August 2003 posts


Previous August 2003  

More August 2003



Very funny parody of Season 7 -- Cheryl, 22:40:03 08/23/03 Sat

This just cracked me up!

Parody of Season 7


[> OMG!! This is Frelling Brilliant -- Doug, 09:11:02 08/24/03 Sun

I would quote favorite bits, but there are just too many


[> [> Re: OMG!! This is Frelling Brilliant -- dmw, 12:24:32 08/24/03 Sun

A funny parody, though my favorite is still Bobby. It's more of a season 6 parody, starting as Buffy wakes up after the fall in The Gift to discover that she's alive and that all of BtVS on UPN was a nightmare ... but instead, Buffy's on PAX!


[> For those who liked s7...this is still *very* funny -- LittleBit [still laughing], 11:29:58 08/24/03 Sun



[> Willow funny! (and a brief mention of Michael Moore) -- ZachsMind, 12:22:15 08/24/03 Sun

"Willow: "Well I'm back. Now we all have to deal with me nearly killing everyone last season. Of course, I'll be forgiven way easier than Spike or Anya, even though I wasn't even a demon or soulless or anything. But then I AM Willow and I'm still the cutest girl on TV. And on the set."

(Crew, writers, actors and Joss all nod. Sarah and Michelle grumble.)"


It's so funny cuz it's so true. Hannigan's dah bomb! Number one. All others are number two or lower.

On my list of things I'd wanna write but probably never would, is a meeting of the minds between the provacateur Michael Moore and Buffy Summers. Where he asks if there's a link between her violent tendencies on television and the violent tendencies of other young people in America. To which of course she'd give him a quick boot to the head. It'd be a rather short fanfic parody come to think of it. Not much more to explore there. So I'll probably never get around to writing it.

Oh wait! I just did!



Hypothetical question -- Gyrus, 08:14:29 08/24/03 Sun

Hypothetical question:

Would Buffy the Vampire Slayer have had better ratings if it had a different name? Or would the mere fact that it was a fantasy show been enough to drive other potential viewers away?


[> Re: Hypothetical question -- ponygirl, 08:59:31 08/24/03 Sun

As Joss has said the name is the show - unexpected, silly, dark, supernatural, all in four words. If it had been called "Buffy"? Definitely sounds more teen, might have brought in the younger crowd but turned off the older. "Slayer"? Sounds harder edged, might appeal to a young male demographic, but older viewers and females might be put off. "Sunnydale"? The Smallville solution, except that Smallville had a name recognition factor from the start. Sunnydale is vague enough to be anything, would people have tuned in to figure out what it was?


[> Re: Hypothetical question -- Ames, 09:00:10 08/24/03 Sun

The name certainly put off a lot of people who only watch "serious" television, and some of them probably never learned any different if nobody ever told them that this was one book which shouldn't be judged by its cover. But I would guess that in the long run word of mouth probably brought in most of the real-time viewers they were likely to get on WB or UPN.

Why don't you suggest some alternate names for comparison? What name would have brought in more viewers initially?

"Slayer" ?

"Anne of Sunnyhell" ?

"Undeadsville" ?

"Sluts with Stakes" ?

"Vampires Have Feelings Too" ?


[> [> Re: Hypothetical question --
Kenny, 15:45:02 08/24/03 Sun

Actually, I like the idea of Chosen. It's the first thing I thought of as a spin-off, because then you're not locked into a name, just a concept.


[> Re: Hypothetical question -- Ronia, 10:56:27 08/24/03 Sun

In my opinion...the title of the show appeals to the audience who will appreciate the contents of the show...just my .02


[> [> Re: Hypothetical question -- btvsk8, 12:26:16 08/24/03 Sun

I agree with you there, i think it takes a certain type of person to be able to see past such a stupid name. The amount of times I have been smirked at by video store employees when I asked if they have buffy dvds to rent/buy- if only they knew the brilliance of the show!

But I think some people who may have liked BTVS were probably turned off by the name. Though I think its popularity with critics helped it a bit. I am pretty sure some of my friends who laugh at me for liking it would really enjoy it themselves if they gave it a chance. However I kind of like how it is a sort of secret club of people who "get it" and though everyone is thinking we have bad taste, we are pitying them for missing out!


[> Re: Hypothetical question -- mamcu, 12:48:08 08/24/03 Sun

I would probably have started watching it much earlier--I thought it was probably something like Charmed, only worse, and didn't hear much about it from anyone who watched it for a long time. And I still think people don't take it seriously for that reason, but once you get into it, it's perfect.



Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Seven, 12:30:30 08/24/03 Sun

Alright guys, we've all had our fun talking about our favorite scenes or moments or arcs, but we've done this a million times, in posts, in our heads....how about we take the kiddie gloves off and face the facts. There have been plenty of times that we have flat-out cringed at a concept, a scene, a line....whatever.

I wanna hear about these. The parts that we accept because the great moments make up for them.

So you cried at the end of "Tabula Rasa" during "Goodbye To You?" You probably also cried when an entire show was dedicated to Andrew, but for a different reason. Or how about when you heard Conner whine about his childhood for the umpteenth time?

Or, going in a slightly different direction, maybe you were watching "The Zeppo" (an episode that pokes fun at itself) with a friend who never understood the show or had previously refused to watch it but now gave it a chance, and they had the displeasure of watching the "painful drama" of Buffy and Angel, possibly seeing each other for the last time. (Does anyone understand what i just wrote?) I'm trying to say that if i watched that episode with one of my friends (who, by the way, despise Buffy) and they saw the scene where Xander walks in on Buff and Angel, they would have slapped me for making them watch it because they didn't get the context.

I add this last part in because this has happened to me and it was a moment when i was embarressed to admit that i like the show. Does anyone else wanna admit to feeling ashamed?

Or just tell me what you think sucked. If it happens to be my favourite moment, i won't judge. Just go ahead, i wanna hear it.

7


[> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything --
Kenny, 14:51:19 08/24/03 Sun

Wrecked--The BtVS tribute to the Afterschool Special.

DB's acting in WttH.

Cordelia getting a haircut and repeated bad dye jobs.

2.5 seasons without Faith.

Mary Su...I mean, Sam Finn.


[> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Corwin of Amber, 18:31:06 08/24/03 Sun

Andrew.

Andrew was a season long boil on the arse of an otherwise outstanding show.

Kennedy

I was *hoping* Willow's new love interest would die. Painfully. Slowly. Actually, I sort of wished that would happen to all the wannabes.

What was up with Beljoxa's Eye? Thats a plot thread that got ONE mention, and was completely dropped.

Most of the last half of the last season of Buffy felt like such a cludge.


[> [> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Claudia, 12:04:47 08/25/03 Mon

"The Wish" - why in the hell did they kill of Cordelia in this episode? Why? The story would have been a hell of a lot more interesting if the entire episode was seen from Cordelia's POV. After all, she was the one who made the wish in the first place.

Another problem I have is "Becoming". Despite a slam bang finale, the rest of the episode seemed sloppily written with a lot of plot holes.


[> [> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Liam, 03:16:22 08/26/03 Tue

I'm with you on the disliking of the second half of season 7, Corwin. The worst, for me, has to be season 6, in particular

1. The drug (sorry magic) addiction of Willow.
2. The inconsistently written Buffy/Spike relationship, which showed the disagreement among the writers.
3. The episode 'Doublemeat Palace'. Why couldn't Dawn have been working there instead of moaning all the time?


[> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Cactus Watcher, 19:01:26 08/24/03 Sun

Angel season 2 pre-Drusila. Darla, the second-rate minion turned femme fatale, just didn't work till Drusila showed up and perked up Darla's character and the show as well.

Angel season 4 pre-Jasmine. Production company difficulties, bad aimless scripts, a story arc that seemed to be nothing more than stalling for time and Charisma's inability to play the bad gal, just about killed the series. The Jasmine eps undoubtably saved it.

Bad Eggs, the closest Buffy ever got to mediocre "What else is on, tonight" TV.

"I Was Made to Love You" Jane Espenson's ode glorifying misunderstanding between the sexes. Let me count the ways. April, supposedly the perfect girlfriend, was programmed to spout platitudes constantly and become violently jealous at the slightest provoation. Yeah, that's what every guy wants. Katrina insists on saying Warren is her boyfriend after she's dumped him. Buffy's brief attraction to Ben, and her learning about one type of bad relationship from Warren's 'masterpiece," really fit wlth nothing else in the season. I guess Jane just hates women who make the first move. There is a brief throwaway tie-in when one of Glory's minions suggests an ep later that Ben's relationship with the slayer might help Glory. But, like the relationship itself it's quickly forgotten. The episode didn't even set up Warren properly as the selfish bastard he'd become the next season, and I think if it had, the ep would have worked better.

Not really bad, but looking back on it I wish some else would have gotten a shot at writing many of those ho-hum David Fury eps.


[> [> Warren and April -- Gyrus, 09:09:30 08/25/03 Mon

"I Was Made to Love You" Jane Espenson's ode glorifying misunderstanding between the sexes. Let me count the ways. April, supposedly the perfect girlfriend, was programmed to spout platitudes constantly and become violently jealous at the slightest provoation. Yeah, that's what every guy wants.

I think the point was that Warren built April to be what he thinks he wants in a woman, when in fact he is so ignorant about women and relationships that he has no idea about what is really desirable in that area.

The episode didn't even set up Warren properly as the selfish bastard he'd become the next season, and I think if it had, the ep would have worked better.

On the contrary, I thought Warren came off as utterly selfish. He builds April to be his toy but gives her real feelings, not caring at all about how the things he does affect her emotionally. Then, when he decides April isn't what he wants, he lacks the courage to face her; instead, he just runs away and hopes her batteries will die before she finds him. (Once again, the Frankenstein metaphor makes an appearance -- man creates life, then refuses to take responsibility for his creation.)

I'm not saying this was a great episode, but I do think it shows Warren as immature and self-centered, and it certainly hints at his misogynistic tendencies.


[> [> [> Re: Warren and April -- Cactus Watcher, 13:51:10 08/25/03 Mon

I think you've fallen for the same trap Jane did.

For the episode to work on any level other than the basest of misguided sentimentality, it has to be believable that any man would want April the way she is. It's not.

April is a caricature plain and simple. She is supposed to represent the overly, compliant woman, who despite little thought for herself gets the short end of the relationship. News flash, people! A lot of women would love to have a compliant guy who looked great, and thought only of her. But, no woman would want a man who acted like April!

You can say fairly that Warren is callous, about April. Yes, he discarded her (boo hoo). But, to say that he is selfish in regards to April implies that April has a self, other than superficial programming. April has no more depth than Robo-Buffy or mystically enslaved Katrina. By the time of the events in IWMtLY Warren has already figured out he'd rather have a real girlfriend than a robot. How does this jibe with his actions of turning Katrina into a zombie the next year? Couldn't he just build a new April with Katrina's face, if that's what he wanted? Surely, there are men so evil it would make a difference. But, Warren in no fashion came off that way in IWMtLY.

So what lesson does Buffy learn from April? "Gee, I'd really better not act so fawning, needy and desperate around Ben." No, although that would be a good thing to learn. What she learned, at least according to Jane was, "Gee my relationship with Ben didn't start exactly perfectly, I'd better dump him with no explanation!" Talk about callous.


[> [> [> [> Warren wasn't supposed to be quite as selfish as he would become -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:05:24 08/25/03 Mon

At the time, he was just supposed to be a horny, self-centered guy. He wouldn't become a true maniac for close to a year.

Also, as you state, no woman would want a man who acted like April; I'd bet that's true. But it also becomes clear that Warren didn't want a woman who acted like April at that time, either.

Finally, I never had a big problem with Warren building a robotic girlfriend. However, it was implied that he actually used April while he was dating Katrina. I suppose you could argue it's just a very advanced form of masturbation, but I think it would still qualify as cheating.


[> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Rook, 21:03:27 08/24/03 Sun

"Major league Wicca" or just about anything else that came out of Mrs. Finn's mouth.

Spike's "Maybe baby should have a nap" and all the preceeding baby this, baby that...a joke that they stretched to set up and just dragged on too far in Lover's Walk.

"She's an addictive personality", and most of the heavy handed magicrack stuff. Not a bad idea in and of itself, just poorly executed.

Pod Giles.

Maybe a couple of others, but I think that covers the basics.


[> Re: Worst moments, arcs, lines, anything -- Gyrus, 12:01:46 08/25/03 Mon

OK, here's some stuff that always bugged me:

The fact that Angel (while on BTVS) was virtually never funny and seemed to have no life apart from Buffy. Kind of pathetic.

The Master killing off the Three for failing to kill Buffy, even though they came closer than anyone else had at that point.

The way the writers brought the Core Four together at the end of S4, then splintered them (never to be mended again) in S5 with the Dawn arc.

Glory. She was funny for a couple of episodes, but her fluffiness got old fast.

Xander/Anya -- the one relationship on the show that never made any sense. What was the attraction?

"Where the Wild Things Are." Enough said.

Kennedy. Tara was a wonderful character, so by creating a character who was very different from Tara, they made her the opposite of wonderful.

Bad lines:

Buffy calling the hyena-kids the "Dode Patrol" (or something unintelligible like that) in "The Pack".

Riley's cringe-worthy descriptions of his feelings for Buffy.

"It IS like a fairy tale." - Kennedy



Coma Cordelia --
Kenny, 15:21:13 08/24/03 Sun

OK, doing my afternoon-I'm-bored surfing, and came across this.


[> That was... weird. -- ApOpHiS, 16:58:09 08/24/03 Sun



[> He shoulda changed the coma part just a bit... -- ZachsMind, 19:30:35 08/24/03 Sun

To run the humor of it home better, so people don't think it' s just disturbing (I mean it IS disturbing but I think the original writer was intending for it to be funny too) the song lyrics shouldn't be "Coma, coma, coma, coma, coma Cordelia." Instead it's gotta be:

"Connor's gotta curt'sy call for Coma Cordelia"

"curt'sy call" is supposed to be "courtesy call" but if you try to sing it with eleven syllables before "Cordelia" instead of ten, you'll wrap your tongue around a telephone pole. So don't try it. I didn't understand until about halfway through reading it that the "voice" in the poem is (I think) supposed to be Connor. I thought it was the poet him/herself pining for Cordy the character, and then it started getting sexual and I was like, "woah that was.. weird." And then I got it. So "Coma" should include "Connor" in the "Chorus" to pacify the masses.

Or not. Maybe the original poet is just disturbed. *shrug* it could happen. I just got done watching Bowling for Columbine recently and I'm perpetually disturbed now. So.


[> [> Original lyrics -- mamcu, 10:16:48 08/25/03 Mon

For those who are too young to remember, here's the original:

Karma Chameleon by Culture Club


Desert loving in your eyes all the way
If I listen to your lies would you say
I'm a man without conviction , I'm a man who doesn't know
How to sell a contradiction , you come and go, you come and go
CHORUS :
Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
You come and go, you come and go
Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dream
Red gold and green , red gold and green
Don't hear your wicked words every day
And you used to be so sweet , I heard you say
That my love was an addiction , when we cling our love is strong
When you go you're gone forever , you string along , you string along
CHORUS
Every day is like survival
You're my lover, not my rival
Every day is like survival
You're my lover, not my rival
I'm a man without conviction , I'm a man who doesn't know
How to sell a contradiction , you come and go, you come and go
CHORUS
CHORUS
CHORUS


[> [> [> Re: Haiku for Cordy -- Brian (sometimes I just can't stop myself), 14:22:28 08/25/03 Mon

Coma Cordelia
Stretched out in the rotunda.
Gosh, I sure miss ya.



Buffy vs Holtz --
JBone, 20:09:06 08/24/03 Sun

Sure, we can work out after school, you know, if you're not too busy having sex with my mother.

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html

Post comments at Showtime, here, or email them to me.

I'm in the middle of emailing the Tiebreaker Council schedule out to the volunteers. First up this week are Dub, deeva and Rob(?). Rob, have you gotten any of my emails? If you haven't heard from me yet, I plan to get the rest out this week.

d'Herblay pointed this out to me, we will have the first rematch from the Road to Sunnydale coming up in round 2 between Wesley and Mayor Wilkins. The Mayor won the Spirit Region Championship against Wesley in the Buffy only tournament 33-30.


[> Sexy wounds! -- deeva, 08:27:16 08/25/03 Mon

Oh please, Buffy would wipe the floor with Mr."I must avenge the death and torture of my family by formulating a long and complicated plan that even I didn't know I was planning-plan". Has Holtz ever encountered a Slayer? Highly doubt it. He would be dumbfounded by the existence of a girl whose purpose is to extinguish demons. Of course, once he finds out that B here has a penchant for boyfriends of the fangy variety, he'll get his sea legs and be disgusted with her. And Buffy will take that disgust and shove it up his buckeye. Heh. That just might hurt.


[> Round 1 numbers -- Jay, 20:48:59 08/24/03 Sun

The first rounds biggest winners were Giles and Darla who both had a winning margin of 38. They were followed closely by Anya who had a winning margin of 36. Which makes Gavin, Mr Trick and Merle the first rounds biggest losers.

The closest first round matches were Andrew v the Master and Jenny v Ethan, each being decided by a mere 2 votes. Andrew also had the fewest votes in a win, 22. Kennedy had the most votes in a loss to Faith, 39. Faith got the most votes in the first round, 48. And Mr Trick got the fewest with 1.

There's probably some other stuff I could gleam off the numbers from the first round, but that's all I got time for right now.


[> Good God Almighty, Holtz would DESPISE Buffy... -- cjl, 21:45:22 08/24/03 Sun

Sleeping with the enemy, betraying her sacred mission for the sake of her obscene lusts--Old Captain Daniel would work himself into a nice self-righteous froth about our Buffy. He would do whatever he could to take her down, and re-purify the line of Slayers. And it would do him absolutely no good, because Buffy is the one person in Joss' unvierse who's got the vampire hunter beat on self-righteousness. Sorry, Holtz--Buffy IS the law. You're history.


[> Buffy'd smack him down. -- HonorH, 22:46:03 08/24/03 Sun

He got to Angel through Angel's guilt. Not happening with Buffy. Sure, she feels guilt, but she doesn't let it get in her way. Score one more for the Buff!


[> Re: Buffy vs Holtz -- Apophis, 22:59:33 08/24/03 Sun

Holtz is driven, vicious, hardcore, and will sacrifice everything he has to get the job done. Buffy has all that tenfold, plus she looks good in a miniskirt. Time and space couldn't stop Holtz, but death couldn't stop Buffy. This fight would be vicious, with both combatants exhausting themselves both physically and psychologically. In the end, however, Buffy would be the one left on her feet.


[> [> Re: Buffy vs Holtz -- jane, 01:13:57 08/25/03 Mon

No contest. Holtz always had to get someone to do his dirty work for him - couldn't kidnap a baby without using Justine to do the job. Good at manipulation, but Buffy is way beyond all that. She'll hand him his head in a basket. It is still all about Buffy.


[> Is there a contest here? -- MaeveRigan, 06:25:17 08/25/03 Mon

Buffy not only reduces Holtz to a quivering pile of mush, she also teaches him the error of his ways. He's no match for a Slayer. I'm pretty sure Holtz has never met a real Slayer. Won't he be surprised!


[> Re: Buffy vs Holtz -- Celebaelin, 10:04:52 08/25/03 Mon

It's "give an old board joke a home" time. Holtz has read Calvin's 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' and Hobbes 'Leviathan'. Buffy has read 'The Indispensible Calvin and Hobbes'. Holtz's belief that the rationalism of some of the scholastics had displaced God's wisdom and that the human condition is best represented by rigidly deterministic account of volition, accompanied by a pessimistic vision of the consequently natural state of human beings in perpetual struggle against each other is countered by Buffy's alliterative Haiku

Twitching tufted tail
A toasty tawny tummy
A tired tiger


combined with her rejection of the neo-cubist polemic in favour of the more familiar single perspective. Buffy wins by merit of a couple of things Holtz missed out on during the stone age.


[> [> Screen would'nt load again -- Celebaelin, 10:21:31 08/25/03 Mon

Gateway timeout, hoping this doesn't lead to multiple votes (guessing it doesn't but just in case).



Classic Movie of the Week - August 24th 2003 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures - Part IV -- OnM, 20:43:52 08/24/03 Sun

*******

I may not be totally perfect, but parts of me are excellent.

............ Ashleigh Brilliant

*******

Live so that you can at least get the benefit of the doubt.

............ Kin Hubbard

*******

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.

............ Friedrich Nietzsche

*******

To love and be loved is to feel the sun from both sides.

............ David Viscott

*******

From the Dept. of Happy Thoughts Dept: One of my fellow ATPo-er's regularly signs his e-mails with the tag
If you think that nice guys finish last, you obviously don't know where the finish line is. While I always get
a little smile out of this each time I read it, the deeply misanthropic part of my nature inevitably tends to counter
the smile with the thought that this is a hopelessly naive attitude in the face of the realverse and its rather nasty
ways. Now, I'm not really a mean and heartless cynic, I've just ended up being drawn that way, you know?

It's really all about prejudice and predisposition, and all of us, every single person, harbors these tendencies. No,
kindly do not insist that you are free, or even mostly divorced of these base human instincts, because I
must insist that it isn't so. Prejudice is everywhere, and it isn't going to go away any time soon, because I
personally believe it is part and parcel of our genetic makeup, carried down the evolving DNA spiral for untold
millenia from back in the days when encounters with other creatures meant quickly deciding friend or foe and then
fighting, flighting or possibly f**king as needed.

A pre-rant disclaimer: I am well aware that this belief is a sore point with many, who reason (and sometimes well)
that the various negative 'isms' we brandish against innocuous others are learned behaviors that can therefore be
unlearned with a little effort. I understand and often respect their contentions, but I also have to ask them
to look around and reason that if their proposition has such merit, why is it failing so miserably and continually in
so many places? Oh, there do seem to be some local success stories in various and sundry parts of the globe, but
elsewhere there are setbacks that largely cancel the modest amount of progress made. Sometimes, it's like
emerging from weeks and weeks of endless rain to the warm brightness of sunny skies, only to have some stupid
demon go and blot out the sun a day later.

Take the United States, if you please. A bastion of progress and freedom, a shining light, a beacon for all the
world's wretched refuse and such to glom onto and lift themselves up by, right? The land where there was legally
enforced religious tolerance, where Lincoln freed the slaves, women eventually got the right to vote and control
their fertility, unions brought about fairness and financial equity for the working class, the military draft was
abolished and replaced by a voluntary system, homosexuals were granted the right to legally have sexual relations
and possibly even get married if they wished, and...

... oh, wait, I think that last one was Canada. Silly me. Never mind.

Furthermore, all of the assorted stuff before-- the unions, the women's rights issues, the military conscriptions,
and especially the religious tolerance stuff-- we're seriously rethinking all that. It turns out that all of that was
nothing but a long-term, Evil Liberal Evolutionist Anti-Christian plot to undermine the core values of the
real American society, which is darn well sick and tired of being told what to do by people who have no
divinely- granted authority to do so. They're mad as heck and they aren't going to take it any more, so I would
sincerely suggest to any so-called "free-thinkers" in the audience to pack up your God-denying intellectuallism
and your fashionable Liberal moral wardrobe and go somewhere else. Soon. Maybe now would be good.

OK, be calm, you say. It's not all that bad, really. Just because there's a little compassionate conservatism
steering the (Al)mighty vessel of state doesn't mean that we're going to dismantle the Bill of Rights or anything.
It's not like, for example, we'd start a war with another country based only on some fairly tenuous evidence that
they were a threat to us, certainly not with the vast majority of the rest of the world and even our own citizens
opposing the idea. Or, like we'd allow the Supreme Court to decide the results of a national presidential election
based on the inherent political configuration of that court. Or, like we're still having so much trouble getting
ordinary citizens to understand why church and state affairs must be kept seperate in order to ensure religious
liberty for everyone that a state chief justice publically states that he will not comply with a higher court
order to remove a blatantly religious icon from a public forum and move it to a nearby private one, because that
would violate "the higher law of God" that guides "this Christian nation".

Or, or, it's not like a court case that decided that certain common gay sexual practices could not be regulated
differently from heterosexual practices would cause such a vehement and widespread public backlash that a
constitutional amendment expressly forbidding the possibility of 'gay marriage' is being seriously
considered. Or-- heh heh, forgive me, 'cause this is really goofy-- that we would decide that the concept
of the evolution of biological species is actually a religion, not a scientific principle, and therefore to be
'fair' other religious views must be presented to children in schools so they can decide on the merits for
themselves.

Wait, that last one wasn't quite accurate, so let me rephrase it a bit: To be 'fair', the concept of divine
creation as detailed in the Christian Bible must be presented as an alternative to the creation concept detailed in
the collective works of the Evolutionist religious faith.
If other faith's creation concepts wish to apply for equal
time also, they certainly can, but so far none seemed to be seriously competing for attention (which of course is
because they'd be wrong anyway, so what's the point?)

~Sigh~... I mean, if all of this stuff were really true, not only would nice guys be finishing last, they'd be
getting run over by the press vehicles following them who are frantically rushing to grab a new sound bite with
!!The Winner!! So, good thing it isn't true.

Is it?

Just the other day, I read a film review of The Matrix Reloaded in the current issue of The Magazine
of Fantasy & Science Fiction
, wherein the author laments that contemporary American culture is no longer
concerned with the substance of issues, but only the style of presentation that surrounds them. While I
found myself emphatically disagreeing with his negative opinion of the movie, I had a much harder time dismissing
his reasoning and examples, which he detailed rather effectively, using the film as a canvas for his commentary.
The gist of what he was working towards was that many decades ago, contentious social and political issues were
debated among a number of learned authority figures in an attempt to reach a conclusion or consensus, and that
the general public participated actively in this via both public forums and the electoral process. Today, we choose
instead to embrace a 'superhero' paradigm, whereby we elect one to office, and whatever the 'superhero' says,
goes. Conveniently, if something goes wrong, it's not our fault-- the hero screwed up. We'll just elect a
new superhero and blindly follow him or her. (OK, probably not her, because a female superhero would
be, like, a bitch, ya know?).

F&SF doesn't publish current issues on-line, so you'll either have to wait a month or else go buy the mag to read
the whole article, it's too long to hand-copy over, copyright issues aside. I will present a short exerpt, though:

I recently read a number of reviews that credited X2: X-Men United with teaching the nation a
valuable lesson concerning bigotry. These reviews were in publications intended for adults, not-- as might be
supposed-- for children. A valuable lesson. Taught by the X-Men sequel. When the significance of this
pronouncement became clear, when I understood I was being asked to consider director Bryan Singer as a
consequential moral voice, the shock stripped away the last of my illusions concerning the nature of reality-- it
was like going out the front door and discovering that the comfortable, reasonable world I knew had been
demolished and in its stead lay a wasteland of twisted ruins and ominous skies.


The writer, Lucius Shepard (who is a regular contributor to the magazine) then goes on to relate this breakdown
in the derivation of our heroic figures to our shift in the way we perceive ourselves as memeber of society. He
claims that we have given up on considering ourselves as part of a large community that has an effective collective
voice, instead we have become 'outsiders' who either work alone or team up with other select outsiders and
work 'behind the scenes' to fight some centralized Evil and so effect change. He points out that The
Matrix
perfectly illustrates this concept-- humanity thinks that it is free, but in reality it is almost totally
enslaved, and only Neo ('The One") and his band of intrepid fellow outsiders can free the rest of us.

As I said, I think he misunderstands what the Wachowskis are trying to do, and I'm not sure that using the
Matrix films as a fulcrum for positing the decline of human civilization isn't doing sort of the same thing that
that Bloom fellow did a few years back where he used the prevalence of popular music (and the Rolling Stones in
particular) coupled with the lack of teaching ancient classical literature courses in colleges as purported proof that
the U.S. had become a hopelessly debased nation. Nevertheless, after reading Lucius' deconstructions, there
were some pretty scary parallels to realverse current events, that I cannot deny.

So, it's pass the Lord and praise the ammunition, and meantime I'm thinking ever more seriously about moving to
Canada myself. Why did I have to be genetically endowed with an extreme distaste for cold weather? Why
couldn't I just be gay instead?

Whatever the evidence, I do want to make it very clear that cynicism has its limits, and if grand morally empty
gestures are the current social/political norm, I wish to help counter them by bringing you this week's Classic
Movie, a wonderful buried treasure released in 1985 by the name of Desert Hearts, directed by
a woman who since that time has mainly worked in the television field, Donna Deitch.

Based on a novel of similar name (Desert of the Heart by ex-American, now Canadian writer Jane Rule),
this compelling story of two very different women who meet and fall in love brings up many of the happy
remembrances of the BtVS Willow/Tara relationship, but without any of the potential 'evil/dead lesbian' cliches
lurking about. Yes, I am going to faintly spoil you by noting that this film ends on an upbeat note, although of
course I'm not giving away any of the details about same.

I will give away some of the plot details, of course. The opening scene takes place at a railroad station in the
Reno, Nevada of the late 1950's. As the passenger cars settle slowly to a halt and people begin to disembark,
the camera keeps a steady, moderately distant perspective as a trim, well-attired younger-middle-aged woman
descends the steps and pauses to collect herself. She is Vivian Bell, played by veteran actor Helen Shaver, and
we soon discover that she is here in Reno while in the process of getting a divorce from her husband of 12 years.
Her attorney (presumably, no one ever makes this clear) has arranged for her to room at a ranch located in the
nearby desert for the duration of the legal/paperwork process, which will take several weeks.

After retrieving her luggage, Vivian is met by one Frances Parker (Audra Lindley), the owner of the ranch she will
be staying at. Frances is a woman in her late 60's I would guess, and seems friendly enough, and also perfectly at
home in the western environment Vivian finds a bit disconcerting in its spaciousness and heat. The two chat as
they are driving through the desert with only the occasional other car passing by going the other way.

One of those cars that does pass by makes quite the impression on Vivian, although more accurately it's the
driver and not the car that garners all the attention. We don't even really notice when the original pass-by takes
place (it's just a sound, not a visual event), but suddenly there is a second vehicle-- a convertible-- pacing
Frances', pulling up alongside of it, driving full speed in reverse. In the driver's seat is a mid/late-20's-ish
dark-haired beauty, wearing cool-looking sunglasses and brimming with youthful attitude and vitality. She smiles
broadly at Frances and Vivian, and starts chatting them up. Frances, incredibly, not only does not slow down, but
looks unsurprised at the outrageous stunt itself. The reason is soon revealed-- the dark-haired woman is her
step-daughter Cay Rivvers (Patricia Charbonneau), and the wild streak she's revealing here is simply part of her
nature.

Vivian is at a loss what to make of all this, but tries to act as nonchalant as possible, with mixed success. I mean,
one minute there is nothing but two 'older' women inside an old car rambling down an arid desert road and
then-- wham, all this life appears out of nowhere. By now, I'm also enjoying that the director and
cinematographer obviously understand how to stage their shots so as to telegraph metaphor in what looks like a
casual way, but in reality is anything but. We're less than ten minutes into the film, and already we're starting to
'know' the characters despite their fairly sparse, measured dialog..

(A short note here: I greatly love this scene, it's one of the very coolest character introduction methodologies I
can ever recall seeing during my entire lengthy embrace of all things cinematic, but I do have to keep firmly
squashing my logical side every time I see it, since said side insists that there aren't very many real cars that could
actually drive in reverse gear at 50 or 60 MPH without redlining the engine or worse, let alone what the steering
action would be like at that speed. As I've brought up over and over in many other columns, some forebrain
things you simply have to let go at least momentarily or else it crowds out the big picture.)

Another car comes along the road, and Cay quickly beats a retreat as Frances does the explanation thing. Shortly
afterward, the two women arrive at the ranch, and as Vivian heads for her room, we also get to meet Frances'
son, Walter (Alex McArthur). Walter quickly takes a shine to the new female presence, gently flirting with her just
a bit before leaving Vivian alone to again begin wondering-- amid the heat and dust and quiet-- just what in the
world she is doing here.

Vivian, trying to keep her thoughts to herself, stays in her room for several days, but eventually starts getting the
stir-crazies and makes her way to the outside world, such as it is in these parts. In the meanwhile, we get to see
some of the life of the other members of the environs, such as that of Cay and her friend Silver, who both work in
a local casino. Silver is the nickname/professional name of Silvia, who is an aspiring country singer, and she and
Cay appear to be not just co-workers, but long-time best friends. They're so friendly, in fact, that it's suggested
by the physical interaction between the two that they might be lovers, but as soon as we think this, Silver
announces-- flashing a shiny ring as she does so-- that she's both engaged and pregnant. Cay seems delighted,
and the two embrace warmly.

We also meet Darrell (Dean Butler), who seems to be Cay's boyfriend, but Cay soon puts this notion to rest, and
the various hints to date that Cay is attracted to women are confirmed. One of the many delights of this film is that
while it doesn't shy away from depicting the discrimination that Cay gets to deal with as a result of her sexual
preferences, neither does it particularly demonize the opposition. Instead, a range of fairly realistic reactions is
depicted, from the open acceptance of Silver and her husband-to-be to the almost schitzophrenic
compartmentalizing of Frances, who loves her step-daughter but is seriously freaked by her nature and keeps
trying to deny it. Darrell is somewhere in the middle, on the one hand realizing that he's not going to change Cay,
but wanting to marry her anyway, and 'look the other way' should she require the occasional female dalliance.
We know, of course, as Cay does, that this is never going to work, that despite his 'understanding' Darrell either
consciously or subconsciously thinks Cay will 'reform' once she's 'known the love of a good man'.

As the weeks pass by, Vivian has her own problems to come to terms with. We find out that she is seeking her
divorce for deep personal reasons, or as she terms it to Cay, "I'm drowning in still waters." Her husband,
an educated professional like herself, is not a bad man and does not treat her unkindly or disrespectfully, but their
relationship was evidently one of convenience and practicality, and it simply isn't enough for her anymore. Vivian
feels that what remains of her life is rapidly slipping away and that she is wasting her potential. She desperately
requires that something change, although she's still groping around for exactly what. She has no intention of
seeking out another close emotional relationship with another man anytime soon, but friendship is certainly
welcome, and the vivacious, intelligent and creative Cay absolutely fascinates her. Taking care not to make any
gestures that could be considered anything other than platonic, Vivian begins spending a lot of time in Cay's
company. (Vivian does learn fairly early on that Cay is a lesbian, scoring one more positive point for the
filmmakers who could have played around with the does she/doesn't she/oops! omygawd! cliche).

This presents Cay with a conundrum-- Vivian appears to be heterosexual, but otherwise she represents
everything Cay admires and desires in a potential life partner-- "someone who counts", as she phrases it. She
confides to Silver (in a very quietly sensual bathtub scene that hints strongly at but never gets definitive about the
possibility that Silver is bisexual) that she wants to pursue Vivian as a lover but fears that it will not work out and
so will leave her in pain at the loss of someone she's this strongly emotionally attracted to.

(Another note in passing: In fact, while I have seen this movie at least 4 or 5 times over the years since it first
appeared on pay cable, I have never been able to decide whether Deitch wants us to believe that Vivian is a gay
woman 'in the closet' or if she is really basically het but 'flexible', and if this matters at all. As a fantasy, of course,
it doesn't matter, but with the exception of the 50 MPH-in-reverse automobile and the occasional slightly choppy
scene transition/dialog edit, Desert Hearts seems very realistically scripted to me. Being heterosexual
myself, and a male, the whole girl-girl thing has substantial erotic appeal, but I do clearly understand that real gay
women aren't doing their thing to entertain me or other males, it's what they feel, and I have to wonder just how
many lesbians would actively pursue a truly het woman. I recall several decades ago when an occasional business
associate who was a gay male briefly flirted just a bit with me, but quickly stopped doing so after I didn't return
the attention and it became apparent that I harbored no sexual attraction to him at all-- I never even had to say
anything to him, he just seemed to instinctively understand. So, if such is the case, then why make Vivian's sexual
sensibilities ambiguous? Or aren't they, and am I just not reading it right? Any posters with insights on this
dynamic are welcome to contribute comments if you feel comfortable doing so, particularly if you have seen or
will see this film.)

The opportunity to make a move finally does appear one day, and Cay kisses Vivian. (The sensual scenes in this
film are all gracefully and beautifully done, by the way, so even if this kind of thing normally squicks you a bit, you
may find them tolerable or at least not unpleasant to watch. Deitch manages to perfectly combine the literal and
the metaphorical so that while the physical settings are familiar and very 'un-exotic', the emotional and passionate
resonances really ring true-to-life, which makes for a great deal of eroticism. YMMV of course.) Vivian kisses
back, which shocks her, and she pulls away and demands that Cay stop. Cay does, but after a short break starts
to question Vivian on "where that came from". Vivian says that she doesn't know, but that "it's locked back
away again where it belongs". (Again, this suggests that Vivian is gay, but repressing it, but then Deitch once more
leaves us with ambiguity on the subject in the following scenes.) Cay doesn't press any further, and then she and
Vivian drive back to the ranch.

In one of the film's few temporal inconsistancies, when they arrive back at the ranch, a furious Frances greets the
two women in the front yard, telling Vivian that she has arranged for a room for her at a hotel in town, that she
has to leave the ranch. Vivian is shocked and humiliated, and Cay is incensed at this 'betrayal'. I have no idea
how word of the 'tryst' spread so fast, perhaps there was just the previous innuendo of the two women hanging
out together, but the timing seems odd and mostly forced into creating this pivot point. And again, I'll let it go,
because I understand this is something that needed to happen for the story's sake. Vivian piles her suitcases into a
station wagon and gets driven off to the hotel. Cay's anger at Frances mutates into a growing heartbreak, since
she now fears that Vivian will withdraw from her completely to avoid the 'scandal'.

At this point I'll stop with the plot outline, because things really get interesting, in several ways, some of them
expected and many not. As I said back in the first portion of the story overview, the final resolution is a very
positive one, and getting to that final, very lovely image is an extremely pleasant change of pace from the usual sex
= suffering = death modalities of many gay- (or even hetero) themed love stories. This is a very richly depicted
slice-of-life work, with superb screenwriting (previously mentioned very minor glitches aside) great
cinematography both literally and metaphorically, and incredibly gifted work by the entire acting crew, especially
the two lead roles played by Helen Shaver and Patricia Charbonneau.

So, even though the world (or at least America) is going to hell in a pink (or is that pinko?) handbasket
and ruination is just around the corner, take a little of the money you're saving for the move to Canada and buy or
rent Desert Hearts. It's a forward-thinking trip back in time, to when the future momentarily seemed like a
better place to live in.

Oh, and you folks who already live in Canada? If you're smart, keep your mouth shut, don't advertise your plan.
But you maybe could consider a little global warming, OK? I mean, how many glaciers do you really
need?

Keep in touch.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technically, in the desert, you can remember your name / for there ain't no one for to give you no pain:

Desert Hearts is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc. The film was released in 1985 and
has a run time of one hour and 36 minutes. The original cinematic aspect ratio is likely1.85:1, although
unfortunately my laser copy was pan'n'scanned into 1.33:1. (It's fairly obvious the image was cropped in many
scenes, but generally speaking it's not too obtrusive if you do rent the VHS version. I'm presuming the DVD
edition will be widescreen).

Writing credits go to Jane Rule (for her novel Desert of the Heart) and Natalie Cooper (for the screenplay).
The film was produced by Donna Deitch, Carol Jefferies and Cami Taylor. Cinematography was by Robert
Elswit with film editing by Robert Estrin. Production design was by Jeannine Oppewall, with art direction by
David Brisbin, set decoration by Rosemary Brandenburg and costume design by Linda Bass. The original
theatrical sound mix is plain ol' stereo, but that works for me, since I'm easy to get along with for an outsider
type. Did I mention that before?

Cast overview:

Helen Shaver .... Vivian Bell
Patricia Charbonneau .... Cay Rivvers
Audra Lindley .... Frances Parker
Andra Akers .... Silver
Dean Butler .... Darrell
Gwen Welles .... Gwen
James Staley .... Art Warner
Katie La Bourdette .... Lucille
Alex McArthur .... Walter
Tyler Tyhurst .... Buck
Denise Crosby .... Pat
Antony Ponzini .... Joe
Brenda Beck .... Joyce
Sam Minsky .... Best Man
Patricia Frazier .... Change Girl

*******

Miscellaneous Dept:

The gradual process of writing these columns each week occasionally leads me to do a fair amount of research on
several of the key figures involved in the film's creation, such as the director, lead actors, cinematographer, writer,
what-have-you. Sometimes doing so reveals an interesting specific fact, sometimes it illustrates a general trend of
some kind. For example, I almost always look up the work that a director has done in the past-- even if I'm
familiar with them, I might find films that I've missed or discover that they've done work in the television field that
I wasn't aware of.

Such is the case with Donna Deitch, who, as it turns out, hasn't made very many feature films but has worked
very regularly in the TV industry, and for some fairly well-known shows. Here's a list of her TV series work,
most involving an episode or two of each, info condensed from and courtesy of the IMDb:

Dragnet (2003), Crossing Jordan (2001), Judging Amy (1999), Total Security (1997), The Visitor (1997)
Murder One: Diary of a Serial Killer (1997), EZ Streets (1996) TV Series, Murder One (1995), ER (1994),
NYPD Blue (1993), Veronica Clare (1991), Prison Stories: Women on the Inside (1991),

Humm, Veronica Clare. Deitch directed the pilot episode, it turns out. I remember that series, an
interesting femme variant on the private eye genre. Only lasted 10 eps, then dumped. Too bad.

The following, I presume, are made-for-TV movies. I don't think I've seen any of these, (the Women of
Brewster Place
title does ring a bell at least) but that's because as a rule I avoid this genre entirely. Some
good stuff does occasionally happen, but all too often it's a lowest common denominator and/or a disease-of-the-
tmoment or news-event-of-the-moment advertising grab on the network's part, and I already watch way too
much of my life disappear into the sands through the hourglass every day.

Common Ground (2000) (TV)
Devil's Arithmetic, The (1999) (TV)
Change of Place, A (1994) (TV)
Sexual Advances (1992) (TV)
Women of Brewster Place, The (1989) (TV)

Which leaves, I think, the theatrical films, of which I've only seen Desert Hearts:

Angel on My Shoulder (1997)
Criminal Passion (1994)
Desert Hearts (1985)
Woman to Woman (1975)

An interesting career mix, eh? It's not atypical anymore, though. As I've been doing this column over time, I've
noticed more and more cross-pollination between the TV and cinema fields in terms of the talent. Once upon a
time, if a film actor or director did TV work, that meant they were on a downhill career slide, and if a TV director
or even actor did theatrical film work, they were doing the opposite-- trying to move up. Funny the little work
related ghettos we find ourselves pigeonholed into by public perception, no matter whether we are famous or
ordinary individuals.

***

Misc. Part II:

By purest chance (which happens amazingly often when you get sensitized to or involved with a particular subject
matter and start noticing related items you otherwise wouldn't pay any attention to), this article showed up in
today's Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is an exerpt, and as long as the link is available, you can
check out the whole thing at:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/inquirer_magazine/6608233.htm

Posted on Sun, Aug. 24, 2003 by Melissa Dribben / Inquirer Staff Writer (copyright same):

Roger LaMay had been general manager of WXPN-FM for a pleasant seven months when he made the
mistake of trampling on Amazon Country. From the start, LaMay, 49, who had been with Fox Channel
29 (WTXF-TV) for 17 years, expected that his new position would provide a fresh perspective. Invigorating
challenges. An elevated level of public discourse and diverse music. In public radio, he'd be working with people
who spent more energy soliciting support from a foundation than wearing it.

"I won't have to listen to people whine about makeup and hair allowances," he told The Inquirer's Gail Shister in
January. But that whining was nothing compared to the howl he created when he and WXPN program director
Bruce Warren decided to cancel the women's music radio show.

(...) Given the consolidation of national media, and the narrowing of "playlists", WXPN's role has become
increasingly important, LaMay says. It is one of the few places in the nation where you can reliably hear
lesser-known artists. "Nationally, 'XPN is considered the leader in this area. It's the most respected public radio
non-classic music station, and it's our philosophy to do more and more music."

(...) "We don't have enough hours," LaMay said. "So we had to ask, 'What's going to go?'" The answer was the
show with the smallest audience: Amazon Country. LaMay quickly learned that a small audience is not
necessarily an inconsequential one. (...) "I'm very aware that the lesbian community is outspoken," LaMay says.
"But I didn't expect the reaction to be to this extent."

(...) "It became a rather significant issue," LaMay said. "We received 300 e-mails, about 50 phone calls and 20
letters," which continued to trickle in for weeks. "The truth is, it was not an overwhelming response. We reach
300,000 people in this region. The World Cafe is on 160 stations across the country. And it was clear
that a lot of the e-mails were from people who weren't regular listeners of the program, but who felt strongly
about the idea of the program. We could have weathered the storm," he said.

What the protesters did have was the strength of their arguments, he said.

(...) So he and Warren backed off. "We said, OK, we can change our minds at least halfway." Amazon
Country
would air on alternate weeks with Q-zine, the gay radio show. (...) LaMay wishes he
could have made everyone happy. But he believes it was a fair compromise. And a far different outcome than he
ever would have achieved at Fox. "We wouldn't even have bothered to respond" to such a relatively small
protest, he said. "As much as I enjoyed my days in commercial television, at the end of the day it was all about
money. WXPN is not, and I'm glad."


Hummm... so score one for the little guys.. err, gals. I especially loved that line where he notes that at his former
employer "We wouldn't even have bothered to respond" to such a relatively small protest. That sounds familiar,
*koff* Firefly *koff* doesn't it ?

*******

The Question of the Week:

The very best directors, writiers and actors and the creative folks around them make films because they have to,
like the mountain that you climb because it's there. Art and commerce go hand in hand today, for good or for ill,
and those filmmakers who try to work outside the mainstream often suffer from lack of viewership, not a good
thing if you're trying to get an important point across. Video has greatly improved things in this regard, but if you
compare the box-office numbers for a film like Desert Hearts to say even a generally poorly received flick
like Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life, the results aren't encouraging for 'small' filmmakers.

The question: Is this really almost entirely the industry's fault, or is it that most members of the general viewing
public have a certain subconscious distrust for non-mainstream films, a feeling that they're non-main because
they're inferior somehow. You know, like scythe really matters after all?


Please note that I said general viewing public, and try to present your thoughts on that basis, not
necessarily the way that you personally look at the issue. I mean, if you've actually read the whole damn
way through this columna again, you obviously aren't the 'general' movie fan!

Whatever that is. Anywho, post 'em if you've got 'em, and I'll see you next week for this year's final Guilty
Pleasure / Buried Treasure riff, where in keeping with past tradition, we... well, tune in and see!

Take care, and light the purrr.

:-)

*******


[> Please feel free to come on up and check us out! -- AurraSing, 07:51:18 08/25/03 Mon

It's not perfect up here (right now I'm having to breath smoke from several sets of forest fires) but we like it. Be aware that some communities such as Osoyoos and Victoria are virtually snow free year round-Osoyoos on the BC/Wash border is very desert-like and very hot in the summer.
We don't live in igloos or log cabins for the most part and the gay marriage concept is not a lock yet but frankly,I would not trade living here for the world.

;-)


[> The thing about moral progress and deciline is . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:55:01 08/24/03 Sun

. . . you can't get everyone to agree with what's progress and what's decline. The very examples you give of how things in America are becoming worse would be seen by others as things starting to get good again. There will never be any true moral progress or decline in the world because it always varies depending upon different people's views of right and wrong. The history of the human race is that, as society changes, some people will think it's for the better and some people will think it's for the worse, and that, in time, society will change in the opposite direction, and people will still disagree. Society doesn't really progress, but it doesn't really decline, either. It goes is cycles, and it's up to each person whether they think the current phase of the cycle is good or bad.


[> Re: Is the board shifting to a political arena?? -- Rendyl, 05:42:39 08/25/03 Mon

OKay, I have to ask. Are we all moving over to American politics instead of philosophy? I would like to know since (as OnM stated above) there are things you just get enough of in daily life and for me politics is one of them.

Of course I might feel differently if I were not a conservative or (as a poster in another thread so quaintly put it) a neo-nazi WASP trying to cram my view of religion and morality down everyone's throat.

This viewpoint might not annoy me so much if I were actually a WASP (which -HELLO- is an insulting term when used this way) or a neo-nazi, or in any way religious. Where do you guys get this stuff??

Finally, is it a political rant or a movie review?? The latter I enjoy but the former I have no interest in suffering through. A notation in the message heading would be appreciated.

Rendyl


[> [> A fair enough request - Note: ***Be advised that this week's review contains a political rant.*** -- OnM, 06:23:42 08/25/03 Mon

It is impossible to completely seperate philosophy and politics just as it is impossible to completely seperate politics and religion.

As to "Where do you guys get this stuff??", that varies, but in my case, almost every single day I read a letter to the editor in my local paper that is filled with hatred and bile directed at 'liberals' & 'atheists' and 'anti-Christians' and 'democrats' and 'feminists' and pretty much every other label of contempt the political right can think of to insult what it naively assumes is the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, which of course is not the case-- if it was, why is Bush in the White House right now?

The column invoked politics this week because the film under review is not just a love story, it's a political statement, and while it seems bizarre to me that the two should become entwined, such is reality. Whether the director intended this or not is moot-- there it is.

The views expressed are obviously my own, it is, after all, a column that offers opinions and criticism by its very nature. Check back over it, and you will notice I used the phrase 'pre-rant disclaimer' early on. 'Nuff said!

:-)


[> [> [> Re: A fair enough request - Note: ***Be advised that this week's review contains etc*** -- Rendyl, 07:42:20 08/25/03 Mon

***The column invoked politics this week because the film under review is not just a love story, it's a political statement, and while it seems bizarre to me that the two should become entwined, such is reality***

Not disagreeing with this point. Many films are this way. But when the political rant becomes almost as long as the review (as in this case) then I would prefer to just skip the whole thing.

Ren

(sorry to shorten the title but Voy won't let me post it all)


[> [> [> Politics and Philosophy, or Rant On, Skip On -- mamcu, 08:53:29 08/25/03 Mon

Still, first of all, want to say that I can understand how Rendyl feels. It happens that I agree with what OnM is saying, but I try to imagine how I'd feel if I disagree--and I wouldn't feel much like reading it, and might like it labelled. But the world is full of posts, articles, newspapers, pop-ups, etc. that I hate. I'd rather see them and skip them than ask someone not to say what they think in a public forum. So I realy appreciate Rendyl's reasonable request for a label, rather than demanding that this not be said.

And like OnM, I can't see the clear distinction between politics and philosophy. Even Aristotle and Plato went in a very political direction, and if we think other philosophers weren't either political themselves or used by others to justify political theory, we're deluding ourselves. In fact, political theory looks pretty much like philosophy to me.

If we're going to discuss character's hairstyles and the behavior of entertainment executives here, I think we can handle political theory.


[> [> [> I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Sophist, 10:18:26 08/25/03 Mon

If one person, or one group, decides that a particular topic is "sensitive" and requires a "warning" so that it can be avoided, then it only seems fair for every individual or group to have the same right. Eventually, we'd have to label every post in order to satisfy the various demands (Spike labels, AR labels, Connor labels, religion labels, etc.).

Then, of course, there is the problem of deciding exactly when a post reaches the level at which a topic is actually discussed sufficiently to require a label. This is a particular concern when the label covers as broad a subject matter as "politics". For example, I and many others have posted here on evolution. I suppose such posts could be construed as "political" because of the controversy over creationism. So too could discussions of lesbian cliches or Generalissima Buffy. Far too many posts on this Board have political implications; we'd end up with posters complaining that a post should have been labeled but wasn't.

Labels are seductive because we all wish we could eliminate aspects of the world that we find annoying or distasteful. We can't, however, precisely because other people find those very things important. The very fact of living in the world obligates us to accept that others have different views. If we shut out the views of others and they shut out ours, pretty soon the only sounds we'll hear will be our own voices.

This Board has always had a policy of free and open discussion. IMHO, that policy generates the wide-ranging discussions which I and many others find so valuable. Labeling posts is fundamentally antithetical to that policy, and I believe all who come here will respect your right to raise any topic you choose in your posts without issuing any "warnings".


[> [> [> [> Re: I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Rendyl, 10:48:19 08/25/03 Mon

Er...when people post spoilers it is considered polite to announce they are doing so in the message title. Lately when the posts are about particular characters people put 'about Spike' or 'warning much Andrew ahead' etc.

Why is my request any different?

We have many posts that stray into the political. Some topics are almost impossible to discuss without looking into the politics of the time. (Frankenstein for example)But politics is usually not the main focus of the thread.

In the above review there is as much political ranting (and it is ranting, not reasoned discussion) as there is movie review. If OnM needs to write that fine. I have no desire to control what he or anyone else posts. I didn't ask to. I simply asked for a warning in the message header. So I could skip the whole thing. Just like many other posters do with other topics.

Why am I wrong and everyone else right?

Ren


[> [> [> [> [> Re: I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Sophist, 11:18:10 08/25/03 Mon

If posters choose to describe a post in some way, that's their decision. A catchy title or a warning is a decision made by the author. Any automatic labeling system takes away the discretion of the author and substitutes the sensibilities of another poster or group. There is a big difference between offering them voluntarily and requiring them.

I simply asked for a warning in the message header. So I could skip the whole thing. Just like many other posters do with other topics.

This is exactly the problem I have with labeling systems. They are an attempt to avoid being exposed to particular ideas. If you can ask other posters to label for "politics", I should have the same right to ask for the label "Angel". Not only will the sensibility of the reader control what the author does, but we'll all end up isolated.

If you start reading a post that veers into a different topic, stop reading. But it's not fair to OnM or others to ask that they make that decision for you. Still less fair is it to ask him to make apply your particular standard in a way that affects everyone else on the Board.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Rendyl, 12:20:07 08/25/03 Mon

I don't recall demanding OnM label his messages. I said I would -appreciate- a heads up on any subsequent political rantings, but I never ordered him to do so.

***This is exactly the problem I have with labeling systems. They are an attempt to avoid being exposed to particular ideas***

Part of anyone's freedom is in being able to choose to be exposed or not be exposed to different ideas. If I don't have the choice either way, then I do not have a choice at all.

However in this case it was much more that I have been over-exposed to the subject. I come here because I enjoy the subject matter. (Buffy-Angel-etc) If the subject is going to veer drastically off or into areas I am -trying - to take a short break from I would like to know. Or in blunt terms, I get enough politics in real life, I came here for a break from it all.

***Still less fair is it to ask him to make apply your particular standard in a way that affects everyone else on the Board.***

Just out of curiosity Sophist, do you label your spoilers?

And (because I am still boggled) why can you -tell- OnM not to label and I am not even allowed to ask him to label?

Ren


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Sophist, 13:20:26 08/25/03 Mon

I don't recall demanding OnM label his messages

I agree. And I don't believe I said you did. I believe that I described you as "asking".

Part of anyone's freedom is in being able to choose ... not be exposed to different ideas.

No. This, I think, is the fundamental point of disagreement here. To live in this world is to be exposed to differences, differences in color, attitudes, behavior, etc. We have no right whatsoever to ask others not to expose us to their views, any more than we have a right to ask others not to expose us to their hair styles or their caftans.

Imagine a world where I alone got to decide what ideas I would not be exposed to. By exercising that right, I would be limiting the freedom of every other person to suit my own convenience. I could ban billboards because I might see them. I could ban radio talk shows that I might hear while searching for my preferred music. No more rap music -- I might hear it. It would be Jonathan's world in Superstar, and it would demonstrate exactly the same lack of respect for the integrity of others.

Just out of curiosity Sophist, do you label your spoilers?

Well, I never knew any spoilers, since I was the purest virgin in the history of BtVS. However, if I ever had known a spoiler (in the full body sense, as Xander might say), I would have labelled it when posting here because I agree with sk's post about Masq setting the rules for this Board.

And (because I am still boggled) why can you -tell- OnM not to label and I am not even allowed to ask him to label?

I don't believe I "told" OnM not to label his posts. I asked him not to, just as you asked him to (a new record for dangling prepositions in one sentence, I'm sure). OnM will do whatever, in his discretion, he wants. That's his right.

Putting aside the exact terminology, though, your request and mine are not symmetrical. I've made the same point before, but let me try it from a purely pragmatic point of view:

OnM is a sole author. He has dozens, probably hundreds, of readers. If each reader asks him to label his posts, he'll never be able to write another one because the labels will exceed not just the subject line but the space available for the message. The only way the system can work is if we let OnM write his posts and read them or not as we choose.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Rendyl, 14:18:28 08/25/03 Mon

No, you took my post -requesting- he warn me next time and turned it into a post about requiring automatic labeling. I never said that, I never meant that.

*** I don't believe I "told" OnM not to label his posts. I asked him not to, just as you asked him to (a new record for dangling prepositions in one sentence, I'm sure). OnM will do whatever, in his discretion, he wants. That's his right***

If that is the case then why are we going back and forth? Why not just leave it to him?

Ren


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I object to labels and ask you not to use them. -- Sophist, 16:17:59 08/25/03 Mon

No, you took my post -requesting- he warn me next time and turned it into a post about requiring automatic labeling. I never said that, I never meant that.

My original post in this thread was a response to OnM, not directly to you. I did use the word "demand" once in that post, but I used it only in the context of generalities and did not direct it at you. I was careful in my response to you to use only the word "ask", and addressed the issue only in that context.

Why not just leave it to him?

I think that was exactly the status before you raised the issue. Maybe we should write him a note telling him to save some time and just ignore both our posts? :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I object to objections about objections. Anyone care to comment on the movie? -- OnM, 19:57:17 08/25/03 Mon

Or for that matter, possibly analyze why I chose to balance a political rant with what ostensibly was just a nifty little overlooked love story?

Sophist: Technically you are correct, but Rendyl has a valid point nevertheless. In fact, I had considered noting that the column had a political bent this week when I posted it, but decided against doing so because frankly it's not like I haven't used this style before. Shadowkat mentions below that when reading me, she can 'expect anything'. If this is true, then I am more successful than I hoped, since I consciously try to be as surprising as possible within the overall 'standard' structure I build into the work. So cut Ren a break here, OK?

Rendyl: My apologies (and I mean that) if the subject timing wasn't right on this for you, but I have to write what I write, which you seem to already understand perfectly well anyway. I do not disagree with you that you have a right to avoid (when possible) things which you find distasteful or annoying. Sophist's argument that, essentially, 'since you can't avoid everything that bothers you, you shouldn't try' does not hold up in practical terms, only theoretical ones. In practical terms, these situations represent a continuum of counterpoints, not a set of absolutes.

Consider that, for example, every time some moron rolls down the street outside my house with his ridiculous boom car shaking my windows, I do not think polite thoughts about him or the fact that he has a legal right to do so. However, the damage to myself is minimal, and the event itself is mercifully short.

Now, consider a smoker living with a non-smoker. The smoker may choose to harm hirself with the habit, but what about the rights of the resident non-smoker? Is it reasonable to ask the smoker to not smoke in the house, but only elsewhere? My answer to this would be an emphatic yes, but that would be me. Others would grin'n'bear it.

Lastly, consider that a politician runs for the presidency clearly stating that he will do one thing, and then does quite another once actually in that office. His decisions will directly or indirectly affect millions of lives, both here and in other countries around the world.

Placed in this perspective, is it really equally important whether or not adult persons of the same gender have sexual relations? If I read my news reports correctly, it appears to me that some people genuinely think so.

To me, that calls out for a little cinematic refutation. I rant, therefore I examine. CMotW is not a traditional movie 'review' column, since this isn't a traditonal venue for one. CMotW is sometimes entertainment, sometimes a tool to philosophize with, always on a tangent of some kind to the intersection between the Realverse and the Buffyverse, and if I do my job right, it's usually all of that at the same time.

So. Wanna brewski? I'll buy!

;-)


[> [> [> [> [> Difference between labeling spoilers and other things -- s'kat (sorry to but in), 12:40:44 08/25/03 Mon

The distinction between spoilers and other topics

The reason you need to put spoiler warnings in a post is well several, very distinct reasons from your request:

1. This is not a spoiler board, at the top of the board it distinctly states this. In bold type. Can't miss it.

2. Okay this is dicey, since I hate speaking for Masq. But my understanding is that this is not really a public forum, I know you think it is - but it is a private board owned and managed by Masquerade which we get to through her website. This means, Masquerade not you, not me, not OnM sets the rules here and Masquerade has stated pretty clearly that s/he has a no censorship policy. The only thing you have to label is "spoilers" because Masquerade does not want to be spoiled. S/he tells you why at the top of the board.
(Sorry for speaking for you Masq, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me, but that's my understanding from the rules).

Masq could prohibit spoilers altogether, but s/he doesn't, s/he just requests we warn people before posting them, so they can avoid. Lots of boards have this policy.

3. Spoilers - spoil the show for people. They can't unread.
While reading a political rant or religious rant may annoy you, it won't spoil something you haven't seen. This is why OnM politely mentions spoilers if he includes them in movie reviews. All a rant will do is make you want to throw things at the screen and stomp your feet a bit. IT does not spoil the show.

I hope that clarifiess. SK

PS: I do understand where you're coming from Ren, I'm not found of political or religious rants myself, conservative/right wing/left wing/liberal, I don't care,
they annoy me - so I scan, if I see it? I ignore it and move on. That's what I did here. Of course it helps that I know from reading OnM to expect anything...so I scan the article before I decide to really read it. ;-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Difference between labeling spoilers and other things -- Rendyl, 14:01:07 08/25/03 Mon

***Okay this is dicey, since I hate speaking for Masq. But my understanding is that this is not really a public forum, I know you think it is - but it is a private board owned and managed by Masquerade which we get to through her website.***

Actually I am very well aware that this is a private forum owned by Masq. I have never made a statement disputing this or assuming I had any rights owed to me.

I was not trying to make or enforce a rule. I simply -asked- him if he would give me a warning. As a courtesy. He is (as we all keep saying over and over) free to do that or not. But I have not done anything wrong in asking.

Ren


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nope nothing wrong. Just pointing out difference btw spoilers/labels is all;-) -- s'kat, 14:06:29 08/25/03 Mon



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nope nothing wrong. Just pointing out difference btw spoilers/labels is all;-) -- Rendyl, 14:28:09 08/25/03 Mon

No problem. Obviously I need a break. I have a rule of only two replies in any thread that gets heated no matter what and if I get upset enough to go over my limit it is probably time to log off for a few days, weeks, whatever.

You took a break and came back refreshed. Maybe the same will happen for me.

Ren - back to the mind destroying torment called unending media coverage of California and Alabama. I am soooo ready for August to be over. -


[> [> Ahhh, nostalgia . . . -- d'Herblay, 13:36:34 08/25/03 Mon

Actually, leftists going on and on as if everyone in the room automatically agreed with them, and conservatives muttering darkly about the places to learn about philosophy and the places to hold political rallies being non-intersecting sets, is exactly what I most remember about my philosophy classes in college. Or at least Contemporary Civilization (which wasn't a philosophy class, per se, even though everything read in it was philosophy).


[> [> [> Yes, all too familiar. LOL -- CW, 14:08:08 08/25/03 Mon



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - Question of the Week -- LittleBit, 16:35:52 08/25/03 Mon

Interesting question. I'm not so sure it's a distrust of things not in the mainstream, as it is the lack of availablilty of those independent films. Many, if not most, of the theaters now are national chains and exhibit a fairly homogenous selection of movies. The small theaters, with a single screen, are more likely to run the independent films, but what I seem to find is that those are located in older areas of the city, where parking is difficult, and have become few and far between. I have much less distrust of the independent film than I have of my fellow man. ;-) In addition to the availablilty, it also seems that the smaller, independent film is by its nature less well-known, less publicized, less well-distributed in general. A person who loves these films will look for them and usually find them. The average person has heard about new mainstream releases on the news, on the morning shows, on the radio, in ads, and when they look in the paper to see what's playing there's great big ads for those, and almost never is there an ad for an indepemdent film. If a film gets a lot of critical acclaim, it may stand a better chance of being known to the general public. But as it stands, to find out what's playing you need to look in the actual listings for a specific theater that exhibits the independent (and/or foreign) films. I know of two in my city, as opposed to dozens of cinemaplexes. And I don't live in a small city.

So to some extent, I think the problem is both the industry and the viewing public. I don't have an opinion on that about which I've never heard. So if the industry or the distributors, or the critics who get national exposure don't promote or mention a film, I'm not likely to patronize it. And there are those of us who like to have some idea about the film before spending the cost of a theater ticket (and double that in refreshments, because, hey, movie ---> popcorn, soda) in an area of town where parking is a bitca.

There's a lot of movies on the premium cable channels that are new to me. What I don't know as a rule is whether it's a terrific film that just didn't get good hype or distribution, or a film that wasn't deemed marketable to the theater-going public and therefore released direct-to-cable. Those produced specifically for cable are recognizable because the cable networks rather like you to know what they're doing.

So in the long run, I just want to express my appreciation for your reviews. I think there was one time I'd seen the movie you reviewed. You do a great job of letting me know what to keep an eye out for. Thanks, OnM.


[> [> Oooo! Thanks for that! Somebody has to break the ice, right? -- OnM, 20:10:30 08/25/03 Mon

I thought it was a good question also. One of the things that has occurred to me over the past few years is that if large screen home theater systems become cost-effective enough (and this is a distinct possibility given about, oh, say 10 years' time), that increasingly independents may release directly to home video, and not the theater. There is already a pattern emerging for this in the music business, because it is now cost-effective for many artists to record and distribute their own work-- they no longer need a record company to do it for them.

I have no fear that large theaters will disappear any time soon, but I'm not sure the 'blockbuster' film trend is ever going to reverse. Times and technologies change, and society changes with them.


[> [> [> Re: Oooo! Thanks for that! Somebody has to break the ice, right? -- aliera, 04:44:55 08/26/03 Tue

Publishing industry too at least in Fantasy fiction which is my primary genre. I think what I notice the most right now is the increased effort on my part to actually find good new works other than the few that get a lot of public discussion (ie Pullman.) I have the sense that like other media there's a tendency to go with the sure thing. Other opinions?

I haven't seen Desert Hearts yet so I can't comment but I certainly want to now. BTW, I noticed the Matrix reference. Do you think that when the third movie comes out, you might be interested in doing a full blown review?



The Rapist as Anti-Hero: Spike and Thomas Covenant -- dmw, 05:14:49 08/25/03 Mon

At first glance, few characters seem so different as the cool vampire of BtVS in his black leather duster and the leprous author and unwilling protagonist of Stephen Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. However, their journeys from outcast to hero follow similar paths.

Both are untouchables, outcast from their respective societies, forced to unwillingly integrate themselves into a new society. Thomas Covenant is separated because of his illness and the new experience of the Land, which is too wonderful and magical for him to accept, while Spike's chip separates him from vampiric society, offering him the Scoobies as the only group where he might fit in though neither side wants the other. Both are dead to the outside world, Spike through his being an undead creature and Covenant through his leprosy killing his nerves and thus his ability to feel.

The incidents of rape occur at different points in their journey, with Covenant's occuring at the beginning of his and Spike's happening quite late in his journey. It's true that Spike failed in his attempt, but being prevented from completing his crime doesn't indicate that he's more ethical than Covenant. Both rapes shock many readers or viewers out from their identification with the rapist protagonist, though both rapists have an excuse of sorts for their actions: Spike's lack of a soul and Covenant's belief that he's in a delusion, a belief which the book offers as a possibility to the end. However, despite their potential to avoid responsibility, both characters eventually attempt to attone for their misdeeds.

In fact, both Covenant and Spike save their respective worlds while giving up their own lives in the process, Spike in the episode Chosen and Covenant at the end of the Second Chronicles. They have grown through their respective external and internal hatreds to love worlds and people, that they once couldn't accept, to such a degree as to sacrifice themselves for them.

However, it's an open question as to whether such an action is sufficient for redemption, and both characters remain highly controversial within their respective readerships and viewerships.


[> Re: The Rapist as Anti-Hero: Spike and Thomas Covenant -- sydney, 08:54:43 08/25/03 Mon

I watched a recent news program about the "road to reconciliation" following the war/genocide in Rwanda which saw the deaths of 800,000 Tutsi people by the Hutus majority, the new leadership has began a program of releasing and re-integrating the convicted killers back into society as long as they admit their crimes and I assume showed regret for their actions. The news report featured one of the killers who admitted macheting his Tutsi neighbour,a women and her two children. The report also contained an interview with a tutsi women neighbour of the killer who had lost 3 brothers and two sisters in the conflict. Suprisingly the women was happy with the decision to release the killers of her family as long as they showed they were sorry, She and the rest of her community were working to reintergrate these men back into the very communities they had nearly destroyed.

The real live killers of Rwanda are being given a fresh start on the basis that they say "sorry". Spike Angel and Thomas Covenant(can't comment to much on this character, read the book years ago forgotten most of it) are all aware of the wrongs they have committed, and each in they own way wish,wished to make amends.

Your open question asked was the ultimate sacrifice of their lives sufficent to redeem Spike and Thomas Covenant. If you are only concerned with the attempted rape issue then I suppose we need to ask redeemed to whom, in who's eyes, the characters or viewers. Spike was already forgiven by Buffy before he sacrificed himself, she already saw the "good man", did his actions allow him to forgive himself, we don't know.

Whether the viewers consider his sacrifice sufficient more often than not comes down to their personal likes and dislikes of the character, to some Spike was already redeemed back in Season 6 others would still argue "evil" if he took up holy orders, took up missionary work and was elected Pope.

The AR/rape in Spike and Covenants case were catalysts to change, both characters were forced to examine themselves and not liking what they saw change. to some extent it was the start of their journeys as Anti-Heros in Spikes case to be try to be a better man and to repay the faith Buffy had shown in him.

Interesting point as to Covenants and Spikes defences, Covenant believed he was in a delusion, and Spike was soulless,(does'nt Angel need to be added on to the same list, as he raped in his pre-souled days)


[> [> Very well said. Xander and Angel might actually work better. -- s'kat, 10:07:46 08/25/03 Mon

Whether the viewers consider his sacrifice sufficient more often than not comes down to their personal likes and dislikes of the character, to some Spike was already redeemed back in Season 6 others would still argue "evil" if he took up holy orders, took up missionary work and was elected Pope.

Exactly. Some viewers had no problems and even have forgotten Xander's violent attempt to rape Buffy in The PAck, an event he remembers and never takes responsibility for or apologizes for blaming on the hyena and viewers follow suit. Which actually is very very similar to Convent's defense. Actually Xander may be a better counter-point to Convent, believing he wasn't responsible due to a delusion. The other of course is Angel/Angelus - whom of course people let off the hook due to his ensouled state.
Yet, we know from Angel The Series that he has committed some horrendous forms of rape and really enjoyed it.
(See the episode Dear Boy and Darla). And he considers even in the souled state raping Darla in Reprise, luckily she was willing. If she hadn't been? Then there's Faith who was planning on raping and strangling Xander in Consequences - of the three Faith is the only one who shows zero remorse for her actions. Yet people ignore these acts. This suggests to me - it really does come down to character preference and not the issue. Otherwise? You would have as much problem with the other characters. Also the fans who do not forgive Spike's act, oddly enough hated the character prior to the act, actually they hated the character two years prior to the act. The fans who liked the character or were ambivalent seem to be more forgiving and go with the story. Same thing is true about the other characters. IT really comes down to your own personal emotional preference.

The AR/rape in Spike and Covenants case were catalysts to change, both characters were forced to examine themselves and not liking what they saw change. to some extent it was the start of their journeys as Anti-Heros in Spikes case to be try to be a better man and to repay the faith Buffy had shown in him.

Interesting point as to Covenants and Spikes defences, Covenant believed he was in a delusion, and Spike was soulless,(does'nt Angel need to be added on to the same list, as he raped in his pre-souled days)


I'm wondering if Angel and Xander might not be better examples. Since Spike was thrown off and did stop, never trying to complete the act (he could have by the way, she had no weapon on her and he always has one) and left of his own accord. Xander would have completed the act if she hadn't hit him over the head with a desk, Xander's defense is in some ways the same as Thomas Covenant's - he was under a delusion at the time, it wasn't him. Just as Angel's defense is the same as Thomas Covenant's - I was under demonic influence - it wasn't me. Spike, however, never states this and is the only one who takes full responsibility for the act - to the point of changing himself so he won't do it again. Interesting.


[> [> [> What About Willow and Warren? -- Claudia, 11:35:31 08/25/03 Mon

There are two others to consider - namely Willow, who committed mind rape in both "All the Way" and "Tabula Rasa"; and Warren, who nearly raped Katrina in "Dead Things". However, he did kill her.


[> [> [> Re: Very well said. Xander and Angel might actually work better. -- heywhynot, 11:35:46 08/25/03 Mon

Does Spike take full responsibility while unsouled? To me he did not. He left to gain a soul so he could be a being whom Buffy could love & wouldn't say no to, not to become a being was incapable of raping. He does it for Buffy. Season 7 is him learning to do things because he believes them to be right.

Gaining a soul and acting as he did afterwards let Buffy forgive him for his previous actions.

Xander it appeared was ashamed of what he did and felt really guilty over his actions. In Xander's case it wasn't even a delusion, he was possessed. Buffy did not hold it against him. Admitting to remembering is not taking full responsibility. That is overcoming the shame/guilt of those actions. Xander is given the chance to assert his power sexually over Buffy again in "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered". Buffy is not in a state legally where she can make a choice regarding sex w/ Xander. Xander does not give in. Which shows the difference between the Hyena-Xander and actual Xander. Buffy's comments afterwards basically close the door on the events of "The Pack".


What I have been wondering is, why Spike is still well Spike after getting a soul and Angel is a different personality from Angelus. Is it because Angel has deeper issues (the split personality theory)? Or is the nature of the souls different? Angel arising from Angelus being given back Liam's soul creating Angel. Spike getting a brand spanking new soul matched to himself, like a newborn baby. Maybe in the next season or two of Angel we will find out.


[> [> [> [> Uhm ...disagree, here's why -- s'kat, 12:14:22 08/25/03 Mon

What I have been wondering is, why Spike is still well Spike after getting a soul and Angel is a different personality from Angelus. Is it because Angel has deeper issues (the split personality theory)? Or is the nature of the souls different? Angel arising from Angelus being given back Liam's soul creating Angel. Spike getting a brand spanking new soul matched to himself, like a newborn baby. Maybe in the next season or two of Angel we will find out.

Ah but is Angel really different than Angelus? Re-watch Enemies and Cavalry and while you're at it, take a little peek at The Price, Forgiving, Reprise, Redefinition. Angel and Angelus are still the same.

So I disagree with you here. In BTVs, remember we see Angel through Buffy's eyes. In ATS we see Angel through Angel's eyes. Buffy has no illusions regarding Spike. But one too many regarding Angel, b/c unlike Spike, she met Angel with the soul. When he lost it, she saw the evil side. Enemies in S3 threw her - since Angel played Angelus almost too well, it was the first of many suggestions that yes, they were the same, one just had no compass.

Once again, repeat after me:

Angel = Liam+soul+demon
Angelus=(Liam-soul) +demon

Spikeensouled=William+soul+demon
Spikesoulless=William-soul+demon

Spike hasn't changed as much because - a) he just got it, Angel had his for over 100 years and yep he wasn't that different when he first got it - drinking from people etc.
b) he had the chip so he had evolved past the demon way before he got the soul.

Also, he did show remorse for the attempted rape. He was tortured. And he did not continue with the rape, he stopped after she threw him off. What makes you think that Spike, who never quits in a fight, would have stopped just b/c she threw him off? He also apologizes to her before leaving. Then gets a soul as an additional apology to prevent himself from hurting her further - which he says in Beneath You.

Xander was possessed by a hyena. But isn't the definition of vampire - a human corspe possessed by a demon? Isn't that why Buffy slays them? Xander isn't slain b/c he has a soul, the hyena is just pushing it aside. But the hyena does what Xander wants if Xander had no conscience, no qualms. BBB isn't a good example - actually, b/c that's what ensouled Xander would choose. The Wish is better - b/c we see in that exactly how sadistic soulless Xander would be. You can't compare ensouled Xander in BBB with soulless Spike in AR, that's an unfair comparison, any more than you can compare ensouled Angel with soulless Spike. You can only compare soulless with soulless.

Also ensouled Spike is different than soulless Spike, not as snarky, not as violent, he doesn't force himself on Buffy, he's kinder. Does he still hit people? Sure if provoked, just like Angel does. His fight scene with Faith is no different than Angel's fight scenes with her. His fight with Wood was in self-defense, just like Angel's fight scenes with Holtz, Connor, or any number of others are. Soulless Spike would have killed Wood. Soulless Spike would have tried to kill Faith, just like Soulless Angel tries to kill Faith. And soulless/possessed Xander tries to rape Buffy just like soulless Spike attempted it, except,
Spike was more aware and able to stop when she pushed him off, Xander under the hyena's influence had to be knocked out.

So sorry, if you can't forgive Spike once he gets the soul?
Then you shouldn't be able to forgive Xander or Angel or Faith. So, if you can't? It has zip to do with souls or even the nature of the act and everything to do with your own personal preference for a character. Nothing wrong with that. As someone on another board put it very well:

If a character resonates with us emotionally and we care, then we will forgive the character most things and look for its redemption.

If a character pisses us off or doesn't emotionally resonate with us, we won't forgive it anything, even if logically it's acts are no worse and may in fact be less horrible than the character we love.

Now I'm in a weird spot, because honestly? I forgave Xander, Angel and Spike - I saw all three as redeemable and
feeling bad for their crimes and all three dealing with them differently. I do not really place one above the other.
I think they are too different in character to do that.
And I don't want any of them with the heroine, for reasons I won't go into. (Although Xander makes the most logical sense at the moment). While I'll admit Spike reasonates with me the most, that does not mean I don't appreciate Xander and Angel as well. I do love them. And I find their journeys interesting. But I also don't let them off the hook quite as easily as you appear to...b/c I think Xander informed the hyena, something he remembers and something that does bug him or he wouldn't keep referring to it - first in Phases and second in Buffy vs. Dracula (the butt-monkey reference), just as I believe Liam informs Angelus and Angel and all three are one in the same, Angel can't quite deal with that, neither could Buffy, b/c that would mean dealing with being a vicious monster, remember Angel didn't choose that soul it was forced on him very different psychologically than choosing it, doesn't make him better or worse than Spike, just different psychologically.


[> [> [> [> [> I think part of it comes from Angelus being so over the top -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:11:16 08/25/03 Mon

The change between souled and unsouled Spike doesn't seem as dramatic as that between Angel and Angelus is because Angelus was such an over the top villain. He was so devoted to doing evil, committing blasphemy, and enjoying the pain of others that anyone with even a shred of conscience would seem miles apart from him. Unsouled Spike, on the other hand, wasn't quite as devoted to evil. He had no qualms about doing evil things, but most of his evil acts were done out of bloodlust, love, anger, or sex drive. As such, giving Spike a soul won't result in quite as dramatic a change because Spike himself is a more humanesque villain than the maniacal Angelus.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. Well put Finn. -- s'kat, 13:37:24 08/25/03 Mon



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Uhm ...disagree, here's why -- heywhynot, 13:37:01 08/25/03 Mon

"So sorry, if you can't forgive Spike once he gets the soul?
Then you shouldn't be able to forgive Xander or Angel or Faith. So, if you can't? It has zip to do with souls or even the nature of the act and everything to do with your own personal preference for a character. Nothing wrong with that."

I never said whether I forgave Spike or not. That is an assumption you made. I like you have forgiven Spike, Angel and Xander. To me in many respects they are like forgiving someone who is manic & was never diagnosed as bi-polar. The person is not in control of his/her actions. Impulse is running the show. The hardest part for me in forgiving Spike was his reluctance to expose and deal with the trigger the First planted in him.

To me though Spike's response following the attempted rape (including stopping) was the realization that Buffy did not want him, did not love him liked the way he loved her. That was the horror to him, the torture. If he was tortured over the rape, the guilt of it, felt responsible then he already had a "moral" compass & from what I can tell in the Buffyverse that meant he already had a soul. In which case he attempted to rape Buffy with a soul. Xander with his soul pushed aside (his memories etc being used as a template for the Hyena) did not stop, but Xander was able to not even attempt to rape Buffy.

My point regarding Xander was that admitting to remembering did not have to do with taking full responsibility. Not admitting had to do with feeling guilty/ashamed over his actions and the fact he couldn't overcome those feelings. The Hyena acted out on attraction to Buffy that Xander had. Having your body used and your mind used is very degrading. Not having control of one's own body and actions is disturbing. Free will is very fragile and is easy to dissappear. Xander because of what he has been through in life, knows this better than most people. Many of us are blissfully unaware of how easy it is to upset the delicate balance of chemicals it takes to have choice in our actions. Give people a certain combo of drugs, time and the means to kill themselves and they will. Pretty disturbing if you think about it.

In terms of Angel. Orephus raised the possibility that Angel and Angelus are personalities that do coexist in one being. Angel due to the trauma associated with being resouled & to deal with the horrors he committed might of developed DiD (Dissociative Identity Disorder). The very nature of how Angel got his soul vs. how Spike got his does explain things, as does the fact Spike had Buffy to help him deal. Angel had Darla, Drusilla and Spike.

I am still not sure the nature of the soul Spike received. Was it William's? Was it a new soul? Angelus got Liam's. The memories of the past reconnected to the soul. The events of TLPTM imply Spike got William's soul based on the nature of Spike's trigger. And based on the fact to resoul Angel, AI & Willow needed a specific soul, it seems what soul a being gets is important in the Buffyverse.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Still respectfully disagree: Vampires and love -- s'kat, 14:03:03 08/25/03 Mon

I never said whether I forgave Spike or not. That is an assumption you made.

Yes, but from both this post and the one above it and your other posts it seems to me that you really dislike this character and can't forgive him? Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, my apologies. Dislikeing a character is understandable by the way - I dislike both Andrew and Wood, nothing will change my mind regarding them - something I take into consideration whenever I post on them, because it does affect analysis.

I like you have forgiven Spike, Angel and Xander. To me in many respects they are like forgiving someone who is manic & was never diagnosed as bi-polar. The person is not in control of his/her actions. Impulse is running the show. The hardest part for me in forgiving Spike was his reluctance to expose and deal with the trigger the First planted in him.

You see, I saw it differently. He did deal with the trigger. He had Buffy tie him up. He did it on his own.
He trusted Buffy to help and guide and stop him (the others didn't trust her, Spike did). And he wasn't resistant to Giles putting the stone in his head - if he had been he would never have allowed Xander to lock him up. Spike demonstrates in that episode that he could have stopped it.
What he was reluctant about was to have a committee watching and to reveal to said committee made up of five people who hated him - his inner feelings. Would you reveal inner turmoil to a bunch of people who'd ridicule you about it? I doubt it. Now if it had just been Buffy, Spike, Willow and Giles in that room - different story. But we had Dawn, Wood, and Xander as well. Not the same as when Anya had her moment or Angel his on the mountain with the first.
Now is it? Seems to me you expect quite a bit from poor Spike?

To me though Spike's response following the attempted rape (including stopping) was the realization that Buffy did not want him, did not love him liked the way he loved her. That was the horror to him, the torture. If he was tortured over the rape, the guilt of it, felt responsible then he already had a "moral" compass & from what I can tell in the Buffyverse that meant he already had a soul. In which case he attempted to rape Buffy with a soul. Xander with his soul pushed aside (his memories etc being used as a template for the Hyena) did not stop, but Xander was able to not even attempt to rape Buffy.

Again disagree. Spike from the get-go has demonstrated that he hates to hurt those he loves. Remember how he felt in Intervention when Glory tortured him? HE tells Buffy the idea of her being in that much pain is something that would destroy him. He's not altruistic. But he does feel for someone that he has affection for. Xander being in pain wouldn't phase him. Buffy - very much so. I doubt he'd feel much if he saw Tara die. You appear to be seeing the soul/non-soul in black and white terms and I don't think its like that. Under your definition vampires can't love and the writers have shown us that they can love, very well in fact. Tim Minear even states it in an interview. Just because you're evil does not mean you want to hurt everything, some things you don't want to hurt. Same with being good - doesn't mean you don't want to hurt things.
Spike demonstrates as early as Lie to ME and What's My Line that he doesn't like hurting Dru (unless of course it's for pleasure which is a different thing - being a demon it's hard to see the distinctions of course) - notice he gets upset when he says a bad remark in Lie to Me and she cries.
Or when Buffy threatens to kill Dru and he lets an entire room filled with humans out to save her? Or when she is upset and emotionally hurt in What's my Line and he rushes to apologize. Spike really hates hurting those he loves. And he tells Buffy this over and over again in Season 6, specifically Entropy. Yet he hurts her - and he goes to apologize, yes it is selfishly motivated, but he still regretted hurting her. You don't need a soul to feel emotional regret hurting someone you love. You need a soul to feel emotional regret hurting someone you have 0 connection with - that's the meaning behind the alley scene in Dead Things, where Buffy realizes Spike can't understand why it's so horrible she killed KAtrina even thought they didn't know her. Spike doesn't get that, he doesn't get her self-loathing about that until he gets the soul - then and only then is he haunted by everyone he killed - that shatters his sanity. Hurting the one he loves sends him out to get the soul. Obtaining the soul and realizing how many people he's hurt - shatters his sanity. Angelus you see didn't love anyone, he didn't care really about anyone but himself and being the leader and head of family. Oh he felt affection but never love. When he got his soul - he felt remorse for hurting people, but it's not until he meets Buffy that he feels love. The difference between Angelus and Darla vs. Spike and Dru, is Angelus and Darla did not feel love. This had 0 to do with being vampires and everything to do with who they once were. Spike and dru, James and Elizabeth all feel love, wild, obsessive, unhealthy love - but love which makes them feel pain if the person they love is hurt - their ability to love has less to do with the vampire than the human they once were.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aggreeing but disagreeing -- heywhynot, 15:07:56 08/25/03 Mon

I do not disagree that vampires can love, hate, not want to hurt, etc..
Pretty much everything in the last two paragraphs in your above post.

To me Spike reacted because he hurt someone he loved by attempting to rape Buffy. He regretted his actions because they caused pain to someone he loved. Regret is not the same thing as guilt. Feeling guilty is a feeling of self-reproach from believing that one has done a wrong. To believe one has done a wrong means you have a moral compass to me using this sense of wrong. Spike to me regretted the actions and believed he was "wrong" because he hurt Buffy (choose the wrong action) but not because he believed his actions were wrong in a moral sense.

Much of my responses have been based on your comment a few posts ago regarding Spike: "Also, he did show remorse for the attempted rape". Remorse according to Webster's New World Dictionary is "a torturing sense of guilt for one's actions". Spike regretted his actions but did not feel guilty, if he did then he had a soul to begin with. Spike felt pain but not the pain of guilt.

In terms of the trigger. Spike was not actively trying to get rid of the trigger. He wanted to run away. He wanted to be tied up. He wanted Buffy to find a cure. He never attempted to deal with it directly until he was forced to. By that point I had forgiven Spike for his previous actions and did not blame him for the murders he committed while under the control of the First. I give him credit for taking precautions & worrying about being taken over again by the First. To me I was highly disappointed in Spike for not actively trying to rid himself of the trigger. As long as it was there he could be activated to kill.

Is Spike my favorite character on the show? No but I don't dislike the character. You can tell you adore the character.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aggreeing but disagreeing -- Claudia, 15:25:14 08/25/03 Mon

["Also, he did show remorse for the attempted rape". Remorse according to Webster's New World Dictionary is "a torturing sense of guilt for one's actions". Spike regretted his actions but did not feel guilty, if he did then he had a soul to begin with. Spike felt pain but not the pain of guilt.]


I disagree. Judging by Spike's behavior in the crypt, after the attempted rape and being haunted by flashbacks of his attack upon Buffy, I believe that he did feel remorse. And this was not the first time he felt this. Remember "Entropy" when Buffy and Xander confronted him and Anya. Guilt was practically plastered all over his face, until Xander made a comment about Anya sleeping with the "evil, undead thing", and Buffy's comment. Spike's remorse then briefly disappeared and he let the cat out of the bag about his affair with Buffy, knowing that Xander would be upset. However, the guilt returned. Hence, his hiding out in his crypt in "Seeing Red", when Dawn came upon him.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aggreeing but disagreeing -- heywhynot, 15:56:30 08/25/03 Mon

To me Spike couldn't of felt remorse because that implies a moral compass because guilt requires believing in right and wrong. I firmly support the notion that without a soul, Spike could feel and felt bad when he hurt those he loved. If he knew right from wrong in Entropy then that really calls into question his actions in the next episode (Seeing Red). Spike was pained by his actions. So pained what he did to Buffy and by the fact she would never love him the way he wanted that he went on his mission to Africa. Only after getting his soul did he have guilt over his actions. The irony is that this guilt was probably the hook that enabled the First to use him to kill. Of course the soul was what enabled him to eventually overcome the First's influence when he was forced to in Lies My Parents Told Me.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> His actions in "Entropy" did seem to hurt Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:19:51 08/25/03 Mon

Dawn says as much in "Seeing Red". How I think it works is that, when you love someone in a very deep way, you feel what they feel. If they're happy, you're happy. If they're unhappy, you're unhappy. Even though they had broken up, Buffy was emotionally hurt by seeing Spike sleeping with Anya, so Spike also felt pain over it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> His actions in "Entropy" did seem to hurt Buffy-I agree -- heywhynot, 17:52:26 08/25/03 Mon

I do think that Buffy was hurt by Spike sleeping with Anya and Spike hurt because Buffy did.He regretted his actions but was not remorseful was my point. He did not feel guilty. He felt bad. because Buffy was hurt.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: His actions in "Entropy" did seem to hurt Buffy-I agree -- lele, 18:33:12 08/25/03 Mon

Sorry, I think it comes down to semantics.

remorse/regret/guilt- they all convey the feeling one gets when they feel they've done something wrong. For spike in S6 it felt wrong to him to hurt someone he loved- buffy.
Post-ensoulment S7, the definition of good/bad got widened for him or I should say the definition of what would make "him" good/bad got widened. IOW, before the soul in order to see his actions as valid/'good' it included taking care of the ones he felt deeply about- and according to joss et al, this definition in itself is 'twisted' by the demon. After the soul, in order to define himself as 'good' he had to internalize some sense of seeing himself in others in order to not be a predator. In his conversation with buffy in Sleeper he was sincere about not wanting to add to his body count. In Never Leave Me, he asked her to kill him (yes partly b/c of the guilt he felt, but also b/c he felt he posed a danger to her and the others).
I think you're looking at things in degrees--
it's very human to want to take care of your family/loved ones
there's another layer added to that when we find it important to take care of those outside our immediate circle.

So yes spike in dead things felt the need to get rid of katrina's body to protect buffy-because he didn't understand that simply getting rid of the body wouldn't really help her.
In Entropy/Seeing Red, spike felt remorse; bitter regret for hurting the woman he loved. He still lacked understanding of the enormity of what happened and being mr. proactive he took measures that he felt would get her back. We see in Lessons onward that he got more than he bargained for


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: His actions in "Entropy" did seem to hurt Buffy-I agree -- heywhynot, 19:48:06 08/25/03 Mon

Guilt is part of remorse ( a torturing sense of guilt for one's actions based on the Webster's New World Dictionary). A vampire can feel regret but not remorse. Remorse takes a moral compass, a belief in right/wrong. I can forgive Spike's action in Seeing Red because he lacked a moral compass.

Spike and Buffy were playing sexual games which delved into lots of grey area. Spike did not have the ability to know where the definite no-no territory was until Buffy's reaction. Buffy was his compass because he lacked his own.

(sidenote: The idea of soul's to me is very foreign, since I don't believe in them. Morals to me are the rules we place upon ourselves to dictate how we want to live our own lives based on each of our beliefs. And in my mind, best left to the individual to decide. Laws in theory are the rules we collectively decide so that we can live together. To me a "moral" compass is something we learn and develop over our lifetimes. But in the Buffyverse there are souls that seem to me to be equated with a moral compass on BtVS)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aggreeing but disagreeing -- s'kat, 20:54:31 08/25/03 Mon

Yes, I adore the character, never said otherwise. What's your point?

What I adore about him is the unpredictablity and greyness.
It's the same reason I adore Willow and to some extent Angel not to mention Wesely and Fred and....
Spike's the most fun to analyze. I have more fun analyzing Spike than any other character that exists, because you can argue him every which way and still be right. Such fun!!

I'm sure you have characters you adore too? Otherwise why be so obsessed? (Actually I know you do, I read your Character Impression Post. B/A, Spike is overrated. Buffy)

The only characters I don't try to analyze are the ones I dislike, think are overrated or hate. Because I came across as biased and tend to hurt people. Wood/Andrew. That and why wast my time and energy on something I don't like on TV?? YMMV.

Moving on.

In terms of the trigger. Spike was not actively trying to get rid of the trigger. He wanted to run away. He wanted to be tied up. He wanted Buffy to find a cure. He never attempted to deal with it directly until he was forced to. By that point I had forgiven Spike for his previous actions and did not blame him for the murders he committed while under the control of the First. I give him credit for taking precautions & worrying about being taken over again by the First. To me I was highly disappointed in Spike for not actively trying to rid himself of the trigger. As long as it was there he could be activated to kill.

Hmmm. But why would he? He's suffering and in pain, just recently got over being insane. Was just tortured by the First. Not a thinker. Has no clue what to do. Remember when Angel got his soul, he sunk into the gutter and ate rats for a 100 years. Whistler had to come along and drag him to Sunnydale and it was seeing Buffy on the steps sucking a lollipop that motivated him to actually come to Sunnydale.
Did he help her? Sparingly. Heck in Prophecy Girl, he considered her doomed. Xander had to threaten him with a cross and bully him into helping him rescue her.

Spike gets his soul. Goes insane. Gets past that. Gets the trigger. HAtes himself. Gets grabbed by the First Evil (who remember when Angel was tortured by the First, instead of fighting the First or doing anything about it? He tries to commit suicide. The powers that be come down from on high and send snow. Angel doesn't overcome the First doesn't even try to, he tries to run away just like Spike).and tortured. He is saved by Buffy, he helps Buffy. Then the chip almost kills him. She gets it removed. Then the First threatens again, but he seems fine, maybe it's inactive?
(Actually I think Bring on the Night through Chosen was poorly written and little of this made sense but understand the pressures they were under - see my essay on tv pitfalls and Season 7 review for that debate). Then he has Wood gunning for him. Giles comes back with a device that Giles doesn't understand and can't work and Giles asks Willow who is recovering from her own bouts with magic problems to activate it. Spike gets it in his brain, willingly. But he doesn't know what's happening. He agrees to go with Wood for the girls protection and to figure out the trigger (see Shooting Script - they cut it out of the episode for time constraints), Wood betrays him, Spike works through it.
Spike comes out fine. (Don't know about you - but seems to me Spike did more here than Angel did on the cliff. Now don't get me wrong I adore Angel - used to be a B/A shipper, moved on. Now just an Angelshipper. But what I adore about him is his faults, his struggle.)

Oh - Claudia, Finn et all echo my thoughts on the remorse issue. I disagree with you on the whole regret/remorse thing. I agree with Finn - I think you can feel remorse for hurting someone - has zip to do with morals. The morals have to do with when yes - means no.

Regarding whether or not you believe in a soul? That's moot, since Whedon doesn't believe in them and appears to be skirting the religious stuff as much as possible.
Whedon is using it as a metaphor for the compass. Now from my extensive collection of interviews on the topic? Whedon does not define moral compass in the same way you do, his definition is less about experience than natural state.
Humans are born neutral - neither pointed to evil or good.
They can go either way. Your definition appears to be actually more Fruedian in character - ie, the super-ego which Frued states is constructed by our parents rules, society's rules and experience. I used to think this was what ME is doing (see my Soul metaphors essay on my site or in the archives) but I don't any more. Too restricting and these guys like things more ambiguous and murky. So I think the soul in Jossian terms is a combo of Kantian and Nietzchian philosophy. It's our guiding light. Without it, we have no free choice - evil. We may try to do good, but our natural instinct is to do evil, to do chaos. To go against that instinct or natural drive? Is impossible. This is what Holden Webster states in CWDP where he says - he's connected to evil. Spike can do good, but his instinct is towards evil, in all things. Even love gets twisted towards it. The other metaphor going on with the soul is with teens. According to a recent study (it was on ABC NEWS last week)The teenager is all hormones, emotion, blood (not all teens, speaking generally) and reactes without thinking. Doesn't understand how actions have consequences or when to stop. Doesn't have the adult understanding. Just as the teen can do good, so can Spike - but they don't do it for alturistic reasons, they do them to impress someone.
ie. The kid decides to help his neighbor so Mommy will feel proud of him. The adult decides to help his neighbor because it feels good. Laws, morals, that has zip to do with it. It just naturally feels good. Same with evil - the vampire does evil because it feels good, he does good to impress his girlfriend who is impressed and that makes him feel good. He hurts his girlfriend he feels her pain - feels bad.

Here's some quotes that might help :(The first is from the Paley Festival, the second from the New York Times)

"The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001

Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"


JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."

A. I would love to give you a more in-depth coherent explanation of my
view of the soul, and if I had one I would. The soul and my concept of
it are as ephemeral as anybodyís, and possibly more so. And in terms of
the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience;
the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is sometimes
someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one. I
donít think Clem has a soul, but heís certainly a sweet guy. Spike was
definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made
it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although
Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love
that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didnít exist for
him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally,
ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her because
he couldnít make the connection ó- the difference between their
dominance games and actual rape.

With a soul comes a more adult understanding. That is again, a little
vague, butÖ can I say that I believe in the soul? I donít know that I
can. Itís a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of other
things we have on the show that Iím not really sure I can explain and I
certainly donít believe in. It does fall prey to convenience, but at the
same time it has consistently marked the real difference between
somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable
and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens.

Q. 6. We hear you're fond of Shakespeare's works - "Hamlet" in
particular. Could that have partly inspired the "Normal Again" storyline
that Buffy might be insane, since one theory about "Hamlet" goes that
the entire story is actually taking place in Hamlet's imagination? How
important is "Normal, Again" in the "Buffy" arc?

A. I have never been a subscriber to, "the entire play takes place in
Hamletís imagination" theory. In fact, although Iím a devoted fan of
"Hamlet" and it is the text I know best in all the world, "Normal Again"
did not come from it.

How important it is in the scheme of the "Buffy" narrative is really up
to the person watching. If they decide that the entire thing is all
playing out in some crazy personís head, well the joke of the thing to
us was it is, and that crazy person is me. It was kind of the ultimate
postmodern look at the concept of a writer writing a show, which is not
the sort of thing we usually do on the show. The show had merit in
itself because it did raise the question, "How can you live in this
world and be sane?" But at the same time the idea amused me very much
and we played on it a little bit, "How come her little sister is taller
than her?" "What was Adamís plan?" We played on the crazy things we came
up with time and time again, to make this fantasy show work and called
them into question the way any normal person would. But ultimately the
entire series takes place in the mind of a lunatic locked up somewhere
in Los Angeles, if thatís what the viewer wants. Personally, I think it
really happened.

Q. 7. Redemption has been an important theme of the show. Is redemption
the mode through which the characters become less cliched, more
inspiring and interesting? Is redemption a theme that you have looked
for in other texts from which you have drawn inspiration?

A. Redemption has become one of the most important themes in my work and
it really did start with Angel. I would say probably with the episode
"Amends," but even with the character itself and the concept of the
spin-off was about redemption. It was about addiction and how you get
through that and come out the other side, how you redeem yourself from a
terrible life. I do actually work with a number of reformed addicts, if
thatís what you call them. I call them drunks. But my point is a good
number of people that are most close to me creatively have lived that
life, and it informs their work. I never have, and so Iím not sure why
it is that redemption is so fascinating to me. I think the mistakes Iíve
made in my own life have plagued me, but theyíre pretty boring mistakes:
I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think I
once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album. Apart from that Iím pretty much an
average guy, yet I have an enormous burden of guilt. Iím not sure why.
Iím a WASP, so itís not Jewish or Catholic guilt; itís just there.
Ultimately, the concept of somebody who needed to be redeemed is more
interesting to me. I think it does make a character more textured than
one who doesnít.

I can't think of anything, off hand, that I am a big fan of that
contains that kind of thing. My favorite fictions are usually the kind I
make, which is sort of adolescent rites of passage, which is what
"Buffy" is about. Itís about the getting of strength and thatís probably
the most important theme in any of my work, but I would say coming a
close second is the theme of redemption. I think as you make your way
through life itís hard to maintain a moral structure, and that
difficulty and the process of coming out the other side of a dark, even
psychological time is to me the most important part of adulthood.

I think to an extent every human being needs to be redeemed somewhat or
at least needs to look at themselves and say, "Iíve made mistakes, Iím
off course, I need to change." Which is probably the hardest thing for a
human being to do and maybe thatís why it interests me so."

I think that's what Whedon is going for. Is it confusing yes. But fun fun fun to analyze the crap out of.

sk (who adores Spike and Angel with a passion, hey I like vampires, so sue me. Long live Spangel. ;-) )


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aggreeing but disagreeing -- heywhynot, 06:07:50 08/26/03 Tue

I like Spike yet I also think he is overrated. The two can stand together. Brett Favre is a great quarterback who I think highly of, but he in my mind is an overrated quarterback due to the number of interceptions he can throw at the oddest of times. To me Spike is overrated in terms of what he brings to a show. He will not boost Angel's ratings that much higher as the execs on the WB believe. Does that mean I don't want to see Spike on Angel? No, Spike is a great character to play off the main character whether it is Buffy or Angel. To me Spike is the extra spice you add to make a meal even better. The meal by itself would be good. The spice by itself wouldn't.

My point regarding Spike is that my opinion and world view of course will always color how I view the character & how he was presented on the show. Just as your adoration does the same for you. Might explain why you see remorse when I see regret.

I am not denying that vampires & Spike in particular loves with a passion & hurts when his love hurts, especially when he causes the pain. To me remorse is more than the just this sort of selfish love. It is believing that your actions are wrong on a deeper level than not wanting to hurt those you love. To me he lacked the "inner guiding light" needed for remorse. I saw Spike as reacting to causing Buffy pain and her rejecting him & the pain that caused him.

I do like Buffy with Angel more than Spike. I like the idea of her developing a deep friendship with Spike, loving him while not being in love with Spike. I have a bias to seeing more platonic friendships of depth because I believe in them in a world in which many people tell me they don't exist or won't last.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Romantic love vs. Platonic love (agree and disagree) -- s'kat, 21:23:54 08/26/03 Tue


I thought long and hard about whether I should respond here..and half-hoped the thread would get archived before I had a chance to and I could let it go. But it's still here and I'd like to share my views with you, which oddly enough donít differ as much from yours as you may believe. I hope you will take them in the spirit in which they are meant, which isn't confrontational so much as just an honest sharing of perspectives .

I do like Buffy with Angel more than Spike. I like the idea of her developing a deep friendship with Spike, loving him while not being in love with Spike. I have a bias to seeing more platonic friendships of depth because I believe in them in a world in which many people tell me they don't exist or won't last.

Actually I agree, except on Buffy with Angel, I honestly donít like the idea of the Buffy/Angel ship for oddly enough the reasons you suggest. Because I know for a fact that people who tell you platonic friendships of depth donít exist or donít last are sorely mistaken. It is actually the wild and passionate romantic unions that donít last, the Buffy/Angel relationships that have no basis outside of a tv show. Marriages that last on built on friendship and trust and a relationship that has weathered many storms and people who have stayed with one another and struggled together and seen the best and worst. But most important they are friends. B/A have been many things, but never really friends. They donít really know one another outside of the idealized romance, at least as far as Iíve been able to see on screen.

My view about romantic love is based on experience more than belief, although some beliefs do arise from experience. When I was younger, much much younger I believed in romantic love, but I've learned romantic love burns itself out much as Buffy describes to Spike in that infamous bathroom scene. It's funny actually we all talk so much about that scene, but we forget the dialogue that lead up to it, dialogue that in some ways tells me that Buffy too has realized that romantic love does not last, is not real. It is wild, it is passionate, it consumes you, but it burns out. Friendship seldom if ever arises from it. Yet we hunt it because of what we see in a romance novel or a play or a movie and some of us marry because of it, only to have our hearts smashed in thousands of tiny pieces when it is over. If however our marriage is based on friendship not just romantic love ñ it may last, if we work at it. Because like it or not all relationships platonic or otherwise are a lot of work. But Romantic love is different ñoh itís wonderful like eating that great piece of chocolat, but like RJís jacket spell on Dawn - it is fleeting, fleeting as the wispy romantic strands of that long forgotten song from A Summer Place. Because of its passionate and fleeting nature ñ people donít really work at romantic love, they fall headlong into it, groping and kissing, until they canít get enough ñ like Romeo and Juliet and Tristan and IsolodeÖwho could only sustain their love, by dying for it.

I've learned that platonic love lasts far longer. I have had good male and female friends that I've built relationships with that lasted far longer and were far deeper and far more giving than any romance. And I've known marriages that have lasted over 50 years that arose from a friendship that slowly over time became something deeper, a romance, but an adult romance, a companionship.

Audrey Hepburn stated once, that as one grows older, one has less need or want for romantic passion and true love and the fierceness of it, and realizes that there is more to be found in the gentle companionship of a friend who understands you and you can talk to and gather strength from.

So you see? I am the opposite of you. In my world the romantic love of B/A is best left to romance novels and gothic soap operas where the heroes die tragically in each others arms and we never see the day to day issues of marriage, it's the fairy tale. And I no longer believe in fairy tales. (And since Joss Whedon insists he is using metaphor to relate reality, my guess is he doesnít really believe in them either.) Real love is the respect and friendship of two people who put up with each others fault, struggle through their foibles, and forgive each other over time - like Willow and Tara did, or Willow and Xander, or Buffy and Xander, or Cordelia and Angel, or even Buffy and Spike. Buffy and Angel? It does not exist in my experience, it is a fairy tale to put a child to sleep. As to who the writers will decide to let ride off in the sunset? I donít know. As to who I want to ride off into the sunset? They already have.

YMMV (your view may vary or your mileage may vary)

thank you for reading,

sk


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've never truly understood romantic love -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:51:10 08/26/03 Tue

My only real exposure to it is viscerally through fictional characters, and those rarely if ever satisfy the question of why these two people are in love. Friendships I can understand, both in real life and in fiction. You can see the two people together and tell that they enjoy each others company, that their personalities mesh in just the right way to make both happier. But, with all presentations of romantic love I've seen, it always seems to involve two people who are obsessed with each other, but why they're obsessed doesn't seem to be answered. Thus, romance in fiction hasn't really affected my view of relationships in life; I mainly try to focus on friendships, which are something I understand.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I've never truly understood romantic love -- s'kat, 07:41:28 08/27/03 Wed

But, with all presentations of romantic love I've seen, it always seems to involve two people who are obsessed with each other, but why they're obsessed doesn't seem to be answered.

Romantic love or love at first sight, if you'd rather, is usually based on pure physical attraction and phermones.
It is also very selfish in nature, although doesn't appear to be to the person involved. Some psychologists seem to compare "romantic love" to narcissitic love - basically where you fall in love with someone who reflects what you want to see in yourself or your best image. They tell you how great you are, never question you, say how they can't bear not to be with you, and that you are wonderful.
They don't see your flaws. And you don't see theirs. But you're right there's nothing much below that.

Does it exist outside movies, books and television? Yep.
Does it last? Not unless it can move past that stage.
But I've never seen it make it, if based on passion.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I've never truly understood romantic love -- Arethusa, 08:53:20 08/27/03 Wed

They tell you how great you are, never question you, say how they can't bear not to be with you, and that you are wonderful.
They don't see your flaws. And you don't see theirs.


And when the people do see each other as flawed human beings, sometimes a person ends the relationship because they only want that feeling of being adored and considered perfect. Passion fades over time, like most emotions. People who can't accept that sometimes continue to whip up the relationship into a fever pitch to feel that intense excitement again, but it burns people out. A person can't whip their emotions up into a fever pitch forever. And most mature people don't want to. They want to be accepted for what they are, not a romantic, idealized version of themselves. There has to be something else to keep people together-friendship, mutual trust, liking. Buffy and Angel never got to that point, except perhaps at the very end. For once Angel let Buffy make her own decisions, regarding the battle she was facing. He treated her like an adult. And Buffy stopped trying to manipulate their relationship. She was ready to finish growing up before she tried again or moved on. They let each other go, which is the only way they could possibly even think of having a relationship in the future, if they should decide that is what they want.

I wrote a long post on vampire love that disappeared during archiving, and most of its point have been covered by now. Basically, the Greeks divided love into selfish love that died without reciprocation and unselfish love. Eros (romantic love), filios (friendship love), and storge (maternal love) all demand something in return from the loved one. Only agape, a love that demanded nothing in return, was unselfish. Vampires could only have selfish love, due to the limitations imposed on them by their immaturity and lack of moral compass. This is probably what Whedon was talking about in the quote mentioned earlier. As a metaphor for immaturity, vampires can't feel agape, mature love. (And I agree with Whedon, most people don't feel that kind of love most of the time. It takes a lot of time and work and selflessness to reach that point. But I'm pretty cynical about love.)

Dorothy Tennov coined the term "limerence" for the state of mind of being in love. The definition:

"Limerence" is distinguished from "love" in that love (in most of its meanings) involves concern for the loved one's welfare and feelings with little or no expectation of gain in return. In contrast, limerence demands reciprocation.

Also in distinction from love, limerence tends to be comparatively short-lived. It can last one and half years at most, but typically lasts only few months. Either reciprocation occurs and limerence is replaced by other feelings (possibly lasting love), evidence that the limerent object does not reciprocate finally overwhelms the limerent's passion, or the limerence is transferred to a new object.

The primary characteristics of limerence can be summarized as intrusive, perhaps obsessive thinking about the limerent object and acute longing for reciprocation. Clinically, this state is marked by decrease of serotonin neurotransmitter, which leads to increase in emotional sensitivity and instability. People can become very irrational, almost insane. In particular, the desire for reciprocation can produce irrational beliefs ("she only had me arrested because her love is too strong for her to stand") and behavior ("if I cut off my ear she will see how much I love her"). Limerents often feel real physiological effects, including a physical pain in the chest ("heartache") when reciprocation seems unlikely, and euphoria when reciprocation seems evident. If love object does not reciprociate and does not handle the situation with care, people in this state can suffer severe depression, sometimes committing suicide - unrequited love is one of the major causes of suicide in the younger population.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

When Xander's love for Buffy was not reciprocated it changed, into filios. And his relationship with Anya was not eros at first-she was in love with him, but he wasn't with her. In time he grew to love her, but it was only part of their relationship. I'm marrying my best friend, Anya said in her wedding vows. But Xander didn't trust himself, and in time the eros died. They still loved each other, but were not sure what kind of love. (Storyteller) And when Anya died, it was for agape, the love of mankind that wants only to give, not receive. Xander didn't break down like Spike did at Buffy's death because his love for Anya had changed and deepened. (And Whedon didn't want the ending to be depressing.) Spike, too, died for agape, wanting nothing in return from Buffy for his sacrifice. The two ex-demons faced their own demons (bunnies and being love's bitca) and overcame them. And they grew up, and were no longer demons.

Rewatching Season 7, it's clear that Buffy came to love Spike, the man. The person who was always at her back and who utterly believed in her goodness and strength. Who knew all of her faults and had seen her at her worst, and still accepted her as she was. Who was funny and charming and impulsive. Who was a lot like her. That love was very different from erotic love. It gave instead of took, and together they were able to use to save the world.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post Aresthusa! Sdev? This explains Whedon's quote much better!! -- s'kat, 09:12:14 08/27/03 Wed

Buffy and Angel never got to that point, except perhaps at the very end. For once Angel let Buffy make her own decisions, regarding the battle she was facing. He treated her like an adult. And Buffy stopped trying to manipulate their relationship. She was ready to finish growing up before she tried again or moved on. They let each other go, which is the only way they could possibly even think of having a relationship in the future, if they should decide that is what they want.


When Xander's love for Buffy was not reciprocated it changed, into filios. And his relationship with Anya was not eros at first-she was in love with him, but he wasn't with her. In time he grew to love her, but it was only part of their relationship. I'm marrying my best friend, Anya said in her wedding vows. But Xander didn't trust himself, and in time the eros died. They still loved each other, but were not sure what kind of love. (Storyteller) And when Anya died, it was for agape, the love of mankind that wants only to give, not receive. Xander didn't break down like Spike did at Buffy's death because his love for Anya had changed and deepened. (And Whedon didn't want the ending to be depressing.) Spike, too, died for agape, wanting nothing in return from Buffy for his sacrifice. The two ex-demons faced their own demons (bunnies and being love's bitca) and overcame them. And they grew up, and were no longer demons.

Rewatching Season 7, it's clear that Buffy came to love Spike, the man. The person who was always at her back and who utterly believed in her goodness and strength. Who knew all of her faults and had seen her at her worst, and still accepted her as she was. Who was funny and charming and impulsive. Who was a lot like her. That love was very different from erotic love. It gave instead of took, and together they were able to use to save the world.


Good analysis of all three relationships.

Yes this is my interpretation as well. You said it very well. ;-) And also did a very good job of explaining the quote. Thank you.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> questioning a different point-is human love selfish? -- sdev, 11:33:37 08/27/03 Wed

I donít think you understood the crux of my confusion. I can understand the difference between altruistic love and selfish love. My puzzlement was in JWís statement that most people, not demons or vampires, only love selfishly.

Spike was definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didnít exist for him.

My issue with that quote had to do with JW lumping Spike in a group with most humans who do not love altruistically. So JW sees most people as loving selfishly, not altruistically. Where then does that put soulless Spike, who loves selfishly, in the world order? Who then falls into the higher category of altruistic love?

I see this quote in the light of much discussion and criticism of Spike for doing positive things out of love for Buffy, in other words, a selfish, non-altruistic motive. I have seen a lot of comments denigrating Spikeís pre-soul good deeds because his motives were not good enough. And yet JW seems to be saying that that is the norm among humans as well. If altruistic love is an ideal most often not realized even among humans, and therefore clearly not a possibility for soulless Spike, should we then be giving Spike more credit for achieving the only selfish love most humans attain? Is that what JW, who may have been aware of this criticism, was trying to say?

The comment was so strange that I too thought it could be a misquote. Misquotes I think are often one word or omission, and due to the structure of the sentence I could not see where or how the misquote could have occurred.

That is not what I had expected JW to say about human love. Do you find it unexpected?

I agree Arethusa did a beautiful job describing the different kinds of love and developments in the love relationships. I also think Buffy's love of Dawn and her sacrifice of her life for her deserves a mention here, clearly the agape, sacrificing love which expects nothing in return. My sense is that Buffy had this ability to love altruistically all along. Maybe it is part and parcel of her ability to be altruistic in other spheres as well, her love of humankind for which she gives herself as Slayer in service to that love.

Question-- Where does the term "agape love" come from, is it yours?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No not mine ;-) Trying another tact to clarify -- s'kat, 14:28:32 08/27/03 Wed

Actually I'd never heard the term agape love until I came onto the posting boards. It is a term that means: Christian love according to the Dictionary. Look in the archives to see where it first came up - someone defined it, can't recall who.

What it basically means is altruistic or selfless = Christian love. The love Christ had when he gave his life for those who cruxified him. By giving his life, taking their sins into himself, they were forgiven. (So agape is bascially the love Jesus Christ had for humanity). That's where the term derives from.

So what are we doing talking about it in the context of a tv show developed by an athesist? Well, agape love isn't just associated with Christianity, we find it in other religious doctrines as well.

I think - what Whedon is discussing when he says most humans, is humans below the age of 25, people who are immature, adolescent. (I'm not saying there aren't 18-22 year olds who haven't fallen in love and dealt maturely with it, but all in all they are the exception not the rule.) Remember BTVS is a story about a girl growing up - going from the age of 15- to the age of 22. At 16 she doesn't get agape love, at 22 she does understand it.
Even her sacrifice in the Gift isn't really agape love, it can be argued to be somewhat isolated to just her sister, she was willing to kill all her friends, let the world self-destruct if that meant saving her sister - she tells Giles and the others as much: "Anyone comes near Dawn? I kill them." Arguably what may have been best for the world was for Dawn to die, (see what happened without Buffy in Bargaining) than for Buffy to die. Dawn after all was never really meant to be a part of the world - she's an anomaly.
So it's not really until Season 7 and Chosen that Buffy reaches the stage of agape love. Spike, Buffy's shadow and romantic foil is the metaphor for this process. As a soulless vampire - Spike is a metaphor for Buffy's immaturity, the demonic teen, all love, all blood, but no maturity behind it. To soulless Spike - love is wild and crazy and fills you with adrenaline, you go for it no matter what the costs or who says no (teenage love which most humans do go through at one stage or another, most push past it adventually, but we all go through this stage of emotional/hormonal need) - we see this put into sharp relief with Dru and Spike, and Spike's mindless adoration of Buffy. In that bathroom scene in SR - Spike tells Buffy that real love is all passion, want, desire, groping, need,
when you can't think of anyone but the loved one, Buffy tells Spike that that isn't real love, it burns itself out, that real love requires trust and respect which must be earned, Spike says trust is for old marrieds. (Think about that conversation for a minute - Buffy sounds like Joyce and Spike sounds like Buffy - years ago in Season 2 and Season 3. Compare it to Buffy and Dawn in Him = same conversation. The conversation is between the adult and the child who is experiencing deep feelings and wants to act on them - its all about "his" feelings. The adult says that's nice but it's not loving someone. The child can't understand, because all they have is the feelings no moral compass to guide them no understanding of them. Without the ability to understand and control those emotions the child wants instant gratification to grab whatever those emotions cry out for. S/he does not have the capacity to grasp the destructiveness in that need, and becomes little more than a vampire - feeding.) If you look back over Spike's role in BTVS from School Hard to Chosen, you'll see Buffy's journey regarding love symbolized. It goes from adolescent/immature love where your jealous of your lovers time away from you and would die without them - to respectful/sharing love where you trust them and respect their choices and do not try to make them jealous or try to manipulate them.
It goes from Buffy accusing Angel of standing her up at the Bronze and that when she kisses him she wants to die - to Buffy telling Angel that she cares for him, but she doesn't want him to die for her or be her champion, she wants him to go back to his life, she respects him now and lets him go.She isn't holding on desperately. And that journey is metaphorically shown in many ways through Spike - who goes from doing anything for Dru, the rest of the world be damned to saving the world for the world, not requiring Buffy's love or Dru's love for it.

Still confused?

Try Becoming vs. Chosen.

In Becoming - it's all about the significant other.
Buffy would sacrifice anyone to get Angel's soul back and literally does. Chastined by this, she goes off intending to kill Angelus, Spike joins her. Why does Spike join?
To save the world? No. HE does it because he wants DRu back, his reasons are pure jealousy. Buffy's reasons for killing Angelus also come partly from jealousy and partly from guilt. When they accomplish their task - Buffy takes off without telling a soul. Spike grabs and forces Dru off with him.

In Chosen - it's about the world. Buffy and Spike again join forces, but this time Buffy isn't doing it to revenge a wrong or out of jealousy or guilt - she shares her power and her role with everyone. And this time Spike isn't doing it out of jealousy or desire to obtain someone's love or win the prize, he's doing it to become a better person out of love.

I think what Whedon means when he says Spike can love but he loves selfishly like most people - he is referring to adolescents, people who love immaturely. His audience - the 18-24 year olds. Not everyone, just everyone at that stage in their lives.

Without asking Whedon directly - that's the best I can theorize. For what it's worth? I think that interpretation can be traced through the text of his show.

SK

(PS: Honestly? I think the writers are as confused about that whole soul contrivance/metaphor as we are, and probably wish they'd done something else. ;-) )


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Three kinds of love -- sdev, 17:07:38 08/27/03 Wed

I think what Whedon means when he says Spike can love but he loves selfishly like most people - he is referring to adolescents, people who love immaturely. His audience - the 18-24 year olds. Not everyone, just everyone at that stage in their lives.

Yes, I can see your point. Earlier in this thread I posted that I thought Spike had a semblance of morality even soulless and I compared it to a child/young person beginning to develop moral concepts-- it is rudimentary and limited. Spike has immature features of humanity in love as well. I actually think (maybe my fantasy) that Buffy was actually the exception he had in mind to the most people love selfishly comment.

But did JW in his remarks mean only young love is selfish? That is not his comment. His comment was pretty broad. While it may apply to mostly younger love, I thought he was making a broader statement which was somewhat startling. As I said earlier I took it as a favorable statement of how far Spike had come without a soul. Although the statement is ostensibly about Spike's limitations, which of course he has, he slips in a comparison to most people's limitations as well. Further support of this view is his use in the same remark of the word "soulful" describing Spike.

What I am reading from you here though is really your description of three different kinds of love-- two personal, selfish and altruistic, and one for humanity, by definition selfless. I think personal love stands apart from the broader love for humanity. I don't believe anyone feels the personal love, even in its most altruistic form, on the same level as love of humanity or Christian love, as you described it. The personal will always command something different in us, a greater intensity. The seeds of selfishness will always be implanted in personal love.

Which brings me to Buffy and Dawn.

Even her sacrifice in the Gift isn't really agape love, it can be argued to be somewhat isolated to just her sister, she was willing to kill all her friends, let the world self-destruct if that meant saving her sister - she tells Giles and the others as much: "Anyone comes near Dawn? I kill them

Was she really willing to kill all her friends and let the world self-destruct? No, I don't think so. The fact is she did not. She did not just take Dawn and leave the portal open. She sacrificed herself instead and saved the world. To me this is the perfect example of agape, Christian love.

Are you saying that love is best left to the young, and all adults, mature people can hope for is loving friendship, that the cuddling between Spike and Buffy was the mature and superior equivalent of passion?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No -- s'kat, 19:55:23 08/27/03 Wed

Are you saying that love is best left to the young, and all adults, mature people can hope for is loving friendship?

Actually the opposite. This may be impossible to explain in words. OR I'm just horrible at expressing my thoughts regarding this topic through words. Since you appear to keep taking my words to extremes or completely misconstruing them;-)

ie. Buffy/Spike's cuddling is best? No. Or the young have the best love? OR love is only reserved to the young? no. definitely not. God I hope not. How silly that would be, since I believe adults have a "better" chance at appreciating such things. That's not what I mean at all. (Ugh. How to explain this? I don't know how. I thought I used enough qualifiers to demonstrate the greyness of this topic, the complete unabsolutness of it, but people keep ignoring them. So the discussion is becoming increasingly frustrating. (one thing I do not need right now is more frustration in my life, one more ounce? And I may explode taking out Manhattan with me. ;-) )Nor do I have a clue what Whedon meant. I'm not Whedon, all I can do is speculate like everyone else. To be honest I find Whedon's comments in interviews frustratingly murky and vague..;-)Sorry for the mini-rant. Frustrated tonight about many many many things.)

My interpretation of Whedon words is the difference between Romeo and Juliet's love, which to me is "narcissitic love"
you fall in love with love, with the image of yourself in someone else's eyes - that to me is immature love, romantic love and to me it is immature and ultimately destructive, and mature love or the love of KAtherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy or a couple who have grown old together and after a while just finish each others sentences. The love that lasts. That is about, waking up and making breakfast for someone while your feeling ooky, or slicing off slivers of ice for your pregnant girlfriend who is throwing up in the toilet due to morning sickness. OR putting up with that funny laugh. Mature love isn't reserved to cuddling or
a kiss on the cheek. But by the same token it isn't just about "kissing someone's face off or having to have sex ten times a week because you just can't get enough". It's about being okay if your husband is away on business and he calls you once a night and isn't home until the weekend and just wants to fall asleep in front of the tele and then in your arms. I don't believe you can put age restrictions on love. Or on passion.

I've known people who fall into the romantic love trap of passionate groping, they meet that day, that night they have wild passionant sex, they are attached at the hip for the next six months, then the honeymoon is over and they break up over the fact that so and so forgot to put the ice-cream in the fridge. (A good movie to see that in a way describes this is Le Divorce - where the wife Roxy's husband Charles Henri - is a romantic, he falls in love so easily and out again, it's all passion, he can't do the day to day - he leaves her for a fun woman and thinks nothing of his wife, his children, his family - it is all about being with this new woman. And he is hardly a teen.)

Selfish love is when you put your needs first - your desires. Personal love and agape love? They can be separate or entwined. I often find the distinctions between them murky.

I don't know what Buffy would have done if she hadn't come up with the solution she did. Nor do I see her sacrifice completely as agape love - since doing so did put the world at risk, although she clearly had no way of knowing that.
Was it selfish saving Dawn? Yes and no. Was it selfish sacrificing herself? again yes and no.

I'm no theologian. And I've certainly not studied selfless alturisitic love. I'm just trying to interpret what I see on the screen, which unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view could be interpreted in more than one way.

To me, as far as I can understand it - agape love is beyond good and evil, it transcends beyond forms, it is love of all things and is deep and abiding - it is I believe what Spike and Buffy felt towards each other and the world in Chosen. Romantic love is what they felt in Becoming. And Personal love is what they felt in the Gift. I'm not sure if that makes any sense. And I'm probably explaining it really poorly...so I'll bow out and let someone else ...discuss, whether on this topic or something else. Especially since this topic is just adding to my current depression and frustration.

bowing out

sk


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ignore this - I said it better in my response to Rah that you responded to -- s'kat, 20:08:40 08/27/03 Wed

and agreed with.

Note to self - read the entire thread before responding.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Please don't explode Manhattan -- sdev, 07:40:17 08/28/03 Thu

I live there. But you knew that.

I recommend instead a three mile run or 100 pushups or ten minutes jumping rope, take your pick. Another alternative is a punching bag, Spike style with my post taped on it. If you don't have a drinking problem (no offense intended), an occassional glass of wine/beer is not amiss.

And as a last resort you can always avoid my unintentionally provocative posts. I am sorry if you are having a hard time, but I don't thing I'm the cause.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Didn't say you were.;-) (also did say ignore) -- s'kat, 09:47:35 08/28/03 Thu



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> agape, not agape -- anom, 18:00:50 08/27/03 Wed

Just to clarify, "agape" is generally used by itself ("agape love" is redundant). It comes from Greek & is pronounced "AH-gah-peh"; it's not the same as the adjective "agape," pronounced "uh-GAYP" & meaning wide open or gaping.

And shadowkat? Which dictionary were you using? The online Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (m-w.com) doesn't define "agape" as specifically Christian love or as necessarily involving sacrifice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> American Heritage Dictionary , 3rd Edition, p.16 -- s'kat, 20:02:44 08/27/03 Wed

"agape" (2): (a-ga pa) n. Christian love. [Gk. agape].


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks a lot. -- Arethusa, 21:25:16 08/28/03 Thu

And I've really been enjoying your posts.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really enjoyed this post! -- sdev, 18:17:28 08/27/03 Wed

Nice dissection of love. Is agape then the Greek term for selfless love?

And when Anya died, it was for agape, the love of mankind that wants only to give, not receive.

Is agape love of humankind rather than personal love? Is personal love, Eros (romantic love), filios (friendship love), and storge (maternal love), all selfish by definition?

Am I misreading you. So little time; so many questions.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- Arethusa, 09:38:07 08/28/03 Thu

Since skat already defined agape, I'll just add that I think the Greeks are saying that filios, eros and storge are selfish by definition because they need reciprocity. They must give something back to the person in love to continue existing. I don't know if they meant that such love always is selfish, or that if it transcends selfishness it becomes agape.

Agape, on many of the websites I researched, has been absorped by some Christians to mean God's love for mankind and man's love for God, and by extension the rest of mankind, which these writers state is altruistic because it demands nothing in return.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Goodness me! -- Rahael, 09:39:29 08/27/03 Wed

Now I feel all young and naive and romantic in this thread, compared to SK, Arethusa and Finn.

Well, Robert Graves did call say that

Love is a universal migraine,
A bright stain on the vision
Blotting out reason.


But at least one thing I know to be true. It is perfectly possible to feel Romantic Love, physical, lustful, (fill in your preferred negative adjective here), Love with a person who is also your best friend. The person who is your intellectual partner. The person who knows all your faults and still loves you.

I hear all this stuff about how a marriage based on slow growing friendship and companionship is better than romantic love and though I heartily agree that friendship and companionship is incredibly important, it is also the best favoured argument of a community bent on forcing its young daughters to take arranged marriages based on money and caste. (So what if he's ugly, you'll learn to love him!) Romantic Love was talked of as something Western, undesirable. There are way too many stories, too many women who I've heard of who loathe and feel no attraction to their husbands. There are major power issues in those marriages, no matter how much the woman learns to live with her lot and gain some affection for the man in question.

Anyway, it may be selfish, it maybe short lived and narcisstic - but it's one of the things that makes me happy I got to live to this stage and experience.

Plus, are we really saying that other kinds of love don't exhibit dark emotions, or blindness to faults or selfishness? Is there no darkness in the love between parent and child? Between friendships? Between the greatest and most admirable of platonic loves? As far as I can see all of the above can exhibit selfishness, obsessive elements, manipulative tendencies, etc etc. I guess what makes me a cynic is disbelieving that all forms of love apart from Romantic are some how high and pure and unsullied.

Plus pheromones and appearance? Believe me, you can fall headlong into love with someone whose face you haven't seen.

What I believe the difference is is 'being in love' with someone, and 'loving someone'. The Being in Love stage doesn't last all that long and it is a stage that seems to be beyond reason, obsessive, taking up your every moment etc. But it never lasts and it subsides into loving. It can be romantic still, just without the fever of the past.

But I guess that's just my incredibly biased opinion.

Ack! I have to leave the office! I wasn't meant to visit the board today!!!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Believe me, I'm far more young and naive :) -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:52:12 08/27/03 Wed



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank Goodness -- sdev, 10:25:42 08/27/03 Wed

Yes. That is how I see it. Most people, especially when they are young, start from romantic love and develop the friendship thing. But if you only start from the friendship place you simply have Buffy/Xander, Buffy/Willow, or Willow/Xander, wonderful meaningful loving relationships bur certainly not the basis of marriage or a sexual relationship. OTOH if all you have is the romantic it will not endure. Passion is wonderful but more is needed to sustain a long term relationship. Also the friendship part needs time to develop whereas the romantic part can be instantaneous.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank Goodness -- Claudia, 14:43:49 08/29/03 Fri

"But if you only start from the friendship place you simply have Buffy/Xander, Buffy/Willow, or Willow/Xander, wonderful meaningful loving relationships bur certainly not the basis of marriage or a sexual relationship."

Is that absolutely certain? Doesn't it really depend upon the personalities involved?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have you ever heard the expression being in love with love? -- s'kat, 13:52:32 08/27/03 Wed

What I believe the difference is is 'being in love' with someone, and 'loving someone'. The Being in Love stage doesn't last all that long and it is a stage that seems to be beyond reason, obsessive, taking up your every moment etc. But it never lasts and it subsides into loving. It can be romantic still, just without the fever of the past.

Ah but you see that is what I was trying to point out.
There's the obsessive romantic love where it's more about being in love with love, that actual love. Where it is all about the physical, all about the - I can't live without you and oh when I kiss you I want to die.

Perhaps a good comparision is Buffy and Angel compared to Willow and Tara. Willow and Tara - I think you will admit were physically attracted to each other, they were romantically in love and their relationship did subside into more than just romantic love, they saw each others faults and moved past them. I think had Tara survived, they would have had the love you are describing Rahael.
Buffy and Angel have what is called erotic love, they have never really had to see each others faults or deal with one another, from what we know on-screen they are not in contact with each really after Angel leaves Sunnydale, they aren't haveing an online romance, or long distance one. It is erotic love. They have not shared experiences.

I think you need to distinquish the two. Of course there can be passion and should be passion between a husband and wife. My parents have been together for over 30 years and they have passion and romance. My brother and his girlfriend certainly do.

What we are talking about is love for love's own sake as opposed to love that transcends it. When you love someone do you share that love - does it encompass those around you or does it separate you from everyone, so that it's you and your lover against the world isolated in a cubby hole?
Is it all about the other? Or is it a give and take and about everyone? From what I've seen of your interaction with D'H on the board, Rah it sounds to me that your relationship is much more and always has been much more than "romantic"/"idealized" love - it appears to encompass more than just yourselves and it seems to make you want to give to the world. That is very different than the more
"erotic/selfish" love Aresthusa and Whedon and I am discussing. It is more like Willow and Tara, not Buffy and Angel.

Not sure if that clarifies?
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around. I didn't arrive at it until very recently and I'm 36. For you see I've experienced being in "love with love" enough to know that this is not what you are experiencing from your posts on the board on the topic.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> agree with all this. -- sdev, 18:28:52 08/27/03 Wed

You had me worried for a while. Glad to see you still believe romance and friendship can happily coexist.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm here to defend Spike ;) -- Rahael, 03:24:52 08/28/03 Thu

Love without hope, as when the young bird-catcher
Swept off his tall hat to the Squire's own daughter,
So let the imprisoned larks escape and fly
Singing about her head, as she rode by.


-- Robert Graves


Well, as youíve already indicated that youíre done with this discussion but never mind, Iíll still write out my response. Obviously I agree that if one isn't really attracted to the person you're with, and you're simply indulging in an adolescent crush because of all the delicisous feelings, then yes, it's not a 'good' thing. But I think that having little crushes or having teenage infatuations is a way of learning about love and sexual desire, and negotiating one's way into adulthood. I'd completely agree with you if one is talking about adult infatuations, unreciprocated, never seeing the person one loves, just creating an ideal image in one's mind and falling in love with it. But hey, it made for very good entertainment throughout BtVS Season 5&6!

Iím just a little confused about your example of Willow and Tara. Did Tara really see Willow in all her faults, I mean, right after Willow mindwiped her so she couldnít remember their argument?

Iím not going to be able to defend B/A to you since I happen to think that I Will Remember You was one of the silliest AtS eps Iíve ever seen, but I donít think Buffy was entirely unaware of his faults. What with the killing him and the no sex because youíll turn into an evil monster throughout Season 3. The whole when you kiss me I want to die thing isnít such a silly thing to say. Metaphorically speaking, Buffy could ëkissí Angel and he could rip her throat out. I thought it was a rather nice little macabre line, superficially sappy, but with a chilling truth. Everything about BtVS in the early years as adolescent overblown melodrama. If I donít go out tonight, the world will end! It was lifeís molehills blown up into melodrama for comic/dramatic effect.

And I like erotic love. I donít think it is shallow. I know you say Willow and Tara are selfless love and B/A is erotic love, but I have to say, I thought Willow was no saint in the relationship. She was selfish and she hurt Tara and she wanted to remake herself into something different and she didnít respect Tara as a person either.

Thank you for your very sweet comments about myself and díH but I must confess to you that we are very much stuck in the selfish erotic phase ;)

Maybe it is because I am young, but I really donít want transcendent love. I donít want to transcend the world. I think maybe I have less expectations of love in all its forms than you do. I donít want to transcend díH and I, nor the pleasures of the world. I donít look to it to change the world or redeem each other or help humanity. It is a simple, beautiful, very common human experience.It may be for the rest of my life, it may be fleeting. But while it is here, I'll seize it with both hands. Cos the grave is a fine and private place, but none, I think, do there embrace.

Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapt power
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life
Thus though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Marvelling -- TCH, 09:18:27 08/28/03 Thu



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very lovely. -- Arethusa, 10:59:06 08/28/03 Thu

I look on transcendent love as love that transcends itself, not the world. Where the happiness and well-being of friends or children or lovers is more important than the relationship itself. When you love a friend, child or lover even when you get nothing in return. The wonderful privilige of being able to give love is enough.

Some people-I would even say most people-never get to this stage. My cynicism is more distrustful than mysanthropic, however. I've lived long enough to see many, many people genuinely believe they love someone, yet treat that person as a possession or reflection of themself, not as a separate individual. People do almost as many sickening things in the name of love as they do in the name of war-the battlefield is just much smaller.

But while I don't always believe in love, I do believe in people. And those who walk off the battlefield without fatal wounds often do manage to transcend selfish love. Love becomes deeper, truer, more real-something one gives, instead of something one receives. And sometimes people already love unselfishly yet don't realize it. They have transcended need. Love is their gift.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unselfish Love -- Rahael, 04:36:29 08/29/03 Fri

I guess, that either I see far more transcendent love in the world, and that I see far more of that kind of love in my immediate surroundings than others, OR, my experience, my world view, my structure of thought cannot even compass such a concept.

My actual experience with individual people, by which I mean every day experience only convinces me that they are capable of very fine things, finer on many occasions than I can muster myself. While I sit around and fret about not being allowed to wear contacts my workmate goes out of her way to care for someone who appears to be incredibly selfish, ungrateful and charmless. It doesn't mean that my workmate shows transcendental love to everyone around her, just that when the situation demands it, most of us will strive to alleviate the hardships of our loved ones. That, imho, is the very basis of society.

I number no one in my acquaintance who doesn't consistently put themselves out for others when the situation asks for it. My aunt once told me: "when you help people out, help the people who help others. Even if they are too busy to repay it, prioritise them." (This means that my aunt will go out and help people she barely knows, even when people she loves fiercely want to have a chat, or a pep talk or help with homework, or just want her home that evening)

I guess I value enormously that kind of behaviour, since its part of the value system I was taught, but I also want the private, loving relationship that can't give and give endlessly only to me, but is still incredibly precious. Maybe I cannot understand what you describe because for me it's all about that relationship, that person, that immediate experience. The smile in their eyes, the hand that holds yours, that gesture of affection that needs no words, just a whole world of understanding and love. Why cannot one have both, and have them lend meaning to the other, and enrich each kind of way of loving. I cannot extricate the unselfish part of me from my selfish part.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Unselfish Love -- auroramama, 05:30:11 08/29/03 Fri

Thank you, Rahael. I agree.

I've been married seventeen years, and we've had companionship, passion, affection, need, selflessness, selfishness -- everything and in between. "It comes and goes, that abyss opening on nothing," says Janet Evason of romantic love in her marriage. "Usually one of us runs away." Well, we stay and have crazy, scary romance, until it's back to best-friendship or parenthood (sometimes the next minute.)

"Earth's made for love; I don't know where it's likely to go better." (Badly quoted Frost.) "All true wealth is biological." Aral Vorkosigan, quoting, I think, his wife. Even Anne Rice will tell you: it's when we try to transcend our physical, personal, incarnate existence that we get into real trouble (hey, let's wipe out 99% of the males and make peace on earth!) If someone's going to try to save the world, I want to know that they understand the love that can be communicated without words between parent and child, the love that makes people write bad poetry (and sometimes good), the love that concentrates in one person, for one instant, everything that makes life worth living.

Altruism should have a little selfishness in it. (Says a Jewish girl.) Buffy was strong because she had personal, selfish reasons for loving the world she saved: her friends, her family, her sister. Kendra was brought up to be selfless, and in the end she didn't have enough self to beat Drusilla. (Not many slayers could, probably. But I always thought Dru seduced Kendra as well as compelling her. "Be... in me." That must have been a powerful draw to someone whose life had been as lonely as Kendra's, who couldn't really remember her parents. She knew she should fight it, but I kind of think she was tempted as well.)

We need selves. Otherwise, what is creation for?

auroramama


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do agree with you both. -- Arethusa, 06:37:58 08/29/03 Fri

I think all kinds of love coexist, and we wander from selfish to unselfish and back again, and that so-called selfish love can be beautiful and valuable too.

Just ignore me, I can find the negative in anything. ;))


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I liked your points on Kendra! -- pony, 07:20:30 08/29/03 Fri



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like this. Well said. -- s'kat, 08:08:47 08/29/03 Fri



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah -- sdev, 17:25:48 08/29/03 Fri

Altruism should have a little selfishness in it. (Says a Jewish girl.) Buffy was strong because she had personal, selfish reasons for loving the world she saved: her friends, her family, her sister.

I agree about Buffy and love the selfish altruism part.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Carpe' away (not the fish) -- sdev, 14:30:18 08/28/03 Thu



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> From my Live Journal -- Diana, 07:26:59 08/29/03 Fri

Below is an excerpt of something I wrote recently for my Live Journal. I have to admit that the recent board denigration of romance doesn't make sense to me. To hold one type of expression above another is no better or different than to do the same with races or sexuality or anything for that matter. Hopefully this excerpt will explain how I feel.
***************

My older daughter is very inquisitive and asks a lot of questions, some which I canít answer. They seem simple, but often the simplest are the ones that I take for granted and find the hardest to answer. She reads a lot, so she asks a lot of vocabulary questions, especially about feelings. Those arenít as easy to answer as you would think. What does it mean to worry? What does it mean to be frustrated? What does anticipation mean? These are questions my daughter asks. I have to find a way to explain these concepts to her.

How do you explain a feeling? You canít. As Xander says, either you feel a thing or you donít. A big part of my job as mother has been to teach my daughter how to express her feelings. Not only what is appropriate and inappropriate expressions, but how to figure out what she is feeling. What I have resorted to when she asks her questions is to try and give a situation that would cause her to feel something. How did you feel the night before you started school? That is worry. How do you feel when your blocks wonít stack right? That is frustration. How do you feel the night before Santa comes? That is anticipation.

What is love? Love is a feeling. Feelings are felt. They canít be described or defined. We often resort to situations that have caused this feeling in us, but that isnít the feeling itself. We often resort to actions the feeling caused us to do. That isnít the feeling itself either. We classify it by the object that causes it, but that isnít the feeling either. We modify it by our motives and desires and outlooks, but that still isnít the feeling itself.

We associate that feeling with a word. Hopefully our associations are common enough that the use of the word actually means something. I love you. Three little words that can mean so many things. Friendship versus erotic love, philia versus eros. As if one is better than the other. It takes friendship to sustain a relationship, but when you are there in that moment, it is eros that makes our hearts race, our blood boil. How can one be held up above the other?

Why should they even be separated? Thatís what Iíve been asking myself. The feeling at the core is the same. Thereís a reason they are called love. The feeling isnít the smiles that we share with our friends or the way our lover makes us have to catch our breath. Itís what generates that. Itís something at our core. It is our core. Love is when something manages to touch us at that level. I love you. You have touched me at the core of my being.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aggreeing but disagreeing -- Claudia, 09:45:16 08/26/03 Tue

I agree with most of what you wrote - except your comments on Wood, Andrew and how badly written Season 7 was from "Bring on the Night" to "Chosen".


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bothered by one of the quotes -- sdev, 18:55:57 08/26/03 Tue

Spike was definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didnít exist for him.

This is the most fascinating of JW's quotes that I have seen. I've been pondering it for a while. Basically he says that most people, who of course all have souls, do not love altruistically. He puts Spike in a category with most people who love selfishly not altruistically. I still have not figured this one out.

A part of me feels like my chain is getting pulled here. When did JW say this, March 2001? Is he responding to audience criticism of Spike as doing good for non-altruistic reasons, but merely for love. Is he having a little joke on the audience as in --I get most of my ideas from the internet. Seems too subtle for that.

Still thinking. Anyone else think this is strange?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm.....some possibilities? -- s'kat, 20:46:50 08/26/03 Tue

It bugged me too, sdev.

But I do have a few theories or speculation as to what it might mean:

1. Joss was misquoted? The interview was transcribed by someone at the festival who may have misheard the response.
In which case, maybe the 10 Question Interview is a better one.

2. Joss has no clue and is fanwanking like the rest of us and talking off his cuff.

3. Joss may be, not positive, discussing the difference between passionate/starry-eyed romantic love and agape love. Agape love is the type of love we feel for a husband, a friend, a mother, a child, a next door neighbor - it is all encompassing and it doesn't just stop like that! It's not about us, it's also about them. Perhaps a good comparision is Spike's speech to Buffy in Touched and his speech to her in Crush or even Lover's Walk? Or Buffy's speechs to Angel from S2-3 and her speech to him in Chosen? Or maybe the difference between Xander's speech to Willow in Grave and his speech to Anya in Into The Woods, both moving. But one is alturistic and agape love, the other can be felt by a soulless or souled being. Romantic love is about how fast our heart beats and the adrenaline and the pleasure principal - ohhh I love how you make "me" feel (not that this bad btw, but it can be very selfish), but agape/friendship love is something greater - its love for humanity, for compaignonship - it's about being there for someone, sharing one's strength - not dying for them.
Another example might be the end of Becoming - when Buffy will risk everything to re-ensoul Angel that was "romantic love" - or Buffy's forcing Angel to drink her
b/c she couldn't bear to lose him, regardless of what it might do to him psychologically in Graduation Day (that is romantic love) compared to Buffy's sacrifice in the Gift for Dawn and the World or Spike sacrifice in Chosen after telling Buffy she didn't love him and setting her free.
And Buffy's sharing her power and strength with the world.


I think - I can't be certain - that is what Whedon was trying to get at.

I'm not saying whether I agree with him, I'm just saying I think that might have been his point. He's shown us in both BTVS and ATS as well as Firefly that he's not a big believer in "romantic" star-crossed lover's love, he's a believer in the type of love that sprouts from friendhip.

YMMV.

sk


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uhm ...disagree, here's why -- Rufus, 14:25:01 08/25/03 Mon

I am still not sure the nature of the soul Spike received. Was it William's? Was it a new soul? Angelus got Liam's. The memories of the past reconnected to the soul. The events of TLPTM imply Spike got William's soul based on the nature of Spike's trigger. And based on the fact to resoul Angel, AI & Willow needed a specific soul, it seems what soul a being gets is important in the Buffyverse.

I think you're emphasis on the nature of the soul misses the fact that the soul isn't the personality but something that combines with the memories and personality of someone that guides them in a certain direction when it comes to good and evil. If the personality was gone and the soul meant the personality you may be onto something but it isn't so the amorphous soul is something that contribues the the quality of behavior.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uhm ...disagree, here's why -- heywhynot, 15:16:09 08/25/03 Mon

The soul though does seem to matter. I do agree that it does seem to be something "that combines with the memories and personality of someone that guides them in a certain direction when it comes to good and evil". The nature of the soul does seem to be important. The specific soul in the jar is the one that has to be returned to Angel. A random soul from the ether won't work. Why? That is all I am asking.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay this is confusing but -- s'kat, 21:45:43 08/25/03 Mon

The specific soul in the jar is the one that has to be returned to Angel. A random soul from the ether won't work. Why? That is all I am asking.

Okay, I think the writers have gone out of their way to tell us that Angel has Liam's soul and Spike has William's.

How? A little trip down episode lane:

1. We have seen people switch souls before: Living Conditions, made a huge point of the demon girl taking Buffy's soul. (why it wasn't killing Buffy and only making her a nasty bitca...may be because Buffy had the demon essence, while in Double or Nothing - it's clear that removing someone's soul does end your life. Vampirism - or siring clearly is the process of removing the human soul and re-animating it with the demonic essence.)

2. The Buffy/Faith switch in Who ARE You - shows that the soul if it is different from yours has a different aura, Tara could see it. But - it's worth noting that it wasn't just the soul that was switched but the entire essence.
They did the same thing on Angel with Carpe Noctum - where both Angelus/Angel(Liam) switched to the old man's body and the old man switched to theirs. If it had just been Angel's soul - I have the feeling the old man would have had a fight on his hands with Angelus. And Angel wouldn't have any memories in old man's body. It was the complete essence.

In Angel the Series - we see enough of Liam to know Angel is Liam, we even get Whedon's Spin the Bottle, where Angel regresses to a 17 year old Liam and uses that name. Also in Prodigal we have Angel remembering Liam's past and Angelus acting on Liam's frustrations.

In Fool for Love and later Lies My PArents Told ME - Spike remembers William's past. Both from unsoulled and soulled perspectives.

The soul clearly is part of the human being, part of their essence and part of the personality, but not the whole personality. My guess is it's a 60/40 split. The totality of the personality is memories, experiences, feelings, emotional core, behavioral coping skills. When you lose the soul - you probably lose a little of the emotional core the being, not all of it, but the part that gives you a choice between good and evil and instinctually makes you choose good. But each soul has an imprint on it - like a code - the personality of the human has left an imprint on the human's soul just as the personality of the human leaves an imprint on the demon's essence. The imprint informs the soul and/or essence. Who Liam was, Liam's personality, the totality of his memories and experiences inform the demon,
just as who Liam was, the totality of his memories and experiences inform the soul. IF that wasn't true - vampires would be little more than zombies animated by demonic energy. And humans - would be little more than mindless robots. It would be like removing the frontal lobe from a human being - if you removed the personality. If you remove the soul - it's like removing the part of the brain that allows us to feel good when we help others, to want to help, to feel empathy as it were.

Now, that said? I agree, ME has written this in murky terms.
But I think that's where they are going.

SK


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay this is confusing but -- heywhynot, 06:16:28 08/26/03 Tue

I totall agree with that. My point is that Spike has experiences, memories that include William. What if the soul Spike was a new one? One imprinted to his totality, William & Spike. Which would include being imprinted to the memories from William's life.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think we can safely assume Spike got William's soul ;-) -- s'kat, 12:30:12 08/26/03 Tue

To do anything different would just complicate an already complicated metaphor and story way too much. Also sort of takes away the whole purpose of giving him a soul in the first place - which was for him to face who he is. The big metaphor in S7 was "we all are who we are no matter how much we have changed" - Giles line in Lessons. So for Spike to have gotten someone else's soul would sort of make that metaphor a tad off, now wouldn't it?

I could be wrong of course. TV does all sorts of weird illogical things. So that said? Can you refer to some text or actual scenes where you see any of this as a possiblity?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we can safely assume Spike got William's soul ;-) -- heywhynot, 14:05:06 08/26/03 Tue

There is nothing in the text that says he got a new soul (ie not William's). Just wild thinking on my part. The idea was not that Spike got another person's soul. It is that he got a brand spanking new soul, created specifically for Spike who has has spent all this time as a vampire and has the memories of William.

It was never stated that he got William's soul like they have with Angel & Liam's soul. It is probably safe to bet Spike got William's soul but thought about what if that assumption was wrong.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> speculation on differences in reensoulments, & a few other comments -- anom, 15:06:10 08/27/03 Wed

I was bothered by the fact that Angel's reensoulment in Orpheus seemed to be different from what we saw the earlier times. But reading this thread gave me an idea that might explain it (key word: "might"; no claims beyond that). In Becoming I & II, he's disoriented at first & doesn't remember what happened while his soul was absent. In Orpheus, although we don't see the moment his soul is restored, Angel gets right up intervenes in Faith & Connor's fight. He knows exactly what's going on.

What makes the difference? Well, in Orpheus, Angel's soul has been kept in the Muo-Ping since it was removed. The other 2 times it had been in the ether. I can think of 2 possible ways this might explain Angel's different reactions to its return. Either the soul was a random one in Becoming & his own specific one in Orpheus, or there's something about being in the ether that interferes w/a soul's "fit" w/its body when it's returned to it. Maybe souls become undifferentiated in the ether, so even if the same soul is restored, it takes a little time to reconnect w/the body, incl. the brain & the memories it holds. Being kept in the Muo-Ping may have allowed Angel's soul to retain its individuality or at least its "fit" w/Angel, whether just by keeping it out of the ether or via some special property it has. Or the answer could be a lot simpler--Angel's soul had been separated from his body for a much shorter time in Orpheus. Either way, we don't know whether this "fit" comes from something essential to the soul or from its experience of (& adaptation to?) being in Angel's body.

Spike's reensoulment also looks different from Angel's. Angel doesn't seem to feel any physical pain when his soul returns, & his eyes just glow white for a moment. Spike screams in pain, & light beams from his eyes & mouth. This may have to do w/the different mechanism by which the soul is restored. No spell--the cave demon just touches Spike's chest & bam! The demon specifically tells Spike it's restoring "your soul," but I'm not sure how literally we can take that. If the soul loses its identity in the ether, it may not make much difference.

"...while in Double or Nothing - it's clear that removing someone's soul does end your life."

I'm not sure we can generalize from this ep--it's possible that, again, it's the specific mechanism by which Jenoff removes the soul that ends the victim's life. The boy in I've Got You Under My Skin supposedly was born w/no soul, but he didn't seem any the worse for it (physically, that is). And I'm not sure how well we can draw conclusions from what we see about what's attributable to soul vs. "essence" or about whether souls are exchanged when personalities are. Tara says Buffy's "energy" was fragmented, didn't belong--not her soul; & the word "soul" doesn't even occur in Carpe Noctem (according to the transcripts at the Buffy vs Angel site).

The writers cover themselves by varying the circumstances in which souls or essences or personalities come & go to & from different bodies. This limits what we can conclude about how these entities are related...but it allows the writers to keep their options open.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe being unconscious while it happened help -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:16:06 08/27/03 Wed

It could be the disorienting effect only occurs when the vampire is conscious to feel it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> The story creates the rules -- sdev, 19:51:08 08/25/03 Mon

If he was tortured over the rape, the guilt of it, felt responsible then he already had a "moral" compass & from what I can tell in the Buffyverse that meant he already had a soul. In which case he attempted to rape Buffy with a soul.

This is very strange logic. If it looks like remorse and it acts like remorse, I tend to call it remorse. Who says, or in which Bible, or how is it set in stone that you cannot feel remorse without a soul? To me it is apparent on the screen that Spike felt remorse immediately after Buffy threw him off and therefore he stopped of his own accord and did not continue his attempted rape.

In fiction, when I see something that contradicts what I previously believed to be a condition of the story, a rule, I question the rule. Has it changed for some reason? Is this event or character an exception? Did I misperceive the rule in the first place? I do not deny what appears to be a plain and clear interpretation (Spike felt remorse), especially when the rule I am questioning (soulless he cannot feel remorse) was never explicit but also merely interpretive. Not only are rules interpretive but they are derivative from the story. Therefore the story creates the rules and not vice-a-versa.

What I see governs what I believe to be the rules, not the other way around. This is fiction. The rules are created from the story and are mutable. Not only are they mutable but I can accept that I don't know them all with all their permutations. Thus the story evolves. To me the interesting thing about Spike's story is just that- that the rules have changed or are different in his case.

Please don't misunderstand me. If you are saying that what you are seeing in the scene does not appear to you to show that Spike is remorseful, that is different. Your interpretation of what is on the screen is as valid as anyone's.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The story creates the rules -- heywhynot, 20:13:05 08/25/03 Mon

To me I saw regret, not remorse. Spike did not see his actions were wrong outright, they were wrong in his mind because of Buffy's reaction & rejection of him. Once he had a soul, it is another story. I admit part of the reason I can not see him being remorseful is because if Spike felt remorse/guilt to me then there is no reason for him to get a soul because de facto he had one. I forgive Spike for his actions because he did not have a soul. If is capable of remorse then he has morals. If that is the case then what does a soul bring him? What is the point of a soul in the Buffyverse?

Personally I am more than happy to say Spike developed "morals" besed on what he learned and experienced. It fits my world view, no soul is needed. But both Angel and BtVS hammered away at the soul being important in this regard.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The story creates the rules -- sdev, 22:09:29 08/25/03 Mon

In life I see gradations in morality and gradations in the ability to comprehend the consequences of one's actions. Children develop morality as they grow up. They do not wake up one day and have the adult full-blown ability to understand right from wrong. Even adults differ in their moral comprehension. There was only one Ghandi. In Spike I saw a rudimentary beginning of that sense. He clearly did not have a developed morality. This is part of the greying of the Buffyverse-- morality too is no longer black and white. There are degrees, and a vampire has a part in this greyness, the gradations between black and white.

To respond to your other point-- what is the purpose of the soul if you can have morality without it? I will never know what Spike would have become if he never got the soul. I can speculate that he might never have developed an adult morality and would have stayed locked in frustrated immaturity. I can speculate that he might have developed very slowly over immortal vampire years, with numerous setbacks. I can speculate that he might have lost his small beginning, when and if the chip was gone, and reverted to no morality. Speculation is the best I can do since that was not the story told.

But I think you earlier agreed that in Season 7, with the soul, he was different, moral. So even if you believe he had some morality in Season 6, there was certainly room for the improvement that the ensouling brought in Season 7.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Uhm ...disagree, here's why -- lele, 14:03:27 08/25/03 Mon

"So sorry, if you can't forgive Spike once he gets the soul?
Then you shouldn't be able to forgive Xander or Angel or Faith. So, if you can't? It has zip to do with souls or even the nature of the act and everything to do with your own personal preference for a character."


I agree. If you like a character (or dislike a character) there's no need to justify it really. You can explain how you feel, but it does no good...esp in the buffyverse to try to do too much comparison as to who's more evil or less evil or more remorseful or less remorseful. There'll always be plenty of counterevidence to your evidence. As you said in the end whether you like a character or not comes down to personal preference...


[> [> [> [> [> Spike issues (also response to some posts in the TV essay thread by sk and anom) -- KdS, 06:26:47 08/26/03 Tue

anom below:

As for the question of who gets forgiven, I agree that it's hypocritical to forgive in one case but not the other. I wonder if some people are less willing to forgive in Spike's case because it's more recent--he hasn't had as much time to agonize over it as Angel has. The fact that the attack was shown so graphically--no cutting away after it started--could also have influenced opinions. Good point about Faith. She's certainly the same person (in the literal sense, no possession or absence of soul), yet there doesn't even seem to be any residual animosity toward her from Xander, or from anyone else on his account, when she returns in Season 7.

And I really like how you took my question as an opportunity to talk about real people who changed after their crimes! In this sense, it could be argued that Faith isn't the same person she was before the Sanctuary arc. I agree that people who've harmed others still bear the responsibility for their acts--in fact, if they don't take that responsibility, they haven't really changed. And they should--maybe even need to--face the consequences, to themselves & others. This applies not only to the legal consequences & penalties but more generally. A person who has abused or betrayed others may genuinely change, but the people s/he hurt aren't likely to accept that change or to trust that person until s/he has proved s/he won't hurt them again--& that may take a long time, if they're even willing to give s/him the chance to prove it. There are plenty of examples of this in real life & in the TV series you've been discussing--too many to cite, so I won't.


Shadowkat above:

Also ensouled Spike is different than soulless Spike, not as snarky, not as violent, he doesn't force himself on Buffy, he's kinder. Does he still hit people? Sure if provoked, just like Angel does. His fight scene with Faith is no different than Angel's fight scenes with her. His fight with Wood was in self-defense, just like Angel's fight scenes with Holtz, Connor, or any number of others are. Soulless Spike would have killed Wood. Soulless Spike would have tried to kill Faith, just like Soulless Angel tries to kill Faith. And soulless/possessed Xander tries to rape Buffy just like soulless Spike attempted it, except, Spike was more aware and able to stop when she pushed him off, Xander under the hyena's influence had to be knocked out.

So sorry, if you can't forgive Spike once he gets the soul? Then you shouldn't be able to forgive Xander or Angel or Faith. So, if you can't? It has zip to do with souls or even the nature of the act and everything to do with your own personal preference for a character. Nothing wrong with that. As someone on another board put it very well:

If a character resonates with us emotionally and we care, then we will forgive the character most things and look for its redemption.

If a character pisses us off or doesn't emotionally resonate with us, we won't forgive it anything, even if logically it's acts are no worse and may in fact be less horrible than the character we love.


Yes, I know this is all emotional.. However, 'kat, while denouncing comparisons as emotionally driven, manages to get in some pretty unfair swipes at Angel above IMHO. So here goes:

There are really two different issues for me. Thereís the specific case of the attempted rape scene in Seeing Red, and thereís the general issue of Spikeís behaviour in the second half of S7. As far as Seeing Red versus Angelusís miscellaneous S2 actions goes, I think the issue isnít just one of naturalistic violence in Seeing Red but naturalistic characterisation in the whole of S6. In S2 we werenít supposed to analyse or empathise with Angelus in any way at all ñ he was just a pure psycho. After four years of AtS we can, not really empathise with Angelus, but come up with some psychological explanation of his activities that goes beyond ìheís evilî. However, heís still mentally disturbed and his thought processes are quite foreign to the average human. On the other hand, Spikeís struggles with unrequited love in S6 were portrayed in a way that was completely understandable on a human level, without considering his demonic portion. The attempted rape may have been conceived as a way of forcibly reminding the people who thought he was redeemed that he was still a soulless demon, but the naturalistic way it was shot suggested to me that it was a human crime, which like his other actions was explicable and empathisable on purely human grounds. Thatís why I think the naturalism was such a bad idea given their continuation of Spuffy and stressing of ìHeís got a soul nowî in S7, not just the raw violence, as I think Síkat oversimplifies it.

So far as Spikeís activities in the second half of S7 goes, Iíll explain something explicitly that Iíve discussed in less public for a. I think that Spike undergoes a major moral regression after Get it Done, and to a great extent itís Buffyís inadvertent fault, although given the stress she was under and her lack of deep psychological perception I donít view her as culpable for it in any moral sense. Prior to Get it Done he does seem genuinely morally horrified by what he did in the past, and to be struggling with guilt. However, the change in his personality after Get it Done suggests to me that he takes Buffyís demands for the ìold Spikeî back, and her expressions of feeling for and confidence in him in Showtime and First Date as implying that Buffy, his main moral arbiter, thinks that his soul makes him a moral blank slate. Because of this, I genuinely think that heís persuaded himself that he doesnít need to feel or show any major guilt, or have any obligation to anyone because of his past acts. I think that he spends most of the second half of S7 evading and denying his responsibility for his acts, and even in the first half of S7, he rarely showed his feelings of guilt to anyone but Buffy

To balance Skís comparisons above, I would note that:

As I recall, souled Angel only ever physically attacked Faith when it was necessary to defend himself or someone else from her physical violence, or when impersonating Angelus in S3. Spike beat Faith up because she dissed his idealised and hero-worshipped Buffy, and then talked about killing her with frightening seriousness.

Angel fought Holtz, but he never, ever, suggested that Holtz didnít have the right to feel anger and grief, and he never talked about Holtzís family with contempt. Say, for example, ìI donít give a piss about your wife and daughter.î

The only times when Angel really loses his rag and does gratuitous violence to humans are occasions when he has been betrayed or manipulated to an extent that would make anyone loose their temper. In Touched Spike beats up Faith over a trivial altercation.

In another post, Síkat suggested that Faith never shows any guilt for her attempt to rape and kill Xander, but I saw that as rolled up with everything else in her breakdown in Five by Five. Admittedly, it would have been nice to show her talking it out with Xander in the final eps of S7, but there was so much going on in those eps that I can forgive ME for not wrapping up a four-year-old plot thread (Thatís what fanficís for, anyone?). And we werenít shown a lot of any kind of interaction between Faith and Xander in those eps.

The one point that Síkat did make in passing that gave me pause is the question of the relationship between Faith and Angel after Release/Orpheus. Thinking about it, I think that the reasons it doesnít squick me as much as S7 Spuffy include:

Immediately after the attack, Angel and Faith were in intimate telepathic contact during which the bond between them was deeply reaffirmed.

Angel just strikes me as more mature than Spike.

There was no sexual vibe between Faith and Angel after the attack, as opposed to the questionable ìWeíre going to show them as deeply attracted to each other and doing everything except genital intercourse because that would be Wrongî Spuffy vibe of late S7.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike issues (also response to some posts in the TV essay thread by sk and anom) -- Claudia, 10:16:19 08/26/03 Tue

[So far as Spikeís activities in the second half of S7 goes, Iíll explain something explicitly that Iíve discussed in less public for a. I think that Spike undergoes a major moral regression after Get it Done, and to a great extent itís Buffyís inadvertent fault, although given the stress she was under and her lack of deep psychological perception I donít view her as culpable for it in any moral sense. Prior to Get it Done he does seem genuinely morally horrified by what he did in the past, and to be struggling with guilt. However, the change in his personality after Get it Done suggests to me that he takes Buffyís demands for the ìold Spikeî back, and her expressions of feeling for and confidence in him in Showtime and First Date as implying that Buffy, his main moral arbiter, thinks that his soul makes him a moral blank slate. Because of this, I genuinely think that heís persuaded himself that he doesnít need to feel or show any major guilt, or have any obligation to anyone because of his past acts.]


Boy, do I really disagree with this statement. I think that many people misunderstood what Buffy was trying to point out to Spike. She was trying to convey to Spike for him to stop wallowing in guilt and holding himself back. It really did him no good. She was trying to convey that Spike, like herself, Willow and everyone else has both darkness and light within them. Spike, like Willow, was so overwhelmed by his guilt for past crimes that he was trying to be half the man (or vampire) that he really was. Spike, like everyone else, needed to acknowledge both the light and darkness within himself and combine both sides of his nature to find his true self. A battle that Buffy most certainly understood from her perspective.

Did he show a lack of remorse toward Wood in "LMPTM"? I don't think so. If Spike had truly felt no remorse, he would not have spared Wood's life, because he had killed Nikki Wood. But why should he grovel and beg for forgiveness at Wood's feet, when the latter, along with Giles, cold-bloodedly plotted his murder? If he had ignored Wood and Giles' treachery and instead, went into some remorseful fit, I would have been very disappointed.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> See my earlier posts in the archives -- KdS, 11:33:28 08/26/03 Tue

... especially
here and a little way down from here.

Let's just say that I think that not killing Wood was the bare minimum level of human morality, which Spike shouldn't be excessively congratulated for attaining. There is also a large gap between "grovel[ling] and beg[ging] for forgiveness at Wood's feet", and "I don't give a piss about your mother".


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of Course He Would Say That! -- Claudia, 13:51:15 08/26/03 Tue

[Let's just say that I think that not killing Wood was the bare minimum level of human morality, which Spike shouldn't be excessively congratulated for attaining. There is also a large gap between "grovel[ling] and beg[ging] for forgiveness at Wood's feet", and "I don't give a piss about your mother".]


Of course Spike said that! One, he was thinking of what he had done to his mother, not Nikki Wood. Two, he was pissed off and for a good reason. Instead of openly confronting Spike about Nikki's death, Wood had conspired with Giles to cold-bloodedly murder him and trick Buffy in the process to keep her away.

If Wood had not plotted murder, he would have had a better moral position against Spike. However, he made the mistake of going behind Buffy's back and plot with Giles to set Spike up and murder him. Wood lost his moral ground in that situation and I perfectly understood why Spike reacted with anger. Wood should be lucky that Spike was willing to spare his life because of Nikki, after that.

Many critics of Spike's "lack of remorse" - especially in this situation - seemed to forget this.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Killing Wood would still be reprehensible. -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:01:15 08/26/03 Tue

In the Buffyverse, even if someone has tried to kill you, as long as they don't pose an immediate threat, it simply isn't proper to kill them.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Killing Wood would still be reprehensible. -- Claudia, 14:15:47 08/26/03 Tue

[In the Buffyverse, even if someone has tried to kill you, as long as they don't pose an immediate threat, it simply isn't proper to kill them.]

I never said that it would be all right for Spike to kill Wood - especially since Wood eventually didn't pose an immediate threat. But I certainly saw no reason for him to act remorseful - especially since Wood tried to set him up for murder.

However, I'm surprised that you would say such a thing, since in another post, you seemed to have no trouble with Buffy killing a vampire or other demon - regardless of whether they posed an immediate threat or not. Does this mean that you have changed your mind?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was referring to human beings in this thread; the above thread referred the vampires -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:42:14 08/26/03 Tue



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely agree. Well said Claudia. On Faith, N/W thing. -- s'kat, 12:23:32 08/26/03 Tue

My own thoughts regarding the Nikki/Wood/Spike thing are on my web site and in the archives. I still see Nikki's death as that of a warrior in the heat of battle, which I believe is very different than Holtz's family. One is an innocent family that never fought anyone in their lives and one is a vampire slayer who hunts and kills vampires as a calling.
Two different things.

The other point - How can anyone say Spike beat up Faith? Angelus? Yes. Angel? Yes. (Five by Five and Consequences and with good cause) Spike no. Faith actually defeated Spike, and he backed off. She won that fight both times and looked pretty dang healthy afterwards. Also Buffy's hit Faith for less cause than Spike has. (Empty Places) I guess that would make Buffy nasty too right? (And don't throw the hitting a woman thing at me, Faith is superhuman just like Buffy - big difference. Now if Spike hit Giles, Xander, Willow or Dawn? You might have a point.)

I just don't see Nikki as the helpless victim others do, I saw her as a hero who died in battle. An honorable death.
I also don't see Faith as a damsel, but a tough as nail street fighter with a dark edge.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't say she won -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:52:16 08/26/03 Tue

Spike got the last punch in. However, I'd hardly call it beating up. No more than a couple mutual blows were exchanged, which, between two people so difficult to physically hurt, isn't that severe.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're right Finn. Thanks. ;-) -- s'kat, 14:00:32 08/26/03 Tue



[> [> [> The Whole Journey -- dmw, 12:43:36 08/25/03 Mon

The reason I chose to compare Spike with Thomas Covenant was because of the similarities of their whole journeys from rape to potential redemption. The fact that others whom you feel are more or less culpable exist is irrelevant to this comparison, because their stories don't resemble that of Covenant like that of Spike does. I didn't intend to start a debate on which character is more evil, and I don't want to get involved in one.

No matter you feel about Xander in The Pack, his actions there don't act as a catalyst for major change in his character; similarly, whatever evil Angel has committed, the events that steered him towards good weren't those crimes but rather getting his soul and meeting Whistler and then Buffy. Neither willingly sacrifices himself to save the world either.

However, just as you point out, the rape does send Spike on a journey of change which ends in such a sacrifice, and the same experience changes Covenant in a more gradual manner, resulting in his sacrifice. Both characters are highly controversial as a result of their journeys. That's why I made this comparison.


[> [> [> [> Interesting. But respectfully disagree -- s'kat, 13:35:28 08/25/03 Mon

No matter you feel about Xander in The Pack, his actions there don't act as a catalyst for major change in his character; similarly, whatever evil Angel has committed, the events that steered him towards good weren't those crimes but rather getting his soul and meeting Whistler and then Buffy. Neither willingly sacrifices himself to save the world either.

Actually, I disagree with you on both of these. Xander's actions in The PAck, do actually motivate him a bit towards change. He recognizes the turmoil of his emotions towards Buffy and backs off. When she turns him down in Prophecy Girl - instead of sluffing her off or seeking vengeance, he goes to rescue her, putting his own life in jeopardy not once but twice to do so. I think this may have resulted from the part of himself he saw in the Pack, and may have motivated him to deal with Angel.

Two - Angel's rape and murder of the gypsey girl is the reason he is cursed with a soul. His ensouling and guilt over those horrible acts is the reason Whistler hunts him
down and motivates him to change. So to a degree isn't this part of his journey. Another thing about Thomas Convenent and it has been about 20 years since I read those books, so bear with me - but Thomas Covenant like Angel is cursed.
His curse is leprousy. Oddly enough it is the leprousy that makes him capable of changing/saving the world in the alternate universe - his curse if what enables him. The rape really isn't the main thrust behind Covenant's actions
but rather - it's the leprousy and his own depression and rising above that. When we first met Thomas, he's a lot like Angel, a ruin of a man with a wedding ring that he would like to discard since it is a memory of a failed marriage. Through the books - Thomas manages to overcome his inner demon which is partially represented by the leprousy as Angel is working to overcome his inner demon represented by the vampire.

It's not a discussion of whose more evil. You misunderstood my post. My apologies for not makeing it more clear. Because I honestly don't believe any of the characters are more evil then the others. I can't rank them. They are different. No, what I disagree with you on is your choice of characters - I think Angel actually fits the model better. Not that Spike doesn't fit it, he does, but Spike isn't cursed, or he's cursed in a different way. I just, how to put this, I think you are putting too much emphasis on the rape being Thomas' catalyst when in truth I think there were more factors at play just as there are in Angel's journey. If that makes sense.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting. But respectfully disagree -- dmw, 14:13:57 08/25/03 Mon

It's not a discussion of whose more evil. You misunderstood my post. My apologies for not makeing it more clear.

Ah, good. I was apparently misreading you.

Xander's actions in The PAck, do actually motivate him a bit towards change. He recognizes the turmoil of his emotions towards Buffy and backs off. When she turns him down in Prophecy Girl - instead of sluffing her off or seeking vengeance, he goes to rescue her, putting his own life in jeopardy not once but twice to do so. I think this may have resulted from the part of himself he saw in the Pack, and may have motivated him to deal with Angel.

That's an interesting and viable interpolation of Xander's reasons. I hadn't thought of it that way before as it's not presented in the text, but it makes sense.

Two - Angel's rape and murder of the gypsey girl is the reason he is cursed with a soul. ... Thomas Covenant like Angel is cursed. His curse is leprousy.

That's a parallel I hadn't thought of, because I didn't think of the leprosy as a curse, though it certainly fits the definition, and perhaps because I see the differences more clearly than the similarities, with Angel's curse being a result of his crimes and Covenant's being a cause of his. The curse I see leprosy akin to is vampirism, which also destroys one's ability to feel, rather than Angel's soul. For my thoughts on the parallels on souls between the two works, see my post on "The Soul in BtVS and Covenant."

It is true that Covenant's leprosy is what enables him to understand and accept despite in a way that a traditional hero can, while Angel's curse enables him to gradually transform from villain to hero (and vice versa.) There are differences too: Angel's journey is mostly in the past, shown in flashbacks, and more importantly, he's not a willing sacrifice in Becoming like Spike is in Chosen. Both Covenant and Spike are haunted by the continued presence of their victim, though Angel is not. I do see what you mean now, though I still think there is more of a parallel with Spike.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting. But respectfully disagree -- Rufus, 15:06:36 08/25/03 Mon

Angel's journey is mostly in the past, shown in flashbacks

A certain part of Angel's journey involves the past just like everyone of us as the past informs the future. The characters skat mentioned can be compared as they have done similar things at a point in their lives when they were in a cursed state. I disagree that Angel's journey is mostly one that is past as the past 4 seasons have proved that his evolution as a human being is constantly hampered by his ego which determined what type of monster he can become both as a monster and as a man.


[> [> [> [> [> [> While Rufus stated it very well some more pts -- s'kat, 19:14:09 08/25/03 Mon

The curse I see leprosy akin to is vampirism, which also destroys one's ability to feel, rather than Angel's soul. For my thoughts on the parallels on souls between the two works, see my post on "The Soul in BtVS and Covenant."

This in a way I agree with. Except even here it fits Angel a little better, since Spike oddly enough still feels, perhaps too much. While Angel (soul or unsouled) is cut off.
Angel - think about it - does not enjoy food, smoking, drinking or even sex. HE is completely disconnected even as ensouled vamp, perhaps even more so, since as Angelus he could have the happy moment - he could enjoy smoking or sex as it were. But Angel? He can't be happy. When he has sex with Darla it is meaningless - it's violent but meaningless.
The one time or two (depending on your pov with the Cordelia scene in Awakening) that Angel enjoys and truly feels he loses his soul. Like Thomas Covenant the curse makes it impossible for Angel to truly connect with being human, yet at the same time the curse is what connects him with humanity - it's what makes him feel remorse. Same double-edged sword with Covenant's leprousy - the leprousy makes it impossible for him to feel yet in the alternate universe it makes it possible for him to help, possible to connect. IT dooms him in his world - helps him in the other.
Angel similarly - the curse dooms him in the vampire world yet oddly helps him in the human.

Vampirism can be similarily of course, but I think the curse of the soul is in some ways a more interesting metaphor since leprousy is considered distastful in certain circles yet others holy. Think about Darla's reaction to Angelus when he got the soul in Darla? She said she smelled it on him and was disgusted, wanted no part of him. Isn't this similar to Covenant's wife's reaction to Thomas when he has leprousy? Get away from me, you're disgusting. You will contaminate me. Yet it is in a way Thomas' love for his wife embodied in the wedding band that gives him power, just as it is Angel's geniune caring for Darla that makes him try to save ensouled Darla and ends up with him creating the child Connor.

Oh, I'm not saying you can't do a comparision with Spike,clearly there's a good one and I appreciate it. I'm just wondering if there's maybe a more interesting one with Angel.


There are differences too: Angel's journey is mostly in the past, shown in flashbacks, and more importantly, he's not a willing sacrifice in Becoming like Spike is in Chosen. Both Covenant and Spike are haunted by the continued presence of their victim, though Angel is not. I do see what you mean now, though I still think there is more of a parallel with Spike.

Actually I think the difficulty is that Angel's journey isn't over, Spike's journey for redemption more or less ended in Chosen with the sacrifice. Angel's is still moving forward and while it's true that he has yet to truly sacrifice himself for the world or anyone (discounting Darla in the Trial which I'm not sure counts) that does not mean he won't. And to be fair, Becoming isn't really a good test, since Angel wasn't given a choice one way or the other.

Also Rufus' is right - Angel's sins aren't in the past, they are always with him just as Covenant's are, haunting him. Also Angel has committed recent sins including the wiping of his friends memories, the signing on with W&H,
the murder of the lawyers in the room back in Redefinition,
the attempt to kill Wes, the torture of Linwood, the attempt to kill Faith the second time he lost his soul...he's struggling on a daily basis as Covenant did.
The curse keeping him in check, but also eternally separate.
PArt of him would give anything to lose it - it's painful after all, the other part would die before he did since it changes him to something he loathes. Covenant may feel somewhat the same way about leprousy or perhaps the opposite. (It's been a while so I may be completely wrong on this.)

I haven't read the rest of your essay yet...so will do that, perhaps you deal with it there. ;-)

SK

(oh, PS: sorry to turn this into another Spike debate, that wasn't my intent, but look on the bright side - it keeps the post alive ;-) )


[> Prevented or desisted? -- sdev, 09:35:21 08/25/03 Mon

It's true that Spike failed in his attempt, but being prevented from completing his crime doesn't indicate that he's more ethical than Covenant.

My impression is that once Buffy pushed Spike off he immediately realized the horror of what he had tried and left of his own accord. How do I come to that conclusion? The Spike that has been shown till this point was not a quitter in a physical struggle. He would not have backed off and left after being pushed off one time unless he had changed his mind. In addition he immediately starts to explain to Buffy, and thereafter appears to be struck by both confusion and remorse (scene with Clem).

These are the actions of a person who changed their mind not merely the actions of a person "prevented."


[> The Soul in BtVS and Covenant -- dmw, 12:52:55 08/25/03 Mon

BtVS has a rather vague mythology of the soul and what it means to people, demons, and especially vampires. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (TCTC) do not have such an explicit mythology of the soul, but there are two aspects of its mythology that have similar implications. The first is the identification of Thomas Covenant with the White Gold. The ring is not simply a tool, but a part of himself, the power to accomplish good, that he cannot accept early in his journey and that he has to learn how to use after his initial acceptance.

The second is the potential identification of The Despiser with Thomas Covenant's shadow self. The Despiser cannot be defeated by weapons or blows, magical or not, but only by accepting one's self, perhaps including one's own internal Despiser. Both of these ideas are handled in a deeper fashion than the soul is in BtVS, but I think they have similar implications for the respective characters of Spike and Thomas Covenant.

What do you think?


[> [> Hmmm the white gold wedding ring (Spike and Thomas) -- s'kat, 22:53:24 08/25/03 Mon

The first is the identification of Thomas Covenant with the White Gold. The ring is not simply a tool, but a part of himself, the power to accomplish good, that he cannot accept early in his journey and that he has to learn how to use after his initial acceptance.

The ring is also the symbol of his marital union. His love of his wife. He wants to discard it because she does not love him, but it is important, from it he obtains power.
Why? Because it is the symbol of his love.

So how does this apply to Spike? Well, what motivates Spike to give up evil and do good is his love for Buffy. What motivates him to search for a soul? Buffy. He has fallen in love with a good person. He even tells her that he's willing to give up the whole evil thing for her. But Buffy, like Thomas Covenant's wife doesn't love Spike, she may care for him a little, but does not return his love. He would love to cast his love aside and go back to his evil ways, let go of it, since it pains him. Just as the white gold band burns Covenant. The love for Buffy burns Spike, changes him - so that he can't be a monster and he isn't a man. Less than a man.

Caught in this in between state - or limbo - Spike decides to change things. Does he get rid of the chip in his head which may be the physical means of keeping his demon in check? Ridding himself of the chip, could also rid him of his love of Buffy. No. Instead he gets a soul in addition to the chip - which only serves to reinforce his love.
Same with Covenant. Tempted to get rid of the gold wedding ring, he embraces it instead.

(I still think this might work better with Angel - since the White Gold Wedding Ring is described as Thomas's soul and the curse as Angel's, both allow them to love. Without the curse, Angel doesn't appear to love anyone, without the band Thomas loses the feelings love gives him to help others. Spike really doesn't have anything that symbolizes this conflict...maybe the chip? Don't know.)

The second is the potential identification of The Despiser with Thomas Covenant's shadow self. The Despiser cannot be defeated by weapons or blows, magical or not, but only by accepting one's self, perhaps including one's own internal Despiser.

Do you watch ATS? Because this is actually a really good comparison to Angel and Angelus. Angelus is Angel's shadow self just as the Despiser is Thomas Covenant's. Angel can't defeat Angelus until he accepts him. Same with Covenant.

Spike? Well, I suppose you could use the trigger - Spike doesn't defeat the trigger until he accepts that part of himself? No...he defeated the trigger by realizing his mother loved him and that was the demon talking. Spike had already accepted the demon part of himself in Get it Done.

Buffy may work better here - actually. Buffy accepts the negative part of herself when she accepts Spike and confronts the First Evil - telling the First to get out of her face. The First Evil is the BTVS version of Covenant's Despiser - a shadow taking Buffy's form. Spike may be the Jungian version of Buffy's shadow - the part of her she struggles to accept, once she does - she is able to confront the FE and win. In fact the first time she meets the First Evil face to face is after she gives Spike the amulet. Prior to that she really only sees it with other people around never alone and never as herself.


[> [> [> Interesting...will have to respond later when I have more time. -- dmw, 18:29:08 08/27/03 Wed



[> Aside: Glory and Lord Foul -- dmw, 13:06:14 08/25/03 Mon

As a tangential aside, it's interesting to see how some of the elements of Glory's story mirror that of Lord Foul in TCTC. Both are transcendent beings trapped in what they view as a lower, imperfect world. Both need a magical artifact that's identified with a person--The Key/Dawn and The Ring/Covenant--to escape that world, destroying it in the process, and both are identified with another character, though in quite different ways.


[> Re: The Rapist as Anti-Hero: Spike and Thomas Covenant -- purplegrrl, 15:06:19 08/27/03 Wed

Interesting comparison. I would never have thought of this. Of course Thomas Covenant is very much the anti-hero (and a character I throughly dispised). Would it have the same for Spike if he had been played by a not-so-handsome actor (someone such as Jeff Kober, who was a frequent guest star)?? Don't know.

Will have to think on this some.


Current board | More August 2003