire. Remember the vampire is a twisted version of the human. Angel buries them down deep but he is still a vampire and his desires are still there.
I agree with your take and leslie's down below on Buffy.
Haven't written PArt II yet - but will get to her there along with Willow and a few others.
From what I read on the Deviants site - S&M actually is all about dominance and submission - it just takes it a bit further. Although I'd agree that B/A is not a true S&M relationship. Unhealthy yes. For different reasons. It is a relationship that deals with shifts in power though.
As for Riley - put of masochism is control. If someone gets off in causing you pain - you control their pleasure. And he has a bit of the sadist in him as well - he enjoys killing things and justifies it since they are after all evil things. Complex character Riley. But actually agree with rest that you said.
[> [> [> [> A line from Riley I've never forgotten...... -- Rufus, 01:21:36 08/17/02 Sat
BUFFY: (looking closely) Look, there's a scar there, (pointing at ScruffyXander's forehead) and there's the same one right there. (pointing at SuaveXander's forehead)
WILLOW: It's all double. (pointing) This zit, and this ... kinda funny dippy thing. A-and this weird little hair that grows in the wrong way (pointing to ScruffyXander's nose)
ScruffyXANDER: Okay! Back off, ladies.
RILEY: Psychologically, this is fascinating. Doesn't it make everyone wanna lock them in separate rooms and do experiments on them?
Talk about control......that little statement said a whole lot about Riley to me......but the separate room bit does have some merit....you know....gotta know how people tick....;)
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:30:42 08/17/02 Sat
It's almost standard procedure for an experimental psych major. 'We have identical twins here? Great! Let's seperate them and see how much alike they really are.' Other than the first meeting with Willow and Buffy in the bookstore, it's one of the few times Riley shows he had any business being a graduate student in psychology. Yes, he does want to find out what makes them tick, but not in the same way as, say, a clinical psychology major would. Riley doesn't show that kind of personally probing interest at all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Rufus, 14:00:03 08/17/02 Sat
That wasn't really my point.....it was the fact that when he said that he established his otherness from the scoobies by referring to "Initiative" like activities....activities that would have him in a dominant position, what he was used to....and when he was forced to become an "anarchist" he was no longer in charge. That statement of his reflects his first impulses as a person and that is to take charge and dominate.....also engage in vivisection if the need be. It was done in a comedic way but what Riley had been involved with (he may not have actually participated in the experiments except unknowingly as a subject) before was experimentation in the most extreme with the least regard of life in any form. Riley was screwed because even doing what he does best as a soldier he had been a part of a "secret" experiment all along...so any power he thought he had was illusory, capped off with the fact that his teensy girlfriend could wipe up the floor with him. Makes one thing "who's on top...or was that who's on third..;)?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But Did Riley know or participate in these experiments -- shadowkat, 14:59:01 08/17/02 Sat
You're both touching on something I considered writing about on Riley and was uncertain about. Still am. In fact I wrote it my first draft and deleted it.
How much of those initiative experiments and tortures was Riley truly involved with? What we see in New Moon Rising - is Riley coming upon them torturing OZ and being somewhat taken aback by it. Now an argument can be made that Riley was ONLY taken aback when he realized it was OZ, and would have had no troubles with the torture if it had been someone he didn't know or didn't like. For instance if he had come upon them torturing and experimenting on Hostile 17/Spike. What I wrote - was that Riley got off on torturing the subterresterials and justified it because they were just animals, below par, demons, just as scientists in laboratories and cosmetic companies may justify torturing animals. I was going to argue that Riley had sadistic tendencies...but and here's the reason I deleted it - I wasn't sure if this was really true of Riley. Are we given any real evidence of his involvement with the torture and experimentation? Or is he merely the hunter/gatherer and has no real involvement with what they do with the creatures? He clearly didn't know they were experimenting on him or creating Adam?
OTOH I think it would be wonderfully ironic if he was in fact involved with the experimentation - only to discover that he is also a lab rat. Reminds a great deal of H.G. Wells Island of Dr. Moreau. The psychologist's assistant discovers he's no different than the lab rats he's hurting.
Freud's theory that the sadist can become the masochist and vice versa.
But again - I'm not sure if he was really involved or not.
I got the feeling in The I in Team, Goodbye Iowa, and New Moon Rising - that Riley didn't have much clue as to what the Government's Initiative truly was. The public has an odd view of the military - we think the solidars are robotic, follow orders and don't know the game plan, after talking to someone who is currently serving in the navy - I discovered how wrong this really is. They know. But I get the feeling ME being like the general public with no military experience (as is obviously demonstrated with their Initiative storyline) probably thinks Riley wouldn't have had a clue.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise! Please do!
sk
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But Did Riley know or participate in these experiments -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:17:26 08/17/02 Sat
I think Riley did know, and possibly even watch, the experimentations. However, he didn't try to stop Oz's torture because Oz was someone he kinda knew. It was because he saw that Oz was a human being.
While soldiers in the real military may know a lot about what's going on, chances are soldiers for an overt government conspiracy are going to be different.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He had an idea -- Rufus, 20:21:37 08/17/02 Sat
Riley as a soldier had been bagging and tagging or straight out eliminating demons....there was an exchange between Riley and Forrest that was worth looking at...
A lab-coat and another guy are leading down a horned demon.
Riley: "How do *you* explain the things we deal with, Forrest?"
Forrest: "They're just animals, man, plain and simple. Granted they're a little rarer than the one's you grew up with on that little farm in Smallville..."
The attitude towards demons was that they were animals, period...of course that's why they lost in the end because the "animals" were a shit-load more than the Initiative was capable of dealing with. They underestimated their power over the "animal" and paid for it.
Riley as a soldier was doing what many soldiers end up defending themselves for....."following orders". Riley may never have been in on the delicate needle and thread parts of the experimentation, but he was there and knew what was going on......of course as the demons are only animals he could rationalize the mistreatment. From New Moon Rising...
RILEY: No, come on. Is it that whole thing about Willow last night? (He sits on the bed.) Look, I only said what I said because I'm concerned. I don't wanna see her get hurt.
BUFFY: You sounded like Mr. Initiative. Demons bad, people good.
RILEY: Something wrong with that theorem?
(Buffy looks exasperated. She walks a few steps away.)
BUFFY: There's different degrees of-
RILEY: Evil?
BUFFY: It's just... different with different demons. There are creatures - vampires, for example -- that aren't evil at all.
RILEY: Name one.
To Riley he had been fighting against evil, the things he had done to protect the innocent..the way he was used to living. Buffy made him consider all he had learned from Maggie Walsh.
RILEY: What's the holdup? I thought Graham gave you a full description.
DOC 1: The holdup is that he described characteristics present in over 40 known varieties of demon. So we're cross-checking DNA evidence - hair, fibers-
RILEY: (impatient) And how long is that gonna take?
DOC 1: (annoyed) I have no idea.
RILEY: I don't need a bunch of tests to know that this thing's a killer.
(Takes out his gun and points it at Oz. Suddenly Oz stops growling and morphs back into his human self. Riley lowers his gun and steps back. Everyone looks surprised. Oz looks up at them panting and closing his eyes.)
(Fade to white screen.)
(Fade to Oz's perspective, lying on a table with two docs over him and many more in the background. Doc1 is on the left, shining a flashlight in his eyes. Riley is behind him.)(Shot of Oz on the table, naked and looking groggy.)
(Riley pushes forward.)
RILEY: Hey, he's coming to. Oz!
DOC 1: He won't be able to talk for a while. We gave him Haldol to keep him quiet. (Shining flashlight on Oz's teeth.)
RILEY: Why? He's not a threat now.
DOC 1: I allowed you to stay as long as you let us do our work, Agent Finn.
Only Colonel Macnamara can place a cease order on medical testing, and he's told us to proceed.
DOC 2: I always suspected that stuff about werewolf transformations being based on a lunar cycle was campfire talk. (Injects Oz with something. Oz groans.)(Riley sees the second doctor pulling out another instrument (stun gun?)
RILEY: Oh, hey, that's enough. Come on, the guy's a student, I know him.
DOC 1: (points to the other soldiers) Take him out.
COMMANDO 3: Yes sir.
(Riley looks angry, but lets the other soldiers escort him away.)(Doc 2 puts the tip of the instrument on Oz's chest and zaps him with electricity. Oz screams and turns into the werewolf.)
DOC 2: See that? Transformation related to negative stimulation. (The docs exchange a look.)
The difference between the impatient Riley and the Riley who tried to intervene in the "experiment" was knowledge...he couldn't live with torture, where just a short time before experimenting on an animal was alright..he was learning what Buffy meant by degrees of evil.
COLONEL: Being new around here, Finn, I had a look at your record and Professor Walsh's notes. Until recently, you were an exemplary soldier headed straight for the top. Then you meet this girl, this ... slayer, and suddenly you begin to exhibit signs of disloyalty. You abuse your command. But tonight... (shakes his head, squints) To release a lethal HST back into the population -
(Riley shakes his head.)
RILEY: Sir, the prisoner-
COLONEL: You will speak when I tell you to!
(Riley goes back to attention.)
COLONEL: Tomorrow I am going to institute a court-martial to investigate the extent of your involvement with the Slayer and her band of freaks. (pause) They're anarchists, Finn ... too backwards for the real world. You help us take them down, and you just might save your military career. Otherwise, you'll go to your grave labeled a traitor.
(Riley looks shocked. The Colonel turns and leaves.)
COLONEL: No woman is worth that.
Once Riley understood that the situation the government was in was far beyond their ability to deal with in the 'usual' way....he rebelled it took a bit of time and experience, but once he realized that demons were more than just animals and a Slayer more than a myth, he couldn't stay with The Initiative....the final blow, the realization that he was no more than an animal, and experiment to the woman he had respected so much, Maggie Walsh. I think everyone has the ability to become sadistic, but most of us never act upon it. Give a person power and an excuse to use it, the hidden sadist can emerge. For Riley, he was decent enough that he was capable of realizing what he was involved with had a darker side that had nothing to do with protecting the public, but just another grand plan executed at others expense. He got past just taking orders and became an anarchist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But Did Riley know or participate in these experiments -- aliera, 05:49:12 08/19/02 Mon
SK What you wrote - was that "Riley got off on torturing the subterresterials and justified it because they were just animals, below par, demons, just as scientists in labs and cosmetic companies may justify torturing animals. I was going to argue that Riley had sadistic tendencies...but and here's the reason I deleted it - I wasn't sure if this was really true of Riley. Are we given any real evidence of his involvement with the torture and experimentation? Or is he merely the hunter/gatherer and has no real involvement with what they do with the creatures? He clearly didn't know they were experimenting on him or creating Adam?"
Regarding Riley and of what does he understand and what is his level of participation in the experiments that were done on the demons by the Initiative. Firstly, a caveat, and some general remarks about Riley. There is an inherent difficulty in character analysis of the members of the Buffyverse in that they function at all times as individuals, plot devices and metaphors for other issues, and Riley's character contains this difficulty also. In other words, I have no doubt that they could have presented Riley's participation had they felt that necessary to his character development of the development of the plot and it would have been nicely ironic given his chip. But they did not. Just another note on an issue that sometimes niggles at me...even when viewed a character (not a metaphor) alone Riley's struggles in Season four and five struck me as more complicated and deeper than I have sometimes seen them regarded. He has suffered in part by being Buffy's boyfriend at a time when people were missing Angel and then further by being a representative of the metaphor for the government in a series where authority figures and institutions are usually given a negative presentation. For me, Riley was a character who had to deal with the overturning of all he had come to believe of himself, his world and his place in that world. Although the relationship with Buffy was certainly a part of his impetus for change and even the catalyst for same, it is not central to his ensuing struggle. Just as important a catalyst as the relationship I believe was the scene with Oz when Riley sees Oz's struggle for humanity. This scene is also central to some of the basics questions raised in season four about what is a man. I didn't really care about Riley replacing Angel (as we see he didn't) for me the disappointment in the character came in how Riley dealt with his issues or inevitably, failed to deal. Riley left to seek out a new but striking similar mythology and returned (AYW for certain) fully re-indoctrinated into same. He certainly serves other functions in the story; but, the possibilities inherent in his search for self in season four are well behind him.
This question of what is man led me in particular back to a book by Jamake Highwater (Myth and Sexuality), within which, if you are not familiar with it, he theorizes that our myths are derived from our views of the body and also discusses how these have shifted over time and are viewed by cultures other than our own. At certain points, he places great emphasis on the discoveries and theories of the 17th century , in particular Descartes and the vision of the universe as some cosmic Machine and then later by extension man's body as a machine (as seen in the factory workers in the Industrial Revolution) and then much later as affected by the mythology of capitalism as man's body as a commodity. It seems important to me that the Marquis was writing prior to the 17th century and that our current views are infected by the subsequent myths. The dialogue that Rufus quoted, especially the remark that equates demons with animals is revealing and evocative of Highwater's remarks on the 17th century philosophers and scientists in particular. "They administered beatings to dogs with perfect indifference and made fun of us who believed the creatures felt pain and therefore pitied them. The insisted that the animals were like clocks; that the cries they emitted when struck were only the noises of some little spring that had been triggered by the blow, but that the animal itself has absolutely no feeling" (p149 from Jean de la Fontaine's journalistic account of experiments , not sadly, one of his animal fables). Highwater believed that the experiments were representative of a set of value-loaded myths about the nature of the world that informed the beliefs of the peoples of that time and in fact still shape the comprehension of many people today. Thus terming the demons "animals" opens up a set of questions for the viewers. The question becomes more even more interesting as we incorporate Oz and then Spike into the experimental group, and culminates in our discovery of Adam, and then the chipping of Riley. But perhaps more importantly, a pattern of questioning our assumptions about the nature of what composes a man, a demon, machine was re-established (for Joss has had this in the back of his mind at other times such as IRYJ) to be built upon in both season five and six with the further exploration of the Spike character and the reintroduction of machines that substitute for people such as April and the Buffybot.
Cartesian mechanism shaped not just the viewpoint of the bodies of animals but humans. But since morality doesn't apply to machines and we like to think it does for humans he differentiated between the two by the concept of a soul, which he defined as "a spiritual agency that is not itself part of the body" or has Joss has put it "a moral compass" which can be disassociated from the body by death or infection of the vampire to the "ether". And "For the purposes of dealing with the intersection of morals and human biology, nothing has thus far replaced the Cartesian body-soul dualism."(Stent) We seem still to have this principle in operation, since despite the gains made in challenging our assumptions about demons last and this season and on Angel, Joss sent Spike to Africa in search of a soul.
Does Riley have "sadistic" tendencies was the other issue and under Highwater's theories he probably would. Highwater considers sadism as we know it today (a much different culture than the 1500's or 1700's) linked to power, dominance, violence and the body as a commodity (capitalistic sexuality). He would consider (I think) Riley's repeated exposure to violence, in our culture this is likely to happen pre-army, at least optimum conditions for emphasizing these tendencies if they did exist. He has some other things to say about sadism, which I'll add later if the discussion is still going on...late for the office again, what's new!
Jamake Highwater (Myth and Sexuality, 1990) Highwater draws on the work of Foucault, Pagels and Stent amongst others.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent post! -- Rahael, 06:50:22 08/19/02 Mon
And the whole of Season 4 showed that Maggie Walsh didn't just think that she was allowed to experiment on demons, but also on human beings. Riley was just another lab rat to spy on and study.
And as for whether Riley is a sadist or not, and the work you feed in from Highwater, it seems pertinent that Foucault, with his theories of sexuality, power and the body was into S&M himself.
Which means that, with SK's excellent essay, here is the second Foucauldian season of Buffy - because I saw Season 4 as very much an illustration of Foucault's theories. The Initiative were into dissecting, studying and gathering knowledge - and all those banks of television screens that Walsh used reminded me of Foucault's panopticon.
Another Buffy scene that reminded me of Foucault was the way that the demon bikers tore apart the Buffybot - since that's very similar to the anecdote with which Foucault starts off his seminal 'Discipline and Punish', where a traitor to the French Crown was torn part by horsemen, as a grisly display of the power of the Crown. Foucault then contrasts this with the much more sophisticated and modern punishment of the prison/panopticon, where we are made to think that someone could *always* be watching us and our actions, even if they aren't. And the mere fact of this knowledge shapes our behaviour.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree was truly excellent, both are here -- shadowkat, 08:55:32 08/19/02 Mon
Thank you for the above points which lend themselves
very well to part II of my essay. Unfortunately I haven't read much Foucault. But as for S&M, I'd say Season 3 was probably one of the most explicit with Faith/Angel and
Faith/Buffy.
I was reading an archive from February when OAFA first aired and someone posted on the S&M images in season 3 with Faith and how Faith was often very sadistic in her behavior towards Angel, Xander and others. I'll be discussing this in more depth in PArt II of course...but having not read foucault myself - I'm interested in how much what he has to say would fit with Faith's behavior.
What interests me is how we justify our sadistic tendencies by dehumanizing those we take them out on. Several characters, that I would term "good", in Btvs do this. If they be demons? It's okay if I abuse. Just as the demons who are evil - consider the Buffbot a toy and therefore no problem to tear apart - although I sincerely doubt they would have had a problem tearing apart Buffy either. But there's another thing you reminded me of - the SG's abandonment of Buffbot and the fact that Spike (a demon) was the only one outside of Dawn who was truly upset by what happened or saw her as more than just a "loss" or toy.
Btvs and Ats keep bringing up the idea that if something does not have a "soul" it is not worth saving, it should be slain. If it does have the "Cartesian idea of the soul"
than we shouldn't kill it, it has a choice and can be saved.
(Consequences, Disharmony, Villains, Sancturary, Trial)
Oh and thanks for the compliment on my essay, Rah!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree was truly excellent, both are here -- yabyumpan, 06:50:11 08/20/02 Tue
shadowkat wrote:
"What interests me is how we justify our sadistic tendencies by dehumanizing those we take them out on. Several characters, that I would term "good", in Btvs do this. If they be demons? It's okay if I abuse."
Totally agree and the opposite is also true. I was struck by what Lorne said to Angel in 'Forgiving' about torturing Linwood
Lorne: "Angel - this isn't some slimy demon you got trussed up here. He's human (glances at Linwood) marginally, but still..."
Implying that if Linwood was a 'slimey demon', torturing him would be ok and this was said by a 'demon'. I found it quite disturbing that someone like Lorne, who is definatly one of the 'good guys' even though he's a demon, seems to consider demons (and by implication, himself), as lesser beings than humans, even humans who think it's ok to dissect babies! It made me feel very sad for Lorne but it also touches on the whole 'specism' argument. Humans are automatically superior to demons even though we've been shown time and again that there are demons who are far more 'moral' than a lot of the humans on the shows, esp on AtS.
(quote from Psyche's site)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Panopticon -- Sophist, 09:12:17 08/19/02 Mon
The notion and the term originated with Bentham. He campaigned for prisons as a replacement for executions, but some of his notions of prison seem a little chilling today.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 09:34:26 08/19/02 Mon
I did know that once, but had forgotten it completely. I should have made it clear that when I said "Foucault's Panopticon" I didn't mean that he'd invented it, but "the Panopticon that Foucault discussed and theorised". The fact that Bentham meant it to be an alternative to executions ties into Foucault's theories - the modern state is
a) more effective/less grisly
b) but still acts as a method of control, albeit a more sophisticated means.
You are right, still chilling in its own way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! -- aliera, 12:55:52 08/19/02 Mon
I came across a Fourcault essay by accident looking for essays on 'Donkeyskin' or maybe it was the one on countertransference (searching leaves me with a feeling of the landscape passing by in a blur). I think I would have liked him; he sounds somewhat like myself, a social critic who doesn't argue pro or con sso I've googled and I'll try to read a bit more tonight.
Highwater is a little different than what I'm used to but also interesting; I'm dancing along through the (a reference he would have liked)through the work and then there's a reference to Selby's Last Exit to Brooklyn that's going to be with me for a while (that's what I get for assiduously avoiding all the SR threads the Fates wap me up the side of the head with it anyway)...but I like that he envisioned a couple of different ways for myth to go...and although he's very limited on what he chose as impact points, the very fact that he limits himself makes the book very easy to read. Also whereas the Campbell I read shows the points in common, H uses other cultures as contrast, to expand the possibilities and show that where we are headed doesn't have to be so linear...there are interesting sideroads also.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great subthread ! -- Ete, 03:50:43 08/20/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- anom, 21:58:26 08/19/02 Mon
"That statement of his reflects his first impulses as a person and that is to take charge and dominate.....also engage in vivisection if the need be."
I don't see it that way. I think he's speaking as a psych major here, not as an Initiative soldier. I'm going to use the same quote Rufus did, but emphasize a different part:
"Psychologically, this is fascinating. Doesn't it make everyone wanna lock them in separate rooms and do experiments on them?"
He makes it explicit: he's interested in the psychological differences. Those are the kind that would require separating the 2 Xanders (so he won't be a bad influence on himself!). Physical differences will be the same even if they're in the same room. It's the physical similarities that are already being pointed out, but Riley departs from that line of conversation to bring up the psychological. And I think vivisection is a real leap--Riley's demeanor when he says this is entirely different from the attitude he shows when it comes to how the "STH's" are treated. He shows no interested in experimenting on the werewolf who turns out to be Oz--he's ready to shoot him on the spot (& compare his expression in that scene to the one in the double-Xander scene). I don't even think he looks/sounds like he's trying to dominate when he makes the comment Rufus quotes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Rufus, 15:00:07 08/25/02 Sun
Really.......up until he was faced with a 'demon' he had gotten to know as a man, Riley was pretty much onboard with what had to be done to protect civillians. The thing is we won't know exactly how involved he ever was in the knife and fork area of experimentation. The irony is that the whole time Riley thought he was in control, he was actually a victim much like the captured demons that were experimented upon. Just as he finds that some demons have more in common with regular folk, he finds out that Maggie Walsh had treated him like one of her experiments....he lost everything he knew and trusted....the Initiative, his mentor, and with a chip inside, his freedom. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be a nice guy in the Buffyverse...;)
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks ponygirl gave me fodder for part II -- Miss Edith, 07:55:01 08/17/02 Sat
Angel was pretty sadistic with Darla in season 2 of Ats. The network people were concerned that it was too similiar to rape and insisted that Angel slapping Darla was cut. Angel was certainly aggresive in that sexual encounter. We don't have much evidence of his true sexual desires with a soul as his encounter with Buffy would have been gentle and vanilla as she was a virgin that he would have wanted to protect.
Angel was usually in control with Buffy I felt. In early season 2 she is desperate for a relationship and he keeps her hanging. She is particularly frustrated in Reptile Boy and of course it ends with Angel asking for a date and Buffy shifting the power balance by saying she'll let him know and walking off with a confident smile. So Angel controlling the relationship obviously bothered her. Indeed throughout season 1 Angel was the mysterious stranger who appeared when it suited him and the relationship was very much on his terms.
And of course it was Angel who insisted on ending the relationship because he wanted what was best for Buffy in an almost fatherly way. He brushed aside her statement that she would never have a normal life and she chose to be with Angel. The series goes on to show through Buffy's relationship with Riley and her early death that she may have had the right idea in rejecting a normal life and could have been happier spending her limited life span with Angel. Again in IWRY Angel makes the decision for them both to call an end to the relationship. Even though Buffy is the stronger of the two in that episode he tries to fight alone and take on the dominant alpha male position instead of letting Buffy take care of the demons which is her job.
Whether we call it a protective instinct or a desire to conrol there is certainly a suggestion that Angel likes to be in charge of his romantic relationships. Of course Angleous (the dark and hidden side of Angel) delighted in torture and controlling Dru thorugh pain and fear. He later tries this tactic with Buffy. First he humiliates and coldly rejects her. He then takes pleasure in terroorising and punishing her.
When Angel was imitating Angelous in Enemies he and Faith struggle for the dominant position roughly throwing each other around the room. He seemed to respect Faith as an equal partner. Again with Darla the power balance seemed equal. They seemed to enjoy torturing others rather than each other, though I have no doubt that their sexual encounters could be fairly rough and brutal.
And Riley did work at the iniative in which demons were seen locked up in tiny cages, cruelly experimented on and controlled with laser blasters etc. Had to have an effect on his world view and his need to control.
Dru was a maschosist who delighted in true pain, rather than bondage with a safety word. She is never satisfied with Spike because he is less cruel than daddy. She is seen begging Angel to spank her in Reunion and in Innocence she mentions how much Angel had hurt her with a coy smile. Of course she is happy to return pain following what Angelous taught her. This is illustrated particularly in Whats My Line when she tortures Angel calling him a bad dog and in Crush when she suggests to Spike that they tie Buffy up and play with her. She is even seen playing sadistic games with her dolls such as blindfolding them and inflicting twisted punishments such as removing their eyes.
VampWillow isn't seen desiring pain herself as far as I remember. She is shown time and time again loving to hurt others. She is shown to be almost sexually arosed when punishing Angel and when coming to our reality she breaks the fingers of her vamp minions and says she will make the world fun again. Our Willow shows similar sexual pleasure in torture IMO. In Villians she slowly penatrates Warren's chest with a bullet with a strong parallel to rape. She delights in his agony and finally skins him with a cold "bored now" linking with her vampire self whose sexual needs could be met with torture.
I am also looking forward to part 2 of your interesting post. Sorry about getting a bit long-winded here.
[> [> [> Very interresting and on trust... -- Etrangere, 03:44:33 08/18/02 Sun
I've talked about S6 and B/S whith someone i would consider as a SM specialist (he's involved in a whole spectre of SM aesthetics arts, he's got a website translated in english if anyone's interrested). He doesn't watch much of the show, or in background. I told him about Dead Things and the way the handcuff etc. were used to discuss the issues of trust. His first reaction was, yes, but in SM there is the trust in the relationship with safe words etc., but then there's the matter of faithfulness. That was before I told him about the Spanya incident and Hell's Bells ho biscuit.
I think that might explain some of Buffy's reaction regarding Spike. She doesn't not seem to be the most hurt by the most violent or unethical act of Spike, wether the Demon eggs or even the AR. What seems to affect her the most is when Spike is unfaithful, (out of control ?) when he leaves her in all the senses.
[> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- shadowkat, 08:05:31 08/18/02 Sun
"His first reaction was, yes, but in SM there is the trust in the relationship with safe words etc., but then there's the matter of faithfulness. That was before I told him about the Spanya incident and Hell's Bells ho biscuit.
I think that might explain some of Buffy's reaction regarding Spike. She doesn't not seem to be the most hurt by the most violent or unethical act of Spike, wether the Demon eggs or even the AR. What seems to affect her the most is when Spike is unfaithful, (out of control ?) when he leaves her in all the senses."
(Thanks for website by the way) While agree that demon eggs
and AR could be seen as violent and unethical and out of control. I'm not sure I can agree with the ho-biscut in HB or Spanya incidents. She broke up with him in AYW. Let him know she could never love him. That it wasn't real for her.
And he had to move on. As Anya tells Xander -"We were no longer together. That was for some comfort." While bringing the date to the wedding may have been an overt attempt to make her jealous and is a bit too soon after, he regrets it, leaves and makes it clear that he won't sleep with the girl after all. But Spanya was neither planned nor did he intend on her seeing it - that was comfort sex and having been in the Buffy position myself in the past - I don't see how she can hold it against him. They weren't committed to each other. She more or less told him she didn't have feelings for him. That they'd never be together. That he had to move on. In Entropy - I felt Buffy was actually in the wrong. You don't tell someone to move on, that is over than when they attempt to do it, but sleeping with or being with someone else - than act like they are being unfaithful.
If they were still together - yeah it would have been "unfaithful". But they'd been broken up for awhile and he was clearly struggling with it more than she was.
I was actually very surprised he came and apologized to her
regarding it. When I experienced it - the guy did NOT apologize. He fluffed it off as we were independent agents now and I have to say - he was right. You can't expect an ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend that you've dumped to remain faithful to you. Was Buffy faithful to Angel after he dumped her in Season 4? I seem to remember a lot of hot sex with Riley.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- shadowkat, 08:15:46 08/18/02 Sun
Oops sorry for the typos in that one and oh meant "sex" with Riley (not necessarily hot) as well as the scene with PArker which Spike uses against Angel in another episode.
I think ME may have meant for the scene in Entropy to be read the way you read it...but it just didn't work for me that way, based partly on my own personal experience as well as past btvs. ats episodes. What's interesting is the people who are most upset by Spanya, Buffy and Xander - in the past acted far worse. Xander cheated with Willow while he was still dating Cordy not after they'd broken up or after she'd hurt him. Buffy dated Scott Hope while she was nursing Angel - basically two-timing both of them.
And went to visit and help Angel while she was supposedly with Riley. Also flirted with and let Dracula bite her while she was dating Riley - which was one of the reasons Riley started to drift away. In Entropy first thing that went through my head when B/X got so upset was well- karma.
I felt more for Spike/Anya...can you imagine finding out that people had seen your one night stand comfort sex on video cameras? ick.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually I agree :) -- Etrangere, 03:19:49 08/19/02 Mon
I don't think that Buffy had any right to morally blame Spike for those points. I was merely pointing that it was that, the ho biscuit, spanya and him leaving town, that seemed to hurt her the more, by contrast with acts that could really be seen as more "evil".
And all those are matter of unfaithfulness, maybe not in the perspective of the romantic (?) relationship, that was broken by Buffy in AYW, but in the perspective of the relationship where Spike was supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness etc. All points that fit the SM aspect of their relationship. (Hum ? Am I clear ?)
In fact all those points were showing a Spike that was less in the control of Buffy.
In other word, hurting each others ? not a big deal in their SM relationship, but getting out of the ties that bind them together in pain, that hurts in a whole other plan.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I see to Ete and agree Atremis -- shadowkat, 05:32:48 08/19/02 Mon
"And all those are matter of unfaithfulness, maybe not in the perspective of the romantic (?) relationship, that was broken by Buffy in AYW, but in the perspective of the relationship where Spike was supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness etc. All points that fit the SM aspect of their relationship. (Hum ? Am I clear ?)
In fact all those points were showing a Spike that was less in the control of Buffy.
In other word, hurting each others ? not a big deal in their SM relationship, but getting out of the ties that bind them together in pain, that hurts in a whole other plan."
I see now. Yes I agree. I got the feeling she was more upset by the fact that she wasn't in control of him than the actual AR scene or the demon eggs as well.
And the reason she makes the comment "YEah like that's going to help" to Dawn in Grave
when she suggests hunting a way to Spike's crypt, is because he left her.
He had always been faithful. Like a dependable leashed dog that she could order around. His date with the ho-biscuit, which she's still able to get him to drop was the first break in the chain, the second break is Spanya, which he apologizes for, the third and unexpected break is his actions after the AR scene - the fact he leaves. Up until that point, Buffy was the controlling agent. She barged into his crypt, she beat him up, she accused him of things, she used him to protect or babysit Dawn....the AR scene
broke the cycle - causing him to leave and from Buffy's pov possibly permanently. It's ironic in a sense - his act of violence towards her - is the final break in the leash that
she's had him on or the Mistress/Servant relationship.
And I agree with Atremis' pt. that it was because it was one of her friends. I think that's probably true and certainly what she says to him.
Although it seems very odd to me that she's angrier at Spike than Anya since according to Buffy's own moral doctrine: Spike has no soul, so no choice but to do evil, Anya has a soul and lots of choice. But than Buffy
never worried that much about what Anya did and well, she may be more understanding of that since Anya was stood up at a wedding.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As I said below, Anya didn't know of Spuffy at the time -- Dochawk, 10:59:59 08/20/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As I said below, Anya didn't know of Spuffy at the time -- Dochawk, 11:01:03 08/20/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Malandanza, 23:26:00 08/20/02 Tue
"I don't think that Buffy had any right to morally blame Spike for those points. I was merely pointing that it was that, the ho biscuit, spanya and him leaving town, that seemed to hurt her the more, by contrast with acts that could really be seen as more "evil"."
I agree that Buffy was more upset by Spike having sex with Anya and bringing the goth girl to the wedding (we don't know whether or not he had sex with her afterwards) than the genuinely evil things he's done. But for the people who claim Buffy (and Xander) had no right to be upset, I'd also agree and say that's not really the point. We've seen:
Xander jealous about Oz/Willow when he's dating Cordelia and jealous of Buffy/Angel
Willow jealous about Xander/Cordelia and Xander/Faith when she's dating Oz; jealous of Tara even though they have broken up when she sees Tara kiss another girl in NA
Spike jealous of B/R to the extent that he helps break them apart and Jealous of Dru/Angel back in Season Two
Angel hurt by Buffy/Riley when Faith accidentally mentions Riley
Riley had to be hurt by seeing Spike in bed with Buffy, regardless of how brave a front he put up
None of these people had any claim over the object of their jealousies -- they were involved in other relationships or the relationship had clearly ended. It still felt like a betrayal for every one of them. Buffy being hurt by Spike and Anya on her own behalf makes sense -- not everyone can be as gracious as Angel was about Groo and Cordy -- but I do think she was more angry, and felt more betrayed, because Spike used their relationship to hurt Xander. She came there to stop Xander from doing anything he might regret, not to scold Spike for faithlessness. Buffy will take any amount of abuse and degradation -- she doesn't believe she deserves any better -- but hurt her family, and there's no quarter. I think that Spuffy ended that night, when Spike betrayed Buffy's friiend -- it wasn't about the sex.
I also disagree with the whole Spike as a sex slave theory -- with Buffy as the dominant, sadistic partner in their relationship and Spike "supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness". Spike is more sexually experienced than Buffy (who has two one-night stands and a long term relationship with Riley "Missionary Man" Finn while Spike has a century of bondage games with Dru, Harmony and probably a few others). And remember, Buffy was the one with chafed wrists after their handcuff fun. Spike certainly is dedicated to her happiness -- in OaFA and NA she begs him to leave her alone, she later tells him that the relationship is killing her. Had he genuinely wanted what was best for Buffy, he would have stepped aside long ago or continued as the platonic confidante that she needed after her rebirth. Spike is dedicated to his own pleasure and always ready to serve himself -- if Buffy must suffer for him to get what he wants, so be it. And Buffy, the masochist, takes all the abuse (psychological as well as physical) that he gives her and only rarely has enough self-esteem to fight back.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Etrangere, 04:47:58 08/21/02 Wed
"None of these people had any claim over the object of their jealousies -- they were involved in other relationships or the relationship had clearly ended. It still felt like a betrayal for every one of them."
You have every right to feel upset by whatever you want. Actually since most people do not exactly control what they feel, you cannot be hold responsible for what you feel (only for how you act about those feelings). There's a difference between having a right to be upset and jealous because of what someone does and blaming this someone for what he does, saying one is responsible for the pain you feel.
"but I do think she was more angry, and felt more betrayed, because Spike used their relationship to hurt Xander. She came there to stop Xander from doing anything he might regret, not to scold Spike for faithlessness."
Errr... that Spike used their relationship to hurt Xander is a matter of interpretation. Other people (me included) think more that it was to defend Anya. I think one can argue for either possibilities.
As for Buffy, didn't she say something like "didn't take you long" in Entropy ? And "try not sleeping with my friend ?" (though I agree with Doc and Artemis that there is more delicate moves to do than sleeping with a friend of your ex and that was certainly a big part of Buffy's hurt if not all of it)
"I also disagree with the whole Spike as a sex slave theory -- with Buffy as the dominant, sadistic partner in their relationship and Spike "supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness"."
That comment didn't refer to the sexual relationship in particular, but more to the aspect where he helps her slaying etc out of love for her (or to get into her bed, if you want)
"Spike is more sexually experienced than Buffy (who has two one-night stands and a long term relationship with Riley "Missionary Man" Finn while Spike has a century of bondage games with Dru, Harmony and probably a few others). And remember, Buffy was the one with chafed wrists after their handcuff fun."
So what ? Try to reread some of this messages, there is a great deal of a certain form of power by being the submissive one. Experience has nothing to do with it. More often than not, Buffy was the one initiating the sex (I think the only exceptions we were shown were the infamous Bronze sex scene and the Tree one in As You Were), she was the one setting the rules and the boundaries (don't tell my friends, not in my house etc.), and she was the one claiming for a superiority from moral upground. That seems enough to me to claim that Buffy had the dominant part in the relationship, no ?
"Spike certainly is dedicated to her happiness -- in OaFA and NA she begs him to leave her alone, she later tells him that the relationship is killing her."
Nope she's saying that using him is killing her. 'Cause Buffy is a moral girl.
" Had he genuinely wanted what was best for Buffy, he would have stepped aside long ago or continued as the platonic confidante that she needed after her rebirth."
Deciding what is best for someone is hard to determine, and I hardly think everyone thinks it's the same. Spike obviously though (with or without self-denial) that their relationship was helping Buffy feeling more alive etc.
Besides the image of Spike "dedicaced to her happiness" was more of an ideal image that Spike as a romantist hold than a reality. I think he tries to make her happy, anyway, but yes sometimes he can blind himself to what he do not want to see. It's a complex matter where several drives are in action.
" Spike is dedicated to his own pleasure and always ready to serve himself -- if Buffy must suffer for him to get what he wants, so be it. And Buffy, the masochist, takes all the abuse (psychological as well as physical) that he gives her and only rarely has enough self-esteem to fight back."
Though I dislike with this vision of Spike, I think you've got a point with Buffy. She sometimes atc within her relationship with Spike as if she wanted to degrade herself, or punish herself for being degraded (wrong ?). But does that mean she let Spike be the one in control of their relationship ? I don't see that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Malandanza, 09:24:57 08/21/02 Wed
"So what ? Try to reread some of this messages, there is a great deal of a certain form of power by being the submissive one.
I'm not sure if you're saying that Buffy was submissive sexually, but in control of the relationship or that Spike was submissive but in control. Since Spike has been portrayed as the sexually submissive party in most of these posts, I'll assume it's the latter.
I tend to think of the person with the power in the non-sexual part of the relationship as being the dominant sex partner, but, of course, this is not always the case. In fact, a deliberate role reversal, with the normally submissive partner in control (or, at least, having the illusion of control) certainly isn't unheard of. So Spike could be the submissive partner in the bedroom yet still be the puppetmaster in the relationship. The beating in Dead Things supports the interpretation that Spike is submissive, but uses his submission to gain power. Spike is in control of the beating -- he can stop it any time he wishes, yet uses the beating to extend his control over Buffy. She leaves the alley dwelling on his parting "you always hurt the one you love" line, and, as evident by her quick connection of Katrina to Warren, believes Spike (and overidentifies once more).
"Experience has nothing to do with it. More often than not, Buffy was the one initiating the sex (I think the only exceptions we were shown were the infamous Bronze sex scene and the Tree one in As You Were), she was the one setting the rules and the boundaries (don't tell my friends, not in my house etc.), and she was the one claiming for a superiority from moral upground. That seems enough to me to claim that Buffy had the dominant part in the relationship, no?"
However, I don't think there is any real evidence that Buffy is a sadist or dominatrix in the bedroom. I can recall three instances of Buffy initiating sex -- in Smashed, Gone and AYW. In addition to the times you mention where Spike initiates contact, there was the alley in DMP and a couple of scenes where a sudden intrusion by one of Buffy's friends ends a high pressure unwanted sexual advance (where Buffy is pressed up against a wall) in OaFA and Gone. While both Buffy and Spike initiate sex, I'm not sure that tells us anything about who is in control once the sex begins. As for setting the rules -- do you really think that Buffy would have staked Spike if he had bragged to her friends about their tryst? I doubt Spike believed her -- the threat was empty. Well, not entirely empty -- it made it clear to Spike that he had control over Buffy. He could threaten to tell her friends (and such a threat pushed her into her fantasy world in NA). Whatever boundaries Buffy set were cheerfully ignored by Spike -- she says no sex in her house and tells him not to tell her friends, but in OaFA at Buffy's birthday party in her house filled with her friends he accosts her in the hallway. Buffy has no real control over Spike, in spite of all his rhetoric to the contrary. In AYW, she reveals that she can't even get him to shut up.
As for the sex, I do think that experience matters. A sexually unsophisticated partner, no matter how enthusiastic, is less likely to be in control in sexual situation than is a jaded hedonist. I also question just how aberrant the sex acts between Buffy and Spike really were. In Gone when Xander intrudes on Spike's "naked exercising" the sex looked pretty tame. Now if Xander had found Spike tied spread-eagled on his bed with a gag in his mouth and a disembodied whip (or vial of holy water/crucifix) floating above his head, perhaps a case for BDS&M with Buffy dominant could be made. However, the only reference to bondage we've seen is the handcuffs -- which implied that Buffy was the one in chains, not the other way around. Most telling about who has the control in the relationship, sexual or otherwise, is Buffy's tearful confession to Tara at the end of Dead Things:
Buffy starts to cry, the emotions she's been desperately holding in finally spilling out.
BUFFY (cont'd): Why do I feel like this? Why do Ilet Spike do those things to me?
TARA: You mean hit you?
Buffy's shame is overwhelming. She can't even look at Tara. Tara starts to understand.
TARA (cont'd) Oh. (really getting it) Oh. Really?
BUFFY: He's everything I hate. Everything I'm supposed to be against. But the only time I feel anything is when we... Don't tell anyone. Please.
If Buffy is in control, she sure doesn't realize it. Sex with Spike was never about power or control for Buffy -- it began as an escape and ended with her struggling to break Spike's control over her life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Miss Edith, 14:01:09 08/22/02 Thu
Buffy was in denial. She wanted to believe she wasn't in control of her choices. She wanted to see herself as having come back wrong in Smashed so she was free to behave as she liked. When she discovered the truth she wanted to know why someone morally superior like her could degrade herself by having sex with a "disgusting thing". She wasn't taking responsibilitiy for her choices. Buffy didn't exactly get off on the power or dominance. But I would say that she did use Spike and the relationship was on her terms.
In DT Spike says that after sex Buffy usually kicks him in the head and runs out after making scornful remarks about his morality. He is thrilled that she is interested in talking. He lays his feelings on the line and says "are we having a conversation...do you even like me".
And in OAFA Buffy threatens to beat Spike up again and looks at him with a frozen and empty expresion when he asked if she was going to beat him again. Not even a twinge of guilt. She wanted to punish Spike for even mentioning the beating. And threatening to kill someone if they reveal your sexual affair is pretty strong stuff. Spike did not know it was an empty threat as Buffy does despise him and she does slay souless vampires. She could very well have tried to justify staking him as a moral decision because of his lack of a soul and his past. She had made it clear any good he had done meant nothing to her "there is nothing good or clean in you". In Spike's place I would have taken her threat pretty seriously as she was constantly trying to classifiy him as beneath her and just a "thing". And if someone thought of me as a thing they could almost do what they liked to me as I am jsut a thing and don't really matter.
Spike did make sexual advances in Gone and OAFA because he was confident with the sexual side of the relationship. That was all Buffy would allow the two of them to have together. Spike's threats to tell the scoobies in Entropy were pretty pathetic and only served to make him look weak. He was degrading himself by begging and did not come across as the strong partner. Rather he was falling apart. Begging someone to have sex with you or you'll tell is not an assertive position to be in. Spike kept quiet about the relationship in HB and I don't think he was ever planning to use the affair to blackmail Buffy. He was desperate when he told Buffy that but still when drunk he was careful not to mention Buffy's name to Anya. Spike likes to think of himself as a gentleman and only told of the affair when Xander called Anya sick for lowering herself by sleeping with him and Buffy just stood aside and watched. Spike had made it clear he had affection for Anya and I believe he honestly wanted to protect her. But I am the type of person inclined to see the good in people so I may be totally off-track. That's just how the scene came across to me personally.
In Entropy Spike makes no attempt to defend himself against Xander. He is essentially broken and when Buffy confronts him about Anya he has no snarky reply whatsoever. I would see him as very much a victim of the relationship. He says in SR that Buffy should have let Xander kill him. And when talking with Anya he claims to have done everything to try and make Buffy happy and how he was just an "evil souless thing acording to some people".
Of course Buffy was just as much a victim as Spike. Due to him lacking a soul he was clearly not the right partner for her. I believe his love was genuine but in trying to make her happy he wanted her to accept the darkness that he wanted to believe was within her. It is not until NA that he finally accepts that Buffy is not addicted to darkness but to misery. IMO Spike was portrayed as a beaten puppy all season trailing after Buffy for approval and trying to turn on her, do anything for love and attention. The relationship was doomed and not good for either party. But I just can't see Spike as the one with the power in the relationship. I just look at scenes in which Buffy coldly expresse her disgust for him and he takes it and comes back for more. He essentially agrees with her assesment that he is incapable of goodness and is condemned to being evil without a soul. Buffy was not deliberately abusing him. DT did conform that in a way. And she did show concern for Spike in HB. But she did use him all the same. They were both in bad places and I am not trying to say one was more right than the other. Just that I don't personally feel that the relationship was ever on Spike's terms. He might have tried to get Buffy to enjoy "rolling in the dirt" but that doesn't mean he was in control. Especially as when making that comment in Wrecked he also says he is dirt. He came from a different moral place sure. But not a more assertive one IMO.
I believe the reason he made his choices was because he had nothing without Buffy. Spike is a person who needs to be loved and have a girlfriend to worship. He spend over 100 years putting up with Dru's cheating, her insanity and her preference for Angelous. You can see his frustrated face whenever she dreamily sighs "Angel". In the same way Buffy made her contempt clear for Spike in front of Riley when she smacks him around and tells Riley she can never get Spike to shut up. I would see that as a poor reflection on Buffy wanting her boyfriend to shut up and do as he was told. Not a way of showing that Spike was in control because he wouldn't shut up. He was the annoying niggling puppy looking for approval in my eyes. Spike saw Buffy at the end of ATW and was willing to have sex with her all the same even whilst suspecting she might be thinking of Riley. Not only does she she side with Riley, she also mentions Angel in a favourable light. Spike will do anything to be with her and puts up with what she offers. I still think he showed zero self-esteem in being prepared to sleep with Buffy even after her behaviour in front of Riley. She specifically says 2I'm using you" and he states he's not complaining.
Spike's relationship with Dru was in a way his ideal. He isn't interested in equality. He wanted to worship his "princess". And he wanted Buffy to treat him as a "willing slave". He craved friendly communication and love. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a bleeding heart but I feel for Spike being essentially alone in life. I don't think any of us can quite realise just how hard it must have been for him living alone in a crypt knowing he was despised by everyone who knows him. In Afterlife he is almost crying when he tells Xander he deserves some respect as "I worked along side you all summer". Yes he could be a pain and yes he did not always treat Buffy correctly. But I do think Buffy was the one with the power in the relationship, regardless of SPike's questionable morality and attempts to drag Buffy into the dirt with him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well -- Ete, 10:54:47 08/23/02 Fri
This is hard to answer, you make very good points.
Since Spike has been portrayed as the sexually submissive party in most of these posts, I'll assume it's the latter.
And you're right :)
The beating in Dead Things supports the interpretation that Spike is submissive, but uses his submission to gain power. Spike is in control of the beating -- he can stop it any time he wishes, yet uses the beating to extend his control over Buffy. She leaves the alley dwelling on his parting "you always hurt the one you love" line, and, as evident by her quick connection of Katrina to Warren, believes Spike (and overidentifies once more).
This is a good expemple of more or less what I mean
However, I don't think there is any real evidence that Buffy is a sadist or dominatrix in the bedroom.
apart form the violence in Smashed, Gone, suggered in DT (in the teaser) and other instances, it is true we have very little idea of true sadism / masochism being displayed in the sex.
In addition to the times you mention where Spike initiates contact, there was the alley in DMP
I though then that it was Buffy who initiated Spike. He was around, but it doesn't seem to me that he was there for sex. Just my interpretation offcourse.
and a couple of scenes where a sudden intrusion by one of Buffy's friends ends a high pressure unwanted sexual advance (where Buffy is pressed up against a wall) in OaFA and Gone.
In both those times it seems to me that though Spike is the one pressuring (fighting for dominance in the relationship), Buffy with or without the intrusion of her friends was saying no (keeping the dominance)
While both Buffy and Spike initiate sex, I'm not sure that tells us anything about who is in control once the sex begins.
Good point. And then again there is control and control.
As for setting the rules -- do you really think that Buffy would have staked Spike if he had bragged to her friends about their tryst?
No, but it doesn't matter. The wording of the rules alone is an exhibition of power (because she knows that Spike will obey her - as he does until he doesn't get what he wanted in the relationship)
Buffy has no real control over Spike, in spite of all his rhetoric to the contrary. In AYW, she reveals that she can't even get him to shut up.
Come on ! Do you really think Buffy has no control, no influence on Spike ? In the end (Normal Again, Entropy, Seeing Red), yes she has not anymore much control on him, but at the beginning of the relationship (end of S5, beginning of S6) it is clear that he does whatever she says. He may complain, he may snark and try to push her in other roads, but in the end he does whatever she says.
As for the sex, I do think that experience matters. A sexually unsophisticated partner, no matter how enthusiastic, is less likely to be in control in sexual situation than is a jaded hedonist.
Well if I compare with my own experiences I think you might be wrong. I'm not someone very sexually experienced, in relationship with someone who was in love with me while I was not (an error I will not commit again) and despite he had more sexual experience and confidence than me, it was clear I was the one in control of the relationship.
I also question just how aberrant the sex acts between Buffy and Spike really were.
aberrant ? What does that mean ?
How does it relate to SM ?
In Gone when Xander intrudes on Spike's "naked exercising" the sex looked pretty tame.
True enough. Yet, there is multiple indications and allusions to the sex being very violent.
However, the only reference to bondage we've seen is the handcuffs -- which implied that Buffy was the one in chains, not the other way around.
Yet in her dream Spike was the one being chained.
If Buffy is in control, she sure doesn't realize it. Sex with Spike was never about power or control for Buffy -- it began as an escape and ended with her struggling to break Spike's control over her life.
Because she finds in Spike the only person who accepts her whatever she is now, with whom she can be violent without having to refrain (the way anytime she hugs someone she hurts them), who worships the ground she walks on etc.
No one is saying that Buffy is the kind of sadist that enjoys seeing people suffer etc. This is only about sexual fantasms.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Getting his "stones" back -- Malandanza, 21:02:10 08/23/02 Fri
"No one is saying that Buffy is the kind of sadist that enjoys seeing people suffer etc. This is only about sexual fantasms."
I think this thread has been about Buffy as a sadist -- gaining sexual pleasure by torturing masochistic Spike. Shadowkat's initial definitions were pretty clear and Buffy was immediately afterwards identified as a sadist. I'd label their sexual relationship as abusive rather than Sadomasochistic. In other areas of their relationship, however, both seem to be addicted to the misery.
"Come on ! Do you really think Buffy has no control, no influence on Spike ? In the end (Normal Again, Entropy, Seeing Red), yes she has not anymore much control on him, but at the beginning of the relationship (end of S5, beginning of S6) it is clear that he does whatever she says. He may complain, he may snark and try to push her in other roads, but in the end he does whatever she says."
Spike may obey the letter of her commands (barely), but passive-aggressive guy certainly violates the spirit. In no sense would I describe his behavior as obedient.
Prior to the beginning of the sexual relationship, I do agree that Buffy had power over Spike (as you and Miss Edith point out). But the balance of power changed dramatically in Wrecked:
SPIKE (cont'd) Well, forget it. Things changed last night. I'm done being your whipping boy.
It was "a bloody revelation," Spike got his "stones back" (as much as symbol of power as Warren's orbs). From that point, Spike was in control of the sexual relationship. Spike struts about naked while Buffy "hide[s] [her] blushing eyes" or flees with her "virtue fluttering". Buffy is huddled on her bed with a crucifix in her hand at the end of the episode. The power is Spike's.
Now, in the non-sexual relationship, Buffy has the power. She seeks to exclude Spike from any part of her normal life when a word from her would make him (and their relationship) accepted by her friends. I see much of Season Six as a struggle between Buffy, who seeks to regain control over her nighttime life, and Spike, who seeks to extend his control to Buffy's daytime life.
In judging who has the sexual power in the relationship, I think Gone is the most important episode. This is Buffy at her most liberated, least inhibited, most powerful sexually -- and their sexcapades are at their least unorthodox (they even have sex in the bed). Buffy is even the one who's kicked out at the end (well, after servicing Spike).
So what happened? Riley. Her ex-boyfriend caught her in bed with Spike and the world didn't end. In fact, Riley was far more understanding (in spite of being goaded by Spike, and having permission to kill the doctor) than Willow or Xander. He accepted her, no questions asked. With the fear of discovery diminished, a reminder that Spike really is a bad guy and boost to her self-confidence from Riley's parting speech (something she doesn't get from Spike), Buffy begins to regain control of her private life. Spike belatedly realizes that his control has slipped and tells Buffy that he would, after all, be satisfied with a purely sexual relationship ("really not complaining here").
So in HB, NA, and Entropy, the control is Buffy's. In SR, Spike makes one more attempt to gain control with the AR. Since the only time he had control over Buffy was when they were having sex, the AR isn't surprising. He may even have been right about "making her love him" -- she may well have slipped back under his control after the rape.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Arethusa, 04:58:54 08/21/02 Wed
"And Buffy, the masochist, takes all the abuse (psychological as well as physical) that he gives her and only rarely has enough self-esteem to fight back."
I think Buffy has been trying to punish herself ever since her mother died. The Slayer, the great hero, panicked when her mother died, and didn't save her, as she told Angel after the funeral. Her subsequent "suicide," and perhaps her deep depresseion after she died, could also partly stem from guilt. Also, her inability to look at Dawn, who kept begging Buffy to really "see" her, could come from guilt from not saving their mother. She was thrilled to be "Gone." Buffy was almost relieved to think she was a demon-she broke down when she found out she was normal. If she were a demon, then she wouldn't have to feel bad about not being perfect, and leaving herself and Dawn without a mother.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A little more -- Arethusa, 05:44:37 08/21/02 Wed
Hence the submission "games" with Spike, which probably won't be repeated in the future, as she seems to have forgiven herself for imaginary crimes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- shadowkat, 06:39:15 08/21/02 Wed
Agree with what Ete said below.
"I also disagree with the whole Spike as a sex slave theory -- with Buffy as the dominant, sadistic partner in their relationship and Spike "supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness". Spike is more sexually experienced than Buffy (who has two one-night stands and a long term relationship with Riley "Missionary Man" Finn while Spike has a century of bondage games with Dru, Harmony and probably a few others). "
Don't know how much you know about S&M, but I've taken an interesting journey through research and talking it over with people and have discovered that the masochist is actually sometimes the more experienced and powerful player in the relationship. Also the lines between the two can get crossed, so the masochist becomes the sadist and the sadist becomes the masochist. It's all about who has the power.
I'm exploring this more in part II. But from the text and the scenes - it's pretty clear that Buffy had the control in the relationship. This is not to say Spike wasn't manipulative or the wronged party. I'm NOT saying that.
Actually from what I've learned the masochist often exerts control by projecting their desires onto the sadist, urging them on so to speak. It's an ironic situation, have the hero appear to be getting off on torturing the villain, show the villain occassionally punish the hero but mostly get off on the hero torturing him...very disturbing but
still very interesting and not for faint at heart.
In short you can look like the sex slave and actually be the one in control. ;-) Hopefully this will make more sense in part II - which will be a lot less about Spike and much more about OZ/Willow/Tara/Buffy/Faith/Riley/Holtz/Justine/Veruca...
whew!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't wait for your take on Justine and Holtz. -- Arethusa, 07:35:41 08/21/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- Dochawk, 10:57:32 08/20/02 Tue
I don't think it was the act of moving on that hurt Buffy so (and Xander for that matter), it was who it was with. Buffy and Anya were close enough that Buffy was a bridesmaid. Anya didn't know about Spuffy so Buffy pain is directly related to Spike's choice. Sleeping with your ex-girlfriends friends is one of the most hurtful things a person can do after a relationship. (works on men too, my best friend's ex-wife started sleepign with one of his groomsmen 1 week after they seperated, it hurt alot) I don't think Buffy would have been hurt much if it had been the punk girl by the time of Entropy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- shadowkat, 07:01:32 08/21/02 Wed
Having been on both ends of this little drama myself.
(I went for my friend's boyfriend one month after they broke up, in my defense I did fall for him first, but still (bad bad idea - never ever again), and had the guy move onto someone else after me pretty quickly afterwards (can we say karma?.) Yep hurts. But it hurts regardless of who the guy/girl moves onto. Jealousy is a painful emotion.
And one I think Buffy, poor thing, is rather familar with.
So is Xander.
Spike/Anya was certainly not their first time.
Angel dealt with Buffy moving on to Riley and sleeping with Riley (not long after the I Will Always Remember You episode)
Buffy dealt with Scott Hope moving on to another girl for
the dance just after Beauty and The Beasts.
Buffy dealt with Angel kissing Faith, even if it was just pretend. And Angelus sleeping with Dru.
Buffy dealt with Riley marrying Sam less than a year after he broke up and left her.
Xander dealt with Buffy sleeping with Angel. Willow going for OZ.
Cordy dealt with Xander kissing Willow.
Geeze. Part of life is losing someone you love to someone else.
There's an interesting statement in Robert Eisner's book Man Into Wolf. In it he says that more primitive or older cultures such as the tribes in Polynesia didn't have problems with jealousy or possession. Wives, lovers, husbands bodies weren't property or commodities. They had a free love approach. So when your husband or wife or lover slept with someone else it was considered a way of enriching the community. Eisner states that this idea may have been the source for the Free Love movement of the early 70s.
My own personal view on unfaithfulness is if you broke up with the person and are clearly no longer together? You really don't have the right to get all upset with who they choose to sleep with. Any more than they have the right to get violent and upset with who you choose to sleep with. (Doesn't mean you won't. We're human after all. Emotions part of the package. But running off and attacking them with an ax is a tad extreem and wrong.)
Anya is absolutely right when she tells Xander that she's a free agent and had a right to find solace. But xander is human and any other action on his part would have been out of character. Also neither Anya nor Spike did it with the intent to hurt anyone - they were drunk - they didn't know anyone would see them or did see them (in fact Spike remains clueless on how X/B knew until Dawn tells him in next episode.)- it was a spontaneous thing by two very immature individuals (huge irony there - the most immature characters? Are over a 100 years old. I love ME.)
You know...reading the boards, it strikes me that we are more morally judgemental of these characters and each other than the writers are. LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Margaret Mead and free love in the South Pacific -- Sophist, 08:33:21 08/21/02 Wed
There's an interesting statement in Robert Eisner's book Man Into Wolf. In it he says that more primitive or older cultures such as the tribes in Polynesia didn't have problems with jealousy or possession. Wives, lovers, husbands bodies weren't property or commodities. They had a free love approach. So when your husband or wife or lover slept with someone else it was considered a way of enriching the community. Eisner states that this idea may have been the source for the Free Love movement of the early 70s.
Two comments about this. First, I don't think "primitive" is the right word here. I'll let Darby, redcat, and Rah link back to their posts on this subject.
Second, the question of promiscuity in Polynesian and Micronesian culture is highly controversial. Margaret Mead did studies in the 1920s which made essentially the claim you cite here. However, those studies have been challenged from several different angles since. Frankly, the debate got so unpleasant that I stopped following it. Maybe someone else can summarize the current status. You should, however, be cautious about accepting Eisner's statement as uncontroverted fact.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Margaret Mead and free love in the South Pacific -- shadowkat, 10:12:00 08/21/02 Wed
I agree actually - I cited it in PArt II then deleted because well it is controversial and not clearly backed up, Eisner even admits this. Also some of Eisner's evidence
appears to be disputed by his contempories. I ended up getting confused.
Redcat and Rah and Vicki and Finn really got into a discussion a while back on unfaithfulness in the Hawain culture thread. If anyone wants more information? Take sophist's advice and hunt the archives - I think it's mid-July. It goes into a lot more detail than Eisner did and is far more informative.
There is a bunch of controversial data that Eisner
states and is supported by Jane Goodall and a few others regarding how the animal kingdom, apes, chimps, howler monkeys and the so called sauvages are actually more civilized and less violent towards each other than we are.
Sauvage Eisner states actually means "wood-dweller".
I know he's right about the Howler Monkeys - since I've seen numerous documentaries on them - they trade partners, are totally non-violent, and herbavores. Chimpanzees however have been cited as quite cruel to other species.
Not being a zoologist, anthropologist, or biologist - I hesitate to discuss it in more depth. So decided wisely not to quote it in my next essay.
But for those who want to? Take it and run!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Margaret Mead and free love in the South (and North) Pacific -- redcat, 10:33:26 08/21/02 Wed
shadowkat writes: "There's an interesting statement in Robert Eisner's book Man Into Wolf. In it
he says that more primitive or older cultures such as the tribes in Polynesia didn't have
problems with jealousy or possession. Wives, lovers, husbands bodies weren't property or
commodities. They had a free love approach. So when your husband or wife or lover slept with
someone else it was considered a way of enriching the community. Eisner states that this idea
may have been the source for the Free Love movement of the early 70s."
And from Eisner himself, quoted on "feastofhateandfear.com/archives/man_into_wolf.html,"
and described as "a speech given by Robert Eisner to the Psychiatric Section of the Royal
Society of Medicine sometime in the late 1940s in London, England and is a portion of his
book, Man Into Wolf" :
"The Polynesian inhabitants of the Pelew Islands have free-love clubs. What else were the
witches' covens, esbats or sabbats, described with such picturesque detail in the reports of the
witch trials held all over Europe and in New England down to the eighteenth century?"
===== ====== ====== =====
As Sophist notes above, Darby, Rah and I have recently addressed the issue of labeling other
cultures and peoples as "primitive" in some assumed schema of linear human moral, social or
technological progress, so I won't rehash that here. However, I would like to re-iterate
Sophist's point that taking something Eisner says about something he knows little about, and
then using that to support your own argument, is dicey at best.
Like many people who attempt to use others' scholarship in highly specific fields to support
unconnected points in their own argument, Eisner winds up mis-using much of that scholarship
and thus mis-leading non-specialists who read him without the benefit of having read more
widely in those fields. In the two sentence quotation above, he mis-states the scholarship on
both Oceanic anthropology and the historical study of the phenomenon of European witchcraft
trials.
First, the inhabitants of the "Pelew" Islands, which are more properly written in modern
anthropological work as Palau, and in politically-sensitive ones as Belau, are not Polynesian.
They are Micronesian and quite proud of it. Secondly, there is no practice in their culture that
can in any way, shape or form, be described as even slightly resembling "free-love clubs."
This description reminds me of the one Finn MacCool posted last month on Native Hawaiian
sexual practices, basing his statements on information he gleaned from a single website, a
terribly incorrect one as it turns out, but without the benefit of any actual study of Native
Hawaiian culture, language, epistemology, metaphysics, social structure or history. I had
assumed from something else you (s'kat) had posted a few weeks later that you had read my
long response post to Finn on that point, in which I explored the ways in which western
understandings about sex and sexed bodies are very different from pre-western-contact Native
Hawaiian ones. In order to not take this thread completely off-topic, however, I will not do the
same thing here for Belauan customs, although I have studied Belauan culture, society and
history in-depth. In fact, the first part of my second Master's thesis focuses on Belauan
resistance to US nuclear colonialism, which required a very complete investigation of Belauan
culture. Perhaps in this instance, you could simply accept my refutation of Eisner's statement
as coming from someone who has at least a better understanding of Belauan marriage,
notions of rankings within and between families, gender ideologies, mythologies,
epistemologies, notions of cross-sibling obligation and the expressions of bi-polar power
divisions between men and between women, all of which come into play in Belauan sexual
practices, than Eisner obviously did. Believe me, neither a pre-western-contact Belauan nor a
contemporary one would be able to find much correlation between what they do and the
western concept of "free love" (which was originally, BTW, a political-religious philosophy
espoused by certain mid-19thC intellectuals, socialists and religious radicals in Britain and
America and was only "re- discovered" by the 1960s-70s alternative movement, regardless of
whether the popularization of the concept came from Mead's work on Samoa).
Secondly, the fact that Eisner links the notion of "free love" with the descriptions of "witches'
sabbaths" taken from trial records from the early-modern period, demonstrates he knows as
little about the historical reality of witch-trial documents and what they have to say about
European sexual practice as he does about anthropological studies of Pacific Islands peoples.
Those "picturesque" reports, as is clear from the comparative studies of professional historians
who've examined those records in careful detail, have **without exception** been shown to
have been based on the series of sexually-explicit questions about them asked by torturers,
prosecutors and judges that were either taken directly from the witch-hunting manual, Malleus
Malleficarum, or from (generally bastardized) Protestant versions of it. (Example: "How many
times in the last year did you attend a Devil's Sabbat ritual? While you were at one of these
sabbats, how many times did you allow the Devil in the form of a goat or other cloven-hoofed
animal to intrude his cold member into your sexual organs and how many much pain did that
cause you?") The repetitive nature of the descriptions, from trials in Germany, Scotland,
France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, all follow the same formula because the
questions asked about the "witches' rituals" all came from the same basic source the twisted,
misogynistic and sociopathic terrors of the two 15thC priests who wrote the witch-hunting
manual, Kramer and Springer. This fact has been clearly established by the comparative work
of dozens of major historians in the field over at least the last 40 years of scholarship. These
descriptions tell us a great deal about male fantasies and fears about women's sexual power,
and about how the legal systems of Europe functioned in those centuries, but tell us almost
nothing about women themselves, about their sexual practices, or about the practice of
European pagan witchcraft. The beginnings of this scholarship would have even been
available to Eisner in the late 1940s, had he bothered to look.
Finally, a note to Sophist: Those debates over Mead's work and the impact of it in Anglo-
American society continue to rage. I was at a conference a few years ago where a panel chair
had to call a halt to what had become a quite rancourous discussion of whether or not Mead
collaborated in the colonialist project of appropriating Samoan culture for American ends.
Later, the two male anthropologists who had been the most hotly involved in the confrontation
had to be physically separated from each other after they started brawling in the conference
hotel's lobby. (Names withheld as a professional courtesy .....) What is clear is that Mead mis-
stated some of her data and that not all of her conclusions can be justified given the type of
more thorough and carefully nuanced investigations of Samoan practice and epistemology
available from contemporary researchers, including some Native Samoan ones.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Read my response to Sophist above please! -- s'kat, 11:29:17 08/21/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, guys it's Eisler and -- aliera, 13:27:05 08/21/02 Wed
maybe it's just me but the essay does look pretty typical for the forties...the terminology, at least. Amazon lists the book still; but, without review and I don't see any used ones available. The book is cited in other places than the website you mentioned including The Skeptics Dictionary under: lycanthropy
Eisler, Robert. Man into wolf, an anthropological interpretation of sadism, masochism, and lycanthropy; a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine. With an introd. by Sir David K. Henderson. (London, Routledge and Paul, 1951.
It doesn't make Eisler correct he's just someone who thought and wrote about the subject quite some time ago...when it comes to trying to do research on lycanthropy and sadism you're going to find a real mish-mash of information cited in some strange places. Not everyone with credentials wants to speak on the subject. And those that do end up with criticism of their methods, thoughts, lives sometimes politics (Jung/Eliade) some justifed, some unjustifed, some with the jury out because history continues to be rewritten even as we're posting here.
And lastly, but MOST importantly, that really wasn't SK's fault, I came across the book as a citation on a college essay and after quite a bit of searching found the excerpt and passed it on...not her fault but mine.
--angela, just trying to set things a little straighter
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> a correction... -- aliera, 13:31:02 08/21/02 Wed
I didn't mean that to imply that Jung and Eliade wrote on lycanthropy and sadism...hope it wasn't taken that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "A little straighter"? In this thread?! :) -- Sophist, 13:37:01 08/21/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, guys it's Eisler and -- redcat, 21:34:40 08/21/02 Wed
aliera - thanks for the correction on the spelling of Eisler's name. There's no excuse really, but
that's the type of thing my dyslexia doesn't help me see very well if I'm not paying attention.
Apropos this sub-thread, though, which has twisted itself around to a discussion of the cultural
uses of scholarship and the scholarship of culture, I am struck by something fresne wrote in
the panopticon thread above: "without context and compass, knowledge is just words and
shape and form with no spirit."
...probably a good thing for all of us to remember...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Margaret Mead and free love in the South Pacific -- Darby, 12:02:10 08/21/02 Wed
I've only run into Mead as a cautionary tale - supposedly, follow-up studies determined that, 1) Mead became a bit of a local celebrity, as would any exotic foreigner with a friendly yen for learning local ways anywhere; 2) one could be a bit of a celebrity-by-association by "hanging out" with MM; 3) it quickly became obvious to the locals that Mead was fascinated by tales of local sexual practices, and the more "extreme," the more she wanted to hear; 4) the more you could feed her desire for local versions of the Penthouse Forum (which didn't exist then, but you get the idea), the more you got to hang out with her, etc. The act of studying a culture introduced the artifact of encouraging the locals to exaggerate and misrepresent the culture; it's a major problem in immersion anthropological studies (and only partly because researchers often don't look for familiar human reactions to their own presence) which to be fair had not really been approached with any pretense of science before Margaret Mead. Now was the follow-up study looking for that and maybe found what the researchers wanted for a similar reason? Could be, but you can see how there are all sorts of problems with analyzing culture. Even from a locals-reporting-their-own-culture front, I expect that I would represent my culture differently than my next-door neighbors. But people are going to study such things, and write down their takes, and those perceptions will become a sort of gospel, it's the way of the world.
Look for me to post a related thread about Willow if I can get up the nerve.
- Darby, having the Charles Darwin wiggins with no Alfred Wallace in sight.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Publish, or I will first -- Sophist, disguised as ARW, 08:37:01 08/22/02 Thu
Besides, no one has had a good excuse to trash Willow for at least 2 weeks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- Miss Edith, 14:44:55 08/22/02 Thu
There is a big difference in telling someone to move on and seeing the moving on in living colour. Yes the cameras weren't anyones fault but I think Buffy was so cold to Spike in Entropy because she was so upset. Well in theory anyway. Personally I didn't notice much of an expresion on her face but Dawn says Buffy looked so hurt she could tell right away that she had a relationship with Spike. I only felt Buffy was unreasnable in SR as she had time to think reasnably and shouldn't have been so hard on Spike trying to move on and find solace.
But on other boards people have said when Buffy told Spike "didn't take you long did it" their mouths droped open and they said "you little bitch" etc. But I understood Buffy and Xander's extreme reactions at the time. It was a volatile situation. I was just surprised that Buffy did continue holding it against Spike as like it or not he was a free agent. Indeed she had made her contempt for him clear and admitted she was using him for sex. Therefore it wasn't as if she was in love with Spike and there were genuine hurt feelings. I interpreted it more as wounded pride personally. Spike did spend a lot of time telling Buffy he loved her so it must have annoyed her to see him with someone else only a month or so after the break up. I'm not sure how long it was exactly but there were long periods of reruns in between episodes I believe and Joss has said the show is in real time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- Malandanza, 17:34:18 08/24/02 Sat
I find myself agreeing with almost everything you've said.
"There is a big difference in telling someone to move on and seeing the moving on in living colour... But on other boards people have said when Buffy told Spike "didn't take you long did it" their mouths dropped open and they said "you little bitch" etc. But I understood Buffy and Xander's extreme reactions at the time... I interpreted it more as wounded pride personally. Spike did spend a lot of time telling Buffy he loved her so it must have annoyed her to see him with someone else only a month or so after the break up."
But I think it goes beyond wounded pride. Buffy had come to think of Spike as sensitive William, not a soulless monster. She had suffered because she thought she was causing him pain by using him -- he makes those sweeping romantic statements, grand declarations of his undying devotion to her, he claims he is her slave -- in fact, at the beginning of Entropy, he's still following her around trying to get her to come back to him. When Buffy sees him with Anya it is natural enough to suspect that his claims of devotion have been somewhat exaggerated (particularly since Spike is given to hyperbole) so wounded pride, yes, but also a little righteous (from her perspective) indignation. And why Anya? Well, because she was convenient -- but Buffy didn't know that. She does know that Spike brought his little goth girl to the wedding in Hell's Bells for the express purpose of hurting her. Again, it is natural enough to assume his choice of partners was intended to hurt her.
"I was just surprised that Buffy did continue holding it against Spike as like it or not he was a free agent."
I don't think that Buffy did continue to hold it against Spike primarily for her own sake, but rather for Xander and Anya's. If he'd been caught with some random girl that Buffy didn't know, I doubt we'd have seen her attacking him for his choice of a partner in solace, but Spanya ended rather permanently any possibility of a reconciliation between Anya and Xander (because of Xander's issues -- not that I believe there was much of a possibility before the sex, but with Anya, almost anything is possible). Also, Seeing Red was the day after Entropy, as we see from Dawn's comments:
DAWN (gently): I don't know what happened between you two. But what you did last night...(a beat) If you wanted to really hurt Buffy -- congratulations. It worked.
-- so if Buffy was still holding a grudge roughly 24 hours after Spike exposed their secret resulting in her estrangement from one of her closest friends, I'd say that's pretty normal (and it was the day after that -- after an attempted rape -- that she was willing to drop Dawn off at his crypt, defending him against Xander's objections). And Spike really shouldn't have been surprised that Buffy didn't want to see him -- she didn't want to be around him before he slept with Anya, why should she change her mind just because he slept with her friend? Buffy showed up that night to save Spike's life -- and she was repaid with pain.
Spike also violated the condition of their relationship -- that he not tell her friends. Like the old stories of Courtly Love or the fairy tales of the animal bride, when he violated this trust, he lost the woman.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- Artemis, 01:01:39 08/19/02 Mon
This is a small point, but I always got the impression that Buffy was mad at Spike not because he had sex with someone else, but because he had sex with a friend of hers. I do think that's a big difference. . Buffy in HB was somewhat hurt when Spike brought the girl to the wedding. But she wasn't angry. I think she understood. But to 'move on' to a friend feels like a betrayal. I think that brings us back to the point of "trust" mentioned. When you break up with someone I think you expect that they will move on, but you trust that they won't move on to a friend of yours. And I always thought that was why Buffy was angry. She says as much in the bathroom scene in SR. I don't remember the exact words , but it was in response to Spike saying he cared about her and she replies, "You can try not sleeping with my friends." Anyway, JMHO
[> [> [> [> [> [> Friends? -- Off-kilter, 07:21:08 08/19/02 Mon
I was actually wondering what Buffy was talking about when she said, "try not sleeping with my friends." I never really got that Buffy and Anya were all that close. Yeah, bridesmaid and all, but wasn't that mostly because Anya didn't have close friends that she could have at the wedding? Also a good excuse to put Buffy in an ugly dress. Anya hasn't really had all that many "bonding" moments with any of the Scoobies outside of Xander. Unless you consider the, uh, "bonding" moments with Giles and Spike.
Buffy being hurt for Xander's sake, now *that* I can see. But that's not what she said. My feeling was that him sleeping with Anya touched her circle of influence. She has been so careful to separate Spike from her daily world, keep him at a safe and controlled distance. It would be one thing for Spike to sleep with some nameless, and obviously less worthy, skank-ho. It's quite another for him to sleep with someone she knows, almost a peer, someone who *knows* HIM!
I don't think the issue is Buffy's friendship with Anya. If Spike had done the same thing with Faith, do you think Buffy's reaction would be less? I doubt it. Actually, considering the whole Angel+Faith thing, I think Spike would have most likely been a big ole pile a'dust in that scenario! And Faith is far from friends with Buffy.
Is what Buffy felt wrong or un-natural? No. I would have very likely felt the same in the same situation. Emotions and intellect very often don't mesh in messy emotional break-ups. Even if you don't love the guy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points... -- shadowkat, 08:44:03 08/19/02 Mon
And I missed you O=K...
I think it's getting back to Ete's point about control and Buffy's desire to have it. She wanted to control the relationship with Spike, contain the mess etc. She did not plan on telling her friends about them - Dawn, who may I say is far more insightful than Willow? Figured it out from Buffy's reaction to the video. Buffy did not plan on telling Xander - Spike did when Buffy didn't defend Anya to him.
What I always found fascinating about this relationship is the power play between Spike and Buffy - a power play they've been wrestling with since they met. You see it in their dialogue and the sex. As ete points out and others I've read in S&M, the two parties can change roles, often there is a great deal of projection going on. The masochist is projecting his/her desires onto the sadist and vice versa. But what is important is an acceptance of each others roles. And a mutual understanding and acceptance of where the relationship is going and where each party stands.
I think the problem is the wrestling match. Neither party is comfortable in their role for very long. Nor are they agreed to where they stand or are going. They aren't even discussing it. Spike would obviously like to move the relationship to another level, he desperately wants to believe it's more than just "sex" or will become more. Buffy refuses to allow that. She has enforced some pretty major rules here. "Don't tell my friends." "No one must know." "We only do this on the side and not where any one can see." "We do it when I want to and where I want to. Not in my home or bed." The boundaries are pretty much set by Buffy. In S&M the boundaries should be set and agreed to by both parties not one or the other or the whole thing gets out of control - it becomes a fight instead of an gradiated scale of pleasure and pain. OF course the fight adds to the pleasure and the adrenaline rush. So their fighting may be part of the appeal.
Spike appears to be humoring Buffy as long as he gets what he wants. The moment she breaks it off, he changes his tact, which she was NOT prepared for. Another commonality in relationships - we tend to think we can break them off and they won't be messy. Buffy hates messes.
Unfortunately life is nothing but a big mess even if you aren't a vampire slayer. In the past her boyfriends dumped her and took off. This is really the first time she dumped someone. I'm not sure what she expected him to do...but certainly not what happened.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good points... -- Miss Edith, 15:14:51 08/22/02 Thu
Buffy thought Spike would always be at her beck and call. When she called off the relationship he begged her to continue using him "really not complaining here". In OMWF he said he was her willing slave. Buffy interpreted that as Spike wanting to do anything he can to make her happy, although obviously Spike as a soulless vampire has some strange ideas on what will make Buffy happy. But all the same I do feel Buffy felt in control of the relationship. Look at her gloating in Entropy and telling Spike he could tell her friends if he wanted. She gave him permission to do so because she felt he would never do that. In NA she tells her friends Spike was dealing in contraband because she is embarrased at being seen to talk with someone beneath her. Spike could very well have brought up the sex then but Buffy was confident that he wouldn't and she was in complete control. She never even tries to keep Spike happy in fear of him telling her dirty little secret.
I can see how wounded pride would be an issue as Spike did make such an effort to be Buffy's willing slave. Therefore I think she was just mad because although she did tell him to move on, secretly she wanted to see him continue to pine for her and beg for sex. She never expected to see him on video no less with another woman. Buffy has big issues with abandonment. It hurt her to see Riley having moved on with Sam, even though Buffy had ended the relationship after he cheated. I never felt that Buffy was emotionally devestated because she loved Spike. I felt that her self-esteem was bruised as she is used to being abandoned and Spike had promised her he would never leave her. That was the one thing that she felt he could trust him to do (continue loving her). And then she saw him in the arms of another.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- Artemis, 01:02:49 08/19/02 Mon
This is a small point, but I always got the impression that Buffy was mad at Spike not because he had sex with someone else, but because he had sex with a friend of hers. I do think that's a big difference. . Buffy in HB was somewhat hurt when Spike brought the girl to the wedding. But she wasn't angry. I think she understood. But to 'move on' to a friend feels like a betrayal. I think that brings us back to the point of "trust" mentioned. When you break up with someone I think you expect that they will move on, but you trust that they won't move on to a friend of yours. And I always thought that was why Buffy was angry. She says as much in the bathroom scene in SR. I don't remember the exact words , but it was in response to Spike saying he cared about her and she replies, "You can try not sleeping with my friends." Anyway, JMHO
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry for the double post -- Artemis, 01:05:27 08/19/02 Mon
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- DEN, 14:32:59 08/16/02 Fri
'kat, WHEN are you going to put these essays into a book? Without disrespect to other scholars of the Buffy phenomenon, in my considered opinion you have every opportunity to emerge as the definitive analyst of the series if you choose to pursue that goal.
[> [> [> When and if I can find someone to publish me;-) -- shadowkat, 17:16:49 08/16/02 Fri
Still trying to get an agent for fiction novel. You aren't the first to suggest these essays go in a book - they are beginning to crowd my site, my poor website designer hasn't been able to keep up. Would you believe it? Completed
over 32 essays each at least ten pages long. And several web sites are now hosting two or three of them, one on W/S, one on G/A, the bigbadboard and my own...so would anyone buy a book if I found someone who'd publish them?
[> [> [> [> In answer to your question . I would definitely buy your book -- Artemis, 18:09:43 08/16/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Re: When and if I can find someone to publish me;-) -- DEN, 23:49:05 08/16/02 Fri
I have some contacts in this kind of publishing. Would you mind if I checked them out for possible interest?
[> [> [> [> [> Don't mind at all - actually please do! -- shadowkat, 05:26:31 08/17/02 Sat
Please do check them out and if they need additional information let me know. I would love to publish this stuff in a book if I could.
I really appreciate your help on this! I haven't a clue where to go myself and I can't afford to self-publish at this point.
Thanks! sk
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Count me in as someone who would most definately buy a book of your Buffy essays -- Miss Edith, 08:00:47 08/17/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> definitely -- meritaten, 12:11:54 08/17/02 Sat
I'd definitely buy your book. I love reading your work.
[> [> Brilliant. Always love your writing and look forward to it. -- Artemis, 14:59:46 08/16/02 Fri
[> [> We want Part 2! We want Part 2! -- Cactus Watcher, 15:24:52 08/16/02 Fri
I guess that's the kind of reponse you wanted. ;o)
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- leslie, 15:29:36 08/16/02 Fri
This is, how can I say it? So incredibly *sensible.*
I think there is something interesting buried there in your musing about Buffy and Spike playing roles in the infamous handcuffs (off-screen) scene. I think you are right, first of all. It's role playing--roles, and playing. But in terms of whether there is anything redeemable in their relationship, I think this is an important milestone. In all her previous relationships, Buffy takes roles as being real (and in all fairness, so do her partners). The role defines her and she feels compelled to fulfill it completely. That one little scene ("Wait a minute, are we actually having a conversation?") and about 15 minutes of its aftermath suggest that he, at least, is beginning to see this as a series of roles that can be donned and doffed (you can't have a conversation with an animal, no matter what my cats may think); Buffy is threatened by this thought. It would mean that she is willingly participating in their S&M; it would mean that she didn't "come back wrong," she's been "wrong" all along.
[> [> [> Thanks leslie - will use this in part II. -- shadowkat, 17:31:57 08/16/02 Fri
In part II I hope to examine Buffy and Faith in more depth.
Thanks for giving me fodder for it.
Because i agree - Spike is role-playing. He tells her he's never been with such an animal - he is half serious. She on the other hand is uncomfortable with his comment and takes it as meaning she is actually an animal. Buffy is and has always been incredibly uncomfortable with who she is inside, the dark primal energy inside - partly because she believes it is what causes everyone to leave. If she doesn't show this, doesn't let it out? Maybe they won't leave? What if she's a demon? Wrong? This fear I believe permeates all her relationships from Angel through Spike.
Until she can come to grips with who and what she is - I'm not sure she can have a healthy relationship with anyone.
But more on Buffy in part two. Thanks again!
[> [> [> [> looking forward to part 2! -- ponygirl, 19:56:32 08/16/02 Fri
Thought I'd reply here since leslie made some great points. And I completely agree with what you say about Buffy, shadowkat. I'd also suggest that there is a case to be made for reading Dead Things as a struggle for dominance between Buffy and Spike. We see Buffy, acknowledged as the more sexually agressive in the relationship, letting Spike handcuff her (well, it's strongly implied), and perhaps even more importantly admitting on some level to liking Spike. In some ways the handcuffs and the admission are the same, Buffy is ceding some of her control in the relationship, both physical and emotional. Spike takes his newfound power even further at the Bronze (though I'm still willing to entertain arguements that the scene was a projection of Buffy's fears, but really it doesn't matter). When Buffy thinks she killed Katrina, she allows Spike to take care of her - he gets her home and puts her to bed - he's the dominant one now, calling all the shots. But her dream shows her that this isn't true, she's not the submissive one, she is responsible for her actions towards both Spike and Katrina. When Spike attempts to prevent her from turning herself in, he is challenging her power, asserting a claim on her that Buffy is unwilling to acknowledge and she of course reacts brutally. Spike's "you only hurt the one you love" comment could be seen as an absolution of Buffy, implying that it was, in the one true power of the submissive, something to which he had consented. This Buffy to her credit recoils from. Of course Dead Things has even more layers -that's just one, pretty dark, take on a very complex episode.
Looking forward to your take on Buffy/Faith, fresne has been writing some amazing stuff on that lately. Really though s6 was more overt, s3 had a lot of S&M references. Maybe it was all the leather pants ;)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: looking forward to part 2! -- shadowkat, 05:32:49 08/17/02 Sat
Yes - fresne has been writting the best stuff on buffy/faith. I normally don't do faith because others do her so well. But this essay would be missing something without her.
I agree with you on Dead Things. It's such a dance between the two. Actually Smashed, Wrecked, Gone, Dead Things, OAFA,
AYW - are all dances between them - dances I'd argue don't really end until the attempted rape scene which is the true climax of the relationship not AYW.
The dance is very dark one. Thanks for more fodder for my section on Buffy btw. sk
[> [> [> [> Plea for some more and random Dante reference -- fresne, 22:20:28 08/19/02 Mon
Oh, yes Part II please. And yes, I would certainly buy a collection of essays in book format. Your essays are quite the reflecting prism of thought.
Quite obviously, I'm very much in favor of anything you have to write about Buffy and Faith.
In a show obsessed with Doppelgangers, it's a delightful fissuring of self, "And now I see into a glass, but darkly...And now these three remain: faith, hope and love." I Cor, 13:12,13.
As your comments about cannibalism,
"I caught a brief documentary on the History channel about cannibalism in folklore and mythology and how possibly in our collective consciousness we share a common fear or desire for this."
co-mingle with thoughts of the Other, I consider that the desire to be one with the Other, to remerge in that yearning sense described in Plato's Symposium, is in its way a desire to devour the Other.
And since all paths lead to Dante, I consider the general relevance or irrelevance of the Poem of the Burning Heart.
In Dante's dream, Love appears to him, "a lordly man, frightening to beholdŠHe spoke and said many things, of which I understood only a few; one was, 'I am thy master.'" And the poem that he wrote about his dream was this,
To every captive soul and loving heart
To whom these words I have composed are sent
For your elucidation in reply,
Greetings I bring for your sweet lord's sake, Love.
The first three hours, the hours of the time
of shining stars, were coming to an end,
when suddenly Love appeared before me
(to remember how he really was appalls me).
Joyous, Love seemed to me, holding my heart
Within his hand, and in his arms he had
My lady, loosely wrapped in folds, asleep.
He woke her then, and gently fed to her
the burning heart; she ate it, terrified.
And then I saw him disappear in tears.
Vita Nuova III.
[> [> [> [> [> Stranger in a Strange Land? -- aliera, 16:46:13 08/21/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hannibal, the movie and the book -- fresne, 11:40:55 08/22/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hannibal, the movie and the book -- aliera, 16:57:56 08/22/02 Thu
Sorry, fresne...that was actually meant to imply (not successfully) I grok.
[> [> Very nicely done. -- Sophist, 16:00:46 08/16/02 Fri
The one comment I have is this: I think you need to be careful about how much you infer about Willow from VampWillow. Remember that the WishVerse represented Cordelia's worst fears about Xander and Willow. The characteristics of VampWillow are just as likely to come from Cordelia's mind as Willow's actual character.
[> [> [> Re: Very nicely done. -- acesgirl, 16:24:00 08/16/02 Fri
Hmmm, this is an interesting interpretation. Are you saying that the wishverse was a dream/nightmare of Cordelia's? I never interpreted it this way. I always thought that the wishverse was a result of Cordelia's wish that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale but that the ensuing results of that wish are what would have happened to those characters under those circumstances regardless of who made the wish. Under your interpretation, if say, Harmony had made that wish, then the results of the very same wish would have been different because the wishverse would have been colored by Harmony's opinions?
[> [> [> [> Re: Very nicely done. -- Sophist, 17:30:16 08/16/02 Fri
I do interpret it through the lens of Cordelia. The irony of the X/W relationship is what made me see it that way. That was exactly how Cordy, internally, would have seen the two.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very nicely done. -- shadowkat, 17:41:38 08/16/02 Fri
Thanks Sophist! I plan to go more into Willow in Part II, but realize it may be tricky, because unlike Angelus and Drusilla and VampWillow, I don't think Willow is really sadistic or sadomasochistic. But there are elements of it in her behavior and character. Or at least metaphors.
The Wish and it's companion Dopplegangerland fascinate me.
Why? Because I think what is interesting about the Wish and Dopplegangerland is that not only is that how Cordelia sees X/W but that the aspects (dark aspects) she sees may be there in reality. Nice ironic twist to have X/W's lifelong
nemesis see their dark desires.
We all have dark aspects of ourselves. Willow's is the desire to hurt those who hurt her. Fairly normal actually. In Dopplegangerland - who does VampWillow go after? Percy. Buffy (who she has been jealous of), Cordy and the pretty girl at the table. Willow however resists that urge.
But what would Willow be without a conscience, without guilt? DarkWillow? VampWillow? What would Xander be? If you have no inhibitions, nothing keeping you back - what are your darkest desires?
I think Cordelia may see a little bit more of Willow and Xander's dark side than they'd be comfortable with.
I guess what I'm trying to say is just because it's partly Cordelia's nightmare vision doesn't necessarily mean it isn't also a valid insight into both characters dark sides.
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's a fair point -- Sophist, 20:12:16 08/16/02 Fri
Though I'm not sure how insightful Cordy was in high school.
BTW, don't want to discourage you either. The Wish can very well be seen as an alternate reality expressing hidden depths of X and W. At the time, I didn't see it that way, but, like most of BtVS, that interpretation is certainly there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's a fair point -- Miss Edith, 08:20:27 08/17/02 Sat
Personally I saw The Wish as representing Xander and Willow's true dark sides. Cordy wasn't deliberately put in nightmare world. She wished for a Sunnydale without Buffy and the result was the Master vamped Xander and Willow. She was simply living the reality of her wish. I never got the sense that she had created the Sunnydale from her own imagination. She was happy with the alternative world until she encoutered the reality of there being no slayer in town.
Remember in Doopgangland Willow comments "I'm so evil and skanky. And I think I'm kinda gay". Willow later embraces the fact that she's gay and when losing Tara her grief leads her to become "evil and skanky" to use her own words. I saw vampWillow as forshadowing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's a fair point -- leslie, 10:29:36 08/17/02 Sat
"Though I'm not sure how insightful Cordy was in high school."
Oh, I think Cordy is *very* insightful in high school--her role is as the one who tactlessly states the stuff that everyone else is trying to ignore. If she were as completely self-centered as she tries to appear, she wouldn't even notice the things she comments upon. Furthermore, she is pretty consistently shown to be much smarter than she lets on. After the Xander break-up, her bitchiness is so clearly defensive, trying to hurt someone who deeply (and literally) wounded her, that you have to wonder what she was defending herself from in her earlier bitchiness. What changes as she matures through the course of AtS is that she develops compassion to complement her insight; in high school, it seems that she despises the world for being so hypocritical and has determined to out-Hecuba Hecuba, as it were.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tactless? Sure. Insightul? Not sure. -- Sophist, 11:46:42 08/17/02 Sat
Cordy certainly speaks her mind. However, I can't remember (off the top of my head, anyway) Cordy providing insight that no one else realized.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Off the top of my head......."When she was Bad" -- Rahael, 12:03:45 08/17/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can think of several -- shadowkat, 15:26:31 08/17/02 Sat
1. When She Was BAD - this is the one Rah mentions, where
Cordy tells Buffy that she is alienating only friends she has.
2. Killed By Death - when she points out that poor Buffy needs to find something to fight to deal with being incapacitated.
3. Out of Mind Out of Sight - her odd and very ironic description of Shylock as being too self-centered.
Cordelia is like most of ME's insightful characters (Spike, Anya) - insightful about everyone but herself. And tactless about it. Anya takes over this character role in Season 4.
(They played with Spike doing it...but it didn't work as well.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I see all these as examples of tactlessness, not insight -- Sophist, 16:25:23 08/17/02 Sat
To me, the difference is this: you are tactless when you express something everyone knows but is reluctant to say out loud. You are insightful when you realize something no one else has yet realized.
KbD provides the perfect example. Here's the dialogue (from Psyche):
Giles: Saw what?
Buffy: Death.
Cordelia: Death?
Willow: *The* Death? As in, 'it is your time'?
Giles: Buffy, a-a-a frightened child...
Buffy: Yeah, but I thought I saw something. I'm not sure, I was really out of it, but...
Cordelia: But you do know that you saw death.
Willow: Did it have an hourglass?
Xander: Ooo, if he asks you to play chess, don't even do it. The guy's, like, a whiz.
Buffy: Maybe it wasn't death. Maybe it was something else.
Cordelia: So this isn't about you being afraid of hospitals 'cause your friend died and you wanna conjure up a monster that you can fight so you can save everybody and not feel so helpless?
Giles: Cordelia, have you actually ever heard of tact?
Cordelia: Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.
Willow: Your mom did tell us about your cousin.
Here, everyone was thinking the same thing; Cordy just verbalized it. And Willow recognized it as lack of tact, not insight.
Similarly, in WSWB, Cordy's comments to Buffy came after Buffy's strange behavior in the Bronze. By that time, everybody knew there was something wrong with her. Cordy expressed it when the others didn't. Lack of tact. But Cordy didn't know why Buffy was behaving so strangely. It was Giles who told them all when they raised it with him the next day. Giles was the one who had insight, not Cordy.
Insight into Shylock? Well, I'll let Rah judge that one. She's way better than I am at stuff like that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What about IOHEFY : "Projection much ?" ? -- Ete, 03:00:58 08/18/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tact, Insight and Miss Cordelia Chase -- Rahael, 03:55:31 08/19/02 Mon
I'll have to admit to being a Cordelia Chase fan right from the word go. She got a lot of the great lines; she was interesting, so utterly, unconsciously self centered, and yet had something more inside. In other words, she was a shrew just waiting to be tamed (to bring in the Shakesperean parallel!)
I'd say that her capacity for cruelty is what shows us that she has great insight. She hits Willow pretty directly in the heart in WTTH. When she tells Buffy "don't let me interrupt your downward social mobility" we know she is both witty and insightful, because Buffy is indeed concerned with such things ("Homecoming").
I must disagree with Sophist's reading of that scene he quoted. It didn't seem to me that anyone else had come to the conclusion that Cordelia had. And her verbalisation of Buffy's need to fight monsters as a substitute for tackling her real problems is a profound insight that no one else has really come out and said ("Normal Again"). Though a comment by Buffy in Season 4(?) where she says "I don't solve all my problems with violence! I don't! Do I?" shows us that this is a tendency that Buffy herself is aware of.
Cordelia gets to be cruel and shallow, because those are qualities that are fun for the writers to play around with, and get other people to play off of. She is also extremely honest, in a show which is full of people telling lies to each other Sunnydale, built on the lie that it is a normal town; filled with inhabitants who are convinced that everything is just fine. Cordelia by contrast, once being fully convinced of the reality of the situation, that monsters do exist, cannot turn away and lie to herself. She has to help out. And in "Earshot", Cordelia turns out to be the most transparent and honest person her thought is not duplicitous or feigned. She really does say exactly what she thinks. So her inward honesty means that she can be cruel, shallow, insightful, brave and tactless. It means that when she becomes convinced that Xander really does love her, she is prepared to defy Harmony and the other sheep. And of course, the Shakesperian Cordelia was characterised by an honesty that cost her everything.
(And by the way, is Cordelia that shallow? Don't we see her having a 'date' with Jonathon in the Bronze? True, it was really a euphemism for 'slave for the night', but she went somewhere Buffy didn't go. And she consistently ends up with the 'loser' boyfriend!)
To always speak your mind when everyone else around you carries dangerous secrets does allow for insight. Giles hides his past. Willow tells Buffy "sometimes secrets are good". Buffy's life is a walking secret. Xander is unfaithful to Cordelia with Willow (why???? the man's mad!). As Leslie points out, everything about early Cordelia shrieks of a person who's afraid to let other people hurt her precisely because she can be so very easily hurt. And what happens when she trusts Xander? She ends with an iron bar through her stomach. Though she belittles her heart as easily as she belittles Xander's gift of heart, we know that she protects and treasures it. Actually, one of the consistent characteristics of Cordy is her appeal for other people to listen to her pain. She makes every traumatic event about her: whether it is her football boyfriend's death, ("What about the pain I've gone through?" "There, there" says Giles) or the death of a teacher. So here is someone who has an acute ability to feel her own pain, perhaps to too great a degree, and a desire to not feel any more than she needs to. This in turn leads to her making other people feel pain.
Cordelia is both satirical, and satirised. Her waspish tongue, and her unashamed self interest means that we laugh with, and at her. Her most charming quality is that when adversity hits, we see the best of her. Combine this with great outfits, and what's not to like?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Out of sight, out of mind -- Off-kilter, 09:58:08 08/19/02 Mon
Cordelia: So, how much the creepy is it that this Marcie's been at this for months? Spying on us? Learning our most guarded secrets? So, are you saying she's invisible because she's so unpopular?
Buffy: That about sums it up.
Cordelia: (exhales) Bummer for her. It's awful to feel that lonely.
Buffy: Hmm. So you've read something about the feeling?
Cordelia: (stops Buffy) Hey! You think I'm never lonely because I'm so cute and popular? I can be surrounded by people and be completely alone. It's not like any of them really know me. I don't even know if they like me half the time. People just want to be in a popular zone. Sometimes when I talk, everyone's so busy agreeing with me, they don't hear a word I say.
Buffy: Well, if you feel so alone, then why do you work so hard at being popular?
Cordelia: Well, it beats being alone all by yourself.
Cordy can be very insightful into herself and others. She doesn't always react the way other people might, given this information. But that doesn't detract from the fact that she *has* the insight.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike as Insightful? -- Dochawk, 11:24:44 08/20/02 Tue
As I believe is the case with Cordy, I think Spike has a superficial insightfulness, but uses a few right calls to manipulate with others. The best example is at the end of Season 4, New Moon Rising, Spike gets it right, plays on the insecurities of Willow/Xander and their relationship to Buffy, but he uses it to manipulate (that was the most expressive smile JM has ever produced). But he constantly gets it wrong too. The most obvious is his miscalculation in how much the Scoobs really care about each other at the tail end of Season 4 when he can seperate them for awhile, but it doesn't hold. I can give many other examples, but that's not what this thread is about.
Suffice to say that none of the characters are all that insightful to themselves (perhaps Giles?) but thats part of what makes them interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do you really want to challenge me on this;-) -- shadowkat, 12:42:12 08/20/02 Tue
"The most obvious is his miscalculation in how much the Scoobs really care about each other at the tail end of Season 4 when he can seperate them for awhile, but it doesn't hold."
From the Primeval Commentary - David Fury states that they use Spike to bring the SG back together because they wrote themselves into a corner on Yoko Factor and forgot Willow had the disc. So Spike purposefully runs into Buffy on Adam's orders and reminds her that Willow has the disk, tipping Buffy to the fact that he broke them up. IT's a clever moment that backfires on him later.
Moments where Spike is insightful and it does not serve him.
BTW - being insightful does not make you a good person or
nice, which some posters on this board seem to believe. It just is a means the writers use to get something out in the open. In The Introducing Spike commentary they expressly state they'd intended Spike to take on Cordy's role of making tactless comments (which can be insightful) - but Anya filled the role better - so they drifted away from it.
Examples:
1. Something Blue - She's hanging by a thread, anyone can see that.
2. Tough Love - Mighty Powerful Witch isn't going to kick some god-ass?
3. BloodTies - Wasn't your fault. She's a teenager, hormones will just set her off.
4. Afterlife - Problem with magic always has consequences.
You sure you're okay? Haven't been in hell dimension lately but know torment. Willow didn't tell me because she knew there was a chance she could come back wrong.
5. OMWF - you have thoughts you might misbehave
And here I thought the S& M wasn't a postive Spike post?
I love Spike doc, you know that. Stop bashing him...please.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> huh? in afterlife? -- anom, 22:00:10 08/22/02 Thu
"Willow didn't tell me because she knew there was a chance she could come back wrong."
I didn't see any indication Spike was right about this. Nothing I can see in Willow's words or actions implies it, much less makes it explicit. What do you see that backs this up?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: huh? in afterlife? -- shadowkat, 05:49:44 08/23/02 Fri
Not that Buffy came back wrong but Willow's realization that she could screw up. See Afterlife where they are researching the magic and Willow is a little nervous.
Also when she is in bed with Tara - she is worried that there might be something wrong with Buffy. It's very subtle.
Later we find out that buffy did come back a little different - the celluar tan. So there's every indication that Spike's insight into Willow was right on. Actually
I think Spike probably is better at seeing the other characters dark sides than we the audience, which makes sense, considering darkness is more or less his nature.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> still don't agree -- anom, 14:48:04 08/23/02 Fri
"See Afterlife where they are researching the magic and Willow is a little nervous.
"Also when she is in bed with Tara - she is worried that there might be something wrong with Buffy. It's very subtle."
But these are both after her decision to exclude Spike from the gang's plans, so they aren't evidence that she had misgivings beforehand. She's the one who kept saying, "We can do this," & she seemed to mean it. Maybe she wouldn't let herself have doubts, but it sure looked like the only questions were about whether the resurrection would work at all, not if something might be wrong w/Buffy if it did work. No one even seemed to anticipate that she'd come back to life in her coffin 6 ft. down & have to dig her way out of her grave, or that she wouldn't be glad to be back. Willow's worries in Afterlife are after the fact, & I don't think they're evidence that Spike was right.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still don't agree -- Miss Edith, 17:42:17 08/23/02 Fri
I felt Willow was concerned about something being wrong with Buffy. In Afterlife she is unwilling to even consider it. When Anya brings up Buffy's mental state and suggests "I think we screwed it up" Willow's immediate response is to deny that. She also makes a point of stressing that Buffy is upset about being in a hell dimension, and tries to take her friends attention away from Buffy's ordeal in the coffin. I don't believe this was ever addressed again (Buffy digging her way out of the coffin). I think Buffy made a joke to Giles about the nightmares the experience had given her but I don't recoll an apology ever being made or Willow acknowledging that she hadn't thought through the spell properly. She accepts Buffy's thanks for bringing her back with a smile, obviously feeling that she has earned praise. When talking with Tara she is almost offended that Buffy doesn't seem to be really happy at what Willow had done for her.
There are subtle suggestions that Willow fears Buffy had come back wrong which could support Spike's theory. Willow was so determined to dismiss the possibility that she might have failed. But I interpreted Willow's nerveousness in Afterlife at wanting to know she hadn't screwed up. She felt responsible for Buffy's return and didn't want to believe it wasn't a good idea. Hence her later talking of how powerful she had become with Giles. Willow wanted to believe she was in control but I didn't feel she would have discarded Buffy as Spike suggested. But I do feel the way Aftelife plays out does leave that possibility open.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still don't agree -- leslie, 17:58:20 08/23/02 Fri
Although I am generally in favor of the idea that Spike is insightful, I don't think that this particular point is necessarily proof of it. He just plain knows that when you resurrect someone, there's a chance that they'll come back wrong: he was there when Doc told Dawn, when Dawn wanted to resurrect Joyce. When he sees Buffy back, especially when he sees how traumatized she is, wouldn't his first thought be "Shit, Doc was right, and it's happened, she's come back wrong!" and a very quick jump to "And that's why Willow and the Scoobies didn't tell me what they were doing."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: in afterlife and ? -- aliera, 05:50:36 08/23/02 Fri
Perhaps he thought that she might come back wrong because of what happened with Joyce's resurrection spell? I don't think Willow says exactly why she didn't include Spike; this is Spike's assumption about the reason which Xander doesn't deny (of course he doesn't confirm it either.) It's also possible that Willow just didn't need him for the spell or trust him enough.
There's an interview with JM in The Watcher's Guide for Season's 3 & 4 where he confirms that the intent for the character was to partially replace Cordy's role; but, the way they used him in Season 4 doesn't entirely support this. Perhaps because of how they started writing Anya's character?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike usurped by Anya -- Off-kilter, 08:13:20 08/23/02 Fri
JM goes on to clarify that Spike-as-Cordy-replacement didn't work because Spike couldn't hang with Scoobies due to the limitations of being a vampire. That nasty little sun allergy, ya know. So Anya became the CordyClone. JM admits that he didn't see how Spike was supposed to work in that particular capacity anyway when JW approached him, but kept his reservations to himself. Who was he to say no to regular billing (and regular paycheck) on a popular show? He might be a bleached blonde, but he's no dummy!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the watchers guide -- aliera, 09:50:06 08/23/02 Fri
True...and he's one person I seek out interviews for (Joss would be the other) I read the Watcher's Guide fairly recently (a nice review and I still haven't seen all of season three, just what I have on the box set and what I was able to catch this summer on Fox's rebroadcast...and what a great season it was!)and thought that his (JM's) style had improved since that book was written. Also, particularly enjoyed the words of Giles (no surprise there!) and the Mayor.
Joss's interviews always remind me of chinese food or chocolate; very satisfying at the time, but that empty feeling soon after...that, and I've been thinking about trying to seek out some of the earlier interviews. He leaves me with this desire to better understand what formed him as a thinker. Most of what I've read so far duplicates itself and doesn't really tell me anything about this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> JM agrees -- Off-kilter, 11:56:37 08/23/02 Fri
JM says that he cringes a little when he sees his entrance in "School Hard" because it is too theatrical and a bit overdone. In theater, you evidently have to overproject a bit in order to capture the attention of the audience, while on TV there is the magic of close-ups and camera approaches. He also admits that his very talented co-workers have helped him improve his TV performance by their examples and helpful coaching.
His interviews make me like the actor as much as I like the character!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: JM agrees -- Miss Edith, 17:50:02 08/23/02 Fri
I felt Spike's first appearance worked beautifully and I wouldn't have it any other way. Perhaps James does feel he was a bit hammy but from what I remember the audience loved it at the time. He stayed on because of popular demand. His entrance left a good impression on me anyway and he really seemed to embrace the character of Spike. I'd prefer an actor to feel they went a little over the top rather than have no expression at all and underact. Not mentioning any names but I do feel that was the case with certain actors this season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oddly . . . I agree -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:31:24 08/23/02 Fri
I too loved Spike's introduction in School Hard. In fact, it's my favorite ep of Season 2. Also, considering he didn't have a major role in Halloween or Lie To Me, and was crippled for most of the season after What's My Line, the scene stealing in School Hard is well earned. I find it odd that I agree with you on this. Usually when I read your posts, especially the ones about Spike, I take the opposite position, but I do agree with you here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the watchers guide -- Dochawk, 17:15:08 08/23/02 Fri
Post any links you come up with, because I too would love to read them. I'm a member of the Museum of radio and Television and there are the two Buffy and one Angel sessions there on tape. Anyone know where transcripts are?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> interviews -- aliera, 19:38:26 08/23/02 Fri
Which interviews are they? And certainly I'll post anything new if you like (anything old that's new that is). My favorite so far is the Onion interview; but, I was really looking for something beyond this and beyond the one reference to Slotkin. Thought about it again today in the JM sub-thread because it reminded me that most of what I've gotten came from the interviews of others; Joss is more reticent. Also, I was reading an essay yesterday and the author mentioned the Greek Invocation to Aphrodite that Willow painted on Tara's back in Restless and how not only was it appropriate to what happened in Season 6, but the Greek was well done. Got me curious again...how much time I'll have is another question, of course!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: interviews and links -- shadowkat, 08:18:44 08/24/02 Sat
Well here's links to one's I've read:
www.slayage.com (all their Joss articles, etc.)
www.bloodyawfulpoet.com - go to the Shore Leave photo,
hit the July 13/14 - and you should go to the complete transcripts of the Baltimore Shore Leave. Here JM tells
how he dealt with SR scene, how he views Spike, how he views Spike getting a soul, how he views the sex scenes,
and method acting.
www.jamesmarsters.com (this site appears to be down right now - but has terrific early interviews)
Bloody Awful Poet has the best ones.
On Whedon? I got one out of SFX Vampire Special. And most of others off www.slayage.com. Whedon went to England
Boarding School for much of high school. He also is the
son of situation comedy writer, grandson of situation comedy writer/producer. His father wrote for Benson (very good situation comedy - one of few that made me laugh and I'm not usually fond of them) and Whedon wrote for Roseanne in the early years. He was a film/english major apparently
and into Westerns. He cites several in the SFX article including the Searchers. He preferred the darker ones about redemption at long odds.
Not sure that adds anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks SK and totally totally OT -- aliera, 09:13:37 08/24/02 Sat
PUPPY has arrived!!!! He's wonderful...now for a name? Have to sign off now...have my hands full of keesie fluff; but I'll be back on tonight and by the bye...this thread got amazingly twisted...grand!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: in afterlife and ? -- anom, 14:57:05 08/23/02 Fri
"Perhaps he thought that she might come back wrong because of what happened with Joyce's resurrection spell?"
Maybe. That was a different kind of spell, but I don't know if Spike knew that.
"I don't think Willow says exactly why she didn't include Spike; this is Spike's assumption about the reason...."
That's exactly my point. That's why I don't think what he said was an insight.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: in afterlife and ? -- Miss Edith, 18:01:41 08/23/02 Fri
I thought it was just a way of showing Willow was becoming morally suspect. In Barganning she seemed very strong and forceful. Not to mention killing the deer. And when you see the moment of doubt in Xander's eyes and Spike's scorn at his naivety I find that very telling. There seemed to be a real effot in early episodes to build a sense of distrust around Willow for the audience. Particularly in Flooed when she threatened Giles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT to anom... -- aliera, 18:52:27 08/23/02 Fri
I don't know if you're still interested; but, I was going through my printouts from the myth->duality thread from the end of June and we had started a discussion that got archived. I took a week off next week to acclimate the new puppy to the household and I'll probably have some free time. I don't know how much because it's a little difficult to predict how he'll do. But if you'd care to pick it up again you can reach me at aliera9916@aol.com.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Manipulative v. tactless -- Sophist, 13:04:52 08/20/02 Tue
If Spike is manipulative -- and I think both fans and critics, for once, agree that he is -- he pretty well has to be insightful. It's hard to manipulate unless you both realize the opportunity and are subtle about using it.
This contrasts quite well with Cordy. Despite what might be called "nice tries" in the claims for insight, Cordy has none. Neither, however, is she at all manipulative. She is blunt and utterly lacking in guile.
I think it's great that the writers can use such opposites to clue in the audience on key points.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike as Insightful? -- Malandanza, 11:30:34 08/24/02 Sat
"As I believe is the case with Cordy, I think Spike has a superficial insightfulness, but uses a few right calls to manipulate with others. The best example is at the end of Season 4, New Moon Rising, Spike gets it right, plays on the insecurities of Willow/Xander and their relationship to Buffy, but he uses it to manipulate (that was the most expressive smile JM has ever produced). But he constantly gets it wrong too."
Part of Spike "insight" seems to be the result of the extreme suggestibility of Buffy and the Scoobies. He crafts plausible scenarios, like the one you mention in NMR, and Buffy or the Scoobies believe him without questioning the source. Even the oft-quoted "she's hanging by a thread" from SB seems less like insight to me than a projection of his own romantic fantasies -- Willow really wasn't hanging by a thread -- she was wallowing in self-pity and sulking because her friends had grown tired of holding her hand. Furthermore, in Afterlife, we find out that Spike had no idea that Willow, Xander, Tara and Anya (none of whom are masters of subterfuge) had spent the summer planning to bring back Buffy -- and he had spent the summer hanging out with them, believing himself to be their friend.
I do think he is capable of insights, however. He's usually just too lazy to bother thinking.
Cordelia has some of the same problems as has Spike -- early on BtVS she was typically too self-absorbed to be insightful. She is "cram-complex-issues-into-a-nutshell" girl, though, and, Like Spike, is capable of insights when she's paying attention to someone other than herself.
And "superficial insights"? Isn't that an oxymoron? :)
[> [> [> No, No... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:04:47 08/17/02 Sat
Anyanka wasn't in the business of playing out people's nightmares. There have been plenty of those stories in Buffy. The Wish absolutely was not one of them. If it was, Cordelia's wish would have ended the moment Cordelia died, and the world would have been stuck that way forever. Think about it. Smashing Anya's charm didn't undo everything she'd ever done, just those things that were part of the active wish. Just because it was a metaphoric nightmare for Cordelia, does not mean in any sense that it was shaped by her real nightmares.
The fact of Willow and Xander being together had nothing to do with Cordelia (or Buffy) in either world. That was the whole point of story. Willow and Xander would be close friends in The Wish if Cordelia had wished she, herself had never come to Sunnydale. Just as Cordelia's wish that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, didn't stop her from coming to Sunnydale eventually, it didn't stop Giles from fighting evil or stop evil from trying to overrun Sunnydale. Somethings are meant to be. Some things don't change!
[> [> Praise, and a question -- Vickie, 18:59:17 08/16/02 Fri
Part 2 soon, please. Like, now? Is that plain enough? Please to keep wearing out your keyboard. Need another? I think I have a spare in storage.
Now for the question: How do you reconcile your analysis of Spike with his behavior in the AtS episode In the Dark? There, he tortures Angel (actually, hires a professional) in order to get the Gem of Amarra. Arguably, there's not much of an erotic element in those torture scenes. But I keep being surprised by the erotic elements people find in things that I've overlooked.
Looking forward to your thoughts.
[> [> [> Re: Praise, and a question -- shadowkat, 05:44:43 08/17/02 Sat
"Now for the question: How do you reconcile your analysis of Spike with his behavior in the AtS episode In the Dark? There, he tortures Angel (actually, hires a professional) in order to get the Gem of Amarra. Arguably, there's not much of an erotic element in those torture scenes. But I keep being surprised by the erotic elements people find in things that I've overlooked."
I think you answered your own question. "actually he hire a professional". Something that Angel even calls him on.
Why not do it yourself? "Your big mistake Spike is hiring someone else to do your work for you. He's a vampire.'
Spike -"Ohh I didn't think of that! Wait! No I did. Torture is his addiction, his reward."
Spike doesn't really get off on it - or he'd do it himself.
Angelus would have. Notice we rarely if ever see Spike do the torture. He usually just beats up someone and loses patience with it. In fact Angel's right - the flaw in Spike's plan is that he hires Marcus - the vampire, who tortures people for his own enjoyment, to get the info from Angel. If he'd tortured Angel himself? He probably would have been more sucessful.
This is not to say he didn't enjoy seeing Angel get tortured, but he enjoyed it not for the erotic reasons a sadist would (sadists get off on torture). He enjoyed it for the reasons you or I might if someone captured our worst enemy and hurt them a bit. Spike hates Angel and for good reason - he holds him responsible for his loss of Dru.
So the torture in IN THE DARK is Spike's vengeance. What continues to interest me most about the episode is Spike's odd descision to hire someone else, someone who could and eventually does take the ring from him, to do the torturing. Some mention how stupid this is - but no one seems to go deeper and ask why Spike didn't just do it himself?
Working on PArt II. It will probably be posted early next week. The thoughts are fermenting in my head as I write this response.
sk
[> [> [> [> You answered your own question -- KdS, 05:21:07 08/19/02 Mon
"He usually just beats up someone and loses patience with it."
My take on ItD is almost identical to yours, but with the addition that if Spike tried to torture anyone for information he'd probably end up losing his temper after the first few refusals and killing them or beating them unconscious. He just doesn't have the self-discipline to be a good torturer (using "good" entirely in the sense of competence rather than morality).
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You answered your own question -- shadowkat, 06:02:31 08/19/02 Mon
"He just doesn't have the self-discipline to be a good torturer (using "good" entirely in the sense of competence rather than morality)."
Disagree. I've heard this arguement numerous times in analysis of Spike. It's often brought up by people comparing Angelus to Spike which is again a bit like comparing a grapefruit to an orange.
I think Spike has been shown to have a great deal of self-discipline and planning.
1. What's My Line : he not only manages to figure out a way to grab a necessary book, he figures out how to translate it, he gets the necessary articles, distracts the slayer and her friends, (not just one slayer btw but two), kidnaps his sire, and manages to heal Dru. He also survives.
(Actually he was more successful in What's My Line than Angelus was in Becoming in completing his intent.)
He had no patience with torturing Angelus. He let Dru do it.
But he was more interested in saving Dru. He almost gives in and kills Angel while Angel Baits him, but Dru stops him in time and he doesn't do it.
2. In Surprise - Spike is the one who ordered and got Dru the pieces of the Judge. Kept Dru from killing their errand man and engineered Dru's plan to build the judge. He was actually very successful. You can argue Dru helped. But from the lines? "You might want to wait Dru, he could be useful.." Spike was the mastermind.
3. Becoming Part II. Spike not only fooled Angelus into thinking he couldn't walk and was still handicapped. Oh and he rehabilitated himself in secret, kept his cool, and got out of that wheelchair without Angelus or Dru finding out. (Sounds like quite a bit of self-discipline to me. Torturing someone doesn't require discipline just desire and maybe a little skill.) He entered a truce with Buffy that Angelus didn't find out about even though Angelus had vampires following Buffy. He kept Angelus from killing Giles with chainsaws (Angelus had gotten impatient with Giles and was going to just kill him) Spike came up with the plan to use Drusilla to get into Gile's head and afterwards convinced Angelus not to kill Giles. Then Spike knocked Angelus out for a brief moment, conquered Dru and got out of town. Don't know sounds pretty darn competent.
4. School Hard - he came very close to killing Buffy in School Hard. He was about to ream her with a beam, and he took out most of the PTA. If Joyce had hit him over the head with an AX he'd be a goner. He also managed to get the upper hand on the Annoited One and his minions by killing the Annoited One and taking over the factory.
5. HLOD-In The Dark: He manages to get the Gem of Amarra in HLOD and would have escaped with it if he hadn't decided to fight Buffy first. Which again he comes close to succeeding at. In all their fights - they seem to be pretty equally matched. When he loses the Gem - he manages to capture Angelus and he gets Doyle and Cordy to find the Gem for him and give it to him. His mistake was to hire someone else to torture Angelus because he had no interest in it. Not incompetence so much as just a fatal flaw.
Personally his plans were far better executed than most of the other villains in Btvs including Angelus.
Spike even managed to break up the entire Scooby Gange in Yoko Factor and bring them back together again (b/c according to David Fury's commentary in PRimeval - the writers forgot that the disc detailing on how to get into the Initiative was in Willow's hands and they'd written themselves into a corner.)
I'd say Spike is pretty competent. And as for follow-through? Pretty darn amazing.
Out Of My Mind - he manages to infliterate the hospital, kidnap a doctor, get an operation and almost kill the slayer, and stay alive. And does it all with a chip in his head which makes it impossible for him to hit anyone.
Unfortunately the doc can't get the chip out - but that was not due to Spike's incompetentence.
Spiral - Spike manages to co-opt a Winnebago.
WWOTW - Spike finds the necessary books and gets Xander to help him take them, Xander who hates Spike's guts.
AYW - Spike may not have taken great care of those eggs, but he was certainly very good at keeping them hidden.
Also he was getting money from somewhere - had place decorated, had blood, was doing pretty well considering he couldn't be a vampire.
I'd have to say Spike is extraordinarily competent. And far more successful in his plans than either Dru or Darla were shown to be in Ats. He's just not written as sadistic as the other vampires.
JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Humbly bowing... -- KdS, 08:54:55 08/19/02 Mon
Oh yes. Spike's "fist 'n' fangs" routine is so convincing you forget it's just one part of his self-image. It's your point about late-S2 that convinces me. Sitting in that wheelchair watching Angelus and Dru...
The only possible salvage I can come up with is that Angel did nearly bait Spike into killing him in WML?, and that was before Dru dumped him. Maybe he just didn't trust himself enough that it wouldn't happen again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Humbly bowing... -- shadowkat, 09:03:23 08/19/02 Mon
"The only possible salvage I can come up with is that Angel did nearly bait Spike into killing him in WML?, and that was before Dru dumped him. Maybe he just didn't trust himself enough that it wouldn't happen again."
Yep, I think Spike was a little afraid he'd kill Angel before he got the info for the ring. Remember he blames Angel for losing Drusilla. They were happy before Angelus.
And now? He hates Angel because Buffy prefers him and loved him. So two lady loves who preferred Angel over him. Pretty good reason to despise someone. If I were Spike, Angel would have been dust in that episode. (Writers had to do some major writing to keep those two from dusting each other whenever they met up.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and Angel... -- aliera, 09:25:07 08/19/02 Mon
cough*grand-daddy issues*cough
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You answered your own question -- Mr Gordo, 17:16:31 08/21/02 Wed
Well the writers seem to see Spike as incompatent. In ATW the heroine of the show says Spike has stupid schemes and tells Riley, Spike is an incompatent fool but harmless. Spike seems to back up her words in that episode. He is running an international egg terrorism scheme, yet has no idea how to handle the eggs. He even leaves the merchendise next to the bed where he has regular sex with the slayer. Not to bright no?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Please don't bring up AYW -- Off-kilter, 12:16:00 08/23/02 Fri
If you want to paint Spike as incompetent, feel free to give examples of other things he has done that didn't play out. But AYW was written so ambiguously that a good many viewers were (are) totally lost as to Spike's actual degree of involvement. Was he the Doctor, or just a lackey? Was he unaware of the danger of them hatching, or just stupid enough to risk his hide and Buffy's life due to carelessness? He was smart enough to know that these (very RARE) demon eggs were worth money, take them from MommyDemonDearest, and arrange for them to be sold overseas, but not smart enough to know how to store them properly?
After all, 120 odd years of being a Big Bad and caring for himself and Dru shows that he's incapable of rational thought. Surprising that he wasn't dust within his first year of turning, no?
If you weren't being sarcastic, I might have to stake myself. For my sake, sarcasm, right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Please don't bring up AYW -- Miss Edith, 17:16:22 08/23/02 Fri
Lol too true. If Spike was the dealer perhaps someone should have told the actor. James Marsters played it as genuinely confused when Riley called him doctor. And I have no idea how a vampire loathed in the demon world because of his friendship with the slayer could make the necessery connections in the first place. But I guess Spike must be a resorsefull fellow. How many other vamps could run an international egg dealing business whilst living in a crypt with no phone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Eggs -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:27:51 08/23/02 Fri
Maybe Spike really was just holding them for a friend. If this friend didn't mention they had to be chilled, how would Spike know? This doesn't excuse it, though, as storing demon eggs is very suspicious and probably isn't of the good.
[> [> [> [> [> [> gotta dispute some of these -- anom, 23:04:27 08/24/02 Sat
I agree w/a lot of them, but there are a few....
"He had no patience with torturing Angelus. He let Dru do it.
But he was more interested in saving Dru. He almost gives in and kills Angel while Angel Baits him, but Dru stops him in time and he doesn't do it."
Doesn't this support KdS's statement?
"Spike even managed to break up the entire Scooby Gange in Yoko Factor and bring them back together again (b/c according to David Fury's commentary in PRimeval - the writers forgot that the disc detailing on how to get into the Initiative was in Willow's hands and they'd written themselves into a corner.)"
Except for the part where he gives away the fact that he knows "you two birds had a falling out" & sets the stage for the reversal of all his work breaking them up. It sure didn't look like he meant for Buffy to catch on to that part. The point wasn't to get them together, just to arrange things so Buffy would know where to go to play her role in Adam's plan. That doesn't require getting the entire gang back together--just getting Willow to realize it's in everyone's interest for her to supply the info to Buffy, however resentfully she might do it.
"Out Of My Mind - he manages to infliterate the hospital, kidnap a doctor, get an operation and almost kill the slayer, and stay alive. And does it all with a chip in his head which makes it impossible for him to hit anyone.
Unfortunately the doc can't get the chip out - but that was not due to Spike's incompetentence."
Can't get the chip out? 'Scuse me, but he deliberately made them think he did get the chip out. That's why he dropped the penny into the tray, to make Spike & Harmony think it was the removed chip. Spike found out the hard way he'd been faked out. (& BTW, I wouldn't call it unfortunate!)
"4. School Hard - he came very close to killing Buffy in School Hard. He was about to ream her with a beam, and he took out most of the PTA. If Joyce had hit him over the head with an AX he'd be a goner. He also managed to get the upper hand on the Annoited One and his minions by killing the Annoited One and taking over the factory."
Joyce did hit him over the head with the ax, but that's not enough w/vampires. Now, if she'd used the business end of the ax to chop his head off, then he'd have been a goner! As far as the Anointed One is concerned, we don't know what would have happened if Spike hadn't killed him. Maybe his plan (whatever it was) would've worked & the vamps would have had the upper hand, but Spike got impatient. Again, I wouldn't call that evidence of self-discipline.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another example... -- Q, 09:27:23 08/25/02 Sun
Lovers Walk...
"He's probably just got them locked up at the factory"
"How dim do you think I am?"
...Pretty dim.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not dim. Incredibly drunk. You can't hold him to sober standards in Lover's Walk. -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:45:05 08/25/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Becoming Part II -- shadowkat, 10:54:05 08/25/02 Sun
Well he did outsmart Angelus and Drusilla, convince Buffy to join with him and learned to walk again behind their back.
He also cleverly kept Giles alive.
While you can argue he made mistakes - in all these episodes. Let's look at the other side:
1. He managed to get that Doctor and he also managed to foil The military to get there to at least attempt to get the chip out. Unfortunately he trusted Harmony to ensure it happened. (That I agree was a fatal flaw.) OOMM
2. He escaped from the all mighty Initiative and stayed out of it and found a way to convince his enemies to help him.
Pretty ingenious. The Initiative - The I in Team
3. He broke up Buffy and Riley in Into the Woods. And didn't get staked as a result.
4. In Lover's Walk - he convinced Angel and Buffy he didn't have them at the factory. Kept Buffy and Angel from staking him. And got them to keep him alive and help him get ingredients for a spell.(Sounds pretty smart to me. He manipulated B/A throughout that episode including making them aware they couldn't stay "just friends.")
ME likes to take the least likely character, flip them, and make them competent (often the villains come across more competent than the heros, only to have heros suddenly foil them). In an interview Whedon admitted he liked to show the ugly guy being the hero, the cute guy doing horrible things, the little petite blond taking down the villain and the villain outsmarting everyone, being incredibly competent only to have the hero foil his plans do to a bit of luck. Show is all about irony.
Every character has show elements of competence and incompetence in the show. Every single one. The brillance of Btvs is the characters aren't cardboard cut-outs and one dimensional. They are multidimensional.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You answered your own question -- aliera, 06:05:47 08/19/02 Mon
Maybe...look again at the torture scene with Giles in S2...
Who lost their temper?
Who devised the 'torture' that broke Giles?
;-)
[> [> That Anne Rice routine -- Sophist, 07:42:31 08/17/02 Sat
I'm not sure exactly how this fits in, but I thought I'd mention that Anne Rice wrote a series of pornographic S&M novels under the pseudonym A.N. Roquelaure. Seems like you could use this somehow.
[> [> [> Wait a minute, there's a Spike fanfic writer called Roquelaure ! -- Ete, 03:03:15 08/18/02 Sun
[> [> I think pain's just the surface issue... -- KdS, 05:24:00 08/20/02 Tue
From quite a bit of fictional and non-fictional reading, and a certain degree of self-analysis, I think that people who talk about SM being primarily about pain are mistaking the metaphor for the truth. If people simply like pain (their own or others), what's the need for all the ritual, the fantasy? What's even the need for the other person if you're a masochist? It can't just be for safety.
My personal impression is that what people define as SM isn't so much about pain as it is about control, either exerting or relinquishing it. Pain's just the most direct and intense means of demonstrating that.
This has some fairly interesting resonances with our favourite three vampires. Angel(us)? Even with a soul, he's a control freak. Pre-Surprise, he always keeps himself in a position of power over the other Scoobies. He's the mysterious Deep Fang, doling out the information he thinks other people need to know. He's the powerful, wise older man, initiating the innocent young bud into the arts of love. Even after his re-souling, he keeps an air of mystery. He seems to enjoy his masquerade in "Enemies" to a degree that goes disturbingly beyond method acting. (It seemed to me that the Faith-smooching was just a pretext for the real problems between Buffy and Angel in "Earshot" - what they were really worried about was the extent to which they both got into their masquerade, and maybe both enjoyed it a little. Remember Buffy punching Faith in "Consequences" when she makes a comment about getting off on Angelus? In the Buffyverse it often seems that people turn to violence in that situation when someone gets too close to the truth.) As you've pointed out, "The Prom" is all about Angel deciding what's best for Buffy, and once he gets to LA his whole persona is based around knowing what's best for other people. I believe that the biggest step Angel ever took to redemption was deferring to his ex-employees in "Epiphany", and admitting that maybe he shouldn't be trying to take responsibility for the entire universe.
Spike on the other hand? As you convinced me of in our exchange above, he can scheme and manipulate very effectively and put complex plots into practice. Yet all his planning seems to be for a well-defined, short-term, practical objective rather than its own sake. Get Dru well. Get the chip out. Get Buffy into his bed. His recreational activities all seem driven by the desire to get out of his head on something, whether it's overpowering love, sex, berserker violence, or booze.
By contrast, Dru seems torn between surrender to greater forces and self-interest. She's overpoweringly submissive with Angelus, gently dominant and manipulative with Spike. She can cow him equally effectively with a sharp word or a melting look. Their first ever scene together, in "School Hard", culminates with her slashing him, to their evident mutual pleasure. One gets the feeling that even when Spike's got the branding iron in his hand, both of them know where the real power lies. She lets herself slip into babbling psychosis when there's someone around to take care of her, but when she's thrown on her own resources she can act with remarkable competence and rationality. Don't believe me? Watch her in "Reunion" until Darla recovers her sanity. Then ask yourself how, given the general tone of vampire social interaction, she made herself undisputed leader of the Sunnydale crew when Spike was crippled. You don't take over a bunch of feral vampires by undirected violence or sitting in a corner gibbering. The fact that her actions between "The Trial" and "Crush" are spread across two different shows maks their clear and coherent motivation. She wants someone to take care of her. Out of her and Darla, Dru's the one who can see past obsession into self-preservation. When she sees the Darla's out to join Angel in their personal apocalypse she heads back to Sunnydale for second-best.
I hopew this hasn't got into the "too much information" category about my thought processes :-) Thanks for having the courage to start this topic, Shadowkat.
[> [> [> Agree... it's all about control -- ponygirl, 07:37:48 08/20/02 Tue
But for the vamps pain definitely seems to be a bonus ;)
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- Caroline, 12:05:55 08/21/02 Wed
I'm having a problem with your thesis - trying to place characters in different categories of S/M, dominance/submission, abuser/victim, user/usee (if that's a word). Power in relationships is so complex that I feel it is not very productive to categorise them in sadist/masochist or dominant/submissive categories. Malandanza makes a great point about this in several posts above so I won't repeat his insights.
I just want to state that Buffy became involved with Spike as avenue to feeling something - there were all sorts of dark, hidden things she discovered about herself as a result. She didn't seek to control or dominate him. Spike was willing to take any crumb and do anything to make her stay with him (although I watched Normal Again last night and was struck by his disinterestedness when he said that either telling her friends about them or continuing with him and cutting off her friends would both be a step forward from her current misery) but he did not seek to submit to her. Buffy wanted release from her numbness and depression, Spike wanted, in typical 19thC romantic poet fashion, to attain the unattainable. Not to say that power or control wasn't an issue, it just was never clear to me who was in control. It seemed to veer back and forth between them in all sorts of ways.
What I got from their relationship (Buffy and Spike) was that sometimes you don't get involved with someone because you love them, it's because you hate yourself. Both are examples of this. Buffy is not in a good psychological place when she gets involved with Spike. She thinks she came back wrong. She feels bad about herself and then worse when she discovers she enjoys the non-vanilla sex she's having with Spike (although these days having sex in a public place or using handcuffs seem more vanilla all the time). Spike also has self-esteem issues - he's identified with the Big Bad so long that morally ambiguous Spike can't feel that he is good enough for Buffy.
But I find it hard to correlate dominance/submission or S/M with controller/controllee, abuser/victim, user/usee. Often the two sides of dominance/submission or S/M spring from the same psychological issues that are playing themselves out in opposing ways depending on what is identified with and what is projected. Consequently, the issues of control, power, dominance, submission are not clear cut. Because whatever part you are playing out - S/M, dominance/submission, you are controlling the other into giving you what you want - the pleasure of receiving pain or the pleasure of inflicting pain. I think that Buffy and Spike showed just how good they are at doing both in season 6.
[> [> [> Applause, Caroline -- auroramama, 19:04:11 08/25/02 Sun
[> Thanks for the feedback everyone! working on part II. -- shadowkat, 19:54:27 08/17/02 Sat
TV, fanfic, communication, and a question -- Just George, 11:40:27 08/16/02 Fri
Howdy,
I just finished reading the latest chapter of HonorH's fanfic "That's Life" on Fanfiction.net.
(It's great BTW, check it out at: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=804112)
In reading the story, I was struck by several thoughts.
First, how the medium of a story effects the way artists present character interactions. "That's Life" is a text story, not a video presentation. It is presented in a series of first person vignettes, where different characters talk directly to the reader. Third, the vignettes are almost all internal and external dialogue, there is minimal action and few detailed descriptions of characters or locations.
Interestingly, the lack of description does not seem to me to be an impediment to enjoying a good piece of fan fiction. Because readers see these characters and their surroundings every week, they knows what everything looks and sounds like. If a scene is set in Buffy's living room or Spike's crypt, I know the atmosphere, the furniture, and even the entrances and exits. Little description is needed. I have those images already in my head.
WHAT TV IS GOOD AT
BtVS is a TV show, a medium where images have great power.
Turning points in the lives of the characters have been shown visually with powerful images: blowing up the high school, the mass melee in the Initiative, the fall of Glory's tower. These are all images that tell the viewer that the characters won't be going home again, that the future will not be like the past.
Relationships between characters is also often shown more powerfully visually than with words: Angel walking into the fog at the end of Graduation Part II; Spike and Anya's post coital glances in Entropy; Buffy, Willow and Xander talking happily in the background at the end of The Wish. These were all examples of scenes where there were no words, only powerful symbols of the state of relationships.
Action is inherently visual. Character interactions in BtVS are also often shown via visually impressive action scenes: Buffy and Angelus dueling at the end of Becoming Part II, Veruca attacking Willow and Oz defending her in Wild at Heart, Buffy and Spike bringing the house down at the end of Smashed. The action in these scenes were metaphors for the conflicts between the characters, made more powerful by video's ability to help the viewer feel the danger and risks embodied in the confrontation.
However, it is my experience that most fan fiction is not very good at portraying these elements. Video seems to do it effortlessly. Our brains are wired to recognize emotions on faces. It is no wonder that we find a piercing glance to be a powerful way to advance a story. We have ancient programming to trigger our "fight or flight" reactions to danger. It follows that violent confrontations that provide a denouement push our buttons.
WHAT FAN FIC IS GOOD AT
However, there are other things that fan fiction is very good at. Long dialogue scenes on TV can feel interminable. The same scene in a fanfic can be riveting. I think this partially comes from the fact that when reading a piece of dialogue the reader's brain has to be active, supplying the sound of the voice, the intonations, and the subtle gestures. It is similar to the way that a good radio play engages the imagination more completely that the same story told in video.
A text story can also get "into the heads" of characters better than video. HonorH's story, told from the POV of 5 different characters (so far) includes lots of internal dialogue to tell us what each character is thinking. From the detached third person POV of a video we can never really know a character's thoughts. There have been a few exceptions to this general rule, the adult voice over in "The Wonder Years" for example, but these are few and far between.
Fan fiction can also be good at presenting descriptions of sensations other that images or sounds. TV rocks when it comes to portraying sight and hearing. Text is better at bringing across the sensations of touch, smell, and taste. I think the more complete sensory pallet of text helps explain the wide popularity of erotic fan fiction. I think eroticism is enhanced when the text gets readers to engage their imagination and the full range of their senses. "That's Life" is not erotic BTW, just very engaging from a character standpoint.
ARTISTIC CHOICES
"That's Life" is a dialogue driven story. The characters actually talk to each other quite a bit more than the do in the show. Issues are talked about directly, not hinted at in actions. Not surprisingly, many buried issues are brought out in the open and dealt with. It is ultimately a healing story and very refreshing after the darkness of Season 6.
BtVS has historically been about character's not talking about issues and later paying for it: Willow not telling Xander how she felt in S1, Buffy keeping Angel's return a secret in S3, Riley not telling Buffy about his needs in S5, Xander not voicing his qualms about marriage in S6. In each case (and in so many others it's hard to count them all) the character got hurt worse by keeping things bottled up than they probably would have if they had talked.
In a JE interview at the succubus club, she mentioned that an important thing in writing Buffy as a character was realizing Buffy was an observer, not a talker. In JE's mind, Buffy takes everything in and only tells what she thinks people need to know. I suspect this puts a lot of burden for telling the story on SMG's acting ability since Buffy's emotions must be portrayed via acting instead of via the dialogue. It also opens up lots of possibilities for Buffy's friends to misunderstand exactly where she is coming from at any time. This is not to pick on Buffy, Xander hides behind jokes, Willow her shyness, etc. None of the core Scoobies is very good at communicating what they feel.
MOVING FORWARD
I realize now that this ramble is heading towards a question. Should the writers adjust the attitudes of the core Scoobies to make them more communicative? The darkness that came from the characters not communicating in Season 6 could be used as a "kick" to change this aspect of their characters. However, it would change something that has been central to them for the last 6 seasons. Is it a good idea to change or could it turn the show into "7th Heaven" with fangs?
Ultimately I got hooked on BtVS to follow what Joss describes as the genres defined by the shows title:
Buffy the = Humor
Vampire = Horror
Slayer = Action
Would having the characters communicate more openly help promote stories in these genres, or is the level of uncertainty that comes from limited communication necessary to promote them? In short, would an open version of Buffy, Xander, and Willow make it easier or harder tell good BtVS stories?
I don't know. Some of the dramatic tension in the show comes from the things the audience knows about the characters that they don't know about each other. However, much of the character's pain has come from there are well.
-JG
[>Darn you all to heck, HonorH -- Vickie, 15:06:04 08/16/02 Fri
I just finished reading That's Life (as far as it has gone), and now my eyes are all red and puffy.
Nice job.
[> [>Oops! -- Honorificus (She-Who-Writes-Without-Mercy), 16:53:14 08/16/02 Fri
Ya reads the fic, ya takes ya chances, sweetie!
[> [>Re: Thanks, HonorH -- Just George, 00:06:05 08/18/02 Sun
My eyes watered as well. The story makes me sad for what has brought all of the characters to this low point. But it is hopeful because it demonstrates they have the ability to forge better times ahead.
The fact that this particular story had such a strong effect led to my rambling thoughts on the power of fiction vs. video.
[>From an incorrigible fanfic author and reader: -- HonorH, 17:36:02 08/16/02 Fri
Fanfic does different things than television can. Whether it's writing an episode that'd be impossible to film (Yahtzee's "Acid Test"; my "Dreamwalk"), or doing an intensive character exploration (Selena's "Death Becomes Her"), writing is a medium that allows for more room to maneuver. Video is by necessity limited to what people can see and hear. That makes it great for the epic shots and action scenes that fanfic can't quite measure up to. Fanfic, though, can maneuver into places video can't go. It can delve into a character's thoughts during a particular situation. It can explore alternate possibilities (inamorata's "Another Life"; Yahtzee's "Phoenix Burning"). It can go into the lives of minor characters (indri's "Foreign Devils"; my "Aurora"). It can cross over from different fandoms (Elena Zovatto's "Hot Chocolate, Discussion, and Death at 2:00 am", which is Sandman/BtVS; my "A Letter from Screwtape to Mr. Holland Manners", which is C.S. Lewis/AtS).
Television and print are, of course, totally different media. Both have their limitations. Fanfic, at its best, provides a bridge over those limitations.
For all the stories mentioned above, go to my FanFiction.net page and look in my "Favorites" section. You'll find some of the best of the best in there. And it's free!
Thanks for the recommendation, btw, Just George. I work hard on my fic, and it's always nice to hear that it's hit the mark.
[> [>Re: Communication changes past, present, and future (minor S7 speculation) -- Just George, 01:57:51 08/18/02 Sun
After reading a lot of fan fiction over the summer, I was struck by the number of authors that just want the characters to talk decently to each other and get their issues out in the open. I was also struck by how seldom the show does this. Most all of the core characters either have a limited ability to know their own issues, or do not want to take the chance and express them.
It also seems like this kind of inter-character communication used to be more common in earlier seasons. I remember many Buffy/Willow heart to heart talks in S1-S3. The Xander/Buffy talk at the end of Seeing Red seems almost like an isolated example of such talks in S6. S4 does not overflow with examples either, though S5 was perhaps a bit better.
One question is, are these perceptions correct? Without an episode by episode check I'm not sure. But for the purposes of this rant, I'm going to assume that my assumption is correct and that the core Scoobies (Buffy, Willow, and Xander) communicate their feelings to each other less now than they did early in the show.
So, if this is true, did the creators do it on purpose? If so, for what reason?
LET'S SAY THE POOR COMMUNICATION WAS MOSTLY AN ACCIDENT
It is possible that the creators did not intend to isolate the characters from each other. Other story considerations may have inadvertently led them to move the characters apart.
For example, Buffy and Willow have an almost sisterly relationship in S1-S3. In S4 they share a dorm room, which would seem could lead to even better communications. It doesn't turn out that way. Part of the arc of S4 is how the core Scoobies move apart from each other.
What are some of the structural reasons that may inadvertently led the core Scoobies to communicate less in S4-6 than they did in S1-3?
1) Physical locations matter. If characters hang out together, they have chances to turn a random conversation into a discussion of important issues. In S1-S3, it made sense for the gang to hang out together whenever they were out of class. This could be in the library, the student lounge, or at the Bronze.
In S4 it was less likely for the group to naturally hang out together. Buffy and Willow shared a dorm room, but neither seemed to spend much time there. Xander was in his basement. As a "Townie" he was out of place on campus.
In S5 everyone hang out at the Magic Box. Some better communication may have resulted. At least character isolation wasn't a theme of S5.
In S6, Buffy's house or the Magic Box could have fulfilled the function of a hang out. However, with Buffy's intentional isolation from the group, the Scoobies seldom hung out together. Therefore, they seldom could take advantage of the times when a random conversation could turn into real communication about issues.
2) In S4, Willow became Tara's girlfriend. Now Willow had a female friend to take over the best friend/sister role from Buffy. After a while it became unusual to see Willow without Tara. Willow and Tara hung out together a lot so most of Willow's heart to heart talks were with her.
3) In S5, Buffy got Dawn as a sister. Now Buffy had someone to take over the sister role abandoned by Willow. In S5 Buffy and Dawn had a couple of discussions about real issues, for example their discussion of why Riley left after Into The Woods. This is a conversation that Buffy would probably have had with Willow in S1-3.
4) In S4, Xander got Anya as a girlfriend. In S5 they got an apartment. In S6, Giles left the Magic Box to Anya and it became Xander and Anya's hang out. After a while it became unusual to see Xander without Anya. Anya displayed some jealousy towards Buffy and Willow, so it made sense for Xander to limit his time alone with them.
5) In S6, Buffy actively isolated herself from the other core Scoobies and hung with Spike. Nuff Said.
Given all of these structural changes, it makes sense that the core Scoobies have fewer heart to heart talks. They had less time together and all had other characters to talk to.
LET'S SAY THE POOR COMMUNICATION WAS ON PURPOSE
Perhaps the creators wanted to isolate the core Scoobies from each other for dramatic reasons. Why might they do this?
1) The characters have been isolated to create misunderstandings that result in dramatic tension between the characters. The dramatic confrontations at the end of The Yoko Factor in S4 were only possible because of the character's season-long isolation from each other.
2) The characters have been isolated so that they could grow as individuals. Perhaps the creators felt the core characters had mined out the emotional growth that could result from dealing with each other. They needed to deal with new characters to experience new growth.
3) The characters have been isolated so that they could be confounded by dramatic problems that the group would have solved too swiftly/easily. Problems like Xander's feelings of inadequacy in S4, Buffy's death wish in S5, Riley's isolation in S5, Buffy's depression in S6, and Willow's magic abuse in S6 probably would have been solved much more easily if the entire group had been communicating more effectively.
If the isolation has been on purpose, then the question comes up, was it a good idea? Does the isolation still serve its dramatic purposes?
I suspect that some of the isolation has been purposeful. The core group's isolation was a core part of the story arc in S4. Riley's isolation was a necessary catalyst to him leaving the show. And Buffy's isolation was necessary to perpetuate her season-long arc of depression.
However, I also suspect that ME learned that the isolation of the core Scoobies from each other became greater than was healthy for the show. That may be part of the reason for them "stripping away" some of the structural elements that have kept the characters apart.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Are the structural issues going to be changed in S7? Location wise, I expect the Magic Box to be unavailable as a hang out. In a "show not tell" medium like television, the on-screen destruction of the shop leads me to believe that there won't be a shop to go back to. Given this, I have no idea where Anya will be hanging out.
As in S1-3, there may be multiple hang outs. Xander's apartment is a possibility. Buffy's house is perhaps a better one (she is the alpha of the pack and her house makes it easy to include Dawn.) I expect that with the new season ME will invent a new hang out, much like they invented the Magic Box in S5. If they don't, the lack of a logical hang out could be a significant impediment to improved communications.
In terms of character relationships, the wanton destruction of S6 leaves Buffy, Willow, and Xander without Significant Others. Assuming Willow can be brought back into the fold, these three characters may have every reason to hang out together rather than with others. This is a big assumption! However, given Willow's traumas, I suspect she will be in serious need of friends.
Even if Buffy and Xander resume pursing their previous relationships with Spike and Anya, the process will take some time. They will not immediately begin hanging out with their SOs. This will create a time window when the core Scoobies will probably hang out more with each other than with anyone else.
The Dawn/Buffy relationship may keep Buffy and Willow from resuming the sisterly relationship they had in S1-S3. If Buffy and Dawn act as sisters than it will be harder for Buffy and Willow to do so. However, if Buffy and Dawn act more as mother and daughter, then there is an opening for B/W sister/best friend bonding. The introduction of more friends for Dawn may allow her to form sisterly relations with her peers rather than with her guardian.
In some ways, the harsh outcomes of S6 leave me with some hope for the core Scoobies to communicate more in S7. None of them are paired up. They will all be in need of some friendship bonding. If ME can successfully get Willow back into the fold, and invent a plausible location for the core group to hang out, many of the structural impediments to communication will have been resolved.
It is pure speculation (or maybe a hopeful wish brought to mind by HonorH's story) that the core Scoobies spend more time together in S7. I would hope that their time together would lead to better communication and a bit more happiness all around.
Or I may just be delusional and ME will keep the core Scoobies apart to maximize dramatic tension. I'll watch to find out.
-JG
[> [> [>Re: Communications past...season 3 -- aliera, 06:32:26 08/18/02 Sun
Great post, Just George. I do think that there were signifigant communication issues in Season 3 also. Secrets, lack of communication and consequences being one of the subthemes. Last night, The Zeppo was broadcast here on Fox in which the Gang avoided telling Xander about a impending world-ending event to "protect" him...what a wonderful episode, by the way. It was great to finally see the show after hearing so discussion about it.
[> [> [> [>Re: Communications in The Zeppo -- Just George, 12:13:19 08/19/02 Mon
The Zeppo was an interesting example of limited communication. On one hand, I never quite saw the reasons for the SG keeping Xander out of the loop. He went down in the opening fight, but that had happened before to just about everyone in the group (How many times has Giles been knocked unconscious?) I wish the SG's concern had been foreshadowed better, perhaps by having Xander make a dangerous mistake in a previous episode. On the other hand, my respect for Xander went way up when he didn't tell the SG about his confrontation / triumph in dealing with the bomb.
The Zeppo is interesting in another way. Watch the opening. In order to make Xander look bad, the writers make everyone else look good. Willow's magic is useful. Giles is directing the attack effectively. Buffy and Faith kick ass, take names, and cooperate. If the issues with Faith could have been worked out there could have been a SG with 2 cooperating slayers. To me, the cost when Faith went over to the Mayor was not just her loss, it was the loss of how much better Faith and everyone in the SG could have been had they all worked together.
-JG
[> [> [> [> [>And Xanders smile at the end to Cordy...priceless! -- aliera, 14:06:28 08/19/02 Mon
[> [> [>Terrific treatise, Just George! (minor S7 spoilers) -- HonorH, 09:50:14 08/19/02 Mon
Yes, I've noticed the number of fanfic writers out there who just want these people to communicate. One of the big themes of S6 was that everyone was so wrapped up in his or her own problems that they ended up ignoring the pain everyone else was in. Buffy's depression and Spike Issues, Willow's addiction, Xander and Anya's wedding, and Dawn's feelings of abandonment all contributed to their neglect of each other.
What I hope is that S7 will show that they've gotten past this. There's already hope--Xander and Buffy's talk in SR was a breakthrough, IMHO, because they addressed the real *issue* at stake (that of Xander being truly hurt that Buffy didn't trust him, and his acknowledgement that perhaps she had reason not to) rather than just going around on the particulars. It looked like Willow was really interested in talking with Buffy about it, too, until everything went to hell at the end. I like to think that with Xander, Buffy, and Dawn being the remaining Scoobies in Sunnydale through the summer, they'll get closer together, and they'll also be there for Willow when she gets back.
I think you're right, too, that the sudden absence of SOs will help them communicate. Xander will be pursuing Anya, from what I understand, but Tara is dead, and Spike . . . well, let's just say he's no longer SO material for Buffy, no matter what the Spuffyites say. Given the "girl power" theme of next season, I feel pretty confident Buffy will be a strong single gal who most certainly is *not* going to go for the guy who almost raped her. They'll have time to re-develop their friendships after the events of S6.
[> [> [> [>Re: FRIENDships rather than RELATIONships in S7 -- Just George, 11:56:57 08/19/02 Mon
HonorH: "I think you're right, too, that the sudden absence of SOs will help them communicate. Xander will be pursuing Anya, from what I understand..."
And even if Xander is pursuing Anya, it will probably not be the same as them being paired up. When characters are paired up it seems like they are almost always seen together. When a character is pursuing someone, it is easier for the writers to show them alone. Heck, it can even be better drama, because the character can talk to others about their pursuit. For example, look how much more of Tara we got to see with other characters (ex: Dawn & Buffy) after she broke up with Willow.
HonorH: "They'll have time to re-develop their friendships after the events of S6."
I'll second that. My hope is for more FRIENDships rather than RELATIONships in S7.
-JG
But the world DID end! (an alternate view of The Wish) -- tim, who's decided to take the name McLeod, 15:07:14 08/16/02 Fri
Since the great controversies of season 6 have been discussed to death, I thought we could all use a change of pace. Rather than beat a dead S6 horse, then, indulge me while I dig one up from a few years ago. (In all seriousness, my apologies if these thoughts have been posted before. It's the closest thing I've had to an original thought since I started lurking here, so I had to let it out. :) )
I've seen many comments posted about the Wishverse, critiquing/explaining everything from the reversal of Anya's wish-granting to the decision to release VampWillow back into the wild. But everyone appears to be in agreement that the world didn't end when the Master rose. On the face of it, this would seem to be a non-controversial claim, since:
1) World's still there and all.
2) There's no evidence in the library that the Hellmouth is open.
These two points are generally followed with a spackle-ish remark about how the Master (who has been motivated by world end-age for 60 years) was simply not ambitious enough in the alternate world. I'd like to argue that there's a better explanation: the world did end at the Harvest in the Wishverse world.
It all boils down to the fact that in the Buffyverse there are apocalypses, and then there are apocalypses. That is, you can end the world by bringing Earth to Hell (Acathla and all that), or you can end it by bringing Hell to Earth. Per the italics, that is exactly what I believe has happened in the Wishverse.
Examine the evidence from the canon. First, in Prophecy Girl, as the Hellmouth opens beneath them, the Master asks Buffy, "You laugh when my Hell is on Earth?" Clearly, this is a bring-Hell-to-the-world scenario, not a bring-the-world-to-Hell scenario. The people left alive in such a situation (and The Wish makes it clear there aren't many--observe the barren school) would likely carry on the best they could, much like civilians living under the siege of an invading army. Go about life as normally as possible, but be always mindful that you're operating under new rules, or else wake up on the wrong side of dead. (So don't wear bright colors, go out after dark, etc.)
There's more evidence that this is the type of situation intended, as well. In The Wish, when Larry hears Giles' theory about what Cordelia did, he remarks, "The entire world sucks because some dead ditz made a wish" (italics mine). Furthermore, there's Giles' hilarious conversation about the amount of "demonic activity in Cleveland." (Aside: anyone who's ever been to Cleveland knows this is only barely metaphorical. Sorry, d'H. ;) ) These two comments together lead me to belive that, contrary to what many say, it's not just Sunnydale that's suffering. It's everywhere. Of course, Sunnydale was the hardest hit, but then Hiroshima was hit hardest on August 6, 1945, and yet a much wider area suffered from the atom bomb for a much longer period of time.
As to the fact that there was no hole in the floor of the library, presumably we've been dropped into the the Wishverse at the same point in time that we were following in the regular Buffyverse. Two years have gone by since the Harvest. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Hellmouth opened, everything escaped, and the Sunnydale school system brought in the linoleum guys to cover up the physical hole. It's not clear whether the demons who want into our dimension want to come to stay (in which case the hole would be a one-time event), or if they're simply inter-dimensional tourists (restaurant patrons?), but in either case, the lack of a physical hole doesn't negate the possible opening of a metaphysical portal.
All of this leads to an interesting non-endy world ending. A world not so much ended as "made theirs." A nightmare world where the humans muddle through, but can no longer deny the fact that demons are all around them, because the balance of power has shifted most decidedly. This, IMHO, is what the canon points to, and what makes the most sense.
Thoughts?
--th
(all quotes from psyche, who does us all a tremendous service)
[>I AM Cleveland's demonic activity! -- d'Horrible, 15:13:05 08/16/02 Fri
At least since Art Modell left.
[> [>LOL! Go Browns! -- McLeod, 15:32:29 08/16/02 Fri
[>Re: But the world DID end! (an alternate view of The Wish) -- Rob, 15:37:06 08/16/02 Fri
Here was always my take on the issue, which, unusually for me, requires very little reading between the lines or analysis...
Facts:
1) In the normal Buffyverse, when the Master drank from the Slayer in order to break free from his prison, the Hellmouth opened.
2) In the Wishverse, when the Master rose as a result of the sacrifices from "The Harvest," the Hellmouth seems to have not opened.
Perhaps, then, this was implying that, despite the fact that the Harvest would have worked with the human sacrifices, it would not have been as effective as Slayer blood that allowed the Master to instantly open up the Hellmouth upon his breaking-free--the cork-in-a-bottle theory. The opening of the Hellmouth was obviously mystically linked with the Master's rising in "Prophecy Girl," evidenced by the fact that, upon the Master's death, the Hellmouth instantly closed. Perhaps Slayer blood was the vital component needed to make that connection.
And then, if we continue with the Master-lost-his-ambition theory, perhaps when he rose from The Harvest and saw that the Hellmouth didn't instantly open, that is when his ambition decreased in the Wishverse.
But, on the other hand, you made an interesting argument as to the difference of "suck-Earth-into-hell" versus "bring-Hell-to-Earth." While the Acathala portal was similar to opening an airlock of spaceship during space flight--everything is sucked through it, and into space--the Hellmouth was the opposite. The Hellmouth was a door from which the denizens of the other dimension could enter Earth.
Cheesy pun alert in 5...4...3...2...1...
I guess you could say the Acathala portal sucks and the Hellmouth blows. ;o)
I do have a few questions about your theory though...If the Hellmouth were opened, as opposed to just the Master getting out of the church, along with his minions (who already could) and then turning a lot of other people...why would the school system have covered up the hole in the library? Would there even still be a school system?
Actually, while typing this, I just had a thought that might answer my question...Perhaps that was part of a deal the Master and the Mayor struck, so that there would be a supply of fresh food for the vamps. A tangential question is whether the Mayor is around in Sunnydale anymore in the Wishverse, or whether he was killed too. The Master probably would have few compunctions about killing him, unless he let him live out of gratitude for having set up the town in the first place, in order to feed the vamps.
Now my brain is working on overload!
Anyone else want to help me muddle through this mess of ideas I've just spat forth?
And just think...my original theory involved much less thought.
Rob
[> [>Angel -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:26:00 08/16/02 Fri
Maybe, when Angel saw that Buffy wasn't coming to Sunnydale as he had been told by Whistler, he reluctantly decided to fight the Master himself.
And Angel succeeded, to a certain extent. He couldn't stop the Master from rising, but was able to stop the Hellmouth from spewing the demons back onto earth. VampWillow did mention Angel tried to fight against the vampires, and this may be what she was referring to.
[> [>Nice (or rather, rotten) pun, Rob! -- Vickie, 18:13:02 08/16/02 Fri
I actually heard cartoon music in my head when reading that one!
[> [> [>LOL...Actually my muse there was Bart Simpson... -- Rob, 18:33:25 08/16/02 Fri
who once said, "Man, this both sucks and blows at the same time!"
So the cartoon music was fitting. ;o)
Rob
[> [>the Mayor-Master connection -- mcleod, 05:50:34 08/17/02 Sat
Look closely at the first scene in The Bronze during The Wish. Unless I'm mistaken (someone with the tapes want to check me out on this?), the man strapped to the pool table is none other than Mayor Wilkins. Whatever deal they may have had, it would appear to be off now.
--th
[> [> [>Re: the Mayor-Master connection -- Alvin, 12:45:27 08/17/02 Sat
I remember the guy on the table, but I didn't think it was the Mayor. I can't wait for S3 to come out on DVD so I can rewatch my favorite season. I always had the feeling that the Mayor had a hand in Buffy coming to SD, that Joyce's good luck in getting the art gallery thing was the Mayor quietly arranging for a Slayer to be in town to take care of the Master. After all his assension was two years away and slayers don't usually last that long. At the time it probably seemed like a good idea.....
[> [> [>Re: the Mayor-Master connection -- Rook, 16:44:12 08/17/02 Sat
I don't think it's him. It doesn't look that much like him in freeze-frame, and he isn't listed in the credits for that ep, either in the actual episode or anywhere else that I can find (IMDB, etc.).
[>you mean it was the end of the world *as we know it*? -- anom, 16:42:31 08/16/02 Fri
Could be. & Rob, I like your idea about the Mayor-Master deal.
[> [>Re: and I feel fine...hmmm. -- dubdub, 19:06:44 08/16/02 Fri
[>You're defining "end of the world" to fit the situation rather than showing the situation fits. -- Caesar Augustus, 16:51:27 08/16/02 Fri
We all know what "end of the world" means, and it isn't a world that sucks, it's a world where all the humans are either dead/gone or suffering eternal torment.
[>"Hell on Earth" didn't look very...you know..."hellish" -- cjl, 06:56:39 08/17/02 Sat
I'd buy your theory, Tim, except I don't think human society would continue with even a semblance of normalcy if the Hellmouth opened, and the Ancients and all the other beasties on the other side escaped. Imagine that night in the Wishverse when Belial stepped out of the portal and into beautiful Southern California:
BELIAL: Free! After untold millennia, free to spread my wings and...(sniffs) What's this? The air smells...sickly sweet. I feel a cool, pleasant breeze and there's the scent of...honeysuckle? This is intolerable! MINION! (A Jinx-like creature scrabbles over to his side.)
MINION: Yes, o gloriously putrescent one?
BELIAL: Make a note. We have to do something about the air quality. I think I'm going to hurl. Maybe if we eliminated those green, leafy things?
MINION: You mean "trees"?
BELIAL: Whatever.
The Old Ones would go about "terror"-forming the Earth to their liking (think: hot and acrid); they'd eliminate all human governments, and relegate the surviving humans to enormous "breeding pens" to serve as a renewable food supply. Bright folks like Giles and warriors like Buffy (I don't care where she wound up) would have been eliminated immediately. I can't imagine schools would still be open, because why would a noonday snack require an education?
Another thing (and this always bothered me about old Punch Bowl Mouth in the "real" Buffyverse too): if the Master succeeded in his ultimate goal--freeing the Ancients--he'd probably be one of the first to die under their reign. As a halfbreed, he'd be repulsive to the pure demons, and he'd be too powerful to risk keeping around as a minion. (He'd be much better off ruling earth with a vampire army, and telling his betters that he'll get around to rescuing them...eventually.)
Camille Paglia and "Seeing Red" (longish) -- Quentin Collins, 22:07:56 08/16/02 Fri
Camille Paglia gave an interview with Spin magazine back in the fall of 1991 which I think is quite interesting when considered in the context of the episode "Seeing Red" and the Spike/Buffy arc of season six in general. Given that Time magazine once described Buffy as a "Camille Paglia feminist", I find it even more interesting. I hope that I am correct in assuming that this forum is open minded enough for views like hers to be posted.
Regarding rape, Paglia says: "it's a woman's responsibility now, to make herself physically fit, so that she can fight off as best she can a man's advances."
She later claims that: "Rape does not destroy you forever. It's like getting beaten up. Men get beat up all the time."
When asked whether she thinks rape should be considered as serious a crime as murder, Paglia responds: "That's absurd. I dislike anything that treats women as if they are special, frail little creatures. We don't need special protection. Rape is an assault. If it is a totally devastating psychological experience for a woman, then she doesn't have a proper attitude toward sex. It's this whole stupid feminist thing about how we are basically nurturing, benevolent people, and sex is a wonderful thing between two equals. With that kind of attitude, then of course rape is going to be a total violation of your entire life, because you have had a stupid, naive, Mary Poppins view of life to begin with."
Paglia then goes on to explain her own view of sex in the following manner: "Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force. The sexes are at war with each other. That's part of the excitement and interest of sex. It's the dark realm of the night. When you enter the dark realm of the night, horrible things can happen there. You can be attacked on a dark street. Does that mean we should never go into dark streets?"
Finally, on the issue of sex and female power, Paglia says: "What women have to realize is their dominance as a sex. That women's sexual powers are enormous. All cultures have seen it. Men know it. Women know it."
Again, my intent is not to offend. I just found Paglia's remarks interesting and found that they made me think a lot more about issues on "Buffy" that I had been thinking a lot about anyway.
[>Re: Camille Paglia and "Seeing Red" (longish) -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:33:59 08/16/02 Fri
I do not agree with this article (I am a man disagreeing with a woman on issues of rape, but I am NOT promoting sexism or rapism, just so we're clear).
1)Saying women have a responsibility to keep in shape to ward off rapists is really sexist. No one has to keep in shape if they don't want to.
2)So sex isn't a wonderful thing between two equals?
3)It doesn't factor in men who are raped. (I know it doesn't happen as often as to women, but it does still occur)
Now, I can't argue with the statement about the effect rape has since I've never been in that situation, but from what I've read she is leaning quite a bit too far to one side there.
About the only thing here that I agreed with was that rape isn't as bad as murder (where there's life there's hope, and all of that).
P.S. Is Camille Paglia a feminist, or something else, or undefined?
[>Paglia Schmaglia -- Arethusa, 07:39:27 08/17/02 Sat
More problems:
Children and old ladies are raped.
Women are usually smaller and weaker than their attackers. I read recently about a small rapist who crawled through the doggie door and attacked a woman, who was able to beat him off. But a peson can't always count on her attacker being smaller, especially when the average height of women in the US is 5'2."
Rape isn't the equivalent of a beating, unless loving couples, as part of their relationship, are beating each other up in the bedroom every night. And not even I believe that. It's not just the rape itself that's so hard to deal with. It's the relationships afterwards that make it almost never-ending.
Her view of the sexes at war and sex as a "dark power" is as cliched and incomplete as "Mary Poppins" sex (a phrase I never thought I'd use).
Please explain to me what my enormous dominant sexual powers are, and how I should be using them, because I thought using one's body to get what one wants is the behavior of last resort for people who otherwise have no power at all. Using my brains, stregnth, wisdom, will, honor, passion-that's power, not lowering my cleavage and raising my skirt. Does Paglia further explain this theory?
Buffy's no Paglia feminist. If Buffy were, she'd be telling people to defend themselves against vampires, or use their humanity to "control" the violent urges of the vamps.
I'm off to read more Paglia, so I can more knowledgeably insult her work.
[> [>A pedantic and irrelevant correction: the average height of women in the US is 5'4" -- Sophist, 07:45:34 08/17/02 Sat
[> [> [>Thanks. I have a bad memory for numbers. -- Arethusa, 07:57:08 08/17/02 Sat
If it's useless trivia, I can never forget it.
[> [>Re: Paglia Schmaglia -- Rahael, 10:33:06 08/17/02 Sat
The voice of reason, Arethusa!
From what I've encountered of Paglia's work, she seems to specialise in sounding dangerously radical, without much thought involved - prizing media soundbite/punditry over complex thought. Perhaps I'm being unfair. But I'm overinfluenced by seeing an interview with her, where the interviewer raised some very pertinent questions about some inconsistencies in her expressed thought - she stormed petulantly out of the interview.
I don't really have much respect for people who can't withstand critical judgement, while appearing everywhere, making pronouncements about other human beings.
As for women fighting off attackers - this, as you point out puts the onus on women, and puts the blame on them if they fail to resist attack. It is also dangerous advice - what if the rapist kills you in the struggle? It goes agains the very point she makes, that murder is worse than rape.
And what she seems to be exhibiting in this interview is reductive dichotomies - you're either an essentialist who believes that all women are nurturing earth mothers, or you believe that rape should be shrugged off as if it were nothing. Being 'beaten up' is a pretty traumatic thing to undergo. Experiencing violence on your person is a shocking experience. It depends on the severity of course.
It seems to me that there is a spectrum of violence, and things like rape/torture are right there at the severe end which can cause trauma.
Try meeting people who have been tortured - it affects them in ways that are unquantifiable. It is a psychological trauma that stunts them inside, and makes it difficult to trust people and live as a joyful human being.
If she thinks that this reaction makes these human beings frail and weak, she's nuts. She clearly doesn't know what real strength and courage is.
[> [>Re: Paglia Schmaglia -- leslie, 10:43:25 08/17/02 Sat
God, don't waste your time reading it--it just encourages her! (Camille Paglia: Troll of Women's Studies.)
I think the telling point in the quoted material above is Paglia's statement that women who are devastated by rape "don't have the proper attitude toward sex." Oh, now it's all so clear! All I have to do is believe exactly as Camille Paglia does and everything I do will be correct!
I'd like to point something out. When Pagila's first book,_Sexual Personae_, came out and everyone started making such a fuss about how this was a breakthrough in feminist literary criticism, I read the book. And as I read it, I kept thinking, this is really odd--I don't see that there's anything in here, theoretically speaking, that I wasn't reading when I was studying feminist literary criticism in college. So I went through the footnotes (and I think it's telling that there was no bibliography in the book; all the citations are in footnotes--much easier to dowplay your sources) and counted the number of citations to works *after* 1982, which was when I graduated from college. There were about five, three of which were by Paglia herself. So her groundbreaking work was basically the same old feminist criticism everyone had been doing in the late 1970's; it was just that in the interim, deconstruction and poststructuralism had made such a clean sweep of literary theory that no-one bloody remembered what they had been doing fifteen years ago. Paglia simply wrapped it all up in her own pretty package of victimhood: The Misunderstood Visionary Genius.
[> [> [>Re: Paglia Schmaglia -- Lilac, 12:19:03 08/17/02 Sat
I don't, in general, think too much of Paglia. Even when she makes a point I agree with, she does it in such an over the top manner that she loses me. There has been some interesting stuff in the press this last couple of weeks about the way rape is handled in the press. Traditionally, rape victim's names were not mentioned in news stories. When the two young women were abducted in California, their names were published until they were freed and it was learned that they had been raped. Then their names no longer appeared, until the girls went on one of the morning news shows. Once they went public, their names began appearing again. I think that, for these young women, the way they dealt with their ordeal was very healthy. They obviously don't feel that the rapes diminished them, that it wasn't something that should shame them because it wasn't their fault. I seriously doubt that all people who undergo such an attack would be able to cope as well, so the standing tradition of not identifying the victim is probably not something that is ready to be changed yet. I do find the reaction that these young women had to be very encouraging.
[> [> [> [>Re: Paglia Schmaglia -- redcat, 12:50:13 08/17/02 Sat
"I do find the reaction that these young women had to be very encouraging."
I do as well, although I was mightily disappointed when I saw the friend of one of those young women, one of the young men who had been bound and gagged by the kidnapper, say on Larry King that his female friend didn't "deserve" to be raped because she was "a good girl, very pure and good." I'm almost sure this is a direct quote, although I'm doing it from memory, but it stuck in my brain because I wanted to scream at the screen that NO woman or child or man, for that matter EVER *deserves* to be raped. The notion that somehow rape is worse for a "good girl" or that some women Œdeserve what they get' is, IMO, one of the corollaries to specious arguments like Paglia's, and is all too common an attitude in American culture.
And Leslie, your description of Paglia as the Troll of Women's Studies is spot on. Occasionally, I've had a student who wants to champion her work. The easiest thing to do is to make them actually study it in the context of other scholars in the field, and then ask them to critically assess the work as they would any other scholarship. Usually, they wind up writing scathing rebuttals to her simplistic, either/or (and often quite racist and classist) categorizations of both women and men.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Paglia Schmaglia -- Darby, 14:28:28 08/17/02 Sat
I haven't read her, but I've seen a couple of extensive inteviews, and she seems to be one of those people - I'd put Rush Limbaugh into the group - who throws out pronouncements that are purposely extreme but with kernals exposed that can make thoughtful people say, "could they have a legitimate point here?" Even if, as redcat's students did, you decide upon reflection that the answer's no, they have still served a purpose by making you examine your beliefs. Its seems like that's what's going on here.
My take on her is that extreme feminism brings with it certain implication that ignore actual legitimate differences (like the size/strength differentials mentioned here) that can't really be ignored - I always feel that when she's saying that sex is just another assault, she's demanding that we examine why we feel that it isn't. I'm not convinced that she really feels this way, but it's a total gut take there.
- Darby, who has found Paglia to be interesting if a bit exasperating in a live interview format (second-hand).
[> [>Re: Paglia Schmaglia -- anom, 21:54:47 08/17/02 Sat
Right on, Arethusa! Beautiful point-by-point refutation. Love the subject line, and leslie's "Troll of Women's Studies"!
Can't say I've read much Paglia lately. One reason I haven't bothered is that I realized she never backs up her statements (dark realm of the night? women's dominance as a sex?), she just makes them. Her technique boils down to, "Because I say so."
And actually, most of the time it's not a good idea to go down a dark street.
[>Re: Camille Paglia's World -- Arethusa, 13:34:02 08/17/02 Sat
More Paglia words of wisdon, from Salon.com
"The trades need to be revalorized. Young men and women should be encouraged to consider careers outside the effete, word-obsessed, office-bound professions.
(Yes, YOU!, office worker. Youre're effete for working with paper!)
"Construction, plumbing, electrical wiring, forestry, landscaping, horticulture: Such pursuits allow free movement and require a training of the body as well as the mind."
(And keep the lower classes off the street.)
"Of course I'm not surprised, since the most viciously intolerant campus I ever visited as a lecturer was Brown, where the humanities program has been gutted by a jejune brand of feminist theory and cultural and media studies. (There's a description of my tumultuous 1992 visit in my book "Vamps & Tramps"; see the entries for Brown University in the index.)"
(They hated you because they're jejune! So there!)
"On another campus issue, I was pleased by the positive reader response to my remarks on Eve Ensler's "Vagina Monologues," which is indoctrinating students with the hoary, victim-obsessed delusion that there is a world epidemic of violence against women (male victims of violence are conveniently ignored)."
(They all tripped and fell on a doorknob.)
"But feminism is institutionalized in American higher education in ways that would startle foreign observers. It began with an abuse of affirmative action and has ended with the elevation of an extraordinary number of laughable lightweights and scam artists to overpaid prominence on elite campuses from coast to coast."
(So that's how Paglia became famous.)
"And the Mamas and the Papas also gave us the spirited, opinionated, stylish actress Michelle Phillips, who (like Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane) was a cardinal example of the New Woman of the 1960s -- ballsy, bawdy, in your face and untouched by feminism. These sassy rock chicks liked men and knew how to handle them."
(I thought Philips was busy handling drugs and men other than her husband.)
"I am happy to have been a part (as an interview subject) of this wonderful program ["It's Burlesque"], which is sure to be enduringly popular in rerun."
(And she'll keep praising herself if we do forget it.)
"The question of America's energy supply is on the front burner after recent spikes in gasoline prices as well as the threat of rolling blackouts in California, evidently because of that state's failure to build additional power plants over the past decade. Partisan rancor only makes matters worse -- particularly when fiats and bromides issue from the lips of pampered Northeastern pundits who have clearly never thought for three seconds about the complex production and distribution system supplying gasoline and jet fuel for their vacation jaunts."
(That, or ENRON was cooking the books.)
"On to another, lesser matter of media groupthink, HBO's series, "The Sopranos," which has been wildly over-praised by middlebrow commentators whose critical judgment is clearly bankrupt. I have yet to watch a single entire episode of that show [my italics], which I find vulgar and boring as well as rife with offensive clichs about Italian-Americans that would never be tolerated were they about Jews or blacks.
What I find especially repugnant about "The Sopranos" is its elitist condescension toward working-class life, which it distorts with formulas that are 30 years out of date."
(You go, girl! Trash a show you haven't seen!)
I know, it's easy to snark and hard to be critically fair. By my gosh, what am I, Saint Arethusa?
[>Aerthusa, redcat, leslie - bravo. -- shadowkat, 15:52:28 08/17/02 Sat
Rah, r'cat,leslie, and Aerthusa point out in a nutshell why I've never liked or taken anything Camilla Paglia said with much more than a grain of salt.
If you want to read some interesting scholarship regarding the issue of rape and feminism? You might want to try the Vagina Monologues or Margaret Atwood's Rape Fantasies - very good piece of short fiction which discusses how women struggle with the topic (women who haven't been raped).
Paglia like most media centric feminists/personalities has a tendency to
talk out of her rear-end...she makes broad generalisations and classifications that further her own popularity. I've always found her to be grating.
Her discussion of rape bothers me on a deeper level because as I've stated before on this board, while rape is obviously not as severe a crime as "murder" it is NOT a crime or act that should be treated or discussed lightly, which unfortunately our media often does. I know way too many friends who have been molested, date raped, violently raped, or in situations that they honestly aren't sure are rape yet certainly resemble it and have never reported it as a result of such uncertainity - to see rape as anything other than a horrible emotional, physical, and mental crime. Rah is right when she says it leaves deep scars, some that never heal. Also rape affects everyone differently. Just as each rape is different depending on the attacker. I read recently about an actress in Resolution Blvd who had to film a rape scene - the after effect of filming that scene traumatized her so badly she was physically ill. And that was just acting.
Rape is not a crime that is limited to women. I've met men who have been raped. But it is a crime that is suffered the most by women. In this country a woman is raped once every five minutes - at least those were the statistics I was given in college. I pray they've changed for the better. I fear they've changed for the worse.
Comments like Ms. Paglia's do not further society's knowledge on this crime nor help the victims.
Until you sit in a courtroom and see how a woman is victimized by our system in order to bring her attacker to justice - I'm not sure you can appreciate how bad this situation is. Did you know that the process involved in creating a rape kit feels like a violation in of itself? And this must be performed as soon after the rape as possible in order to preserve the evidence of the attack and bring the attacker to justice. Did you also know that some rape kits sit on police evidence shelves for months possibly up to a year in certain areas of the US do to investigation backlog? Bringing your attacker to justice is very difficult in this country. But more possible than it was ten years ago. Thank god. I wonder if Ms. Paglia has experienced any of this herself? From my reading of the excerpt? I sincerely doubt it.
[> [>Re: CP--Can you say, "borderline personality disorder?" ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:32:53 08/17/02 Sat
It's easy enough to detect her warped cogitations from her written words, but have you ever seen her interviewed? Damn, that woman has way more to worry about than "revalorizing" the trades! Her persona is akin to that of a hyperactive performance artist. And as someone mentioned above, she does seem to be stuck in the rhetoric of the 70s.
Okay, you get the gist, not my favourite person and I'm quite happy not to have heard her mentioned for years.
;o)
[> [> [>B-I-T-C-A -- that sounds about right. ;) -- LadyStarlight, 19:46:48 08/17/02 Sat
Current board
| More August 2002