December 2002 posts
My
two cents on a subject already talked to undeath Spoiler 6.final
and 7.8 -- Deb, 04:00:12 12/04/02 Wed
I read almost all of the posts regarding Spike's *implicit admission*
of what he did to women (drank them almost dry then raped them
to hear them cry). Opinions varied with arguments (some better
than others). I posted late yesterday just before it was archived
with my thoughts and arguments. Now I want to approach the subject
from a somewhat different, or not, angle.
If it is true (or as true as fiction can get), and I don't believe
it is, then a huge blunder has been made by the JW and the writers.
It would also, in my opinion, be great research in proving that
television does have a direct influence upon peoples' behaviour.
In season six, we are given the *attempted* rape scene which caused
more controversy than what Willow did. Then we are given an ambiguous
motivation for Spike to go to Africa and see a tree about being
what he was before. Spikey seemed awful pissed about that *bitch*
and really wanted to give her what she deserved. I don't think
the writers, at the time, intended Spike to go for his soul, but
they left it ambiguous enough so that they could say that is exactly
what he did. His intention all along was to get his soul. Fine.
He has a soul.
If it is *true* that he raped women at the brink of death to hear
them cry ** warning ** digression in process ** (which as I pointed
out in my archived post is an impossibility -- literally, because
the women would be in shock and passed-out. I worked in a blood
bank for a couple of years and one of my responsibilites was to
tend to those who passed out while donating a pint of blood. This
was very important to get to them as quick as possible, because
the domino affect occurs. One person passes out = everyone passing
out (almost). Giving a pint of blood is more difficult than people
assume, particularily for small women. Most people can't donate
but once every 30 days. Small women have a difficult time donating
at all let alone once very 30 days. **end of digression ** Anyway,
if it is fictionally true that Spike did what he said he did he
would be a serial rapist, as someone pointed out.
After doing volunteer work in a women's shelter now for four years,
I can tell you that most women would rather die than be raped,
usually by someone they know and came to trust.
Many people seem to believe Spike; that he is telling Buffy the
truth because he wants to lighten his soul load. Rape is an emotional
hot button for Buffy, and when you talk to a woman who has been
in her situation about the situation when she has not worked through
it, you just open up all those memories and she relives the experience.
Might as well physically rape her. The effect is the same.
Then Spike hits another hot button of Buffy's: Dawn. He mocks
Buffy by asking if she wants to know what he did with girls Dawn's
age.
If William/Spike said these things to Buffy to unburdeon his soul
then he is a total idiot, and he deserves to be dusted because
of the emotional abuse he just added to his score card.
Some might say, but the idea is to forgive Spike (as everyone
else who has a soul is forgiven on the show). Fine. Forgive him,
but that doesn't mean you have to have anything to do with him
nor does it give Buffy an excuse to keep him alive. The mad monks
would have come anyway and she would have figured out who she
was fighting even if Spike were just a pile of dust on the basement
floor. The monks would have taken Andrew and used him to open
the Hellmouth.
Let's assume all of this is the *correct* version. I've grown
fond of Spike, as have many other women. If Spike did do these
things, I would feel betrayed, mislead, and foolish for believing
he was trying to make good. It would be another case of male writers
**in this case Noxon is thrown in with the guys** creating a character
that appeals to the Beauty and the Beast archetype, and then has
Beast eating little children for breakfast all along. When women
fans complain, the writers can then say that the women were crazy
for ever liking a vile, evil mass murderer (is vile pig-Latin
for evil?). What would that make JW and the writers? Emotional
abusers of a key female (and male) market.
In summation, it would be not good for the bottom line. It would
just be plain bad business. The Star Trek franchise was hurt by
how DS9 was handled (quite a similar senario as above, though
I never understood the fasination some people found in Dukat,
and I will not go see the new ST movie because I'm sick of the
Klingon Poster Boy Whorf).
So what clues do I find that tell me that Spike was lying to Buffy?
It is a fact that Spike has not "never lied" to Buffy.
And it is not true, as Anya said, that when she was evil she always
told the truth. She lies by ommission when she's attempting to
get a vengenance wish out of a women.
Plus, the big question. Is Spike evil anymore? Evil is like truth.
You have your truth. I have mine. You have your evil. I have mine.
We're not talking stagnant labels here, but living systems. One
part of the system changes, the whole system changes to avert
chaos and retain stability.
Why Spike Lied to Buffy
Clue #1: She said she saw his penance. He came back with "window
dressing." Beep! Lie.
Clue #2: Spike really did believe, and possibly wanted to be dusted,
but it sure has been difficult getting Buffy to cooperate. He
even asks her why she thinks she can't do it.
Clue #3 Buffy says she has "seen him change." and for
once, or twice, Spike is totally amazed, because for the first
time in his long, pathetic life someone (and someone he loves)
actually "sees" him. William to Cicely: (paraphrase)
My poetry stinks, but I'm a good man and if you would just see
me.. Cicely to William: That's the problem. I do see you, and
you're beneath me. Nobody has ever seen William as a good man,
except for Buffy. Being "seen" is a big Spike theme.
Clue #4 Spike accuses Buffy of rationalizing his behavior as noble.
The old Spike would have done the rationalizing for her.
Why Spike Lied to Buffy -- Part II
He was attempting to inflame her to the point that she could dust
him. He knows she doesn't love him. He knows she used him. He
knows he has killed a lot of people (William takes responsibility
for Spike's and the BB's actions, which is a good sign of personal
growth.) He hates himself. He just took a big bite out of Andrew's
neck. He believes that Buffy detests him (did you see the look
she threw at him after she wrestled Spike off of Andrew? That
was the *death stare*, and then she viciously kicks him in the
face so hard it knocks him out. If she ever is going to dust him,
it is now. He doesn't know that, of all people, Xander has figured
out how he is being used. (There's another big clue. Xander isn't
crying out for Spike's death anymore. I guess Spike started picking
up the wet towels off of the bathroom floor.)
Sorry about the length of this. In conclusion: if Spike "confessed"
truths to Buffy to unburdeon his soul, Spike is demonized (after
they have worked so hard on undemonizing him) and is a throw-away
character who deserves something more awful than dusting. I would
also be concerned about the motivations of the JW and writers.
If emotional abuse is what he thinks we need, or some might call
it the clarity of reality, then the show itself is a big emotional
vampire.
Just my thoughts.
See ya around.
[> death, rape, the whole
controversial thing... -- Rahael, 04:59:01 12/04/02 Wed
Well, yeah, that's the attitude I had at the end of Season 6.
Not that I disliked the writers, you know, but that I couldn't
see how Buffy could ever bear to be near him again, looking at
that face, even if a soul now flickered behind it.
But they have me convinced how Buffy could do it. They've convinced
me by all the tension, and the pain and the confusion and disconnection
that Buffy has displayed in Season 7.
But I have to disagree with you that women feel that death is
better than rape. I think society makes them feel that way. I
think the idea of 'women's reputation' did not pass away with
the passing of the 18th and 19th centuries. I come from a society
where sexual dishonour is the ultimate dishonour to a woman, where
indeed, death is better than rape.
Where reputation matters more than a woman's life. Where to be
seen with a man who isn't your husband, to have a strong friendship
can raise the cry of "whore!".
But it shouldn't be that way. The taking of a life is a far, far
worse crime than rape should ever be.
I only agree with Germaine Greer here and there, but I have to
totally agree with her when she says that we cannot and should
not accord so much power to the penis so that when it violates,
that we allow it to destroy our lives that we cannot bear to go
on living.
We are stronger. It brings tremendous pain, distrust of the world,
and self disgust. But we are stronger, and we can keep on living,
and not let that violater keep on destroying our lives.
I have never had any illusions about what the character Spike
was because he was a murderer . I am under no illusions
about how a violent murder can destroy all the lives of those
who are connected. How painful it is. How much you learn to distrust
the world. Just as those women who've experienced rape can never
look at spike the same way again, I was never able to look at
Angel without remembering Jenny laid out, and Giles' finding her.
And I could never look at Spike without remembering who it was
meant to be.
And just because they are fantastical creatures doesn't make Jenny
less dead than Tara, or Giles' reactions less devastated than
Willow's.
And yet, I can still find something compelling about watching
these characters.
As for Souls and redemptions and forgiveness? Pshaw! I just sidestep
all of those as irrelevant to my world view. I'm watching for
the compelling emotional drama that I always watched BtVS and
AtS for.
[> [> Spoilers for Season
Six, and vague spoilers for all eps in S7 aired so far --
Rahael (in above post!), 05:00:34 12/04/02 Wed
[> [> Re: death, rape,
the whole controversial thing... -- Sophie, 06:50:31 12/04/02
Wed
As for Souls and redemptions and forgiveness? Pshaw! I just
sidestep all of those as irrelevant to my world view. I'm watching
for the compelling emotional drama that I always watched BtVS
and AtS for.
Do you mean this in regards to the TV show or for your real life?
I tend to set this aside because it is a TV show. The representation
of "The Soul" here is black and white - no soul = evil,
and having a soul = good. There are a few exceptions - Wesley,
Lilah (who are two of my fav chars), Andrew, Jonathon, and Warren,
and of course, Ethan Rayne. From what I understand, this black/white
model of The Soul, is how the writers setup the original metaphor
for BtVS - monsters are the metaphor for the bad/evil humans.
Over the years, the metaphor has leaked a little: now we see humans
doing evil things, monsters doing good things (on their own initiative,
see Spike?) Maybe. I like how the show's writers are exploring
this, and I like how they have explored it starting from a point
of not (zero), building as they go, becuase that is sort of how
we grow up and begin to see more shades of gray with our years
of gained wisdom. Or something like that.
My pennies. We need a fountain around here to toss them into...
Sophie
[> [> [> Oh, in life,
of course -- Rahael, 07:29:30 12/04/02 Wed
I've tended to rant on about this ad nauseum on the board, but
I find the whole 'souls' and 'redemption'and forgiveness business
mawkish, to steal a word from Giles. (In life, that is, not the
show. The show is dark, and complex and wonderful about these
matters!)
What does 'redemption' mean? What does forgiveness mean? I want
more than platitudes! When I gaze out at the deep dark night,
I want to be met with complex responses. That there are no easy
answers. That pain is always going to be difficult. That there
are no rubber stamps for closure. No rules to live life by, no
"thou must" and "thou shouldst".
When I talk about forgiveness, it's as if it's a word that just
doesn't exist in my vocabulary, just as the word 'unforgiving'
doesn't really exist. It's as if either word do not exist as an
emotional response for me.
What about the small slights, the small, little trespasses and
wrongs that are committed against oneself? Well those are so little
as not to require such an act, overladen with ideas of saintliness,
self sacrifice and right-living. And among the small little trespasses
not requiring forgiveness, I do include the two men who battered
me against a wall because they objected to the way I looked. Shit
like that happens in life.
What about the terrible wrongs? The ones that dislocate your whole
body and your life, until every bone is out of its socket so that
you are not whole, and you cannot move nor think? Well, I'm just
caught up in the whole dislocation part of it, not the part where
I'm even bothering to think of the person who caused it. That
person is invisible to me. I want it to be about me me me! not
about someone else. I can't spend my life angsting over a stranger.
I don't choose to accord anyone outside myself that power. I give
all responsibility for the way my life is now, to myself.
But if I were to use someone else's vocab, I would say I am steadfastly
living in the land of the unforgiving, the land of the not caring
and the land of the I don't want to be in the same room as you.
I don't believe in vengeance, I don't even need prepatrators to
be punished (neither of them are). But I do violently object to
other people telling me how I should react to these things. I
admire people who can forgive the most terrible wrongs. Deeply
admire them. I can't do it, but I refuse to accept that I am a
lesser human being for not behaving the same way.
I'm told that one day the pain will go away, and forgiveness often
works in mysterious ways, and it will settle in my heart and I
will be transformed from Miss Cordy to Miss Saint Cordy. (Well
okay, not those precise words! heh).
But I still want my revenge. But that revenge is living well.
Learning to face the dark night and not lose self possession.
Learning even, to see its beauty, and still loving my life even
though some parts of it are so knife-sharp and painful.
Stretch and contract me,
Thy poor debtor
This is but the tuning of my breast
To make my music better
[> [> [> [> I once
dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- Deb, 11:46:50 12/04/02
Wed
And I have no idea why I'm going to say what I'm going to say,
but, as some already know, I had a near death experience. Not
a "Oops" that could have killed me experience, but a
little trip to another place, several actually, and when I did
return they had stopped attempting to revive me and we getting
ready to record time of death thingy. Before this experience,
I lived in that land of unforgiveness, I'll cut the creep right
out of my life because I'm not giving anyone any of my power,
and this whole repentance thing is a scam. I'll just enjoy what
I can and forget what ever else there is. Motto: Never trust anyone.
(I still have issues regarding this, but as you see, I'm working
on them.)
Anyway, I didn't know what was happening when I was dying. You
never quite believe that it will happen to you until it does.
When I realized it it was like "Oh my God (I was an atheist
at the time) I'm dying! I'm not even 30 yet! I just had a baby!
My husband is a psychopath!" (First time I admitted that
too.)
Well anyway, this "Angel of Death" who told me to call
him Frank, escorted me through my little trip. The first thing
that happened was he forced me to look down at my body (by this
time we're floating at the top of the room). I didn't recognize
myself. I looked nothing like the image in the mirror. Then I
had to do the "life review" thing that everyone knows
about, but doesn't know just how horribly painful it is. Not only
did I relive my life, but I felt my real feelings. I never realized
how adapt I was at stuffing and forgetting anything that was painful.
Then I also felt what the other people were feeling because of
my actions. It was like branding my soul, and I was sure I was
headed straight to Hell. Then Frank showed me what my funeral,
well the burial part of it, would be like at first from a distance.
My family is one of big secrets. As I looked at everyone, I saw
their secret and it puzzled me that they would keep this things
secret when they could have asked for help. Then I was put into
the ground, and everyone was looking down at me and I saw their
anger: at me, at each other. It was raining their tears and the
sides of the grave turned to mud and began burying me and the
earthworms came out and crawled all over me. Just as my head filled
with mud, zap, Frank pulled me out. Then we went to this beautiful
park setting and we had a long talk before he took me to the light.
By this time, I really hated myself. I'll stop here. The rest
does not apply directly.
The point is I was living a toxic life. Frank said the most difficult
thing I had to do was learn to forgive myself and forgive others,
and attempt to make amends. Find a common ground where things
can be laid to rest forgiven and buried. I asked him how many
times do I have to attempt to do this, because some people just
don't want to find a satisfactory conclusion to a relationship
or an incident. Being a life-long baseball fan, he told me to
use the three strikes rule. Try three times, and consider your
obligations to be erased. About foregiveness: it must happen,
but it does not mean that one must be buddies with the person
who is forgiven and vice versa. You can forgive and never see
that person again. So what is important is life? working on relationships,
knowledge, self-awareness and empathy and a lot of faith, hope
and charity to boot. It is not easy living, and dying is all too
easy.
Well there is a point here, and I must say I do not leave too
much, if anything, to mystery except to point out something I
learned I used a lot, and still do when necessary, that most people
are not aware of. I present a great deal of information about
myself to put people at ease, so they feel like they know me.
I hole no mysteries. I am put into a nice little niche in their
heads, and they don't spend a great deal of time trying to figure
me out. It is a technique of "hiding" one's self, the
deep stuff. The true self. It is a wonderfully effective way of
putting one's self in the position of observing people and finding
their strengths and faults, likes and dislikes, what their emotional
buttons are --without them ever expecting that you have a original
thought that you don't blurt out for all to hear. Of course, this
skill can be used quite hurtfully. Angelus could be much more
ruthless if he didn't have the ego thing of telling people what
he is doing to them before he is finished. Spike is good, and
that chip actually gave him a certain degree of power. I don't
know if the JW Inc. knows this or not, but Spike has the power
to totally destroy the scoobs (I hate Scooby-Doo). He also has
the power to bring the best parts of them out. Which ending does
JW think we need?
So much for my darker side.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I once dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- shadowkat,
15:20:58 12/04/02 Wed
Okay you just posted one of the bravest and most touching posts
I've read in awhile. And it really touched me. So bear with me
while I try to ramble out a halfway coherent response.
First a bit of honesty regarding this whole Spike/NLM/rape discussion
which I was avoiding because it pushed my buttons, all the - he's
evil b/c he raped a girl, how could any sane woman forgive him
let alone look at him and you women who still like him are nits
vs. the Spike would never rape a woman, I'm going to ignore it
the evil writers - a discussion we've beat into the ground which
divides fan base. (A discussion I was dreading since I realized
they'd do the AR scene way back last year.) With a lot of us middle
of the roaders scratching our heads wondering if people have lost
their collective minds and are now posting from Belleview - b/c
after all Spike was a soulless vampire not a human. Vampire =
undead thing, immortal, no soul, no quilt, no reason to care about
anything living - Vampires live off the blood of the living and
can take whatever they want. That's why Buffy must kill them.
The soul changes the vampire into an antithesis of what it is
- an undead thing connected to the living things, so it is a paradox
and a painful one at that.
Sort of like the cursed characters found in fairy tales.
Every single vampire has raped, murdered, pillaged, etc that's
what vampires in Whedonverse do - the longer they've been undead
- the more they've done. Angelus did it. Darla did it. None of
them didn't do it. Actually that's what most of the demons in
Whedonverse do. Anyanka killed, pillaged and tortured humans for
thousands of years.
I see Spike as vampire who is trying to become a better man. To
rise above the evil and become more, more than the boy he was
before vamping and more than the evil vampire.
I see him as a metaphor for dealing with darkness in ourselves
and choosing to be good. A metaphor for growing up. A metaphor
for handling the animus and a metaphor for owning our shadow.
(There's reams on this mentioned in the ML Von Franz threads and
Hacceity actually put these views far better than I have, see
the archives for her amazing posts on the subject, leslie also
has posted some amazing stuff - just as alicibades does again
below.)
But all of this is not the reason I'm responding to your beautiful
and may I say, brave post. From what I read - it appears to me
at least that you were given a rare and painful gift - the opportunity
to see your own soul, all of it, not just the good parts and not
just the bad. The chance to assess your life and see inside yourself
from an objective pov. To literally come face to face with your
unconscious self, warts intact. Not to mention the ability to
get a clear view of your connection to others and how you affect
them and they affect you. Most of us only see bits and pieces
of this self and it's connection to others through dreams or fantasy.
We really can't handle much more than that. I remember an old
advisor telling me 15 years ago that to look too closely at the
OTher can drive you insane, in fact couple students who took her
class in dream analysis did go insane. And when we die - it's
too late, we're gone. Most of us never see it as clearly as you
did. And bringing ourselves to the brink of death in order to
do so is NOT a good idea. (Nor did you advocate that.)
Many people don't believe in souls - so for purposes of this post
- I'll call it the essence of us, who we are, not some religious
thing. In Jossverse it is the moral compass.
Without it - all the characters would do WAnt Take Have.
Actually if you think hard about it - they all have.
*Warning - the following could hit a few peoples buttons. Apologize
a head of time, please don't hurt me. Assuming some of the above
didn't already. ;-)*
Xander - he has attempted rape (when his soul was suppressed by
the hyena), he has played with girls minds in the BBB spell, he
has accidently killed people by summoning a powerful demon, he
has been cruel - to Cordy, to Buffy, to others.
Willow - she killed Warren, she mind-raped Tara, she tried to
kill her friends, she magic-raped Giles, she killed the Warlock,
tried to kill Jonathan and Warren, magic-raped and manipulated
Anya,
Anya - well 1000 years of killing people and turning men into
demons who kill people
Faith - killed two people, tortured Wes, tried to rape and kill
Xander, tried to kill Angel, tried to torture and kill Buffy,
tried to kill Willow,
Angelus - tortured Giles, tried to kill Giles, killed Jenny, raped
and tortured and killed Drusilla, raped and tortured and killed
numerous women and possibly men, killed and raped and tortured
Holtz's family, almost raped Darla,
tried to kill Cordelia, tried to kill Buffy, ...
Angel - killed a room full of lawyers, tortured Linwood and Lindsey,
tried to kill Wesely, tried to rape Darla,
(And if you want to debate this? Go rewatch the episodes again
- it's there implied, sometimes shown - although there is only
so much they can show...it is on at 8pm or 7pm central time after
all..)
Okay enuff -I think you guys get the point at how meaningless
listing characters crimes is and debating them, after a while
it just becomes one of degree or as a character on another tv
show said - a bit like discussing whether a Cardassian and Romulan
can have sex, after a while one is motivated to ask? Who cares.
Because that's not what the writers are interested in. If they
were? The show would be Law and Order. Buffy would catch the killer
and Sam Waterson would prosecute them.
The show is about the horrors of life, our fears and nightmares
and how we deal with them psychologically and emotionally and
most of the crimes are metaphorical.
There really isn't any character in the show from the writers
pov that is not redeemable if they choose it.
If only real life were so easy - maybe it is. But then, maybe
it is just us who make it so hard?? Human beings have an amazing
talent for complicating things - sometimes I think our brains
would collectively explode if we ever saw how simple it all really
was.
In a way - Buffy is the method those of us who have not been brought
to the brink of death have of exploring our own connections to
the universe, our own need to forgive, to rise above the darkness
in our soul or essence or self, to "become". We use
metaphor seen in dreams and movies and films to better understand
who we are.
And we check what we've discovered with one another to see if
we are crazy. If it makes sense. We are all connected.
Even if we can't see the lines or telephone wires or cables or
roots - they are there, thin as spiderwebbing and not visible
in the light. It is a shame I think that it is not until we die
that we really begin to see them.
What did Webs tell Buffy in CwDP? Everyone feels alone, disconnected
until you die. Every vamp in Btvs says the same thing when they
get turned - "I feel connected now, I can feel the earth,
the worms, etc..." Jesse in WtHM. And
Webs - "I'm so connected now." But we are connected
when we are alive as well - our conscious minds just aren't aware
of it. Every decision we make affects numerous other people and
living things. The mere decision to step outside in the morning
changes someone or something's life even if in a small way. But
we forget this. We get caught up in our own pains, frustrations
and concerns, that we forget how connected we really are.
I personally find it amazing that by posting on these boards,
I've met people in places as far away as Japan - I live in New
York. In fact someone in Japan sent me flowers to make me feel
better when I had to quit a job. No, I've never met her in person
- but does it matter? I know her by her words as she knows me.
We are connected.
I think that's what Spike has finally realized. His acts affect
others and he feels all of them. They haunt him. Because he's
connected to them. Just as our acts affect others and we feel
them. Some people don't seem to or they ignore the connection
- Warren did. He refused to feel it.
He felt isolated alone. Rejected. Disconnected. Not real. He wanted
to be part of the world. But He had a soul. He was. He just refused
to listen to it. He got so caught up in his own hate, anger, frustration
and fears that he no longer saw anything else or anyone else.
Like Faith - he was angry because he felt rejection, he felt alone.
It's ironic I think - that when a vampire gets a soul he feels
the connection more than a man who commits evil crimes but already
has one. A rejected ensouled vampire who feels outside the world
and yearns to be a part - feels the pain of those he hurts more
than a man who already is a part, who is already part of the living
things. How incredibly sad.
Instead of debating which character is the most redeemable, most
evil, most idiotic, or berating the writers, why not ask this
question instead?
Why did the writers choose vampires with souls as a metaphor for
feeling the connection, of feeling guilt? And why allow humans
to commit horrible crimes and NOT feel this connection, NOT feel
the pain it caused? Or at least not as deeply? Does it have to
do with blood?
Blood connecting them? Or is there another theme going on here?
Or do the humans really feel the pain of their crimes?
Faith seemed to. Warren? I didn't see any evidence of it.
What does feeling the pain you've caused mean? What do you do
about it? Because the truth is we only have control over what
WE OURSELVES do about things NOT anyone else.
I hope this all made some sense. Thank you again for a lovely
and inspiring post.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: I once dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- Angela,
16:06:44 12/04/02 Wed
Thanks everyone. Beautiful series of posts. I don't know that
there are answers, except individually. Although we can gain great
comfort at times from the community.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thank you. You helped me sort out some things. --
Deb, 21:05:04 12/04/02 Wed
I have no way of expressing the horror of the situation that Spike
is in this season. I know the overwhelming feeling of total recall,
no secrets, no barriers, nothing but self revelations exploding
and leaving the soul bare. You want to die. Not just die and go
somewhere and exist, but totally be annihilated. Then you come
back here and you realize that you don't exist here and you are
totally annihilated in a manner. You have no connection. You know
the wires are there and they will function, but nobody picks up
the phone.
So if there is any truth to Spike's admissions then his appeals
to Buffy to kill him are desparate, horrified pleadings. I feel
just a bit of *soul-burn* and then I think of magnifying that
by a number I can't imagine. There are no words for it it is so
terrifying and all I can do is fill up with compassion, not just
for Spike, but for everyone. Being here and making amends when
you live in isolation is not a task for the weak. It really takes
courage to live a life of constant awareness and scrutiny -- with
a moral compass because there are no perfect answers or perfect
solutions or perfect paths. We learn to compromise the ideal here
and live with the consequences of our actions. I hope this made
some sense.
Spike, as I feel it, is at a extremely vulnerable place. Contrary
to information feed to the masses by NDE researchers, a significant
number of experiencers commit suicide in the most self-depracating
manners. Many can not live with what they learned about themselves
and leave everything behind and wander the world, or at least
a small part of it. I was so fortunate in that I had a baby to
care for and a creep to get out of our lives. And I had goals.
I also had one person I could talk to. When I told Frank I was
coming back I asked him if there was anyone I could talk to who
would understand or at least suspend judgement. Kind of what Buffy
is serving as now, but they haven't gotten nearly as deep in the
discussion part. Of course, I wasn't fighting for the survival
of the world either. Anyway, the person Frank told me I could
trust was someone I DETESTED and I threw a fit. He turned out
to be an angel. So, I was fortunate. Buffy kinda reminded me of
those first saving words, "I believe in you."
So, I might be a little bit testy about how things being handled
regarding Spike because he's in this hell that cannot be imagined,
and if he can't forgive himself and be forgiven by at least one
person then he will sentence himself to an eternity of self-hatred,
and self-hatred leads to abominations worse than any one vampire.
Human abominations such as Hitler.
Rhetorically speaking, the easiest and safest way out is if Spike
was lying or at least exaggerating greatly.
Thanks for the encouragement. The truly frightening thing about
life is how vulverable we become when we reach down below the
window-dressing and get real with others.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Beautiful posts & ((((LifeReturnee)))). But
let's not forget... -- Briar Rose, 02:52:40 12/05/02 Thu
Okay - I'm not a Spike fan, sorry - he's a great actor, and that's
why I have never liked the character. I like James Marsters just
fine.*LOL
But I have endured actual rape. I mean tear your insides
out, mess your mind up and leave you scared and scarred for life
rape (and especially after my childhood I was doubly wracked because
I actually trusted the creep!)
But what happened between Spike and Buffy in the bathroom was
NOT a true rape. Spike didn't even get her clothes off. He didn't
have any physical contact with her outside of grabbing and holding
and shoving and wrestling. At the most it's "battered women's
syndrome" that she's still around him and allows him around
her.
Now - I could see the whole flap if it had been an actual penetration
or even forced oral copulation or abusive molestation... But it
was not any of those. It was enough to scare her. It was a betrayal
of trust that he wouldn't hurt her (anymore? because he always
has!) But physically and mentally - it was no where near a rape.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> LOL. Sorry. Love your candid language
-- Deb, 05:12:05 12/05/02 Thu
Perhaps this is telling me it is time to take a break from "the
front lines" so to speak. You know, I wouldn't care so much
if: 1. I didn't care 2. Buffy wasn't the most honest piece of
art (so what if it's pop culture) depicting the human condition.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Thank you! -- Wisewoman, 09:39:09
12/05/02 Thu
This has been my point with regard to the so-called AR all along,
but it is certainly a powerful statement that someone who has
been through the hell of a real rape can see this as well.
I've always thought that Spike was attempting another session
of passionate, possibly brutal, intercourse, such as they'd engaged
in many times in the recent past, rather than rape. It was only
the recognition that his interpretation of the situation was so
infinitely far removed from Buffy's that introduced the spectre
of rape, and sent him on the quest for his soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Seconding the thanks -- Caroline, 17:11:30
12/05/02 Thu
for sharing some of your experiences with us. I am very touched
by your post and so sorry that you had to endure what you did.
I hope that all is going well for you now.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Great posts Debs, Rahael, S'kat, Briar Rose and others
-- slain, 17:41:58 12/05/02 Thu
I think there were many reasons why it's taken time for some serious
discussion of this topic, but I'm glad that it's all come together
succinctly in this thread. I think I mostly agree with S'kat's
position (I say mostly, in case there's something there I completely
disagree with that I missed!), particularly the last point.
I expect, given the choice, most fans would have wished that the
attempted rape scene hadn't been, or that it had been dealt with
more metaphorically, but I think ultimately it's played its purpose,
and has given drive to a storyline that had the potential to get
lost in moral ambiguities.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Thank you Caroline and all for your warmth... BTW
- ((((((Debs)))))) -- Briar Rose, 18:28:27 12/05/02 Thu
I got confused between shadowcat and you on the death experience....
So didn't name names.
Actually - I know another woman who has been raped and is also
a Buffy fan, and she said the same thing: Not a rape. Scary, sad,
a breach of trust. Not a rape. Also not that much different at
the beginning than Buffy and Spike had been all along. And part
of the reason why I hate their relationship all together.... it's
abusive for both of them.
Yes - Most DEFINITELY I was totally freaked when that scene started
to change from the normal "Oh - Spike. No." and then
she gives in... If they would have actually had him rape her -
I would have been totally freaked. Just as I went into a form
of PTSS when I made the mistake of watching that one movie (Guilty?)
with Jodie Foster and the rape in the bar and reading the Handmaid's
Tale and a few other bad news for survivors movies/books. (I can't
even watch Oprah half the time, but I am dealing better as the
years go by....)
But regardless of the fact that it is true that there are echos
of the rape/sexual assault that do change a survivor's life permanently,
this piece on Buffy wasn't one of them for myself or my friend.
Now if others had that much stress from watching it, I sincerely
send them ~~~~~Healing~~~~ and ~~~~~love~~~~~ and ~~~~~~Prayers~~~~~~
that they find some way to exorcise the assault from their lives.
They can find many ways to empower and heal the victim feelings
and turn it around to be able to feel they are survivors!
I feel for all who have been in the situation and understand the
feelings that follow having been there myself - but there is more
that can be done for your healing than to let it keep you a victim
for life.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Hmmmm....hopefully a clarification --
shadowkat, 21:04:45 12/05/02 Thu
Now I'm confused. ;-)
Okay... on the rape scenerio which seems to be the point of the
post. (First my sympathies on your past ordeal...I admire your
honesty and thank you for your insights...I generally agree with
you on the rape part.)
I agree with you btw on the fact that:"Not a rape. Scary,
sad, a breach of trust. Not a rape." It's not. It's an ATTEMPTED
RAPE - hence the use of the AR. He attempted to force her to have
sex with him against her will which fits the definition legally
of rape. Personally? I don't think it matters. Because when I
saw the scene? I saw him NOT intending rape but trying to re-start
what he believed was love - "you felt it when i was inside
you" and therefore loved me then. Buffy gets this - as she
tells the vamp psychologist: "That's the problem with you
vampires - Love, Death, Sex, Pain, Violence - it's all the same
to you. ugh.
Believe me, I know." Spike confused the two - which happens
in abusive relationships, where people use each other to escape
or inflict pain on themselves - you weren't supposed to like their
relationship. Any more than you were supposed to like Angel and
Buffy relationship which was abusive in another way. (See my essay
on this topic - Sadomasochism metaphors at www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs
or in the archives - I think July?)
I think the argument right now is whether Spike could rape a woman
- which is also IMHO unimportant. The writers are exploring something
else here. Deb actually explains part of what they are exploring
very well in her response to my post and her posts I think really
get to the root of what the writers are trying to explore.
I wish that instead of continuously debating whether or not a
vampire can rape or Spike has raped, we asked the question - how
does one deal with the horrible things one has done? How does
one work to forgive themselves? And why are the writers focusing
on vampires with souls as a metaphor for this?
I think this statement from ML Von Franz, p. 170 of MAn &
His Symbols gets to the root of what the writers are interested
in, and it has very little to do with whether or not Spike would
rape a woman:
" The hidden purpose of the coming darkness is generally
something so unusual, so unique and unexpected, that as a rule
one can find out what it is only by means of dreams and fantasies
welling up from the unconscious. If one focuses attention on the
unconscious without rash assumptions or emotional rejection, it
often breaks through in a flow of helpful symbolic images. But
not always. Sometimes it first offers a series of painful realizations
of what is wrong with oneself and one's conscious attitudes. Then
one must begin the process by swallowing all sorts of bitter truths."
Haccenity has done numerous posts on buffy/spike relationship
which explains why I love it. I see it as a wonderful examination
of a two people struggling to handle the dark and light sides
of themselves and the individuation process. The attempted rape
plays a part in that - which I'm not schooled enough in Jungian
theory to accurately explain - though leslie, Haccenity, and Caroline
have done pretty good jobs in past posts. Hopefully I haven't
totally screwed up the logic again in my laymen's struggle to
get all this for my own somewhat selfcentered reasons.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> No confusion... I agree with your assessment.
Spuffy "same old same old" no difference. -- Briar
(understanding it all), 17:03:33 12/06/02 Fri
attempted rape it was - but in the situational characterisation
of the plot - it is obvious that it really isn't any different
thann any of the sex scenes betwen S/B we had seen, until she
said "No." and actually meant it honestly.
For the subject of "can Spike rape..." I would say that
it is possible for anyone to rape snother in a variety of ways.
This is sometimes the case in "date rapes" and in life
where situations start to become "destroy or be destroyed."
There are many forms of rape... That's why i added the caveat
of BETRAYAL OF TRUST, because that can be as devistating as physical
rape. I know that I have had friends that have emotionally raped
me and left scars almost worse than the rape and child molestation
did. Simply because those things were based on TRUST and within
my "control" by allowing them to be part of my life.
Doubally troubling, because you start to doubt your own judgement
and self esteem.....
So I agree with the notion that Spike could "rape" just
as anyone could "rape" another in various ways, besides
the phsyical.
And I apologize if my ending paragraphs offended anyone at all.
It was not my intent. I know that many people who have suffered
this type of experiance feel that they need to "never forget"
so it doesn't happen again. However - it was my strong belief
that sometimes people are more concerned with continuing the pain
of the victimization, when healing should be the goal. And I'm
not just talking about rape/assault. You could say this is part
of the whole lesson we should have learned from September 11....
The Victimization of America is a by product of people not seeing
that holding on is not healing healthily. At some point - you
have to take the pain and understand that if you allow it to consume
you without taking it into the next level of letting your self
become stronger because of it and putting it into growth - you
are still the victim of the perp.
Sorry - I keep going back to the same issue. I need to work on
MY issues! That is what I learned from this thread and it is a
lesson that makes all this worth while! Thank you all!!!!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> been wondering where to chime in on this...
-- anom, 23:00:42 12/05/02 Thu
...I suppose this is as good a place as any, though I'd like to
go back to Deb's 1st post & respond to some things. (I thought
I'd read the whole thread 1st, but it's too long! So here I go,
past 1 in the morning....)
First, BR, the movie I think you're referring to is The Accused.
It is very powerful, & I can see how someone who's actually
been raped would have trouble dealing w/what it shows. All my
sympathy goes to you & the others on this board who've told
of being raped or nearly being raped. Or haven't told.
I'm in the latter category. Less than a year after I moved into
the apartment I still live in, someone broke in early in the morning,
stole what he could find (which wasn't much), & then came
after me. Up till then I'd been telling myself that I wouldn't
try anything unless he did try to rape or otherwise hurt me. I
ended up chasing him out. Nobody got physically hurt. But those
were some of the most frightening moments of my life. I think
I have a pretty good idea of my reactions afterwards, & how
they'd have been different if I hadn't been able to stop him.
Attempted rape is different from successful rape, but it's still
traumatic. On the other hand, there was a distinct element of
triumph in my mind, along w/the fear that came from thinking of
what could have happened. I'd been taking aikido for about
3 years, & I felt a very strange mix of emotions when I went
back to the dojo. It wasn't just practice anymore.
Since this has gotten political elsewhere in the thread, I'll
mention a thought I had about a week later. This was in 1981 (over
20 years ago--whoa!). I'd gone to visit friends (had a strong
urge to get in touch w/people after my life-threatening experience!);
1 of them was the 1 who'd recommended aikido to me in the 1st
place. He said something like that if this had happened to me
back when he 1st knew me (when I was a lot shyer & less self-confident),
I'd've been a basket case. I realized he was right. And it occurred
to me that I'd've been like the Reagan budget, just going into
effect at the time--cutting social programs to put all my resources
into defense! Later I wondered what could have happened (to the
Reaganites? to the country?) that made them react like someone
who'd almost been raped. I kinda wanted to learn about what you
might call national psychology, but didn't know where to look.
Of course, after 9/11/01, there's no more question about what
set off the US's defensive reaction. But we still need to question
the reaction, both to maintain our social supports & to avoid
overreacting to anything & everything that seems to be a threat
before it's verified.
Whew. Hope that came through coherently. I'm sleepy, & it's
hard to tell. Basically, what I mean is that having been victimized,
or going through any traumatic experience, can skew our perceptions
of what we see, whether in real life or fiction. That pov may
not be any less valid than any other, but it can make it harder
to see alternative viewpoints.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Great post, anom, agree. -- shadowkat,
07:51:07 12/06/02 Fri
"Basically, what I mean is that having been victimized, or
going through any traumatic experience, can skew our perceptions
of what we see, whether in real life or fiction. That pov may
not be any less valid than any other, but it can make it harder
to see alternative viewpoints."
(First my sympathies for what you endured. I've seen both the
victims and the victimizers sides having worked in Domestic Violence
and in Defender Project while in law school, so totally get this.)
What I love about BTVS and ATS is how they kept twisting the characters
and show around showing us how skewed perceptions can become.
For instance - in STSP - we see the action first from B/X/D
perspective then from Willow's. The shifts are at times jarring.
Then in Beneath You - we see the action from Buffy's pov and then
from Xander's. At times a glimmer from Spike and Anya.
But I think Sleeper and NLM and CwDP are truly brillant in the
jumps in alternative pov and how misleading our perceptions can
truly be.
Taking this back to the fan level - I've been playing with an
idea in my head about trying to write an article on how the internet
has influenced our perception of television shows as an art form
and influenced the story-tellers and artists telling the tell.
I think it has. I know my perceptions of what is happening and
of the characters on Btvs have changed in major ways since coming
online in 2002.
Sometimes I wonder what I'm more addicted to - the show or the
posting board community.
What hits me as interesting - is how each person's perception
of the show is deeply influenced by their own personal issues.
Whether they state these issues or not - you can often see them
through their posts.
For instance - a poster on another board decided they despised
the character of Spike - not b/c of anything Spike as a character
had done or how he was portrayed but because that character reminded
them of their ex-boyfriend who treated them horribly. Another
poster has troubles with Buffy for a similar reason, buffy reminds
them of someone who hurt them deeply in school. These reasons
have zip to do with the story being told and everything to do
with the person posting.
I think the hardest thing in life is seeing the alternative pov.
What causes me to jerk upwards in my seat at home while watching
Buffy and obsessively rewind the tape - is when the show suddenly
sucks me into a pov I didn't expect to be in and to see the world
completely in a different way. For instance in HIM - I suddenly
found myself in Dawn's shoes and boy was it weird, I really don't
like the character very much, so being in her shoes and being
reminded of how much I was like Dawn in school was painful but
insightful at the same time - it forced me to understand her better.
They did the same thing in Sleeper and NLM jerking us into Spike's
pov. In real life - when we get the opportunity - to be sucked
into another persons pov - the world changes, alters and so do
we in tiny ways.
Reading works of fiction can do this, as well as watching a movie
or seeing a tv show or a play. But it can also happen when you
find yourself on the opposite side of a situation.
In law school we were forced to do this all the time - defend
the rapist one day, play the rape victim the next day, then the
next day play the prosecutor. Yes it was play-acting, but play-acting
does in some ways force one to see alternative views. Then of
course, we got to see it in real life by going to counsel real
life murders and rapists and going to domestic violence shelters.
The shifts are jarring and leave behind no easy answers just more
questions.
[> [> [> [> [>
KABOOM! Thanks (SK too). -- tomfool, 18:34:32 12/04/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I once dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- Rahael,
04:56:17 12/05/02 Thu
Thank you for not giving me platitudes, but something that was
complex and dark and strong.
But I still don't understand. How does one forgive? How does one
speak to your heart and enforce it? Because I tried for so many
years, and took everyone's strictures to heart until I felt like
the cold unfeeling monster, until I made myself feel guilty and
terrible and inhumane. I allowed those who harmed to keep on destroying
me inside because I couldn't live up to the ideals that I had
been brought up on.
For those family secrets and tensions, and problems - those I
do not consider in the realm of forgivness, or things that even
need it. I cannot look into a loved one's eyes and deny them anything
at all. All I know, all I can feel is the fierce love that kept
us all alive and (nearly) sane.
But I still want people to explain to me, how I should forgive
a whole organisation, who destroyed so many lives, who have destroyed
the future of a whole community, who tortured and raped without
any compunction, who asked little children to kill, and to betray
and turned them into hardened, unrecognisable adults, who will
go on to have painful, scarred lives?
How does one forgive the men who tried to make my grandfather
kneel in front of them, in a culture where those young in age
greet elders by touching their feet? I feel pity and compassion
for young recruits carrying out orders. I feel pity and compassion
for young conscripts, even the volunteers who give up their life
for an ideal. I have sat and eaten with men who have killed. And
I liked them, felt a great love for quite a few, respected all
of them. But I don't forgive them for what they did. They have
contributed to the bloodletting.
We went back for one short visit, a visit where all my mental
defences cracked, where I got eczema for the first time, and I
felt suffocated all the time. And I wasn't even in a place I was
familiar because to go back to my beloved home was too dangerous.
It was because I could literally see the blood everywhere. The
ghosts of the dead seemed to haunt me. My father pointed out places
- where he'd been arrested, where his fried was found murdered
- where he'd hidden from soldiers. And the pain and blood in the
air was palpable.
It is not one wrong, but wrong, after wrong, after wrong, crime
after crime, one disappearance too many, one person too many who
was tortured.
A close family friend, whose wedding I can remember attending
when I was young, was arrested and then....disappeared, leaving
behind a distraught wife and a young child. Yet another family
destroyed. He was the person who sneaked bars of chocolate to
my sister and I whenever he visited, and we used to save it and
eat it over two weeks. And I think of him dying alone. And his
child, who will never see what a loving, brave man his father
was.
I cannot forgive the world I grew up in, for the wounds it inflicted
on everything I loved. On my community. On my world. On our future.
On the body of my mother.
Part of me contains an incandescent anger, the anger of Kali,
my mother's favourite Goddess. Does this mean, by the standards
of everyone here I am less whole, less healthy, less integrated,
less of a good human being? When I was younger, I used to be so
angry about this. Why me, I thought. Why am I the person who has
to go around being the odd one, the serious one, the one who sees
a different world than all the people around me? But the poetry
of Hopkins and Herbert (the most religious ones, funnily enough)
and BtVS showed me that being different, other, having that darkness,
being forced to walk a different path is not necessarily a bad
thing. Your fellow companions are a reward. And it is not forgiveness
I hope to find at the end, but justice. To be just me. Somehow,
being alive and finding joy in the world seems to be an incredible
reward. It is enough for me.
Now I am here, what thou wilt do with me
None of my books will show;
I read, and sigh, and wish I were a tree,
For sure then I should grow
To fruit or shade: at least some bird would trust
Her household to me, and I should be just.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You're extraordinairily strong, and you must believe
that. -- Deb, 06:13:48 12/05/02 Thu
You first need to rid yourself of those little nagging doubts,
and you need to accept that your anger, hate, etc. is justified
and healthy. Honor those feelings because they are what allowed
you to survive. Then take the next step.
As for forgiveness: I can't tell you how to go about it. It's
something that needs to be experienced I think. Plus it's not
about the person who is forgiven. It's about forgiving the "others"
to release yourself from those chains that give them free rent
in your heart, head and soul. It's about releasing them to Kali,
because they are Hers.
I allow myself to feel, fully and sometimes quite vocally, at
the point of injury, and then I grieve and don't apologize about
it. When I've emotionally exhausted, I just let it all go (and
usually take a long nap). After I got my daughter and myself safe,
I slept for a week. I never knew that was possible.
I have total faith that everyone will be painfully cracked open
and, weighed by the harm they instilled, will reap accordingly.
Of course, foregiveness will also be its own reward at that time
also. The ability to forgive indicates that one has self-love.
Frank told me that the reason why I felt so much retched pain
was because I simply could not forgive myself for anything. I
hated myself. If you have any doubts that those people who did
those things to you and your mother -- and others -- don't love
themselves, shelve those doubts now. You can't intentionally harm
another person unless you hate yourself first. There are a few
exceptions, but I'm talking about abominations here again, and
there's a special "place" for them.
I hope you don't feel I'm muttering platitudes. It's difficult
to tell someone how to forgive, how to live, how to be in this
world where all lessons are intended to be difficult, and nothing
is "fair." Just remember, forgiving is not something
you do for others. It's something you do for yourself.
It's kinda funny, but now when "bad" things happen to
me, I know that it is an opportunity for self growth (an opportunity
I cannot afford not to take) and that I am capable of pulling
it off if I can just deal with a little growing pain. Of course,
I still have a long list of things to learn so I know it will
just keep on coming until it is time for me to rest.
Talk to ya later.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> "Their greeness is a kind of grief"
-- Rahael, 11:23:36 12/05/02 Thu
Well, Arethusa has said most of what I wanted to say.
But I don't think I've ever personally met anyone who loves life,
and the world as much as I do. Oh, I take joy in nearly every
part of my life (my eczema can just eff off though). I think I'm
the luckiest person I know. And that was even before I discovered
dHerblay existed!
And I've observed in real life that I have more stores of understanding
and love to give others than a lot of the very sheltered people
I've met. God, I love life, and I love people and I don't like
seeing people in pain. Even if it meant staying up all night and
writing an essay for a friend in a subject I barely knew about,
I was happy to do it. It is a bad thing, that people are stopped
from appreciating how wonderful being alive is. It is a bad thing
when people punish themselves for not being 'right' and 'normal'.
I've been lucky because I grew up knowing I was loved, and special,
and that I would always be helped if I was weakened. And I was
taught that I was especially privileged for having this, and when
I grew up, I realised that this was indeed so.
Most of the young, white, middle class English women I became
friends with at school and university always seemed unhappier
than me, even though they had had relatively privileged and sheltered
experiences. None of them ever got the kick I got at sitting in
a fabulously beautiful library reading essay after essay about
the household management of the early Tudor monarchs. I could
be raised to moments of pure joy by sitting in college gardens
with a book of poetry, or by having a punt down the river with
a picnic and an agreeable companion.
I couldn't get rid of my darker emotions any more than I can get
rid of my joyful ones. It's one and the same. I get angry about
things, and joyful about others. And I like the night.....it has
its own beauty and truthfulness.
I once wrote a post long ago, saying that the Buffyverse was not
black and white, and it wasn't grey either. It's full of colour,
and so is my life. Green is the tree of life. Its roots may stretch
into the dark earth underneath, and the earth may have teeth,
but:
The trees are coming into leaf
Like something almost being said;
The recent buds relax and spread,
Their greenness is a kind of grief.
Is it that they are born again
And we grow old? No, they die too.
Their yearly trick of looking new
Is written down in rings of grain.
Yet still the unresting castles thresh
In fullgrown thickness every May.
Last year is dead, they seem to say
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.
Philip Larkin
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: I once dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- Arethusa,
09:30:22 12/05/02 Thu
Rah, the only person I've ever felt the need to forgive is myself,
for being a victim. For not being strong enough, or angry enough
or-whatever-enough, for the bloody bad luck to grow up under the
circumstances that I had to endure. For the bizarre confluence
of war, society's fear of the horrors of life, male patriarchy,
and everthing else.
I looked up forgive-it means "to give up resentment of."
Then I looked up resentment: "A feeling of indignant displeasure
or persistant ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult
or injury." (Mirriam Webster) "Forgive" is from
Old English, and basically means "to give more." Should
I not feel displeased? That doesn't seem necessary or realistic.
I don't harbor much ill will, except in fleeting moments, because
then I have to stop thinking about myself, which is something
I'm not very good at. Should I "give more" to the people
who harmed me? No thanks-they've already taken enough, and I need
all my energy for the thinking about myself I already mentioned.
Which is my flip way of saying that rebuilding myself from the
ground up-while I'm already a fully-formed adult-takes all my
energy. Just learnig to feel happy is incredibly hard. And I can't
talk about it to anyone. The last person I talked to literally
fled in horror-I felt like I was the monster, an misunderstood
alien amoung 1950s suburbanites, hated and feared for being different.
But like you I learned there are good things about being different,
being able to observe the world around me with a different perspective.
I think in the end you and Deb and I, if I can presume to speak
for us all, got to the same place, even if we all took different
routes. I no more think I have to believe in forgiveness than
I think I have to believe in a god. I choose to "give more"
to the people I care about, not the people I don't care about
any more. I don't feel chained or shadowed-but my experiences
are woven into the very fabric of my being, they simultaneously
made my weaker and stronger, and I can't release the rightous
anger any more than I can release the deeper understanding of
human nature the experiences gave me. They are a part of me, and
here they stay.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> When I grow up, I want to be like you, Arethusa!
-- Rahael, 10:10:58 12/05/02 Thu
There you are, you've said what I've wanted to say.
Words, are only words after all. And forgiveness is only a word.
They can only hold a mirror up to reality, they can only attempt
to show and express and project how we see things.
Sometimes they are powerful, sometimes inadequate, and I think
that for some people forgiveness is a powerful word, and for me
it is a word that doesn't describe anything.
I cannot hate the people who commit atrocities, since they are
some of the very people I feel angry for. And they do not hate
themselves, really. They are fighting for powerful ideals, themselves,
ideals like freedom and self determination, and the end to a repressive
and brutal regime. I understand, I sympathise, but I disagree
with them. They are proud of themselves, and they are glad to
die, because they see themselves as martyrs, and they cannot understand
why everyone isn't willing to die for their ultimately empty and
grisly homeland. Empty, because by the time they achieve it, there
will be no one left to live in it. And that's something to continue
to feel sad about.
For them, the idea, the word 'homeland' is so frightningly powerful,
they and other human beings become insignificant and unworthy
and expendable. And it's a word that is just frightning for me
now. What words mean....what they describe..we can't always agree
about them.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: When I grow up, I want to be like you,
Arethusa! -- Arethusa, 10:49:36 12/05/02 Thu
You're very kind, but believe me, you don't see the messy part
of me, that forgets to pay bills and gets too angry and has a
hard time making friends. I'm just glad that there's a place where
I can show the good side.
It's funny-when our government announced it was creating a Cabinet
Office of Homeland Security, I shuddered. "Homeland"
is far too close to "Fatherland," and I'm afraid of
the secrecy, rightousness and love of power of our current national
leaders. As the laws protecting the environment, handicapped and
many other vulnerable areas are being rolled back and we prepare
for war, I'm afraid for what my country might become. Thank god
my husband's too old and my son's too young to fight, but what
about my nephews, and everyone else's relatives? I've already
got one relative buried in Arlington National Cemetery. I don't
want another.
Are we like Buffy, reluctantly fighting the good fight because
we can and should, or are we like Mayor Wilkins, remaking the
world for our self-aggrandizement? I just don't know.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> It is always the messy part that I
love most about other people -- Rahael, 11:27:34 12/05/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Well said both of you -- Deb, 13:17:43
12/05/02 Thu
And the "Homeland" thing is frightening. I also thought
of Hitler. I've never thought of this place as my "Homeland."
It is just land. The people are the country.
Who do I want to be when I grow up? Oh, I never will!
I agree with you, Rahael and I and you got to this place by different
paths (and I love reading about the Tudors!). Everything I find
totally fascinatng, others find mundane.
Ah! (scream actually) Great news! I just opened a letter that
tells me I passed all of my comprehensive examinations on first
try!!
Doing a dance! Hugging my daughter! Here's a hug for both of you!
Ah the sun came out just for me today....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Congrats! -- Rahael, 13:31:09
12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Well done, Deb! Congratulations!!
-- Wisewoman ;o), 14:26:51 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> HUH? Are you serious? I couldn't
dissent more -- alcibiades, 15:01:59 12/05/02 Thu
I stopped myself from commenting above, but not anymore, not after
this.
And the "Homeland" thing is frightening. I also thought
of Hitler. I've never thought of this place as my "Homeland."
I know this part of the thread seems to be about congratulating
yourselves for being wonderful people so I should probably not
interject a note of realism here because it will bring you all
down...
But living as I do 5 miles from epic buildings that were bombed
out simply because people could do that, and there was a massive
intelligence failure on the part of the US which allowed it to
occur, I happen to think a lack of coordinated intelligence in
the US is a whole lot scarier than whatever fantasies you guys
have in your head. Real people died, not fantasy ones. It has
nothing to do with President Bush morphing into Mayor Wilkinson
morphing into a demon to satisfy his ego.
This was a war brought to our shores. But our shores do not contain
it.
In this war, it has been proven again and again, that the only
way to fight terrorism is by acting quickly and decisively on
worldwide coordinated intelligence. That is realism. Intelligence
is absolutely critical. It is the only way to stop it. So it has
to work seamlessly.
Comparing the Homeland Security Office to Hitler. Because? What
intervening logical steps have you left out of that equation?
That is just insulting.
Get real, why don't you. Why don't you study some history. Or
read some intelligence reports on the situation in the Middle
East. Aren't you in Media studies, Deb? Do you always throw "facts"
around this irresponsibly?
Or was the "subtle" implication supposed to be that
all republicans in office are evil, just like Hitler?
In the paper this week, there was a lead story on the rapists
and torturers Saddam keeps on his payroll. These rooms have been
visited by journalists and some even came complete with women's
discarded underwear still on the floor. They have existed for
at least a decade.
The following is excerpted from a report just released by the
British government on Saddam's regime.
Widespread methods of treatment of Saddam's opponents include
eyegouging, piercing hands with electric drills, lowering prisoners
into vats of acid, staging mock execution and repeated raping
of women. Also a method of torture known as falaqa in which victims
are beaten on the soles of their feet with a cable until they
pass out.
So, yeah, Deb, I can see why you think that the Homeland Security
Office might resemble Hitler's regime.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> WHOA! Take a breath, there.
-- Wisewoman, 15:38:35 12/05/02 Thu
I think the initial comparison was between Homeland and
Fatherland. There is a similarity, and it's certainly not
tantamount to calling Republicans Nazis.
The world political situation is more tenuous right now that it
has been perhaps at any other time in my life. In a country as
large and as diverse as the US of A there are bound to be the
entire range of political opinions, and a great deal of that range
may be reflected in the opinions of posters on this board. Thus
far we've avoided in-depth discussion of this on a political level,
and have limited ourselves mainly to the effects of the situation
on real human beings. That would seem wise, given the purpose
of this Board. Let's hope it continues.
That said, comments like:
whatever fantasies you guys have in your head
Get real, why don't you. Why don't you study some history.
and,
Do you always throw "facts" around this irresponsibly?
are personally and unnecessarily insulting in this context.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Woah -- Rahael, 15:54:54
12/05/02 Thu
Perhaps this is just going to prove my point that the tone of
a post will almost invite the tone of the following responses.
But I will try to hold back.
I know this part of the thread seems to be about congratulating
yourselves for being wonderful people so I should probably not
interject a note of realism here because it will bring you all
down...
Really? there's been no realism here? Whatever the political tensions
are in America please lets not use victims of torture as debating
points, okay?
I've suffered under the hands of terrorists. We are still on the
hit list. We have people watching and taking care of us all the
time. One of the things I had hoped after September 11, was that
we'd become safer as the world started taking terrorism more seriously,
and that America would finally declare this particular terrorist
group as illegal in America. It only happened very recently despite
the fact that they are amongst the most deadly in the world. It
wasn't a lack of information that prevented them finding out about
the activities of this group - it just wasn't a high priority
until recently.
I've also suffered under the hands of governments fighting terrorism.
They were the people who tortured my father. Not because he was
a terrorist, but because once you start using certain tools to
fight certain groups, you forget to differentiate between different
groups of citizens.
I grew up being bombed every night by soldiers fighting terrorism.
I've been shelled. I've gone hungry as food supplies ran out.
We lived in daily fear that the young men we knew would be arrested
under suspicion. Soldiers started putting hand grenades into the
purses of young women so they could arrest them, take them away
and rape them.
These weren't 'evil' people. They were just people. I once attended
a fancy dinner at university, and found myself sitting opposite
a former cabinet minister who had been a member of the government
responsible for ordering the bombings of my community. He was
perfectly normal. He knew who I was, and politely condoled me
on my loss. My father and I went to a human rights function where
a man was telling us that he was once a governor of a notorious
prison where torture was part of the regime. My father said, "I
know, I was at the prison too!" and we all laughed with a
mixture of black humour and embarrasment.
Is that enough realism? Terrorism is corrosive. On the people
it is used against, on the people who use it, and on the people
who fight it. You are right Alcibiades, George Bush is just a
politician, no big bad evil, and neither is Tony Blair. Compromises
have to be made all the time. I think Americans are lucky because
they have a strong civil society and will be able to withstand
too serious an inroad into basic civil liberties in their fight
against terrorism.
Not everyone is so lucky. The victims of Saddam's regime were
the victims of an illegal government, to whom the British Government
were selling arms to. The arms used against me were also bought
from the West by my government.
But I don't particularly appreciate being lectured about the evils
of terrorism, okay? There are no moral highgrounds here. I am
hugely thankful that British Governments of whatever political
stripe have always taken the safety of me and my family so seriously.
But my own government used the fight against anti terrorism to
terrorise, torture, and oppress its own citizens.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm sorry if my thoughts
offended you -- Deb, 16:46:49 12/05/02 Thu
It was not intentional, and no I don't feel morally superior.
Actually, right now I fell extremely mortified that something
I said could arouse such a furious emotional reaction from another
poster. I was not objecting to the concept of internal security.
The word "Homeland" is what I object to or at least
feel queasy about.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just making
sure you aren't replying to me -- Rahael, 16:56:50 12/05/02
Thu
Since I didn't think you were doing anything of the sort, and
none of my comments in my post was aimed at you.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah,
I goofed. Really sorry. -- Deb, 18:44:31 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whoops. Posted to
wrong person. sorry. -- Deb, 16:56:16 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Btw Alci -- Rahael,
17:13:13 12/05/02 Thu
I hope you have realised that the Homeland I was referring to
doesn't really have anything to do with the American version.
It's my attempt to do a little translation from a language you
guys wouldn't understand.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Some history . . .
-- d'Herblay, 18:31:14 12/05/02 Thu
. . . I'm not so sure I should enter in on this so quickly having
had my critical faculties shown to be lacking in the matter of
Glenn Quinn's untimely and unnoticed demise, and certainly Wisewoman
nails the gist of the matter in her post above, but I thought
that I would point out that Deb's criticisms of the word in question
have been made before, most famously by Mickey
Kaus and Peggy
Noonan. I seriously doubt that Peggy Noonan is implicitly
comparing any member of the Bush family to Adolf Hitler, and I
don't think Deb is either. The fact remains that before the Department
was proposed, "homeland" was a word rarely invoked to
describe America. The German word heimat is its closest
analogue, and that does impart to "homeland" a Teutonic
flavor. However, the use of "homeland" I remember most
resonantly is its application within apartheid-era South Africa.
"Bophutuswana is far away/But we know it's in South Africa,
no matter what they say" and all that.
Now this is not to argue that an office of domestic security is
necessarily a bad thing -- though I must admit that I thought
the Bushies would be reducing the number of Cabinet departments,
and as the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, BATF, etc. will be remaining in
their respective cabinet departments, I rather doubt we'll see
any improvement in coordinating intelligence, and I don't know
why handing Eli Lilly a huge immunity is important to "homeland
security," and the aims of John Poindexter's Information
Awareness Office scare me more than a little -- but I think it's
clear that is not what Deb was doing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, d'Herblay...
-- dub ;o), 18:34:11 12/05/02 Thu
...somehow you can make me laugh, even when the situation borders
on tense...Thanks!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Let's hear it for dissent!
-- Arethusa, 11:37:10 12/06/02 Fri
My last political comment:
I grew up before and during Vietnam, when my government was lying
to its people constantly, sending more and more of them off to
die. My father was one of them, and came home in a very real box.
Then came Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, the CEO scandals,
and many other secrets and lies, large and small. I know about
Bush's business dealings, Poindexter's Iran-Contra involvemnet,
John Ashcroft's views on what's good for the country. It's all
very real.
It's unrealistic and irresponsible to think that our government
would never overreach its powers, or that our leaders would not
take advantage of our national pain to increase their personal
power. They've certainly done it before. It's a vigilant, critical
population that prevents the sort of power abuses that crept up
in other nations, where the public was not allowed to dissent.
While I'm here-congratulations Rahael, Deb, shadowkat, aliera,
d'Herblay, dear Wisewoman and others too numerous to name. You
really are wonderful people. I'm sorry my comments lead to anyone's
unhappiness.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: I once dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- Caroline,
21:05:26 12/05/02 Thu
Excellent posts everyone.
Don't we all ask why me? The experiences we go through have a
different architecture but the pain and suffering is the same.
The only way I can deal with it is to ask 'why not me'? Life is
horribly unfair and often incredibly cruel and many of us suffer
cruelly. I don't expect anything else. I often think that those
taken away from us by death have the easier part - they do not
mourn, suffer and struggle as we do to truly live our lives with
the burdens we have to bear. Hmm, the fatalism of my forbears
is showing here. I don't mean to present a view that is bleak.
I have founds moments of happiness but I don't look for contentment
in a world where everything is temporary.
As for forgiveness, that's a hard one. I can't explain how you
get there. But at least part of it came from the recognition that
I was also capable of atrocious behaviour in return for injury
inflicted on me. Oh, and a LOT of psychological study to understand
the dynamics of behaviour. And lots of reminding myself that I
am not in control and the earth does not spin to make me happy
and it keeps spinning despite my suffering. And lots of stuff
like 'death shall have no dominion'. And maybe it will work completely
one day.
[> [> [> [> [>
Deb, that was awe-some (in the old sense), touching, moving...I'm
speechless. -- cjl, 07:16:05 12/05/02 Thu
To be where you've been, to step outside and see the totality
of your being, good and bad, and come through it...
I can't comment further, because I'm afraid anything I say wouldn't
measure up to the power of what you've just shared with us. Thank
you.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I once dwelt in the valley of the shadow -- Wisewoman,
13:42:54 12/05/02 Thu
Very courageous of you to share your experience and, perhaps even
more so, your reactions to it. I went through an NDE at a very
early age, when I didn't have all that much life to flash before
my eyes, and very little to regret, but the impact of the actual
experience has always stayed with me. A colleague who experienced
one in her 40s said that the instantaneous review of her life
made her realize what a monster she'd been as a younger woman
but at the same time showed her exactly what led to her behaviour
and so prevented her from guilt and self-recrimination.
And may I say how appropriate I find it that your angel's name
was Frank?
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Yeah! I pointed that out to him and he just laughed.
-- Deb, 14:00:41 12/05/02 Thu
I have a friend who had a NDE when she was 6 years old. A herd
of hogs stampeded her. She still has the scars. Anyway, she said
she didn't have a life review either, but was comforted and told
to return to her body once she was in the hospital. It still had
quite an impact on her. I understand your friend's feelings of
being a monster completely, and I was also comforted afterward
and show why I was the way I was, but I was told I had to change
if I wanted to be happy. I don't think Spike is getting that comforting,
quite the opposite which is why I guess it . . . frightens, yes
that's the word . . . me so much. I don't think I could have stood
it if Frank wasn't with me.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I feel more grounded here
now. I don't see my experience as extraordinary. In fact the whole
concept of other dimensions, other lifeforms, mysteries etc. feels
rather common, even rational, to me.
Thank you Wisewoman.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> at least he wasn't called Clarence -- Helen,
03:40:54 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> Re: death, rape,
the whole controversial thing... -- Rufus, 00:35:13 12/05/02
Thu
But it shouldn't be that way. The taking of a life is a far,
far worse crime than rape should ever be.
I only agree with Germaine Greer here and there, but I have to
totally agree with her when she says that we cannot and should
not accord so much power to the penis so that when it violates,
that we allow it to destroy our lives that we cannot bear to go
on living.
I've always said murder is the worst thing to do to a person because
of the finality of it. If one is raped they can go on to heal.
The problem for the victims of rape is not always the rape itself
but the insensitivity of others who can't get past the sexual
part of the attack and begin to doubt and blame the victim. If
someone is physically assaulted, people are understanding and
supportive, but for the victim of rape there are the inevitable
questions like "did you fight" "what were you wearing".....would
someone ask that of a man who was mugged? But for rape victims
there is this air of implied complicity because of the sexual
nature of the crime.
Rape is a form of assault, that may not leave obvious bruises
or cuts, but is an act of violence that like any assault can end
with death. And I have to agree with Greer, why give a penis so
much power that we think someone would be better dead than raped.
I know I'd much rather live to spite my attacker than to die so
it would be easier for others to understand how the attack could
occur in the first place.
Now to Spike, if he is a killer, then why is it so hard to understand
that he could be capable of rape? I don't give him any more or
less points for being perhaps a killer who hasn't bothered to
rape, but, given the company Spike kept, why would it surprise
anyone that rape would be part of what he has done over the many
years in the company of Darla, Angelus, Drusilla? I'm not saying
that was his preference, but I do say that it makes perfect sense
that he would copy the people who he considered family and not
only admired but felt the need to compete with.
[> [> [> What Spike
said -- Deb, 06:33:31 12/05/02 Thu
The ones in the basement, who died, were the lucky ones. Most
murders are crimes of passion. (We just hear much more about the
others on the news.) They are not planned, nor is there an intention
to inflict pain and suffering. Rape is a crime of violence that
is planned and executed with an intent to inflict pain by leaving
the "victim" alive. If vampires are "beneath"
humans, more driven to feed on "walking Happy Meals"
then one does not necessairly expect that they also rape. The
two do not go hand-in-hand. It seems that many people here do
expect this behaviour from vampires. I'm curious. Did JW say that
this is how vampires behaved in the Buffyverse, or is this something
you have just accepted as normal behaviour? If he said this, fine,
shame on me for believing otherwise, but if he didn't, I'm not
going to apologize for being surprised that Spike might have tortured
and raped his food.
[> [> [> [> Re:
What Spike said -- Rufus, 06:43:42 12/05/02 Thu
Because of the highly sexualized behavior of the vampires Spike
became part of, I believed that he would take them as his role
models in how he acted. So, yes I believe he is as every bit as
capable of rape as he is of killing. He had depersonalized his
victims as he felt better than humans being an immortal demon.
As feeding has been depicted as being both something that could
be strictly for the consumption of food or part of sexual activity,
it makes sense that Spike would have gotten involved in some twisted
actions.
I'm curious what your background experience is in Murder investigation.
[> [> [> [> [>
That was fast -- Deb, 07:05:09 12/05/02 Thu
My experience: I was a journalist covering homicide, and other
things, a few years ago. I also have done volunteer work on educating
the public about domestic abuse, so I've checked the facts. I
also know, as a former journalist, that the media will go for
sensationalized situations over the mundane, everyday situation.
Of course, I am talking about America, as in U.S.A. here. The
facts don't hold up in other countries. I have an article I wrote
for a newspaper on domestic abuse and murder in the U.S. archieved
on Northernlight.com.
So you stereotype all vampires? (Good God. How silly that question
sounds.) Yes, sex and feeding have much in common and I have things
to say about this also, but I have a noon deadline. But I'll be
back.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: That was fast -- Rufus, 07:21:15 12/05/02
Thu
No, I base my thoughts on the vampires I know anything about upon
what they once were as humans. If you make a person a vampire
you remove the conscience and they can act out thoughts they would
normally have repressed. There are certain behaviors in vampires
that you could consider stereotypical....like feeding, the enjoyment
of killing or playing with their food. If it weren't for the chip
we may never have met this new Spike at all as the need to succeed
in killing a Slayer would have either gotten Spike or Buffy killed
long before he would figure out his sexual attraction ran deeper
than he thought.
Darla said....what we once were informs all that we become. You
find out what made the human tick you get an idea of what the
vampire will do, as vampires are only humans with infections.
I also have to point out the fact that human blood seems to have
a different effect on vampires as noticed in Angel when he got
even a little of his sons blood and was losing the battle between
seeing Connor as his son or lunch. Spike also makes reference
to it being "juice". So I think that human blood does
more than just taste better. I also think that Spikes speech about
not just killing but the need to get the victim as frightened
as possible makes for a tastier meal.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Tale of the Bodysnachers. Did I spell that right?
-- Deb, 13:29:05 12/05/02 Thu
Ok. I'm totally drained on this vampire/rape/feed/violence thing,
which is a good thing. Now I can just let it go and roll with
the punches. Plus, I just found out I passed all of my comprehensive
examinations the first try around!!!
Let's dance and jump up and down!! Party, party!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Well, there's a "t" in there somewhere
but hell, yes, let's party!! -- Wisewoman ;o), 15:14:55
12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Rape and death
- maybe TMI for some -- Tyreseus, 19:33:45 12/05/02 Thu
Warning: I'm about to get very personal here, so if you're not
into reading confessionals, skip this post.
But I have to disagree with you that women feel that death
is better than rape. I think society makes them feel that way.
I think the idea of 'women's reputation' did not pass away with
the passing of the 18th and 19th centuries. I come from a society
where sexual dishonour is the ultimate dishonour to a woman, where
indeed, death is better than rape.
Raphael, I have to say that I found this comment a bit lacking
in understanding.
Three years ago, on Halloween, I was raped behind a gay bar I
frequently hang out at. And I'll tell you now that I would rather
be killed than experience that again.
The emotional scars still haunt my nightmares and there's nothing
worse for a person (man or woman) than being violated in such
a horrible way.
I didn't feel shame for the sexual dishonor, I felt utterly destroyed
because I was nothing more than an easy target - a receptacle
- an object. I was made to feel powerless. I was beaten and hurt,
cut and torn. I spent an agonizing six months waiting for definitive
HIV tests (negative, thank god), in which I pondered suicide over
coping with a disease I've seen rot away many of my friends.
We are stronger. It brings tremendous pain, distrust of the
world, and self disgust. But we are stronger, and we can keep
on living, and not let that violater keep on destroying our lives.
Yes, I am stronger than what happened to me. My life has not been
destroyed - only altered. I have risen from that day a smarter,
more dedicated, and more passionate person.
But if you ask me whether I would choose death over repeating
that experience, I won't take long in answering. And it isn't
society that makes me feel that way. In the circle of friends
I have, they have all been utterly supportive and understanding.
They have affirmed me as a worthwhile person when my self-esteem
was low, told me I'm not to blame when I questioned my own judgement
for being alone and a bit drunk, and have made no judgements on
my character when I felt dirty and vile.
Could I survive another rape? Absolutely. And probably would if
it ever happened again. BUT I would rather die than live in that
moment, however briefly, again.
[> [> [> I'm truly,
incredibly sorry -- Rahael, 02:15:40 12/06/02 Fri
I won't go into my own experience here, because I already give
TMI to the board about my life.
But when I grew up, I came into contact with lots of young women
who had been raped by soldiers and terrorists, women-guerilla
fighters who had been captured by rival groups and who had been
raped as part of their torture.
These women, many of them teenagers, in fact, were thrown out
on to the streets by their family because they were now 'dirty'.
They'd never be able to be married off. What decent man could
want them? My mother in her spare time set up a refuge for them,
where they could live, and support themselves as a community of
women in the midst of civil war. It was probably her proudest
achievement. In a society where suicide and martyrdom was glorified,
where a woman who dared to keep on living after being raped and
dishonoured was considered a whore, with her too uncomfortable
reminder to the rest of us, just giving those women a space was
a big achievement.
Unfortunately, where I grew up, rape was common, and murders even
more common. We all of us were so desperate to keep alive that
we were prepared to do anything to keep alive. Perhaps we had
become debased? Less proud? more desperate? I remember my greatest
moment of shame, when as a child, the army soldiers came to search
our house. One seargent cornered me, pointed his gun at me and
asked me what I knew about my aunt. I opened my mouth, and to
this day cannot forgive myself for saying everything I knew. I
was six, so I guess I had some excuse. And my grandfather kept
my furious grandmother from me afterwards by saying that it didn't
matter what I had told them - he had had to tell them the same
thing, and I had just leant them veracity.
But it became clear to me, quite quickly that I was desperate
to stay alive. So perhaps this background allows you to understand
why I think the way I think about this.
What happened to me...my experience. I don't know whether it should
not be more properly called child abuse, because I was so young.
But I find it too difficult to speak about it so I'll stop here.
I seem to be very un-understanding of late. According to Alcibiades
I'm living in a fantasy land where I can't comprehend the realities
of the world where real people die. According to you, I cannot
understand your pain. I'm sorry that I made such a huge generalisation.
That was wrong. So I should amend it to say: This woman wants
to keep on living. I'll go through a thousand indignities with
no shame. I just wanted to see more of the world than I had been
allowed to see up til then. I wanted some goddam happiness, because
I knew I deserved it.
After they assassinated my mother, the men who ordered her death
marched into her shelter and conscripted every single young woman
she had helped. They put a cyanide capsule around their necks
and made them go out to fight for a greater ideal. For martyrdom.
For a nation which considered women like them expendable, and
a woman like my mother 'an obstacle on the path to our homeland'
- direct quote.
I'll keep on living. Because that seemed to me the most precious
gift in the world by the time I was 11.
But I am very sorry for my insenstive comments.
[> More pennies, more spoilers.
-- Darby, 06:25:10 12/04/02 Wed
I think that we can safely say that Buffy does not represent a
major cross-section of women in temperament or reactions - like
Rahael, I can accept her acceptance of Spike, and I think we've
seen her move from repulsion to acceptance (and somewhere in there,
an offscreen assessment of her own role in the whole thing) smoothly
if a bit quickly. Keep in mind, lots of time and reflection can
happen in a more-or-less "real time" universe over the
course of a third of a season.
I think this is an attempt to, once more, get across to the pesky
Spikophiles that he is, or was, one nasty sumbitch back in the
day. The famous scene was clearly an attempt to change the viewers'
attitudes toward the character, and that didn't work all that
well, so they're trying another tack at establishing his evil
nature. The more we accept his former Badness, the more powerful
his current spirit of sacrifice and Buffy's mercy have. To pick
up Sophist's subtread, that would have been better established
earlier, and we would have been better served if they had shown
rather than told, but it's tv, 22 eps, what can you do?
And do we all have to call him "the JW" now? Isn't genuflecting
when speaking of him toward Hollywood (and let me tell you, that
makes the keyboarding way harder) enough?
- Darby, thankful for the yoga mat but having more and more trouble
getting back up.
[> Astute (speculative)
-- ZachsMind, 07:26:11 12/04/02 Wed
I felt it clear he was lying in that scene. Every statement he
made in that scene could be reversed to find the truth. He was
trying to get the Slayer to stake him. Simple as that.
[> Sorry if this doesn't
seem as deep as some of the posts in this topic... -- KdS,
07:55:02 12/04/02 Wed
... but I was listening to Tori Amos's Strange Little Girls
last night and couldn't get Spike out of my head when I heard
this track:
Take your mind back - I don't know when
Sometime when it always seemed
To be just us and them
Girls that wore pink
And boys that wore blue
Boys that always grew up better men
Than me and you
What's a man now - what's a man mean
Is he rough or is he rugged
Is he cultural and clean
Now it's all change - it's got to change more
'Cause we think it's getting better
But nobody's really sure
And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are
See the nice boys - dancing in pairs
Golden earring golden tan
Blow-wave in the hair
Sure they're all straight - straight as a line
All the gays are macho
Can't you see their leather shine
You don't want to sound dumb - don't want to offend
So don't call me a faggot
Not unless you are a friend
Then if you're tall and handsome and strong
You can wear the uniform and I could play along
And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are
Time to get scared - time to change plan
Don't know how to treat a lady
Don't know how to be a man
Time to admit - what you call defeat
'Cause there's women running past you now
And you just drag your feet
Man makes a gun - man goes to war
Man can kill and man can drink
And man can take a whore
Kill all the blacks - kill all the reds
And if there's war between the sexes
Then there'll be no people left
And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are
Joe Jackson
[> Re: My two cents on a
subject already talked to undeath Spoiler 6.final and 7.8
-- Malandanza, 09:35:47 12/04/02 Wed
"I read almost all of the posts regarding Spike's *implicit
admission* of what he did to women (drank them almost dry then
raped them to hear them cry)...
"If it is *true* that he raped women at the brink of death
to hear them cry ** warning ** digression in process ** (which
as I pointed out in my archived post is an impossibility -- literally,
because the women would be in shock and passed-out."
I thought Spike was talking about distinct crimes. There were
some women on whom he fed just enough to leave them weakened,
but conscious -- so he could here them whimper after he had abandoned
them. There were others, girls Dawn's age, who he may have raped
-- and if not raped, then some other particularly vile thing that
Buffy wouldn't want to hear about. If he did combine the torture
and rape, he could have raped his victims first, then drained
them of some blood and abandoned them.
"If William/Spike said these things to Buffy to unburden
his soul then he is a total idiot, and he deserves to be dusted
because of the emotional abuse he just added to his score card."
I'm not sure why lying about such things to get Buffy to dust
him would be better than an honest confession -- the emotional
abuse is still there either way. I believe it was both a mostly
honest (embellishing the details, perhaps) confession and an attempt
to get Buffy to dust him so he could stop suffering for his past
crimes. Why would he want to be dusted? Partly for the same reasons
Angel wanted to die in Amends, but also Buffy pointed out to Spike
that he really didn't know her at all -- he doesn't even know
himself. All of Spike's "insights" into Buffy, the Death
Wish, the masochistic tendencies, the martyr's complex and the
self loathing apply better to Spike. We found out from Webs that
Buffy actually likes herself (although she feels a little guilty
about being superior).
"Let's assume all of this is the *correct* version. I've
grown fond of Spike, as have many other women. If Spike did do
these things, I would feel betrayed, mislead, and foolish for
believing he was trying to make good."
But were you fond of Season Two Spike? The guy who vamped Buffy's
best friend Ford so she'd have to kill him? The guy who had killed
two slayers for sport? The guy who assembled a doomsday monster
to amuse his lady? The guy who let a loyal and useful minion be
destroyed to test the Judge? The Guy who tried to stake his girlfriend,
Harmony, because she wouldn't shut up? All the things Spike tells
Buffy about occurred back when he was unchipped and still very
evil. He learned from Angelus, his Yoda. He catered to Dru's whims.
Of course he did evil things in the bad old days.
"In season six, we are given the *attempted* rape scene
which caused more controversy than what Willow did. Then we are
given an ambiguous motivation for Spike to go to Africa and see
a tree about being what he was before. Spikey seemed awful pissed
about that *bitch* and really wanted to give her what she deserved.
I don't think the writers, at the time, intended Spike to go for
his soul, but they left it ambiguous enough so that they could
say that is exactly what he did. His intention all along was to
get his soul. Fine. He has a soul."
Part of the reason Willow/Warren caused less controversy is that
it was less controversial. We all like Willow and dislike Warren,
but we all recognize that what Willow did was wrong. With the
AR and its aftermath, both the redemptionistas and the contraredemtionistas
ended up unhappy -- for the redemtionistas, Spike had become the
idealized Courtly Lover and the rape attempt was out of character;
for the contras, Spike's reaction, guilt, regret, desire for atonement
was a violation of canon -- hence the controversy. It was not
a matter of rape being worse than torture and murder. And I agree
with you about the soul-quest. Whatever his intentions (and ME
seems pretty adamant that the only reason he went to Africa was
to get a soul so he could be the kind of guy Buffy could love),
he has a soul now, at that makes a big difference.
"He believes that Buffy detests him (did you see the look
she threw at him after she wrestled Spike off of Andrew? That
was the *death stare*, and then she viciously kicks him in the
face so hard it knocks him out."
I loved that scene. It's one of the few times we see Buffy as
pure slayer (although I think we'll be seeing more of it this
season) -- all business. I think Buffy regretted her action almost
immediately -- and that is why she ended up in the basement, wiping
the blood off of Spike's face.
I don't think Spike is being demonized -- he was a demon and ME
is just reminding us of that. His revelations build sympathy for
his character rather than revulsion since he is now suffering
for crimes the demon committed (and, like Angel, would never had
committed had he had a soul). More damning was his behavior in
the recent rerun -- where he tried (as Angel tried) to be the
old Spike again, in spite of his soul. He dressed up like old
times (sans jacket) and played the part of the bad boy (even administering
a beating to Anya when she wouldn't shut up). Part of him is fighting
the change that the soul brings just as surely as Angelus fought
against Angel.
[> [> Why Spike temporarily
prefers death to unlife 7.9 -- alcibiades, 10:48:11 12/04/02
Wed
Not that this likely to change your mind, but here goes:
Mal wrote:
"I believe it was both a mostly honest (embellishing the
details, perhaps) confession and an attempt to get Buffy to dust
him so he could stop suffering for his past crimes."
I don't think the desire for Buffy to dust him in that scene relates
directly to the suffering for the past crimes -- which Spike did
as a soulless demon. That seems awfully hard, but he is bearing
up under that burden to the extent that he can.
No, it is the pain of the new crimes he has committed as a demon
with a soul -- which he takes responsibility for since it is his
body that did those crimes -- and the fact that having done his
damnedest to change, dragged the heavy boulder all the way to
the mountain top, he is now stuck in a Sisyphean nightmare that
makes him seemingly unable to change, although he has no conscious
desire to do what he has been doing, to be what he once was.
Just like last year, when Spike had changed and no one recognized
it or acknowledged it, now he has changed still more but the world
about him reflects himself back still murdering for a lark.
I think there is also a pertinent reason Spike tells Buffy about
his past outrages: if this thing which is controlling him is making
him do things totally against his will and every desire, it possibly
won't be long, he believes, until it will make him do deeds which
are far worse than what he has already done, which echo - or perhaps
surpass - the worst deeds he ever did in his unlife. He doesn't
want to do those things, not anymore. He certainly doesn't want
moral responsibility for them which he insists on taking even
though Buffy keeps on wanting to take it away from him.
It is the pain of the deeds done with the soul that burden him
the most. Just as, when he speared Ronnie in BY, his first spilling
of blood that we know of or that he is conscious of with the soul,
it causes an utter psychic collapse.
Whatever he did in the past -- and there is likely to be no consensus
about it -- he doesn't want to do that in the NOW.
And he doesn't want forces working through him to use him to do
that or worse either. Because he finds it horrible.
And that is why he wants Buffy to dust him. Before the boulder
rolls down the hill to the bottom of the abyss and he starts killing
all over -- this time, without any intent in the matter. That
is a horrible existential state to be in for a being who has defied
gravity and attained soulfulness.
[> [> [> Yes, yes,
yes! -- Pilgrim, 13:24:27 12/04/02 Wed
Wow, that was well-said.
And may I add how much I've enjoyed reading all the posts during
the last two weeks.
[> [> [> Extremely
well said. -- Sophist, 13:40:50 12/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> Agree. Very
well said. -- shadowkat, 13:59:20 12/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> I agree also...excellent
post. -- Angela, 16:16:16 12/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> Even I would
agree with what you said about Spike (is that a first?) --
Dochawk, 16:53:04 12/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Thanks
muchly for the positive remarks everyone -- alcibiades, 12:11:23
12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Never saw season
2 until last week. (future spoiler) -- Deb, 12:27:47 12/04/02
Wed
And my take of Spike then is probably different than those who
saw the early Spike first. Which brings a wandering to mind.
Angelus vamped Dru after she took her vows. Is there some sort
of redemptive quality to Dru, being a bride of God? We know she's
coming back. Which side will she place herself? The interesting
thing about Spike and Dru is what the Judge called their stench
of humanity, and Spike made no apologies for it. Angelus vamped
Dru, and he was cursed with a soul. Dru vamped Spike and he sought
out a soul. Humm. Just a thought.
Now I understand the significance of the rocket launcher!)
One more bit: Some of you obviously view Buffy from the entertainment
stand-point, which is how it really should be viewed. My field
is mass communication, and I am constantly dealing with research
that says that TV has no direct affect on viewers' violent behavior
and other behaviors unless they have a predisposition to violence
or whatever, like depression. Well I know women who watch TV to
attempt to find answers to their problems (Uses and Gratifications
Theory) and these are the women who would be traumatized. No one
quite understands the effect of rape, and other life events that
can lead to post traumatic stress disorder, unless they have been
through it. Small cues bring back the events and these women actually
relive the experience over and over and over. I just wish that
people who work in television understood that there is no definitive
research that says its the viewers fault if they experience psychic
pain from watching a program. I'm not accussing Buffy of disregarding
this, but it is so cutting edge, edgy, edgy, edgy, that I just
hope that the writers know that research is now leaning toward
the fact that TV does have a direct influence. The first generation
of people who have watched TV their whole life are just now becoming
senior citizens. Now is the time to do the research. The attempted
rape scene last season was a mistake, a cheap mistake, and to
allude back to it is a slap in the face for many women. The idea
that the writers were just reminding viewers how evil Spike really
is just makes it all that more pathetic. The only "healing"
reading, or at least insignificant reading, is that Spike was
lying to Buffy to inflame her into dusting him.
That's more than my 2 cents worth, and it is all I really have
to say on the subject.
[> [> [> Re: Never
saw season 2 until last week. (future spoiler) -- Dan The
Man, 13:57:29 12/04/02 Wed
A couple quick thoughts.
1. Are you saying that writers should avoid topics that are controversial
for fear of offending someone?
I think the fact that the writers are so interested in telling
their story in their own way is one of the things that makes Buffy
(and Angel) great. Death of a close relative is a deeply personal
and emotional topic does that mean they shouldn't have made The
Body(5.16)? I have read plenty of reviews from people that found
that episode so powerful emotionally that they are not going to
watch it ever again, however; Buffy would be a lesser quality
show if it was unwilling to tackle that subject.
2. I still don't understand how a vampire (Spike) who desired
the reputation of the biggest bad in the land, was sired by and
in love with an insane vampire (Dru) who gets off on torturing
people and demons, and was also mentored by a vampire (Angel)
who liked to torture his victims to such extremes that The Master
referred to him as the most vicious creature he had ever met,
is considered to be above rape. (Remember(Lie to Me (2.7)), Angel
considers his worst act to be what he did to a human Dru. He (Angel)
became obsessed with this beautiful, pure, *chaste* girl and one
by one killed her family to drive her insane, then only after
she had become a nun, he sired her. To me that act parallels the
damage of rape, Angel drove Dru insane, took away everything that
mattered to her(her entire family and friends), then after she
showed incredible resolve and became a nun despite all her hardships,
he turned her into a demon, made her into the embodiment of everything
that she fought against, its hard to come up with a more through
violation to me.)
I am not saying that Spike raped at every possible opportunity
but I would find it hard to believe that in over one hundred years
of plundering and killing that the vampire who so strongly associated
sex and violence, did not try it at least a few times.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Never saw season 2 until last week. (future spoiler) -- Miss
Edith, 16:58:08 12/04/02 Wed
It's not about Spike being above rape. It's just that IMO it doesn't
logically follow that just because Spike is a brutal killer he
wouldn't have thought twice about rape. In real life rapists are
segregated in prisons. People who kill and torture other criminals
for money see themselves as better than rapists and pedophilles
who are considered the lowest of the low. Rape and child abuse
does not appeal to the nastiest criminals if it's not in their
basic psychology. From what I understand rape is a fairly specialised
crime.
I think what is causing anger amongst certain fans at the moment
is the implication that Spike developed a taste for rape. Fool
For Love portrays Spike as a brawler, impatient to cut to the
chase. I would therefore assume he lacked the patience or the
personality to gloat over long drawn out drainings of his victims.
He even got bored watching Angel's torture in In The Dark and
he had a lot of reasons to hate Angel at that point. Yet Spike
didn't have the patience to see the torture through "And
suddenly I'm so painfully bored".
Killing slayers was the ultimate prize to Spike yet he never raped
them. The Chinese slayer was overpowered in a fair fight and then
tosed aside, with Spike choosing to have sex with Dru. With the
New York slayer it was her coat he was interested in taking.
We never saw him force his girlfriends. He even found it necessery
to try and seduce Harmony. When Harmony says in The Harsh Light
of Day she is bored and wants to go to a party he complies, rather
than roughly taking her agaisnt the wall which we are now supposed
to believe was amongst his past experiences.
My problem is lazy writing if ME are simply trying to contrast
the new and improved Spike with the previous version. Also the
numerous interviews with Joss insisting Spike's story was nothing
like Angel getting his soul, and Spike would be very different.
Seeing Spike broad over rememberence of torture and rape does
leave me feeling slightly cynical.
[> [> [> [> Angel's
worst act -- Tess, 20:38:41 12/04/02 Wed
""Angel considers his worst act to be what he did to
a human Dru. He (Angel) became obsessed with this beautiful, pure,
*chaste* girl and one by one killed her family to drive her insane,
then only after she had become a nun, he sired her.""
Is this actually Angel's worst act? What about what he did to
Holtz? Vamped his daughter and left her for Holtz to kill. Killed
his baby son. Raped and murdered his wife. And than left Holtz
to live with the memory. Angelus and Darla's game with Holtz ruined
the human that Holtz was just as completely as they ruined the
human Dru was. Only they left him alive to feel the torment of
it until the day he died. Isn't letting Dru be evil and insane
almost kinder than letting her be good and insane?
So which is truly Angel's worse act?
And please don't in any way construe by this post that I think
Holtz was justified in stealing Conner because I don't think the
man suffered enough considering what he did to that innocent baby
just to get back at Angel.
[> [> [> [> Talking
to residents of US here folks. -- Deb, 06:48:51 12/05/02
Thu
1. No. I'm not against the First Amendment and free speech, but
as a teacher of undergrad. "journalists" and "publicity"
students, it is quite irksome to hear them bellowing that they
have rights, rights, rights and these rights justify anything
they do. They don't seem to understand that these rights are qualified
by the fact that whatever they say or do they cannot infringe
upon the rights of others. Why do people not realize that the
more freedom and "rights" accorded a person, the greater
responsibility they have in insuring that they don't abuse the
rights of others? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute
freedom, without responsibiilty to society, creates spoiled brats
at the minimum and monsters at worst. So, no, Buffy should retain
its edginess, but the edgier the show, the more responsibility
to reflect upon how a message is presented in terms of responsibility
to society. The use of rape as metaphor was too edgy, or perhaps
I should say the presentation of that metaphor was too edgy and
I think they were concerned by this also because of the ambiguous
situation Spike was involved in at season's end. They had to have
a way to "fix" it.
Regarding your second point. I don't agree.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Talking to residents of US here folks. -- Malandanza,
07:56:18 12/05/02 Thu
"The use of rape as metaphor was too edgy, or perhaps
I should say the presentation of that metaphor was too edgy and
I think they were concerned by this also because of the ambiguous
situation Spike was involved in at season's end. They had to have
a way to "fix" it."
I think the vampire feeding is often used as a metaphor for rape
-- in particular, I'm reminded of one of the first images we saw
of vampires was Luke knocking Buffy around in WttHM, tossing her
into a coffin, then hopping in on top of her. The rape attempt
in SR moved beyond a metaphorical representation of rape to a
literal representation.
The trouble I have with the current presentation is not that ME
is taking on a controversial topic, but that they are not saying
forcefully enough that the attempted rape was entirely Spike's
fault -- there is an element of blame the victim. Now, it's Spike
who's treating the rape attempt cavalierly, not Buffy. He uses
words like "skittish" to describe her reaction and still
complains that Buffy used him (by having sex with him after he
followed her around begging her and coercing her into having sex
with him) when nothing Buffy did to him can hold a candle to his
entering her house uninvited, intruding on her in her bathroom
and attacking her when she told him to leave. Granted, Buffy realizes
that the souled entity is a different person from the soulless
vampire -- but, for the casual observer, the wrong message is
being sent every time Buffy talks softly to him or wipes the blood
from his face. What I'd like to hear from Buffy is a "Sinners
in the Hands of an Angry God" style speech, where she lets
Spike know just how much he revolts her, but that she's going
to try to save him anyway. Since they raised the rape issue, I
don't want to see it trivialized, excused, mitigated or forgotten.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Talking to residents of US here folks. -- Miss
Edith, 20:56:42 12/05/02 Thu
The writers are aware of the fans opinions. In a controversial
interview David Fury was asked of his opinion on the rape and
whether it was all Spike's fault or "the bitch got what she
deserved". That quote was taken from the Bronze as a good
number of posters were pitying Spike and seeing his point of view
more easily than the emotionally closed off Buffy's. David Fury
said in reply to the question of who was at fault "Can't
both be true". The interview was later edited with an apology
from the interviewer but it does tell us something about the writers
thoughts on the attempted rape.
Spike is my favourite character but I would have thought the writers
would have wanted to make a real effort to avoid blaming the victim
as you say. Spike's actions in the bathroom scene were his own
choice. Buffy does IMO need to take responsibility for her emotional
abuse of Spike such as calling him an evil thing when he tries
to tell her he loves her. But the attempted rape had nothing to
do with Buffy's choices and everything to do with Spike's. I wish
the writers would address that in a respectful way.
I'm stil, not sure why the writers have sudenly suggested Buffy
got involved with Spike because she needed to be hurt. In season
6 Buffy was drawn to Spike because he made her feel alive. She
was struggling with self-loathing and her relationship with Spike
did increase that but I still wouldn't have said that was presented
as the primary motive for the relationship. In episodes like As
You Were Spike is used for emotional validation "tell me
you love me" and she constantly used him for sex so she could
make herself feel. I don't see how Spike hurting her and her needing
that was ever a factor in the relationship but anyway I'm getting
pretty O/T at this point.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Talking to residents of US here folks. -- Dan The Man,
11:45:16 12/05/02 Thu
Whoa There. You are twisting my words.
All that I am saying is that if someone makes a creative work
that they should be able choose what goes into that creative work.
Also, as great and wonderful as Buffy is every single event on
the show is not a universal moment where every single angle of
a situation is explored. The famous attempted rape scene and its
aftermath do not cover every aspect of rape, they don't even try.
Buffy is a show where all the characters are constantly growing,
evolving, and changing. The show is about their individual and
combined journeys and while the paths they take echo archetypes
and have symbolic meaning that does not mean that everything they
do can be dealt with as actually happening in the real world.
Also, I think it is absurd to deal with the attempted rape as
though it is the same thing that happens to women and, in rare
cases, to men in the real world. If you deal with other arcs in
that way, it causes problems as well. For example the Buffy-Angel
arc.
A girl meets an older guy. They find each other attractive. Girl
finds out guy used to be a vicious killer, but isn't anymore.
Girl still wants guy. Girl finds out guy is even for sadistic
than she thought but she still wants him. Girl gives guy her virginity.
Guy goes back to being a vicious killer. He tortures the girl's
father figure, kills her father figure's love interest, and also
kills one of the girl's friends while harming several others.
Guy attempts to kill girl several times. Girl stops guy and at
the same time, guy regrets what he has done. Guy goes away to
be punished and likely never to return. Then less than six months
later, he does return and the girl embraces and forgives him.
Girl actually goes so far as to hide him and later to defend him
to others that he hurt.
I personally don't view that summary of the events as showing
Buffy in a very strong light, however; I think the Buffy-Angel
arc is one of the strongest and most powerful arcs on several
levels. It shows off the strength and wonder that is Buffy Summers
but if you listen to the above summary of events, she comes off
badly.
If you write or create a long enough work (204 episodes of Buffy(131)
and Angel(73) combined have been aired in the US) then you have
provided enough material for people to say many things about your
work that were unintended. Joseph Conrad (author of Heart of Darkness)
once said something to the effect that half of the book is in
his hands as the writer and the other half is in the hands of
the reader(I'm sorry I can't find the quote if someone can, please
post it). Because I agree with Conrad's statement, I don't think
the writer or writers should have to be concerned that it is possible
for their story to be taken to mean something that they did not
intend. Every individual interprets art differently, if I wanted
to watch a show that has clean clear cut moral message that was
impossible to misinterpret, then I would not be watching Buffy
or Angel.
Dan The Man
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I don't see how I twisted your words -- Deb, 13:50:51
12/05/02 Thu
I was just saying that I think that along with creative freedom
comes social responsibility. And we don't agree on the attempted
"rape" scene. I think there could have been more social
responsibility there. Buffy is a fantastic show, and like I said
it is edgy, like walking a razor's edge, so one must take a greater
degree of responsibility in the creative process. Consider the
audience (the one targeted and the other "surprise"
markets). Now this might slap some creators take on self expression
in the face, but television is quite different than a museum,
or art showing or even theatre. It is something that has mass
exposure across cultures. And yes, one can simply change the channel,
but do you think that anyone who has watched this show would really
do that? No. They are going to complain about the problems they
perceive because they are involved in the process of creation
as the interpreter. You are viewing the creator/interpretor issue
from art history. I'm viewing it from mass communication. Sonya
Foss, Kenneth Burke, and others, and me, believe in multiple interpretations
and the responsibility of the creator to consider this when encoding
a message. Communication takes at least two people.
We are looking at this issue from two totally different povs.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I don't see how I twisted your words --
Dan The Man, 17:30:29 12/05/02 Thu
I understand what you are saying from a communication standpoint,
however; I view the creator's social responsibility differently.
How about this, we agree to disagree.
Dan The Man
[> [> [> Future spoilers
in above post??? -- Masq, 15:01:45 12/04/02 Wed
[> My own two cents
-- HonorH, 10:29:43 12/04/02 Wed
I think he was telling the truth. And I think he *can* tell the
truth now because of his soul.
Take Angel. We know that as Angelus, he practiced every perversion
one can imagine, plus quite a few one can't. His siring of Drusilla,
for instance, was monstrous. He admitted eagerly to raping Holtz's
wife. Yet we forgive him because who he is now is very different
from who he was then. Angelus' acts sicken us. Angel's penance
for those acts is what buys our identification and sympathy.
Now to Spike. With Drusilla by his side, urging him on to be just
like her beloved Daddy, who's to say there's anything he didn't
try at least once? I have no problem with that. I don't think
he made a practice out of it the way Angelus did--Spike is bored
easily and seems to prefer straight-out violence and killing--but
I'd imagine he tried everything.
As for what he said to Buffy, you've got to remember that the
best manipulations he's ever done were with selective truths.
He was trying to get her to kill him, so he played up the most
heinous, hot-button things he ever did in order to manipulate
her into killing him, as well as playing down his penance. Buffy
doesn't play along because she sees right through him and believes
he, like Angel, can become more than he ever thought himself capable
of becoming.
I think that we, as an audience, now have to give Spike the same
chance we gave Angel, no matter what he's done.
[> [> Why didn't she
count? -- shambleau, 12:54:05 12/04/02 Wed
"I haven't had a woman in weeks! Well, unless you count that
store clerk." - Spike in Lover's Walk
I agree with HonorH that he was telling the truth. I posted this
comment very late on the Spike topic, so the thread was archived
before anybody responded, but it hasn't been adequately discussed,
as far as I'm aware, so I'm bringing it up again.
Here's the scene: Spike has captured Willow and Xander, who's
unconscious. Spike's held a broken liquor bottle to Willow's throat
and threatened to kill her in a very convincing, terrifying manner.
Causing her to cry, by the way. He then starts to complain about
Dru and the chaos demon. He runs his fingers through Willow's
hair while he says "She only did it to hurt me." He
goes on complaining, then puts his head on her shoulder. After
a moment, he sniffs (smelling either her hair or some perfume,
I guess) and turns his head toward Willow, and, to me, the moment
becomes very explicitly erotic. He says "Hmm, that smell.
Your neck" as he slowly moves his face through her hair and
then up to the back of her neck. Notice it's not toward the jugular.
He goes to game face and then comes the quote I listed above.
Willow freaks. She jumps away from him before he finishes talking,
saying "Whoa! Hold it! I'll do the spell, but there'll be
no 'having' of any kind."
The "having of any kind" remark indicates to me that
Willow isn't just afraid that Spike is about to vamp her. He's
already threatened to kill her horribly, but she is even more
alarmed after the "having" remark than before. And it's
because of the sexual connotation of the word and Spike's actions
just before saying it. If she'd just leaped away, without that
comment, you could interpret her action as only fear that Spike
was about to lose it and vamp her and nothing more. With the remark,
you get rape fear, IMO.
And now, to the title of my post. Why doesn't the store clerk
count as "having" someone? He killed her quickly, with
a bite to the neck. That's standard vampire practice, so what
was lacking for Spike? It makes the most sense if "having"
means rape, or slow torture, something more than just killing.
You could maybe come up with her being inadequate in Spike's eyes
for some reason, but in conjunction with the "having"
statement, not likely.
Comments?
[> [> [> Re: Why didn't
she count? -- Miss Edith, 17:16:06 12/04/02 Wed
Draining victims can be seen as a metaphour for rape and in season
3 rather than blatent realism the writers were concentrating on
subtle metaphours. Theerefore whilst I agree that in Lover's Walk
the scene with Willow was explicitly sexual I don't think Spike
was planning on literally raping her.
There is no doubt that Willow believed that rape was on Spike's
mind, playing with the metaphour. But in fact Spike is just after
dinner. He did not rape the shopkeeper. He fed from her. He tells
Willow as he sniffs her blood that he hasn't had a woman in weeks.
He then stops short rememebering and says "Well unless you
count that shopkeeper". I therefore interpreted him as talking
about not having fed for a while aside from a quick meal recently.
The writers could have easily shown Spike bringing the woman down
to feed and we could have faded out on her screaming. But in fact
Spike was interested in a quick feed only. To be honest I can't
think of many examples of Spike prolonging the kill.From his first
appearance in School Hard he is snapping necks quickly not bothering
to terrorise for a long period of time. Even with Ford annoying
him in Lie To Me he was only twisting his ear for five seconds
or so before complaining to Dru "I'm bored. Can I eat him
now love".
[> [> [> [> Re:
Why didn't she count? -- Sophie, 17:26:26 12/04/02 Wed
Hmmm...very interesting. I have always felt that the vampire bite
is dinner and sex all at once - or the vampire bite is metaphor
for sex. "To eat a woman" is a sexual slang term in
English (wonders about French...) and eating (food) is a satisfying
and pleasurable experience.
S
[> [> [> [> Re:
Why didn't she count? -- Miss Edith, 18:16:42 12/04/02
Wed
Duh that should have said implicitly sexual. Why is it I always
miss the typos when I first reread my post before sending it.
[> [> [> [> [>
*giggle* -- Sophie, 18:29:48 12/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> Re: Why didn't
she count? -- Tess, 21:05:57 12/04/02 Wed
I think Buffy summed it up best in CWDP when she said "What's
with you vamps? Sex, death, love & pain, it's all the same
to you."
But actually the sexual undertones of that Spike/Willow scene
really stood out. And the one between them right after Spike got
chipped (can't remember name of eposiode.) At one time, I'd wondered
if ME was going to build something between Spike and Willow. But
than again Spike and Anya really resonated with the sexual hijinx
too, so maybe its just the drool-worthiness that is James Marsters.
[> [> [> Check the
archives -- Sophist, 08:18:53 12/05/02 Thu
for my post of May 11, 2002 and the replies.
I have raised my hand a little too often in this class, so that's
all I'm going to say for now.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Check the archives -- shambleau, 15:44:38 12/05/02 Thu
I checked the archives, Sophist, and the one comment I found by
you about Lover's Walk in that extremely interesting OOC discussion
was that the scene was ambiguous. I agree that there are a couple
of ways to read it, but since they have decided to go with rape
and torture as behaviors that Spike had indulged in previously,
I think the scene moves out of the ambiguous category and becomes
an early indicator. It's the one scene that can be read to support
what Spike says in NLM and since Spike's statement is now canon,
it should be read that way. Unless you believe it was a lie, of
course.
Whether they should have taken Spike in that direction or not
in the first place is something that people are always going to
disagree on. Whether, having decided to do so, ME should have
placed some scene that more clearly established that side of Spike's
character earlier is debatable too, although I think it would
have helped. I've always wondered what Spike would have said about
the little girl in the coal bin if he hadn't been interrupted,
for example.
On the other hand, more hints before SR would have cleared that
up at the cost of telegraphing what was coming, something surprise-loving
ME hates. As it is, Shadowcat, and probably others, saw where
things were heading even without direct scenes showing what Spike
was capable of. And of course, there's the ad hoc nature of the
choice, so it didn't give them much time to go back and add a
scene if they wanted to. Which doesn't invalidate the choice for
me at all, but it does make it harder to make everything fit as
smoothly as possible.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Check the archives -- Sophist, 17:32:38 12/05/02
Thu
Just to clarify:
I agree that the Lover's Walk scene can be read as you suggest.
It can also be read other ways. My essential point, which I still
hold, is that two ambiguous sentences in a story arc 4 seasons
long don't suffice to establish a character trait.
Let me give an example. The B/S sex scene in Smashed was highly
controversial, but I never heard anyone say that the events of
the previous seasons failed to develop the storyline appropriately
for that stunning (to me) development. Though I didn't expect
that scene or SR in advance, when I looked back I could see ample
support for one and 2 ambiguous sentences for the other. That,
I hope, segues into my May 11 post.
BTW, since you found that May 11 thread interesting, I highly
recommend the thread on May 8 involving shadowkat's post which
I mentioned in response to Valheru's post in this thread. Same
basic topic, but with a different slant.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Check the archives -- shambleau, 19:38:10
12/05/02 Thu
Thanks, I'll check that thread out, too. Although I could probably
find something I'd like to read on every page of the archives,
and I'll end up trapped for all eternity.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> LOL. Not only that, you'll find that -- Sophist,
20:24:24 12/05/02 Thu
the walls move around and it'll seem like you're in a maze.
Rah is the one who clued me in to the value of the archives. Of
course, it took me longer than usual to realize the wisdom of
her advice, but I now have the enthusiasm of the convert.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Check the archives -- Miss Edith, 20:26:14 12/05/02
Thu
You make the point that you wonder what Spike may have said about
the little girl in the coal bin. I would assume that Spike ripped
out the little girls throat and killed her in Crush. I doubt rape
was involved as he was telling the tale to Dawn. As they were
starting to bond I doubt he would have chosen to tell her tales
of him abusing kids if that was the case. Dawn saw Spike's vampire
past as glamorous and frightening but I would think even Spike
would know there is nothing sexy about pedophilla. Therefore I
would say the scene in Crush backs up the original presentation
of Spike as a brutal killer but not someone with the patience
to rape and torture. JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Check the archives -- shambleau, 09:34:43
12/06/02 Fri
Well, it supports the thesis in that even if he had raped the
girl, he wouldn't have told Dawn at that time. But if he knew
that telling people about his previous rapes wasn't likely to
impress them, then the fact that he'd never mentioned raping and
torture before NLM actually fits my position, too.
This brings up a point I don't think has been discussed much,
if ever. After Harsh Light Of Day, all Spike COULD do was tell
people what he'd done. When the charge is made that outside of
the somewhat ambiguous scene in Lover's Walk, we've seen a vast
number of episodes without any evidence of a tendency toward torture
and rape, we have to remember, he was chipped for all of them
but one. Two, if you count the brief scene when he was tasered.
As people have noted, ME uses a spiral form of development on
Buffy and Angel. Character traits that seemed minor are revisited
and deepened over the seasons. Willow's ignoring Giles's warnings
about magic and sneaking looks at forbidden magic books becomes
openly challenging and arguing with him in Pangs and Something
Blue. Then, it becomes threatening him in Flooded. Angelus's torture
of Buffy and Dru in the second season is psychological. On AtS,
you see signs of Angelus as sexual torturer added. Check out his
biting of the gypsy girl's leg, and his actions with the tv star
in the first season. By the third, you've got the strong implication
that he raped Holtz's wife. (As a side note, even before SR, ME
was saying "It ain't just a metaphor, folks. Vampires rape.
Angelus raped).
Notice that all those developments on Angel were flashbacks, used
to darken the main character, a character that we already knew
was good, or at least trying to be. The scenes make his situation
more complex.
Now look at the Spike situation from ME's point of view. He's
not the main character, so flashbacks are going to be limited.
He's already evil, so you add complexity by showing his good side.
In their one opportunity, FFL, they could have added a scene suggesting
that he raped Cecily in revenge. But then, if he was capable of
doing that to someone he loved who'd humiliated him, why wouldn't
he kill Buffy? The ending would have become too problematic, especially
since they were headed toward Spuffy by then.
I suppose they could have thrown in a flashback somewhere else,
but where? In the fourth season, ME is softening Spike up, making
him pathetic and somewhat clownish, which works well in his overall
character arc as he stumbles toward the light. But it doesn't
fit with rape or torture flashbacks. After Intervention, such
scenes would be completely jarring. There's the window from Out
Of My Mind to Intervention, when Spike was repellent as hell,
with the stalking and all, but if you make him even more repellent,
with an actual flashback to something horrific like that, how
do you get people to buy his change in Intervention?
I know that the attempted rape was decided on late in Season 6,
but even if ME had had earlier designs in that direction, I don't
know where they would have put an establishing scene. You're left
with him telling people that he's a rapist. And why would he do
that?
So, while I agree that it's a weakness that Spike hadn't been
shown more often in that light, I see it as a technical problem
rooted in Spike's chippedness and the direction of his character
arc. ME plots far enough ahead to have put in some establishing
character scenes in most cases, but they were severely limited
with Spike. That being the case, and with other arguments for
Spike being evil enough to do this in any case having weight on
their own, ME should be cut some slack on this.
[> John Lennon had it wrong
-- Sara, 15:22:06 12/04/02 Wed
Maybe love isn't all you need. I was watching a season six repeat
the other night and had a minor epiphany about Spike. It was during
one of those love enobling him scenes, and I really struggled
with how he could be capable of such deep and heartfelt love while
he was still a monster. Then I remembered a famous cliche about
how the Nazis loved their children. Hmmm... I thought, maybe it
isn't love that impacts who we are as people, maybe we just want
to add more profundity to the emotion because it's so strongly
felt.
I was thinking of starting a new thread on this topic, but when
I read this discussion about whether Spike lied or not, the idea
just seemed to belong here. I'd love to believe Spike was lying
because I would love to believe that the depth of such love could
not coexist with evil. Unfortunately, I think the two aspects
are completely irrelevant to each other. Love may inspire a person
to behave in a more moral, or heroic light to match their perceptions
of what the object of their love would find worthy, loveable,
admirable. This is the behavior we see in Spike. But that really
doesn't change the essential person, because it's actually calculated
actions based on an predicted response, not a real change in values.
I don't think he was lying, and it does make me feel kind of stupid
that I became attached to a character capable of such evil. But
I do think it's easier to love monsters than we like to admit,
and it isn't hard for monsters to love.
- Sara, who thinks she might have won a record for size of run-on
sentences up there and remains a cautionary tale of when english
majors go wrong...
[> Doors of Perception -
Spoilers up to NLM, season ender speculation, Hellraiser II
-- fresne, 17:14:28 12/04/02 Wed
Speaking of seeing and perception, I've had some unravely plot
threads in my mind for a bit. Since, they would seem to go here
(in a way this a response to all the beautiful posts on this thread.
Once again I cannot express just how much I enjoy this community);
this thread is where my fraying thought glimmerings will find
home.
"If the doors of perception were cleansed, every thing would
appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up,
till he sees all things thro' narow chinks of his cavern."
William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Earnest William beseeching Cecily to "see him." It seems
William the Bloody likes the attention. Prodigal Willow's fear
of rejection. A fear that caused a fissioning of perception. To
the point that Willow lay on the same couch that the Scobbies
sat upon. Unseeing. Unknowing that their friend(s) was/were right
there.
Then there's the Big Bad. The sheer vulnerability of our heroes.
Evil stands beside them unseen, unless it chooses. Close as a
beloved.
The Big Bad is playing with who sees it and how and when. Deceiving.
Revealing.
ME, powerful BB that they are, playing with us. Drives us mad
as we squirm to know what is real and what is illusion. Silly
viewer. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Ah, JW,
causing hunger where he most satisfies.
The question of perspective character made clear. We see what
Spike sees and hears. What Andrew sees. What Willow sees. That
moment of revelation as Jonathan saw Warren just as his life's
thread was cut. Seeing what was there all along.
Jonathan, who had but lately come to a new perspective on High
School. He was filled with a desire to connect, to think well
of even those who were not thinking of him. High School, the place
where he felt so alone, so unperceived that he tried to kill himself.
Where Buffy saved him in that tower high above the earth. Told
him that we're all hurting. Crying out unheard. Except when we're
not. Although, with Band Candy we stray into Aldus Huxley, so
I'll close that door.
Warren insubstantial like Obi Wan, Flooded - "What are you,
some kind of Jedi Master." Like Patrick Swazye in Ghost.
Like the fear demon, only the creature the First raises isn't
two inches tall. Perspective. Perception.
It can be no coincidence that the First's servants, the Harbingers,
have no eyes. Like Hellraiser's Cenobites, their perceptions have
been altered.
Andrew may not like Pinhead, but the uber vampire's door, as OnM
pointed out, emerged from a doorway not unlike that other hellish
box to other realms of experience.
That final image of Spike on his wheel, his circle, his cross.
It was so incredibly Hellraiser. To quote Pinhead, what are Cenobites,
"But demons to some and angels to others." I can't help
but think of the end of Hellraiser II. Pinhead, reminded of his
humanity, choosing life. Layers of otherness pealed away to reveal
the man beneath. As the other Cenobites became human, revealing
the vulnerability that hid under leather and the accessories of
pain. Fierce demons become men, a pregnant woman, an adolescent
boy.
How we perceive ourselves. How others perceive us, depending on
the self that we wear when we are with them. If they have the
eyes to see us at all.
Andrew attempting to wear a replica of Spike's castoff skin, but
like R.J.'s coat, one size does not fit all. Poor Andrew. Poor
Spike. They don't even know who they are. Good now. Protected
by a powerful evil. My friends don't even know the evil that I've
done. You never knew the real me. The Real Me.
Will the real me please stand up, because this is the really real
world. Andrew. You know, Tucker's brother. William the bloody
awful poet. William the just plain bloody.
As ponygirl pointed out, childish Andrew is tied up in Dawn's
girlish room. Spike in Buffy's. Playacting interrogation versus
emotional connection. Drinking water in a glass versus suckling
pig's blood.
I've been thinking about transmutation recently. Saints Lives
in which martyrs are tortured and bleed milk. Mother's milk
is red today. Water into wine The life giving water of the
Nile turned to blood. For thousands of years when the Nile turned
to blood (i.e., when there was an exceptionally high flood which
washed away the red clay, destroyed crops, caused pestilence,
etc.), it was a sign that king was not doing his job. Simple really.
Make the Nile rise just the right amount. Make the sun rise in
the morning. Transform the darkness into day.
Right now our characters wander about with darkness where their
hearts should be. Unconnected. Fearing the magic inside. Fearing
that they won't be chosen.
With good reason. The living room is damaged. The windows and
doors are easily pierced. The very walls crumble and give way.
The house as a vulnerable shell. Like the body that holds the
heart. Repairable, changeable. Like Sunnydale High. Same evil.
Different face.
Principal Wood walking with purpose down those mazing changing
halls. Through the doors barred to students, to apprentices. No
right. No left. No lost wandering. No maddening. The theories
are rampant. Here is my own. Wood does not serve the Big Bad or
the Watchers or the PTB or deepening light or shimmering darkness.
Robin of the Wood. Roots growing into the earth. The earth that
waits. Fought over. Bled into. Mortal things die. It's what they
do. Course they were born, so I suppose that it equals out in
the wash. The earth, no one thing important, because everything
is important. Worms and falling sparrows. Robins.
I think Principal Wood serves something big and old and slow and
young and fast and dying and born. Fall into winter. Winter into
spring. Spring into Summers. The sort of thing the Watchers thought
themselves to be.
The Watchers. My God, they blew up the Watchers. Repressing a
South Park moment, I move on. Watchers. People who see. Perceive.
Record in journals. A Council of people who watch and record and
know. Council. Councilors.
Burned away like so much dead wood. Couldn't protect those girls.
Those women to be. A council with no function. They haven't counciled
the Slayer in ever so long.
All that money and none for a little therapy for Buffy. The Slayer,
like the King forced to make do with wise fools for council. Perhaps
it's better that way.
And Giles. Resounding in his absence. An aching void in the text.
A place where silence speaks. I don't think that he's dead because
he got no final speech. No poignant fall. If he died, I'm inclined
to think it would have happened on screen.
When a Scooby falls, if no one is there to see it, did it happen?
If a tree falls alone in the woods and there is no one there to
hear it, did it happen? I've never understood that question. There
is always someone to hear it. In the woods, filled with worms
and robins and roots.
Tangentially, and to give me a place to wrap things up, here's
my season end speculation. Okay really it's too soon. April is
too soon. No matter.
The series will resolve into a dew. With everything coming together,
even to the pig that was hyena eaten escaping sacrifice, there's
room for the Hellmouth and the Key to play. A key. A door. Good
or evil or just okay. I'm reminded of that section in Good
Omens where Gaiman describes humanity as that point between
the falling Angel and the reaching Ape. Where egregious acts of
kindness and cruelty are made. Sometimes by the same person. Where
is seems the Anti-Christ is more Tom Sawyer than Damien.
More people will die. The dead will, for once, finally, stay dead.
The mad will grow sane. Everyone will get a little older. A little
wiser. The destroyed will be made whole. The lion will, well,
pretty much still eat the lamb, when the shepherd doesn't wack
him upside the head with a sling shot rock. Or, you know, unless
there is a circus involved. Anyway, the world will go on.
The Watcher's Council will be rebuilt. Only this time with the
Slayer, Buffy the Guidance Councilor, at its heart. Buffy has
already begun the transition into teacher. The Slayer. Slayers.
One. Many. Perception, the moment that you understand what you
know.
In last couple of episodes, for the first time I began to feel
that Buffy was getting to the root of her patterns. Not the result,
"I came back wrong." but the why she feels wrong. That
last year with Spike, okay, sigh, I always brace myself for conniptions
(you know I almost wrote corrumptions, but that's quite the opposite),
she had a role in what happened. All of it. Not just the focal
flashing neon Red that we saw. Perceive through each our individual
lenses. The sixth season. The fifth and the fourth and all the
way to zero. It's all connected. The good. The bad. The ugly.
The beautiful.
That what she had with Spike was adult and complex and messy and
messed up. That her fairy tale romance with Angel was just a bit
too faerytale. What with the transformation and the killing and
the loss of innocence and all. Like the tale of the man who kept
his soul in an acorn, it was bound to end badly.
Well, if any story can be said to have an end. We enter at a natural
beginning point. We leave at a natural ending point. The story
itself stretches back before the Word. "Let there be light."
Before the Bang. Uncontrolled expansion of energy. Power. The
story spins beyond the range that we can see from our cavern.
The fourth wall turns to have been a door after all.
[> [> Lovely as always,
fresne -- ponygirl, 07:22:51 12/05/02 Thu
No analysis is ever complete for me (but then no analysis is ever
complete) until you put your wonderful poetic spin on it. Thanks!
[> [> A rich meal...but
great post. -- Angela, 16:57:59 12/05/02 Thu
Thanks for the Hellraiser connection. I hadn't seen the movie
so was a little in the woods on the connection. Agree on Wood.
But wouldn't he be the choas factor? The refs he makes are disconcerting.
Unless, of course, it's a reference to the film critic; but, this
Joss, it could be both. King as in Wasteland? And I got lost again
on the fourth wall though...hope there's a breadcrumb trail somewhere.
Great post. Again.
[> [> Great summary of
metaphors -- shadowkat, 09:02:24 12/06/02 Fri
I wrote this long and rambling post in reponse to the points I've
loved most in your post but as luck would have it the evil internet
server ate it. It is gone ...forever lost in internet hell.
So I'll just say I agree with your points. I think you're right
it's time for the Watchers to end - were they ever that useful
to begin with? Somehow I can't see Buffy missing them.
Regarding Andrew? It's odd to me that people keep comparing him
to Spike and miss the more interesting if less obvious comparison
- Xander. If the uber vamp is Spike's worst nightmare. Than Andrew
may be Xander's. After all who was it that grabbed Spike's jacket
in SR? Xander. And who was it that tried on Lance's jacket which
didn't quite fit? Xander. I think each character is facing who
they are starting with the monster they fear inside first.
Willow = Gnarl who lives alone in a cave and kills starting with
the skin.
Spike = the mindless ubervamp who kills for the first without
remorse and with every increasing pain and torture
disconnected and beneath everyone.
Anya = the crimshaw spider that rips out men's hearts
and is a nobody outside of the vengeance demon's call
Xander = the dimwitted and weakwilled nerd who spends all his
time emulating characters seen in videos and wearing ill-fitting
jackets and being the side-kick or the buttmonkey
We have yet to see who Buffy, Dawn and Giles monsters are.
Love the Cenobite imagery - haven't seen Hellraiser (too gory
for me and the images I've read about have scared me off, although
your post may make me check it out, bad fresne ;-) ) - I like
the idea of the torturing dark angels being stripped of their
layers and turned into vulnerable humans.
I also love this comment:"The series will resolve into a
dew. With everything coming together, even to the pig that was
hyena eaten escaping sacrifice, there's room for the Hellmouth
and the Key to play. A key. A door. Good or evil or just okay.
I'm reminded of that section in Good Omens where Gaiman describes
humanity as that point between the falling Angel and the reaching
Ape. Where egregious acts of kindness and cruelty are made. Sometimes
by the same person. Where is seems the Anti-Christ is more Tom
Sawyer than Damien."
I think this is true. I also agree that Buffy is moving from slayer
to teacher. I think buffy is slowly moving from slayer of demons
to the metaphorical role it represents - councilor and teacher.
just as Spike is slowly moving from vampire or killer of slayers
and humans - to defense instructor and trainer. And Xander is
moving from repairman and subcontractor to constructor/builder
of dreams. And Anya...is slowly learning that sometimes it's good
to be aud (odd)...
Hopefully voy won't eat this post too. The last one was better
i think. ;-)
[> Feeding, Rape, and the
purpose of Spike (Very Long and Spoilerish) -- Valheru, 23:24:43
12/04/02 Wed
One of the problems I have with the basement scene is how it correlates
to "Seeing Red," or more importantly, how "SR"
reflects the evolving metaphorical sieve that is Spike.
As I posted in the previous Spike thread, "rape," for
the most part, has a different meaning to vampires than it does
to humans. The ultimate sexual experience for vampires is feeding.
It is, after all, how vampires reproduce. Sometimes (as in the
cases of William the Bloody and Liam of Galway), it is "consensual
siring," where the person being sired is more or less on-board
with it. Othertimes, it isn't consensual, which is how the majority
of sirings we've seen are done. So really, for the most part,
vampires "mate" via "rape." And since vampires
are evil, the rape of non-consensual siring is a good thing to
them.
The general, run-of-the-mill vampires engage in this raping like
animals. They see a victim, pounce upon it, and they start sucking.
Now sometimes, if one of these vampires likes the victim, they
will sire it. The lucky sperm gets into the egg, if you will.
But for the most part, vampires attack purely for the food.
Then you have your major vampires--Angelus, Darla, Drusilla, Spike.
These guys are the artists, the ones who "rape" for
the distorted pleasure as much as for the need to feed. For all
intents, they are the "sexual deviants." Angelus is
by far the worst because, unlike other vampires, he has taken
his sadism to such an elevated level that, after a while, he no
longer got the satisfaction from it. Spike, on the other hand,
while not nearly as deviant as Angelus, was still able to get
pleasure from his acts. In other words, while Angelus transcended
the usual revelries of vampiric "rape," Spike never
did.
So this brings up the question: If feeding is like raping, to
vampires, then how do they view actual, sexual rape? It's my idea
that sexual intercourse impacts the vampires no more than kissing
does to humans. Kissing, to us, is a very intimate act, but not
the ultimate intimacy, and (for the purposes of this argument)
it serves as a heightened form of foreplay over, say, holding
hands. To vampires, that's what sex is. They can have sex, sure,
but the ultimate act is the feeding. So rape is akin to an unprovoked
kiss--when done, it stuns and shocks the victim, while also suggesting
a greater, more sexual act in the future. With the more sadistic
vampires like Angelus and Spike, sexual rape is added to the artistic
palette, used as a potent tool to terrify the minds of their victims
and weaken their will prior to feeding.
Of course, sexual rape has a far greater status in the human world.
After all, we tend to view sex as a higher form than, say, eating
an apple.
For the purposes of the show, this dichotomy has been used as
a vague metaphor. It isn't entirely direct, since the parallels
aren't direct, but it gets the message across without pissing
off the censors. Had Angelus, Spike, and Drusilla spoken plainly,
tossing off the "feeding as sex" metaphor for the "sex
as sex" truth, Season 2 would have turned out like a Cinemax
film. Joss ran with the sexual implications in vampiric lore and
used it to underscore normal human emotions and urges.
Angel is a good example of the mix'n'match style the show impliments.
Throughout the course of his [i]Buffy[/i] stay, his circumstances
as a character changed to fill numerous roles. The most obvious
of these changes is in "Innocence," when "Souled
Vampire" and "Devoted Lover" become "Evil
Vampire" and "One-Night Stand." Later, "One-Night
Stand" morphs into "Hateful Ex-Boyfriend Stalker"
without missing a beat. By the time Season 3 comes around and
Angel returns, he is "Souled Vampire" and "Devoted
Lover" all over again. Of course, things aren't nearly this
cut-and-dried, but you guys get the gist.
What made Angel particularly suited to all these changes was the
ability of Joss and the writers to switch the metaphors and realities
around to suit Buffy's story. Season 1-2 Angel was treated as
a focus for all the romantic metaphors, good and bad, that Joss
could throw at Buffy. Basically, Angel was Buffy's representation
of romance. Season 3 turned that approach somewhat. Angel grew
less representational, becoming more of "real boy."
The writers were able to delve even deeper into the Buffy/Angel
relationship-Buffy became Angel's representation of romance (though
not as strongly as he was to her). All this ended up giving us-the
audience-a feeling that we were as in-tune with the relationship
as the characters themselves, punctuated by the silent goodbye
in "Graduation Day" that spoke so many volumes.
So now we get to the Spike part (I digressed a little there, but
bear with me...). Spike's most important role in Seasons 3 (well,
in "Lover's Walk") and 4 was that of translator. He
was the one who, more than any of the other characters, was able
to see through all the metaphorical smoke-and-mirrors. Spike saw
the raw essence of all the relationships around him (although,
ironically enough, not his own) and, from time to time, used that
knowledge to speak directly to the characters' hearts. But, like
the Angel of Seasons 1-2, Spike was very much representational.
When Spike was hit with "Buffy love," he made a transition.
Like Angel, his character fleshed out. But unlike Angel, he was
still able to dance back and forth between being a real character
and being a metaphor (and I admit, I'm using "metaphor"
somewhat loosely here). As time went by, however, the growth of
Spike's character made it more and more difficult to straddle
that line.
Then came Season 6. Rather than try to force awkward metaphors
upon Spike, the writers did for him what they did for Angel: they
made Buffy the representational character. In doing so, Spike
became the "real" one in their relationship. But Spike
had to give up his "translator" ability, once again
being blind to the problems with his own love. Unfortunately,
Buffy never noticed this, so she still saw wisdom in words that
had none.
What does it all mean? Spike's ability to see the truth was the
same as the audience's. When he "translated," he spoke
for us. Sure, he was evil, but his knowledge wasn't. Over the
course of 4+ seasons, we grew accustomed to Spike speaking raw
truths.
Okay, so what does that have to do with "Seeing Red?"
Well, by that time, Spike no longer had clarity of vision. But
we, like Buffy, didn't quite realize it. We thought he was still
seeing through the metaphors, but he wasn't. And there was something
more. He had also lost his ability to cross the line between metaphor
and reality. He was, for all intents, the most "real"
character on the show. He was no longer capable of carrying the
metaphor that being a vampire entailed.
Spike couldn't sustain "feeding as sex" anymore. He
had been made so human at that point that, to him and to us, he
was no longer a vampire. The illusions had crumbled completely.
I think the rape scene in "Seeing Red" was purposefully
the most blatant event in the whole series. It was the point at
which the metaphors totally disappeared. And because it was done
by Spike, the character who was the most likely to know the directness
of the act, it was also the point at which the metaphors decided
to come back. Spike was so stricken by the attempt that he desired
a soul, in effect restoring his (and our) belief in his vampire
metaphor.
The basement scene of "Never Leave Me" is important
because it marks the return, in full health, of the metaphor function
that Spike served. He is making distinctions between the implied
sexuality of vampires and the explicit sexuality of humans. While
Spike might no longer adhere to the vampire view of it, his speech
signals that the show itself is once again aware of the difference.
There's only one problem with all of this...until there's a final
resolution, we won't know what happened in Spike's head. Since
he served as the fulcrum around which the show's ambiguity turned,
much of what he was and did is so distorted from that change that
it's difficult to understand it. Using Spike as a storytelling
device saved the other characters, but it did some pretty serious
damage to him. Which, incidentally, is probably why we're being
told so much about Spike's feelings, rather than being shown;
leaving it up to interpretation could lead to some incorrect assumptions.
Man, what I wouldn't give for Oz to come back and put everything
in perspective with a syllable and a smile. Two syllables and
he might be able to explain what happened to the chip.
[> [> wow, good post
-- Rahael, 04:59:14 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> And I can't see
any spoilers except for "Never Leave me" -- Rahael,
05:45:02 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Rufus! Read this!
Puts it better than I ever could! Thanks. -- Deb, 07:15:56
12/05/02 Thu
This is really great stuff. Thank you ever so much.
[> [> [> Thanks if
I didn't see my name I would have missed the post..:) -- Rufus,
02:44:33 12/06/02 Fri
I transcribed this from the Saturn Awards...
Joss: This year was about sort of entering the adult world
and ahh...really making a poor job of it, and you know bad and
rather turgid relationships were part of that. Also, you know
there was....because we've done so much metaphorically, there
came a point at which...well...let's do something literally just
to see what's different. I mean, especially with Willows relationship...eventually
if we didn't show some physicality, we'd have been just too Coy.
from the Saturn Awards (I forget the date)
I guess I was one person who wasn't that upset with the Attempted
Rape. It seems a logical progression specially since the whole
season saw the escalation of Buffy and Spikes relationship into
one that was based upon lots of sex. Spike seemed to be getting
what he wanted, except for the fact that the more sex there was
the more distant Buffy became. He had lost the emotional connection
they had shared in Afterlife and was frantically trying to keep
Buffy any way he could. In Seeing Red, Spike came to apologize
to Buffy for hurting her. Her lack of interest only made him angry
enough to strike out. He didn't go there to rape Buffy but that's
what almost happened. The thing that saved it from being a total
tragedy was the fact that Spike understood at that moment that
he had done something wrong and could feel enough regret and remourse
he could no longer stay the way he was, leading to the chip or
soul debate at the end of last season. The Attempted Rape was
wrong, but something good happened as a result of it, Spike transformed
himself into someone who could no longer be totally identified
with the act of rape as with a soul it was clear he would never
have crossed that line. He got what he wanted, he became what
he once was.
[> [> Very interesting.
Thanks -- Sophist, 09:07:04 12/05/02 Thu
You might want to check the archives on May 8, 2002, for a related
discussion. It's the thread which begins with a post by Anne titled
"Profound messages...". The specific posts I have in
mind start with a response by Shadowkat titled "My take for
what it's worth". The posts discuss the various metaphors
involved with vampire biting and the question of when metaphor
is replaced by reality.
[> [> [> Agree. And
thanks for this Valheru -- shadowkat, 10:26:46 12/05/02
Thu
Your post echoes in many ways my reservations and difficulties
with the writers decision to go this route.
I did predict it - the route seemed a fairly obvious almost predictable
result from the events shown in Wrecked through As You Were. (The
whole no means yes scenerio literally screamed "watch out
- we're going to do an attempted rape scene..." - I just
kept hoping they wouldn't go there for once, but tv/hollywood
writers being who they are? Always do. (sigh) ) And I dreaded
it, for numerous reasons.
The problem with dropping a metaphor which they blatantly did
in the Seeing Red episode for at least four characters is that
you jar your audience. If you check the ratings - you'll discover
SR had the weakest both in repeats and when it aired.
Metaphors dropped? Willow and Tara are seen really having sex
as opposed to just chaste kissing or magic as sex metaphor.
A bullet kills Tara and hits Buffy.
And the Attempted Rape scene which was more graphic than Tara's
death and the most graphic and disturbing scene I've seen on both
shows, which bugs me, because the murder and torture scenes were
certainly graphic but not filmed in nearly the same blatantly
disturbing way.
I think when a writer of a fantasy show decides to drop metaphors
- they are taking a major risk - both of losing their audience
and their story...I think the three episodes that followed were
the attempt to reclaim it which Valheru points out so well in
his/her post.
Good post Valheru. I agree with your points.
[> [> [> [> Imo,
SR was a fantastic ep. -- Rahael, 11:32:47 12/05/02 Thu
And I'm still puzzled by people equating disagreements with plot
decisions to bad writing. Cos you know the actual writer of the
ep didn't break the plot line.
Here's to you SdK!
And I seem to have read Valheru's post quite differently than
Deb and SK!!
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Imo, SR was a fantastic ep. -- shambleau, 12:02:07
12/05/02 Thu
Totally agree with Rahael. SR is in my top three for the season.
And I didn't see Valheru's post as an attack on it either. I'll
have to go back and reread.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Imo, SR was a fantastic ep. -- shadowkat, 13:08:43
12/05/02 Thu
Uhm...i never said bad writing. If I did? I didn't mean it to
intepreted that way. I had troubles with the plotting decision
for reasons I've stated in the archives. I still have problems
with that decision. That does NOT mean I thought the episode was
badly written - it wasn't. It was remarkably well written - one
of the best written episodes I've seen.
But the decision to drop metaphors is jarring. Whether that was
a good or bad or indifferent decision? I'm on the fence on and
am waiting to see how it plays out. I still wish they had chosen
something less blatant.
Valheru - didn't appear to dislike the episode, actually from
reading his/her post I felt he/she liked it and was defending
in part the decision to drop the metaphor - which I agreed with.
At the same time - I still believe that going in this direction
was not exactly the best idea - something I think the writers
have more or less admitted to at different points. OTOH - I agree
with what James Marsters has said in interviews - which is I'm
glad that Whedon went with his vision and did not change it to
fit what he saw fans clamoring for on the internet. Nor do I feel
in anyway that anything that happened in SR was out of character
- as I said I saw it coming ahead of time. It's just I wish they'd
done something else.
I hope that clarified what I meant - I know it sounds as if I'm
contradicting myself but I have contradictory feelings about that
episode.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Oh yeah -- Rahael, 13:29:02 12/05/02 Thu
I know you have contradictory feelings about it, cos you've always
said so!
But I just felt sorry for SdK, and the bad writing thing has been
said by other people. If it has had low ratings? *shrug*. I bet
OMWF had lower ratings than a lot of other tv show eps around.
As for the usage of metaphor, or not, I think that you could see
ME as doing that purposefully, and meaningfully. THe only problem
with Season 6 for me was a series of off eps in the middle. I
have no problem with any of the storylines and think there were
some magnificent eps at either end.
"I think when a writer of a fantasy show decides to drop
metaphors - they are taking a major risk - both of losing their
audience and their story...I think the three episodes that followed
were the attempt to reclaim it which Valheru points out so well
in his/her post."
If SR is the result of ME taking risks, I'm glad. It's when they
play it safe and unadventurous that I feel BtVS grows lazy. When
they take risks - like doing something really new such as the
Body, or OMWF or Normal Again, or the Dead Things, they really
pay attention to everything, and that delivers great eps.
It's just that there appears to be a consensus that Seeing Red
was some kind of mistake, and I just wanted to pipe up and say
that I liked it. Glad to see, Shambleau that you agree too!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Well on this much we do agree. ;-) -- shadowkat,
14:02:48 12/05/02 Thu
"If SR is the result of ME taking risks, I'm glad. It's when
they play it safe and unadventurous that I feel BtVS grows lazy.
When they take risks - like doing something really new such as
the Body, or OMWF or Normal Again, or the Dead Things, they really
pay attention to everything, and that delivers great eps. "
Ditto. It is why I don't watch much else outside of Btvs and Ats
at the moment. So few shows really take these risks. It is also
why Season 6 was my favorite Season.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Oh yeah -- ponygirl, 14:16:47 12/05/02
Thu
Space just finished showing s6 repeats here in Canada, and it's
been really interesting for me to view these episodes in order
again. Without those maddening rerun gaps of last year it was
a lot easier to appreciate what ME was trying to do in terms of
pacing. While most of my initial impressions remained fairly unchanged
- Dead Things is still shocking as hell, OAFA feels flat, and
AYW was still hard to watch - episodes like SR have lost some
of their sting and instead have a tragic inevitability. I thought
SR was good when it first aired but now I think it's excellent.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Oh yeah -- Rufus, 03:40:44 12/06/02
Fri
Not only did Space re-run season 6, but started all over again
starting from episode one of season 6 all over again. Watching
the shows in order without much of a break is way better than
having to wait.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh yeah -- ponygirl, 12:53:42
12/06/02 Fri
Last winter one of my friends went to Australia for three months.
She enlisted a whole group of people to make sure she didn't miss
any of her shows - I was the official Buffy taper. I ended up
filling about 6 tapes for her, and when she came back she had
a Buffy weekend and watched them all. I remember feeling envious,
what a way to catch up! No waiting, no reruns, and fast-forwarded
commercials. Sigh.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I know what you are saying. I'm in that place too.
-- Deb, 14:08:11 12/05/02 Thu
How are they going to pull this one out of the hat? I read an
article on E! or TV Guide . . . sorry can't remember exact source,
but it discusses this very issue. Quoted JM as saying it was the
most difficult thing he has ever had to do, so it was jarring
on the creative end for at least one person.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I have to go with shadowkat on this one -- Valheru,
15:01:38 12/05/02 Thu
I purposely tried to leave my personal feelings aside so I could
get the point across. Actually, I had an epiphany of sorts in
the middle of writing, but I left the house for a few hours and
by the time I got back, I forgot it. It will come to me. :)
I didn't like most of Season 6 and "Seeing Red" was
the low point. From "Flooded" onward, I felt that the
characters were acting OOC so certain metaphors could be attached
to them. Rather than allowing the representations form around
the characters, the characters were conforming to the representations.
They were, for lack of a better term, similies. "Willow is
an addict" is the most obvious, but all the Scoobies did
it. So much of Season 6 was directly spelled out that, given the
darker undertones, it forced the characters, story, and audience
into a place none of them should have naturally progressed toward.
For example (since I was watching "All the Way" on FX
yesterday), Giles' behavior for most of the season was out of
balance with the plot. Buffy has just returned from the dead.
Giles spends one episode, "Flooded," listening to Buffy's
problems dealing with her return. Then, in the next episode "Life
Serial," rather than address Buffy's actual problems, he
addresses the themes, "grow up" and "life is hell."
At this point in the arc, we haven't been properly accustomed
to the metaphors, so Giles' actions seem uncharacteristically
harsh. Buffy (and the audience) is still dealing with her reintegration
into the living world, but Giles is apparently under the impression
that she is simply shirking her responsibilities. There was still
a step that Buffy's story had to take before that point, but it
was skipped over so Buffy could assume the metaphor.
Season 6 works like this for all the Scoobies. It feels like the
character and seasonal plots are either too far ahead or behind
to match up with the metaphors they are supposed to represent.
So it ends up looking like there aren't any metaphors at all.
"Seeing Red" was the point at which all the metaphors
basically gave up trying to match up. Looking at it in context
of the entire series, "SR" has almost no connection
to any levels besides what is shown explicitly on the screen.
And you know what? It worked. Taken on its own, Season 6 has the
strongest thematic context of any season. "SR" was the
culmination of those themes, "grow up" and "life
is it's own hell." And I really think that, for all of S6's
faults, the themes were all along supposed to be the focus. The
characters and plot were manipulated to fit within the thematic
framework, which is what most S6 dissenters see, yet once in place,
worked spectacularly.
**Warning! Strange analogy follows!** Season 6 is like a guy who
gets his hands chopped off. The surgeons decide to get creative
and attatch prosthetic feet in their place. Now the guy is pissed
because, well, that's not normal. After a while, however, the
guy learns that, with feet for hands, he can now walk upside down
pretty good. So good, in fact, that he can walk better that way
better than most people can walk normally. The guy goes on to
become the world's greatest ballet dancer. Does the guy wish he
had hands? Sure. He made things work anyway.
There is a brilliance to Season 6 that comes only when you toss
Seasons 1-5 out the window, which is why so many fans who started
watching in Season 6 have trouble understanding Season 2. The
paradigm shifts so violently that it's almost like watching two
different shows.
Anyway, "Seeing Red" punctuated the theme-over-plot-&-character
approach. The disjointment between the metaphor and plot is shown
here to be intended. By throwing things out of whack, it creates
a sense of loss and isolation. And that was the whole point. By
the end of "SR," we are left with a show completely
bereft of anything but theme. With Buffy shot, Tara dead, Willow
and Xander paralyzed with shock, and Spike going off the deep
end, all the major character arcs halted; there was no character
growth or regression at all because the characters themselves
stopped. No character arcs means no metaphors and no plot. All
that was left was the theme: Life, at that point, was as much
a Hell as possible.
I'm quite astounded that the show was able to go from the complete
halt of everything at the end of "SR," and then get
back on its feet for "Villains," "Two to Go,"
and "Grave." It's almost like Joss decided to jump the
shark on purpose, just to prove that he could jump back over.
That said, while I can appreciate the technical wizardry, I still
can't bring myself to say I like it. "SR" was necessary,
but only if Season 7 is able to get back to the type of show Buffy
was before "The Body." If it does, then "SR"
and Season 6 could be a kind of "Empire Strikes Back"
for the series. If not, then it comes off as an interesting experiment
in writing style that coincidentally ruined the show. Personally,
I think Joss has turned around and jumped over to the good side
of the shark, but he hasn't landed yet. There's still the chance
that he could crash the landing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I have to go with shadowkat on this one
-- shambleau, 16:30:16 12/05/02 Thu
There's a lot to think about in Valheru's post, and I'll have
to ruminate on it. I do disagree with the OOC comment right off
the bat, though.
To say that Willow, for example, was OOC from Flooded onward?
Up until Wrecked, I thought we saw a brilliant deepening and darkening
of her character and one that didn't conflict with anything we'd
seen before. In fact, it made certain of her actions in earlier
seasons all the more comprehensible. I even think by the end of
the season they'd recovered from the clumsy handling of the junkie
metaphor and managed to integrate it with her power issues and
inability to deal with pain.
As for Giles, part of the problem had nothing to do with theme
over character, it had to do with ASH's desire to return to England
and ME being forced to give Giles a reason to leave.
I see very few of Buffy's actions as out of character either.
I know many people who identified with Buffy for the first time
in the series' history. She was depressed and lost in a way that
followed directly and specifically out of her sacrifice/suicide
from season five and other actions. Her coma in Weight of the
World, her near collapse when Angel revealed himself as Angelus
in Innocence, her self-destructive actions in WSWB, even her depression
over Parker, made more sense after watching how she reacted to
being brought back to life. I feel I know her better than I ever
have before.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> yes, and I thought SR was much better than
........ -- Rahael, 16:45:32 12/05/02 Thu
all the remaining eps of S6.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> In Character... -- Valheru, 01:17:40
12/06/02 Fri
OOC was a bad term. I fully understood why the characters acted
why they did in Season 6. To the writers' credit, they made sure
that the characters' motivations were clearly defined. However,
I felt that everyone was missing a step in their personal development
somewhere between "Flooded" and "Smashed."
It was like an episode was missing.
Willow never showed any remorse for her abuse of power during
this period, or if she did, it was minimal. There was the fawn
scene in "Bargaining," where Willow is clearly disturbed
by the slaughter, but she forces herself to go through with it.
Yet in this case, Willow was trying to do something that everyone
wanted, including the audience I would assume. If she doesn't
do this dangerous spell, then Buffy doesn't come back. It was
an acceptable risk.
Later, when Giles confronts Willow in "Flooded," we
get an inkling that Willow intends to further her power abuse.
She expects congratulations and she flaunts her skill, totally
oblivious to Giles' point (which, to be fair, wasn't entirely
solid either). At the end of the argument, however, Willow does
back down. Her stated reason for doing so was because she didn't
want Giles to be angry, but given her reactions in "Bargaining,"
there must be some part of her that agrees with him.
The problem arises when she starts using her powers on Tara. It
doesn't seem to fit. Willow hyperventilates when she kills a deer
to bring Buffy out of Hell, but things are just fine'n'dandy when
she rapes Tara's mind? Then, in "Tabula Rasa," she rapes
everyone's minds. So what does she do to show remorse for this
horrible act in the next episode, "Smashed?" How does
she try to redeem herself for Tara? She promptly conjures the
spell to de-rat Amy, then joins Amy on a magic-powertrip.
In Willow's case, there needed to be an episode between "Flooded"
and "All the Way" or "Tabula Rasa" and "Smashed"
to show her weighing her choices. Something where she says, "I
can either stop here or say 'to Hell with it' and go crazy."
Instead, she appears to be going down the dark road for even less
reason than Faith had. Basically, when Willow was confronted by
Xander, then Giles, and then Tara that she should stop, we never
see Willow even consider that they are right.
The thing is, as I said in the other post in regards to Giles,
it was a good approach to take with Willow, but it was out of
synch with the plot. The writers put Willow into the denial stage
before she really had anything to deny. Then, once she really
starts abusing power, no one confronts her. It was like the Willow
of the present was interacting with a Scooby Gang of one or two
episodes in the future. Same thing with Giles/Buffy--Giles was
having the conversation Buffy needed in "All the Way"
two episodes too soon in "Flooded."
By the end of the season, I got it. I fully understood why everyone
was doing what they were doing (even Spike). Where they ended
up made perfect sense. My problem is with the curious leaps in
the developmental journeys to get there. Yet I did feel that Buffy's
transition was smoothly handled. I didn't necessarily enjoy Buffy's
path (who did?), but I understood and felt for her. I just wish
she'd hurry up and get over it already :D
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: In Character... -- shambleau,
10:26:01 12/06/02 Fri
Well, killing Bambi is a direct physical act, with a dead animal,
blood and so on. Mindwiping is pleasant, at least for Willow,
and more easily rationalized. In any case, I see the denial stage
as being reached by Flooded. That is when she weighed her choices,
although I'm not sure it was done on a conscious level.
Earlier, she was worried that something could go wrong and she
was confronted with the Buffy she sees at the end of Bargaining
and in After Life. Anya and Spike immediately thought there was
something wrong, and so did Willow,IMO, but verbally, you get
denial.
Her response when Buffy said she wanted to go to bed was roughly
"See, she used to do that all the time. She's fine!",
said in a stressed, I-don't-believe-this-myself voice. So, the
denial begins to set in, but worries keep bubbling up. She keeps
her worries mostly to herself in the scene in bed with Tara, but
it's there. She gets some relief from Buffy's thank-you speech
at the end of After Life, but Flooded shows it was temporary relief.
She's worried by Buffy's spaciness and later she tries to get
Buffy mad to show some spark of life. She doesn't get what she
wants.
It's either admit something is wrong, or repress it, at this point.
And she does. When Giles asks her what happened, you get full
repressed mode, and when he challenges her, she has to give in
or deny even further. That's why she's oblivious to Giles' point.
And that's why she mindwipes Tara, whom she accuses in ATW of
siding with Giles.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: -- Angela, 16:44:20 12/05/02 Thu
I agree. Yet, it seems to me perfectly natural with this type
of season that we are seeing the continued reactions that we do.
Also, that we can admire or love an ep or a season and still find
things to critique. I admire the season as a whole. I was extremely
touched and sometimes disturbed by certain parts in a way I can't
remember with previous seasons even with my responses to parts
of seasons 2 & 5. And there are parts of the season that I
loved. I realize this post doesn't really belong in response to
yours, Valeheru, but I wanted to respond to the thread and also
to mention that I think you made an extremely good series of posts.
Hope you don't mind.
Current board
| More December 2002