December 2002 posts
David
Fury and Rape Rape Rape -- bl, 05:13:52 12/06/02 Fri
Note: This is not meant as an attack on any fan who loves or hates
any characters or plotline. It is merely a speculation (laced
with quotes) on the input of one writer and executive producer,
who, with Marti as a new Mom and Joss spread thin, probably has
more input and power than any other writer on Buffy right now.
You love Willow, you love Xander, I'm right with you. But Spike
was my favorite. Was.
As season 6 was about Marti's views on bad boyfriends and twisted
sex (I'm one of the 3 people who loved most of season 6 and thought
it was hot), I think Season 7 (and Season 6 from Seeing Red on)
is about David Fury's obsession with rape and with Spike as a
rapist.
Joss indicated Fury would have a great deal of input into the
arc for season 7, saying
Joss said: "We're busting Ass (mostly Fury's, he volunteered,
PLEASE don't ask) to put next year into shape and once again,
I'm bursting with excitement. I'm not saying a damn thing (as
per usual) but it's an exciting new arc ."
I think Fury used that opportunity to retcon Spike as a serial
rapist. Something Fury always thought he was. I read that the
original church scene in Beneath You had Spike making mention
of rapes but that scene was rewritten and refilmed by Joss, without
the rape references. So the basement scene in Never Leave Me originally
had more description of Spike raping and torturing girls. Even
with the changes Fury's view seems to have prevailed, thus changing
my view of Spike forever. I have read that many people always
viewed Spike as a rapist but I wasn't one of them and see no evidence
of that before Never Leave Me. But now, Spike has entered canon
as a serial rapist. I believe this was Fury's input just as the
sexual relationship last year was Noxon's. I MUCH prefer Marti's
take on Spuffy to Fury's take on Spike.
Fury has a long
obsession with rape.
Fury's first episode for BtVS, "Go Fish" featured
an attempted date rape, in which the woman wasn't believed, because
the man who tried to rape her was a star athlete. In his episode,
"Helpless" the ultimate evil vampire was once a man
who "murdered and tortured more than a dozen women before
he was committed to an asylum for the criminally insane."
In Bargaining Pt. II, it is the threat of a demon raping her
friends that causes Buffy to spring into action and fight.
Rape is depicted by Fury as horrific, it's imagery and the threat
of rape is used to connote evil, it's equated with evil in his
scripts.
The triumph of his view of Spike has certainly hurt my enjoyment
of the show and of Spike the character. It's been claimed by some
that Fury believes that the fall in ratings last year were due
to Spike and Spuffy. Perhaps he meant to eliminate the fan's attachment
to a character he personally viewed as evil and harmful to the
Buffy franchise. If so, it's largely worked in my case.
Most anti-Spike fans (not all) I know are male and most of them,
in my opinion, seem to view Spike through a lens of personal jealousy,
as though he was real. Fury seems to be one of them. He also seems
angry at the fans who have hasseled him for insisting in interviews
as far back as Crush that Spike was a rapist. Has his input allowed
him to win that argument forever?
In an interview Fury response to his feelings about the fans seems
to me to indicate that rape, rape, rape was about the writers
NOT loving the fans anymore.
A: Given that there's been so much backlash in the fandom
about the tone of Season Six, how come you writer types still
give us the love?
Fury: Uh... what makes you think we still do? I mean... Rape!
Rape rape rape! Plain and simple.
A: Many thanks for your time, David. Any parting words to the
fandom before this season gets underway?
Fury: Yes. Stay in school, keep off drugs and support you local
law enforcement.RAPE!!!!
All in all it tends to make me believe that Fury's view on Spike
and rape has triumphed and, with them, he struck a deadly blow
to this fan's Spike love and that the blow was likely deliberate.
A few closing words from David Fury about Spike fans:
"To those who feel my conviction that Spike can never
be redeemed and cannot someday end up with our heroine, shows
a lack of imagination of my part, I say you're right. It is beyond
my limited imagination to see a strong, independent, female character
end up falling for a murderer who would be killling innocent people
were he not suffering from chip affliction.
For those of you who fault my thinking, I can only say I'll try
to be more openminded in the future. In the meanwhile, S/B shippers,
you can go back to writing your penpals, Richard Ramirez and the
Hillside Strangler, and I hope they finally accept your marriage
proposals..."
Since the rape rape rape storyline have been attached to Spike
I see him much less popular on many boards and see more and more
people expressing the desire for him to be staked. I blame 90%
of this on Fury and his input into changing the character.
So I think David Fury has managed, while Joss is busy elsewhere,
to make Spuffy impossible and to make more and more viewers to
see Spike as a character they would like to see follow Riley into
the sunset.
Fury wins. But Buffy the Vampire Slayer loses.
[> I would love to see more
discussion on the styles of individual ME scriptwriters...
-- KdS, 05:42:27 12/06/02 Fri
... but unfortunately whenever it happens it turns out to be "So
and so is nasty and should be sacked because he/she wrote episodes
that things I didn't like happened in".
Everything that has ever been published out of ME stresses the
collaborative nature of the scriptwriting. Nothing gives me any
reason to believe that a single writer (other than JW) could hijack
a storyline to fulfil their own hangups if the other scriptwriters
seriously didn't agree with it. Not MN or SdK in S6, not DF in
S7. If you think that a plotline is misconceived, criticise it
as harshly as you want, but respect the collective responsibility.
Don't turn it into an intrusive attempt to psychoanalyse an individual
who (I assume) you do not know intimately in your personal life.
Oh, and I would probably count as an anti-Spike fan in your mind,
and I am not jealous of him because he gets laid more than I do.
I do also recognise him as a fictional character, but people's
responses to fictional characters do influence real life. As Ben
Elton put it in a similar context in his play Popcorn:
"You think just because Mickey Mouse isn't real he doesn't
exist? You think Walt Disney sat there counting imaginary dollars?"
(May be a paraphrase)
I'm unhappy because people like you think that a guy who spent
a century committing bloody slaughter is redeemed through doing
some heroic things to save people he liked. That is very
far from any reasonable definition of moral behaviour.
I've tried my best to keep the tone of this response polite, while
making it clear how much I disagree with your approach. If other
people on the board disapprove, I apologise in advance and I'm
ready to accept whatever scorching I've invited.
[> [> Re: I would love
to see more discussion on the styles of individual ME scriptwriters...
-- skpe, 07:05:20 12/06/02 Fri
I will have to go with KdS on this one; a major plot point like
this would have to come from the top (Joss). And I think that
it makes the character of Spike more interesting to show a streak
of genuine evil.
[> [> Re: I would love
to see more discussion on the styles of individual ME scriptwriters...
-- vh, 07:29:39 12/06/02 Fri
Personally I disagree with the approach to the character of Spike
as a rapist because they previously established him as a considerate
lover, which is largely inconsistent with the other. The first
broad strokes of the character were, in fact, brash, risk-taking
vamp yet tender lover. That seeming paradox and the vivid portrayal
of it by Mr Marsters is what kept the character around.
I suppose you can say, OK, well, the vamp has been running around
raping girls he doesn't care about yet acting tenderly to those
he does all this time, but there has been no previous indication
of that. Further, is it truly clear that the character has been
transformed into a serial rapist? Not to me.
Am I anti-Fury? No, I really like a lot of what he's done, and
I think that the rape worked within the context of the story and
was consistent with the characters. In this case, it was clearly
demonstrated that Spike crossed his own boundaries and couldn't
"live" with himself. The act, after all, drove him to
seek out his soul.
Am I anti-Spike? Certainly not. Especially with Mr Marsters' performances
to look forward to.
Nah, characters like Spike don't exist in the real world, and
that includes serial killers. Real serial killers are truly pathetic
creatures (dangerous though they might be), a great deal more
pathetic than Spike, as pathetic as he has been at times. (ME
made stalking look positively romantic.) I may find a fictional
vampire (in the right kind of story) a romantic figure (oh, come
on, isn't questing after a soul for one's lady love just a little
bit romantic; leave it to a poet), but I have never found any
real serial killer the slightest bit romantic. Bleagh!
[> [> [> Re: I would
love to see more discussion on the styles of individual ME scriptwriters...
-- December, 16:21:24 12/07/02 Sat
1. I find a fan's criticism of Fury much less offensive than Fury's
blanket condemnation of Spike fans (equating them to fans of serials
killers.) In my opinion that was low (also vituperative to a degree
that indicates an unhealthy emotional investment.)
2. I don't think that my reaction Seeing Red was unusual. It didn't
turn me against Spike; it turned me aagainst BtVS. On a friends
advice I have begun watching again, but if they harp on rape again,
I will stop watching again. I think they turned many people away.
3. It isn't just that rape is not something people watch voluntarily.
I know when I'm being manipulated by a writer and the obviousness
of the attempt to change audience sympathies was a factor in my
losing repect for the show.
4. I don't think I'll ever like the show as much as I once did.
It would help if they admitted that they made a mistake. Writers:
If a large number of people like a character that you have created
and written for and you think they shouldn't, it's not their mistake
(or problem), it's yours.
5. Writers again: I'd say that it's good thing that you didn't
really destroy that charcter, but writerly minds are probably
far too pure to let ratings be a consideration. If those who watch
your show disagree we're relegated to the unwashed masses who
spend time writing to criminals.
[> A few fallacies (and
a dead equine): -- HonorH, 07:12:43 12/06/02 Fri
1) Spike was never exactly lovable to begin with. We knew he was
a serial killer who ran with one of the most vicious vampire gangs
in history, then split off to run with his insane and depraved
girlfriend. Why would you assume there was any crime he hadn't
committed at least once?
2) What are your views on Angel, then? He readily admitted to
raping at least one woman on AtS while he was evil, and one frankly
expects he raped more. Given his soul, however, he's redeemable.
Is Spike no different?
3) Joss has made it clear the buck stops with him. Nothing Fury
or Goddard has written has "slipped in"--Joss has approved
all. So if you want to hate Fury, I'm afraid you're going to have
to hate Daddy Joss as well.
4) Finally, if it's any comfort, it's not at all certain Spike
ever was a serial rapist. He was hitting hot buttons with Buffy,
trying to get her to stake him, and let's face it--rape is a hot
button with her, especially given their past. Doesn't mean he
was lying, just that he was telling selective truths. In this
case, it's entirely possible he went in for what he implied, but
it *wasn't* something he did on a regular basis. Rather, it was
something he tried in order to get Dru to see him as being more
like Daddy (Angelus, not Joss). Don't know why that would give
you comfort, but there it is.
[> [> Re: A few fallacies
(and a dead equine)(current spoilers for Ats and Btvs) --
Dan The Man, 13:12:06 12/06/02 Fri
I agree.
Spoilers for Angel and Buffy up to current US aired eps.
Also, This is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Romantic relationships
on this show do not end well. Examples include:
On Buffy:
1. Angel and Buffy (Angel leaves town to L.A.)
2. Giles and Jenny (Angelus kills Jenny)
3. Oz and Willow (Oz leaves town after cheating with Veruca)
4. Xander and Cordelia (Xander cheats on Coredlia with Willow)
5. Xander and Willow (Oz and Cordelia find out about them)
6. Xander and Faith (One night stand)
7. Giles and Olivia (Olivia can't handle Giles's job)
8. Xander and Anya (Xander leaves Anya at the alter)
9. Riley and Buffy (Riley leaves town to go on Government Ops)
10. Willow and Tara (Warren kills Tara)
11. Spike and Buffy (Buffy says its over)
12. Spike and Anya (One night stand)
13. Spike and Drusilla (Drusilla leaves Spike because Spike is
obsessed with Buffy)
On Angel:
1. Doyle and Cordelia (Doyle dies in order to save other people)
2. Angel and Kate (Kate cannot accept Angel's vampiric nature)
3. Wesley and Virginia (Virginia cannot handle Wes's job)
4. Angel and Darla (Darla stakes herself)
5. Lindsey and Darla (Darla doesn't want Lindsey)
6. Gru and Cordelia (Gru leaves town because Cordelia does not
love him like Angel)
7. Gunn and Fred (Seems to be collasping on itself)
8. Wesley and Fred (Fred doesn't want Wes)
9. Wesley and Lilah (Can't end well)
10. Angel and Cordelia (Cordelia can't deal with Angel's past)
11. Connor and Cordelia (do I need to explain the problem)
[> You've made up your mind!
-- Robert, 07:53:10 12/06/02 Fri
As long as I have been on this board, I have advocated that Spike
was not a nice guy, even before Spike started coming on to Buffy.
However,
>>> Most anti-Spike fans (not all) I know are male
and most of them, in my opinion, seem to view Spike through a
lens of personal jealousy, as though he was real. Fury seems to
be one of them. He also seems angry at the fans who have hasseled
him for insisting in interviews as far back as Crush that Spike
was a rapist.
you've already decided that since I am a mere male, there can
be no discussion. Any opinion I may have is apparently clouded
by my irrational jealousy of Spike, so I will just slink back
into my cave and not bother you anymore.
[> What I don't get...
-- ponygirl, 08:19:19 12/06/02 Fri
is why anyone thinks David Fury or any of the writers are against
Spike as a character. Just the opposite in fact. For every nasty
revelation we get, the suffering gets piled on with a shovel.
You want to make a character sympathetic? Hurt them. It's hard
not to feel something for a person in pain, and from the moment
the church organ fell on Spike we've seen him wear his injuries
like no one else on BtVS. I had a few moments of concern after
SR about what was going to happen to Spike, but as soon as I saw
him being burned and battered I knew he was going to be ok.
It's like a very twisted take on you only hurt the ones you love.
Pity is a good place to start a connection to a character, sympathy
even better, ouch! and I'm there. It's why even though I enjoy
quippy, confident Buffy, it's disastourous emotional life Buffy
who's always going to break my heart.
When last we left Spike he was helpless and bleeding, alone among
some very nasty people with sharp knives. Are we supposed to feel
anything other than pity, horror and fear at this point? In Western
tradition there's a big history of redemption through suffering,
in Spike we can see this tradition literally written on his body.
I'm with KdS, it would be tremendous fun to discuss the style
and themes particular to different ME writers - without bashing!
Maybe I'll have a look through Jane E's scripts this weekend.
[> [> Oh God. Here we
go again, and this time I'm not sticking around for the torture.
-- Deb, 10:21:57 12/06/02 Fri
Yesterday's discussion of the *rape* thread started out so good,
so healing until something I said was taken completely out of
context, and then I felt the pain of having unintentionally reopened
an, hopefully, healing wound.
Now I read this interview, and it is DS9 all over again (not that
I liked Dukat. I thought he was a creep. But, I did not appreciate
at all the male writer's accussing the female fans of being "crazy"
to like a psychpath. Good ridance to DS9.)
Now I find myself in the postion of saying "good ridance"
to Buffy, because I simply cannot tolerate Fury's contant reference
to the word "RAPE" in his interview. What does he think
he's doing? Desensitizing us to the word?
Two years ago, my journalsim class took a survey of male college
students (75 approximately, participated). They didn't have to
give their names or any kind of id and they could mark their surveys
in private. The questions was: "If you knew you could get
away with it and not be punished in any way, would you rape a
woman?"
Almost 3/4 of them said yes! This really bothered me. I lost my
virginity to rape. I was drinking Coke (I don't drink liquor)
at a party at a friend's house. Parents were there. We were watching
Saturday Night Live. The last thing I remember was watching the
monologue. The next thing I remember was waking up in a strange
bedroom in a strange house the next afternoon. I kinda remember,
sort of like a dream, puking my guts out in the bathroom at some
point, naked with people (not one but many) in the room with me.
I got dressed. No one was in the house. I walked out of the house
and didn't know where the hell I was and about two feet of snow
had fallen during my "black out" and I had no shoes
nor coat. Someone had used a "date-rape drug." on me,
and it had been one of my "friends" or more. I get home.
I can't tell my parents what happened, I'm so humiliated. I just
take the punishment. Then I just fall into this black depression
for two years and then when I come up out of the darkness I become
the biggest bitch on the planet.
So now I need to be told by JW and Fury what kind of guy rapes??
I've been told by guys to never get hooked with with a man who
mistreats his or my friends, make sure he treats them all well.
FALSE! I've dated both types and men don't treat others the same
way they treat their girlfriends/wives. Why do you think most
women are so humiliated that they can't tell anyone that they
are being abused by the one who *loves* them? And season 6's depiction
of Buffy being abused was a joke. She abused Spike too. In fact,
she's the one who started with the insults and punches when she
thought he had a chip and couldn't fight back. If they were attempting
to gain Buffy sympathy by showing why a woman can't leave an abusing
partner, they sure fouled out. Then they show us Spike telling
Buffy to leave his crypt until she wants to be "seen"
with him. Well Alright! One of them is growing up! Then the RAPE
(per Fury) scene. Buffy didn't deserve it, but Spike didn't deserve
it either. Anyone else remember Xander attempting to rape Buffy
in season 1, or was it 2? I had three years of therapy after my
NDE to deal with my issues, this being the major one at the time.
I go away to college and become a peer counselor and I also get
to be "first contact" for many girls who are raped.
I take care of them and hook them up with people who can help
them. I did work with battered women who have also been raped
as "a first contact." I know what rape is about. I don't
need lessons from the writers.
The point is: in the Buffyverse, as well as this world, you can't
look at a guy's face, and social behavior, and really know just
how he he's going to treat you when you are alone, and you certainly
can't tell a rapist because he is labeled as "good"
or "bad." or even "evil."
As far as I'm concerned, they can dust both Buffy and Angel shows
right now and give us mid-season replacements. Of course, I will
be finding something better to do with my time on Tuesday night
like maybe watch "The Gilmore Girls."
And I'm sorry, after this little fit, and after yesterday, I really
can't show my face on this board again. I'm just going to forgive
myself and Fury and JW and Noxon, (afterall, they didn't force
me to watch) and Spike (because in a way that is like forgiving
myself) and move on with my life. So now I think I'm going to
go run and scream myself voiceless for awhile.
Boy, I turned out to be a big bag of bloody hot air didn't I?
[> [> [> Re: Oh God.
Here we go again, and this time I'm not sticking around for the
torture. -- Sarand, 12:12:23 12/06/02 Fri
I also hope that you don't go. I've really enjoyed reading your
posts over the last few weeks. And your ability to reveal personal
and painful things that have happened to you is very brave and
helps to inform your other posts.
And I agree with ponygirl. I don't think we should take Fury too
literally. Having clicked on the link in bl's post, I read the
initial article s/he was referencing. I think the interview was
last spring and was Fury's reaction to a ton of e-mail regarding
"Seeing Red." (I think Marti Noxon got a ton of hate
e-mail herself last season and some of it sounded pretty nasty.)
A lot of fans debated the scene in SR and Fury sounded exasperated
that some of those fans could not see it as an attempted rape.
As for his other generalities, unfortunately, we all have them.
It's easy to say you live by this particular rule or this particular
code or that this other thing is always true. I've found, however,
that my life experiences often tell me differently. Some people
just don't experience those things to make them reevaluate those
generalities. (Don't know if that made any sense but I think I
know what I meant).
I think you can show your face again on this board. From what
I've seen, a lot of people on this board have sounded off every
once in a while about "hot-button" issues or have posted
something they wish they hadn't. I know I have. I took a breather
for a little while but kept reading and now I'm testing the waters
again. I hope you can do the same.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Oh God. Here we go again, and this time I'm not sticking around
for the torture. -- Cheryl, 13:37:25 12/06/02 Fri
I also sincerely hope you don't leave, Deb. I enjoy reading everyone's
posts here, both the ones I agree with and the ones I don't. I
don't want to just read one-sided viewpoints. I always learn something
new and I think your experiences and perspectives are important
and can help others - whether it's helping others cope with a
similar experience or just by opening someone's eyes to the reality
of this kind of horrible experience.
[> [> [> [> [>
Don't leave Deb... Growth is only found by understanding all
veiwpoints. We ALL need growth! -- Briar Rose, 16:18:27
12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> This may
be pointless- but I have to try -- Tchaikovsky, 14:48:06
12/06/02 Fri
Nothing new to say- just don't want you to leave the board where
you've posted so much wonderful, honest writing. As well as that
scarily on-target academia review, which was one of the funniest
things anyone on this board has done in a while.
And if you have even a sliver of doubt about your, (perfectly
valid) convictions, and you haven't done so already, please take
a look at the actual link to the site from which bl extracted
the quotes. I think it's fair to say that his portion is a little
out of context. It doesn't give the first question about the rape.
The section before this deals in details with Fury's motivation
for his behaviour.
Incidentally, not only do I think that David Fury is the least
talented writer on Buffy, I also believe that he was still wrong
to broadcast these opinions IN THESE WORDS to a public forum where
he could be misunderstood. It's not the real belief of what he
says, it's the lack of judgement, in my opinion. But I thought
this URL might make his actions a touch less reprehensible. If
not, it will be really sad to lose you.
TCH
[> [> [> Re: Oh God.
Here we go again, and this time I'm not sticking around for the
torture. -- Miss Edith, 16:00:01 12/06/02 Fri
David Fury has always delighted in winding up the Spike fans particularly
the shippers. But I do think he means it in fun as he has admitted
his own wife is a Spuffy shipper. I too felt his response in that
interview was offensive but he was reacting to the number of fans
treating the attempted rape as a really big deal and causing offense
to the writers with personal attacks. I think he was just trying
to make light of the issue albeit it inappropriately. The attempted
rape was really a plot point for Spike to get a soul and the writers
did not expect all the backlash over the summer with people saying
they hoped Spike was staked regardless of his soul because he
had raped. I would imagine David Fury already saw Spike as a rapist
and perhaps found the reaction comical as Spike had killed thousands
for food and it was a rape that caused fans to get stirred up.
David Fury already saw Spike as a "serial killer in prison"
so the harsh response would have surprised him.
I just don't think the writers always think things through before
interviews and recognise the repurcussions of what they say. In
season 5 if anyone spoke up in Spike's defence thanks to David
Fury labelling Spike fans as serial killer lovers there was constant
bashing of Spike fans on most boards. But I really think it would
be a shame to stop watching a show you enjoy just because the
writers are tactless in interviews. I can imagine how off putting
it must be for David Fury to be making sniggering references to
rape if it is an experience you have been through but I really
don't think he meant to attack rape victims. It was just the Spike
fans who he has always treated as a joke primarily because he
doesn't seem to "get" us.
[> [> [> [> I have
to add in some of Jane Espensons interview so you can see the
differences in the Writers. -- Rufus, 19:21:55 12/06/02
Fri
I have to admit that though I see Fury as a pain in the ass, he
is a loveable pain in the ass. He has had problems with some of
the characterizations and what we got at the end of season six
was what I consider a compromise that all the writers could live
with.
Question: What were we supposed to take necessarily from the
Spike and Buffy relationship, from Buffy's point of view. I mean,
what did she learn from that? I would assume you'd want to do
that for a purpose, something was supposed to come out of it --
what came out of it for Buffy? What did she learn from that relationship
specifically?
Jane: Um. (pause) An interesting question. Cause if you suggest
that she had -- if you suggest that she had mistakes and she learned
-- that she made mistakes and she learned about them and how not
to do them, then you are in danger of implying that she deserved
what she got, because she made mistakes with him and then he attacked
her, which is of course not the case. With that caveat though,
I do think that she did not -- Spike was not the only -- um, boy,
it's a minefield. Um... I think Buffy
learned that there are big chunks of Buffy that she didn't know
were there. That she's -- the *in love with the dark, or *in love
with misery*, *in love with pain* -- whatever it is, there was
something in her that was able to respond to soulless Spike, and
she did not know, she was not aware she was capable of that.
I think that's what I found very interesting, was Buffy sort of
going "Oh, I'm not who I thought I was," and her feeling
that she had to hide that, and then realizing she didn't; that
her friends could accept it.
Q: This is actually a really good question. I'm interested
about this. The Mutant Enemy company -- all the
members -- are really fantastic as far as interacting with
the fans. As evident by so many of the writers willing --
oh, thank you -- willing to do a little internet show like
the Succubus Club -- she says, and great, which, thank
you very much -- and posting on the Bronze, etc. and
other message boards. How do you feel when sometimes
it gets too complicated, or does it get too complicated?
And is it harder when the fans are so hard on the show,
and they transfer their anger to you, the writers?
Jane: It is hard. I think a lot of us were more interactive when
we first got the job. It's always the new writers --they're like,
"oh, I'll go on the Posting Board. I'll interact with the
fans." And it does get tiring, because you bond with the
show so much, and even if a decision isn't yours, you have to
take the responsibility for it and defend it. And I think that's
really important.
So you're put in this position of having to defend things
that if you were a fan, maybe you wouldn't; I don't know.
And also sometimes it's embarrassing because people
remember the episodes better than you do, and you
just feel weird that I wrote that, and I don't remember that
moment, or I can't remember why it was important. That
makes it a little bit of a strain sometimes. And, but other
than that -- we go to the Posting Board Party; we always
all have a blast. The fans are very kind and very smart.
It's just, this Tara thing is probably going to be really hard
on us, because you do find yourself getting defensive and feeling
misunderstood -- yeah, it can be tough.
Q: It was interesting that you brought up the fact that
you may disagree or may not like, or something, something
that happens in the script, but you find yourself having to
defend it. When David Fury was in here last week, we asked
him about that, because he has some very different points of
view about certain characters and stories and he's not shy
about it; he told us as much; and yet it's still his job to write
the script as he has been told do. And we asked how
difficult that was for him. Is that much of a problem for you,
or do you --
Jane: Much less than it is for Fury. Fury has very, very strong
independent ideas about where things should go, and I tend to
be much more "Joss' word defines the universe;
when we hear Joss' word, we know what the right answer is."
So it does differ for the two of us. We're probably the two most
extreme. He is the most likely to disagree; I'm the most likely
to hop on board. So it is a different experience for both of us.
I tend to pretty much love everything we've done.
Jane: The attempted rape -- I was like, I don't know if we
want to hurt this character of Spike that much. But then when
I saw it, and you see his face, and you see what
fllows, and, then you kind of go, "Okay, I can groove with
that. That is in fact very interesting."
Q: Have there been some hard things where you
thought weren't going to work at all, and then you're
like, "Wow! That was great!"
Jane: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.
Q: That must be a great feeling. Sometimes you go,
"oh, this can never work", and then you see it does
work,
and it's a tremendous relief.
Q: That's great. Um, back to the rape scene, actually,
somebody did want to ask a specific question about it,
could you shed some ... could you shed some light
on exactly how the Buffy/Spike attempted rape scene
in Seeing Red was supposed to be interpreted. I'm
getting confused. Is this a case of no-means-yes?
That it was okay because Buffy had said no and didn't
mean it before? Because that is how it came off to me.
Why does she shrug it off so seemingly quickly, to the
point where she was willing to trust Spike with protecting
Dawn in the very next episode and even missing him?
Jane: Yeah. The missing him is problematic. It was not supposed
to be -- in no way -- and I felt it was very clear that that in
no way was what Spike doing condoned
in any way. She was, you know, clearly shaken, very upsetearly
saying no, and she was clearly appalled by what he had done. He
clearly didn't think it had been condoned or he would not have
had his own reaction to it.
Q: Absolutely.
Jane: She protects him with Dawn because she has no reason
not to protect him with Dawn. He did not; he was...
Buffy knows him. Buffy's spent a lot of time with him. She
knows he's evil. She knows -- he surprised her with the rape;
she did not know he was capable of that. But she has no reason
to think he would attack Dawn, and it was a dire situation with
very few choices about what to do with Dawn.
Q: Okay. Right.
Jane: And the missing him?
Q: That's tough.
Jane: It's very tough. It's very tough. I think what we could
say is that she's missing the man he could have been. She's
missing --
Q: The potential?
Jane: The potential, and, when someone betr -- reveals
themselves to be not what you thought they were, you
miss who you thought they were.
Q: Right.
Jane: And I think she was missing the Spike that she thought she
knew.
Q: About Afterlife -- when Buffy went to Spike's crypt and
sat there in silence in Afterlife, why do you think she was
there? As the writer of the episode, or just as a fan, what
do you think was going through Buffy's mind at that point,
and, in particular, during Spike's "Every night I saved you"
speech. Because she did -- she sat there in silence and
she really didn't say anything.
Jane: She sat there in silence with him there, right? I know which
scene it is now. It's been awhile.
I think she didn't know why she was there, except she
wanted to be with someone who wasn't demanding
anything of her and wasn't --
Q: Expecting any?
Jane: Expecting anything. Exactly. Someone who could
understand. Because he has a line that I really liked
where he looks at her hands -- he knows right away
that she crawled out of the grave --
Q: I love that line --
Jane: And it's hard to hear -- the line gets a little lost,
but he says "Done it myself" or been there.
Q: I remember what it was like for me--
Jane: There is an implication that he is identifying with
her because he also crawled out of his own grave.
Q: It also happens in that scene in the crypt, actually,
because she sees his hand or something, she looks --
I don't know, there was another moment in that scene
where they were comparing with him -- don't mind me,
but there's something
Jane: Yeah there was something. Not sure what it was.
Q: It's nagging me.
Q: It happened so long ago.
Jane: It feels like a long time ago to me too.
Q: Before the musical, after the musical,
and really really after the musical.
Jane: But yeah -- I think that's what it was, and then whenhe
says "I've saved you lots of times", I think all we
can do is know what we would be thinking and the kind
of person Buffy is that she has to be thinking
Wow, what a guy!
Q: Well, I hate the fact that it cuts off right after that
line; I would love to know what happened after that.
J: Yeah. Well, Buffy doesn't give a lot. Buffy takes it all
in and she has her deep feelings, but she doesn't open up to people.
She doesn't tell them what she's
thinking, she doesn't like to show what she's thinking; maybe
she's afraid of demanding something from them that she's afraid
they won't give, but she tends to be
very closed-off as a character, which is a wonderful and interesting
fault to play with.
Those above quotes are from the post season finale Succubus Club
interivew with Jane Espenson. She gives a few insights into the
motivation behind what happened in season six. I'm interested
that she was afraid of taking Spike to that Attempted Rape scene
until she saw the look on the actors face and could see that this
was more than a premeditated crime done to get even with someone.
It was a moment where Spike lost himself to his anger, frustration,
and fear of losing the person he loved.....and without a soul
he was capable to losing it enough to attempt this awful act.
The thing is that if he were a real bastard he would have kept
trying to overpower Buffy, but he didn't, he had his own unique
reaction to what he tried to do. I have to say that both Warren
and Spike had moments where they gave into the easy out of trying
to attempt to get what they wanted through force, and using that
force against women, the outcome is facinating considering that
with a soul, Warren continued on the road to being a monster,
and Spike who is a monster attempted to become more of a human.
Proves that even with monsters, you just never know.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for reposting that Rufus, agree with you. -- shadowkat,
21:32:57 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for posting. A helpful read. -- Deb, 20:16:15
12/07/02 Sat
[> [> Sorry Ponygirl.
I can't seem to post in the correct place anymore. -- DEb,
10:41:02 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> Deb, please
e-mail me. -- Wisewoman,
10:45:24 12/06/02 Fri
[> Writer Profiles I: Marti
Noxon -- cjl, 10:02:41 12/06/02 Fri
(Turning a sow's ear of a thread into a silk purse...)
Subject: Marti Noxon
Current Jobs: Running BtVS; staff writer; new mommy
Nickname: Relationship Girl
Dark Side: Mistress of Pain
First Solo Script: What's My Line (Part II)
Highlights: Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered; The Prom; The
Wish
Lowlights: Wrecked
Upcoming Scripts: Bring on the Night (with D. Petrie) and Buffy
7.21 (yet untitled)
Ever since she first came on board, Marti has been credited (by
Joss himself) with infusing the series' vamps with a darker, kinkier
sexuality than previously imagined, a subtext gleefully appropriated
by Joss and the rest of the boys. (Thanks, Marti!)
Marti has a knack for writing life crises and life passages, specializing
(naturally) in relationship flame-outs. But for all her rep as
relationship girl, I think some of her best work was in WML, with
Buffy debating with herself about whether she can have any sort
of future beyond slaying, and the amazing Class Protector scene
in the Prom, when Jonathan (how appropriate) gave Buffy one of
the sweetest memories of her life. (Sniff. Excuse me, I've got
something in my eye...)
OTOH, she is damn good with the relationship stuff, and don't
you forget it. No matter what you might think about Buffy's run
to the helicopter in "Into the Woods," Xander's impassioned
speech to Anya right after it begged for genuflection. (She's
always hit the right notes with Xander, from the X/C eruption
in WML, to the pitch-perfect farce in BB&B, all the way to
the chilling "blood on my hands" speech in "Villains.")
I loved the crowning moments of B/A angst in "The Prom,"
and she tore my heart out when Oz and Willow split in BOTH "Wild
at Heart" and "New Moon Rising."
Weakenesses: OK, with all the attention Marti lavishes on emotional
arcs, sometimes the plot itself suffers a bit. Tucker's pack of
devil dogs in "The Prom" didn't make much of an impression,
and there were holes in "Villains" you could drive an
eighteen-wheel semi through. (Granted, she's done high-concept
stories like The Wish and BB&B that moved along like a bullet
train; but those are more exceptions than the rule.)
And then there's Riley--to which I will add no more.
Overall, Marti took the series in directions Joss himself wouldn't
have considered. She created Anya (we should be grateful for that
alone), VampWillow and pretty much paved the way for GayNow!Willow.
An indispensible writer and a chief architect of the Buffyverse,
I can't wait to see what she's got waiting for us in 12 days...
(Anybody want to take Fury, Espenson, Petrie, and the Drews?)
[> [> See my separate
post above on Different Styles. -- shadowkat, 10:27:31
12/06/02 Fri
good job on MN.
I did Fury and Espenson - badly, but it was an attempt.
Trying to get away from the "r" topic which I think
if others are willing we should just put to rest for a while.
[> [> [> Reposting
Noxon profile in S'kat's thread above. Pls respond there....
-- cjl, 10:35:58 12/06/02 Fri
[> Rape is worse than murder?
-- Q, 12:23:44
12/07/02 Sat
I'm flummoxed by most of this original post.
1) The rape confessions in "never leave me" as a surprise:
I can not believe that this would surprise anyone, given what
we saw in "Seeing Red"
2) The rape in "seeing red" as a surprise: Knowing that
spike is an EVIL vampire, it is NO surprise that he would rape.
Sex and power, the two most important concepts in a rape, are
desires hidden deep within everybody-- luckily the conscience
allows most people to keep these disires, or at least a negative
way of satisfying these desires, at bay. Without a soul, and no
moral reason not show sexual power over people when you show mortal
power over them, I see no reason why Spike, and Angel, and Spike's
friend the child molesting torturor vamp (who Spike spoke particularly
fondly of) would NOT rape.
Besides, the obvious imagery involved in vampirism is TOTALLY
about rape. Since the vampire bite is obviously sexual--what,
with the penetration, exchange of bodily fluids, and occasional
reproduction-- and USUALLY forced--the entire vampire mythos is
at least symbollically about rapists!
3) The strange moral priorities: Even if somehow you never suspected
Spike of rape, You KNEW-- EVERYBODY KNEW, that Spike was a killer.
And not kind of a killer. Not even a "serial killer".
Nothing in the real world even compares to the kind of killing
Spike has done. This is undisputed. Now, I think rape is a particularly
heinous and repugnant sin and crime-- but am I crazy for thinking
that murder is THE MOST heinous and repugnant sin and crime? I
think murder is the pinnacle, and nothing, *nothing* else is as
bad.
So how is it you could overlook all of the murder and mayhem Spike
has done, but you can not overlook the rape.
And finally:
4) The unwillingness to forgive: Angel had no problem being redeemed
in the eyes of the fans. He hasn't forgiven himself, he still
works for redemption, so he obviously isn't "redeemed"
in the eyes of the writers, the characters on the show still can't
overlook it all-- but the *fans* know that Angel can NOT be held
accountable for what soul-less Angelous did. Why then can you
not forgive Spike now that he has a soul? The modern Spike, in
my opinion, can not be held accountable for what soul-less spike
did. I can see you don't agree, at least with the rape, although
you will forgive the murder, and it confuses me.
I was very frustrated last year when Spike apologists defended
him in light of his raping and murdering. Then he got a soul.
And although I thought it was hack writing and an extreme cop
out by the writers, I could no longer hate Spike, it would be
too hypocritical to do so while forgiving Angel.
As if this wasn't long enough-- One more topic-- The "hack
writing and cop out" that was giving spike his soul back:
I felt that where Spike was at was RICH with development and exploration
oppurtunities. Before Spike, vamps were *evil*, but with souls
they weren't. With Spike we were seeing an "evil" soul-less
vampire *choosing* moral decisions. Isn't that a deep avenue to
explore? And then the whole "Clockwork Orange" angle
of-- If a man is moral because he HAS to be because of the "chip",
is he truly moral- that was rich with possibilities as well. But
now that Spike has a soul, all of that is thrown out the window
and we are stuck with the same thing we had with Angel-- Spike
can be moral now only because he has a soul. Bored now.
[> [> Re: Rape is worse
than murder? -- Robert, 13:15:53 12/07/02 Sat
>>> But now that Spike has a soul, all of that is
thrown out the window and we are stuck with the same thing we
had with Angel-- Spike can be moral now only because he has a
soul. Bored now.
So, you have found season seven to be uninteresting?
[> [> Re: Rape is worse
than murder? -- Miss Edith, 13:43:12 12/07/02 Sat
I have to say Seeing Red doesn't to me come across as evidence
that Spike raped in the past. You say SR means no one should be
surprised that Spike has raped but Spike was not trying to dominate
Buffy and force sex upon her. He was trying to make her want to
have sex with him and admit feeling love for him. Surely very
different? Indeed Spike tries to ignore Buffy's screaming and
is genuinely appalled when she kicks him off and he is faced with
what he has done.
And I agree that vampirism can be seen as a metaphour for rape,
and that is how I have always seen it. I would imagine having
your throat pierced by fangs and all the blood slowly drained
from your body is incredibly painful. I don't personally see how
that means vampires must literally rape though. It's not about
moral standards, I just don't see why all vampires would automatically
rape which is a fairly unique crime. Some of the most evil criminals
have no interest in rape so just because someone becomes evil
I don't feel they would suddenly develop a taste for rape.
I think regarding fan reactions, with Angel the situation was
different because he was introduced to us as a good guy and it
was the nice version of Angel most of us related too. Whereas
with Spike we were introduced to a fairly complex soulless Spike
and many fans fell in love with that character. Now Spike has
a soul the version of Spike that many loved is being presented
as a rapist and some fans just aren't sold on that and feel the
character is being demonized. Angelus was presented as evil and
sadistic from the beginning so even those who enjoyed watching
Angelus in season 2 understood what he was capable off and accepted
it.
Yet with Spike in seasons 5 and 6 positive aspects of his character
were empasised and many fans saw him becoming more human. To see
his previous character dismissed as evil and worthless will upset
those who for instance fell in love with Spike's "Every night
I saved you" speech" or his confrontation with Doc in
The Gift "I made a promise to a lady". Now we are being
told that character was never any good and perhaps some fans were
a little in denial regarding how evil Spike was but it does complicate
fans reactions.
And I agree that giving Spike a soul was a terrible cop out and
to me suggested that his arc was not planned at all. It is particularly
infuriating when all summer Joss was promising Spike would be
completely different from Angel and would not be bceoming Mr Broody.
Yes Spike was insane for a short while which was different. But
now we have Spike brooding with a Buffy obsession, pro atonemnet
speeches, lots of repetition of how a soul is good and a quest
for redemption, Spike being tempted to kill again by similiar
hullucinations that Angel suffered from in Amends, and a will
they/won't they ship.
[> [> [> For the victim?
-- Briar Rose, 15:25:37 12/07/02 Sat
There are many people who have experienced rape that would have
considered death preferable.
Death is an ending with no lingering pain that can be proven.
Death doesn't take away all your trust in others and yourself.
Death doesn't leave you feeling like you are always going to be
"dirty", "soiled" and scared of life and living
it.
Death is not about having to answer questions by stoopid people
like, "What were you wearing?" and "Did you come
onto him?"
Death is not about having to live with physical/ psychological
pain every day of your life after the event.
And death is not something that you have to consciously overcome
to heal yourself.
Is a rapist worse than a killer? Maybe not to the law... But to
the people who have experienced the walking death of rape? You
bet YOUR life, they wish it was as quick and relatively pain free
as even the most violent death.
[> [> [> [> Soul
Death is another phrase for rape. Thumbs Up BR -- neolurker,
19:57:47 12/07/02 Sat
[> [> Is Rapist the default?
-- bl, 20:00:10 12/07/02 Sat
The unwillingness to forgive: Angel had no problem being redeemed
in the eyes of the fans. He hasn't forgiven himself, he still
works for redemption, so he obviously isn't "redeemed"
in the eyes of the writers, the characters on the show still can't
overlook it all-- but the *fans* know that Angel can NOT be held
accountable for what soul-less Angelous did. Why then can you
not forgive Spike now that he has a soul? The modern Spike, in
my opinion, can not be held accountable for what soul-less spike
did. I can see you don't agree, at least with the rape, although
you will forgive the murder, and it confuses me.
The difference for me, between Angel and Spike is that I never
liked Angel much less Angelus. Souless!Spike I liked. I knew he
was a killer like a tiger is a killer but thought there were limits,
not to what he would do maybe, but to what he would want to do.
Never one for the pre-show, not interested in torture or rape,
too easily bored such activities, fighting was his choice of evil,
of chaos. Or so I thought. I could accept him as a bad creature
getting better because of his love for Buffy. Now ME has rubbed
my nose in how wrong I was. I find it difficult to enjoy even
older shows like Something Blue with Buffy cooing and kissing
the serial rapist, or Smashed or Gone, initiating sex with the
serial rapist. Rape is just too much a hot button for me.
What ME should have done was leave it ambiguous...so people like
you could still think Spike was a rapist and people like me could
still think he wasn't. But I think Fury in his present position
of power over BtVS was determined to rub our noses in his view
that Spike was a serial rapist and Joss, through inattention or
misjudgment, let him. I know Fury did not write these episodes
but as showrunner with Noxon and Noxon a new mother, he could
insist on his views being represented in the scripts when the
episodes were being broken by the writers. Jane Espenson mentioned
how aggressively he pushes his opinions. Him being boss and being
the principal architect (with Joss) of this season's arc means
the writers had to do it his way. As Espenson said: Fury has
very, very strong independent ideas about where things should
go, and I tend to be much more "Joss' word defines the universe;
when we hear Joss' word, we know what the right answer is."
So it does differ for the two of us. We're probably the two most
extreme. He is the most likely to disagree...
I keep thinking of the survey that Deb mentioned, that when 75
college men were asked "If you knew you could get away with
it and not be punished in any way, would you rape a woman?"
3/4 said they would. (Deb don't go!!) Maybe men like Fury know
in their hearts that if they could rape without punishment they
would, therefore they assume that, of course, Spike, free of all
constraints, would as well. They assume that rapist is the default
position, OF COURSE, he would rape, just as I assume non-rapist
is the default position.
[> [> [> As much as
I miss and respect Deb..... -- Briar Rose, 13:46:48 12/08/02
Sun
You have to admit that question posed as was isn't really telling
us anything about the truth of the statements made in the poll
and therefore the actual outcome is dubious IMO.
What is missing from most polls is very simply more depth. What
doesn't appear to be asked is "What do you define as rape?"
I mean would most men (and women!) want to have intercourse with
whomever they desired as long as they don't have bad consequences?
I would say the answer is yes! I know that if I could get my claws
into some of the men I have lusted after, I would do it in a heart
beat, even if I had to trick them into bed.
The law enforcement and mental health community have all defined
rape not as a sexual crime, but as a crime of Control and Power.
It is normally carried out not for the sexual gratification of
the perp, but as a means of debasing and mentally/physically controlling
the victim. This is also why there is no way to actually figure
out WHO will be at risk. Rape is not about "sex", it
is about control and power.
The question doesn't give the respondants' views on what they
believe rape to be. Is it actually forcing ones self on another
when the only real goal is control and power? Or are these men
thinking it would be wonderful to just have a partner that I can
do anything to and there are no reprisals in any way? Or are they
actually mistaking rape with the ability to have sex with absolutely
no need to seduce the partner first?
Especially considering tha fact that most actual rapists KNOW
that they are rarely going to be prosecuted, or don't care, why
is this even an issue? Of course the men that responded don't
even understand the type of personality that rapes!*L These are
guys that are answering a question that they have never even considered
the actual definition of. Therefore, we know that the majority
don' have the inner lack of morals to commit the act. Otherwise
they would know that the question is skewed to make them look
like narcissistic, cruel and deviant bastards and nothing more.
I am not a fan of "polls" because the questions are
always set up with an agenda in mind. They are purposely laid
out to skew the data to make whatever point the poller has in
mind, usually depending on who is paying for the research.
Sure - it is a wonderful way to promote fear and paranoia among
women of college age. It is also true that only women/men with
issues about rape will ever bother to read that data. But is it
accurate?
I wrote the real issues of rape above. But even with that as my
reference emotionally - I do not agree that any weight can be
given to this "poll" that is being bandied about. Not
as it is presented. More information is needed for me to even
begin to consider those findings as anything close to relevant
on this topic.
[> [> [> [> Excellent
points -- Sophist, 14:19:16 12/08/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> Re:
Poll -- Deb -- Big Bloody Bag of Hot Air speaks to qualify
survey, 16:36:40 12/08/02 Sun
The poll was conducted by my undergraduate students, and was meant
as a teaching device (they chose the topic of rape) and I assigned
a grade. True, it is not academic nor proves that if actually
faced with the opportunity that these guys would actually behave
as they say, but it does show a little something about how they
"think" about rape. In this state, they know it is a
criminal offense. On this campus, all freshmen and new students
must attend seminars on rape and other topics conerning personal
safety, including safe sex. These guys had the legal definition
of rape, knew female viewpoints, knew female reactions to being
raped. So what this survey told them was not so much how many
men would rape women if it were not illegal, but told more about
their attitudes toward rape in general. This reflects more, IMO,
on "things that make it OK." Examples: She was coming
on to me all night. In that outfit, she was begging for it. She
said "no" but she didn't mean it. Even, she's such a
bitch, she needs to be put back into her place.
I regret if I gave the impression that this survey meant that
3/4 of college men would rape a woman if they could get away with
it. Was not particulaily in a calm place at the time. The female
students, when we were discussing the survey outcomes, asked the
male students in class if they could explain the outcome of the
survey. One very brave young man said that he thought about sex
all the time, and in fantasy he could see raping if there were
no legal restraints, but that was fantasy and probably the guys
who answered the survey were in their fantasy modes at the time.
He also said he, and probably a lot of guy, don't see rape as
an act of violence. A fantasy does not dictate how a person is
going to behave, but fantasies are a clue into the mind of a person
and what they see as a "perfect world."
Case in point: That irritating Pepsi commercial that ran during
Buffy before sweeps. The, we assume husband and wife, and the
husband talks about how "hot" one of his female co-workers
was, and his wife responds something to the fact it was good that
he got along so well with his co-workers. Then the slogan that
contained "In a perfect world....." Someone told me
that in some places, Pepsi ran a tag in which the wife corrects
her husband, but it never ran here.
What bothered me was the number of guys who would admit that rape
was something that was part of their fantasy worlds. I must admit,
though, that I'm not the type to even fantasize about hurting
people intentionally -- not my motivation, not my style. (I have
trust issues though, because of my experiences. I must to learn
how to trust my instincts more so that the people I do associate
with will have a degree of trust from me.) I have no idea what
"healthy" fantasies are, but I do know that this was
an experience that taught many undergraduate students how differently
men and women, in general, view sex. Nothing was ever done with
the survey because this class was a primer in covering and writing
"hard" news, not in-depth features.
Another point: We can never know another person, or ourselves
for that matter, completely (I don't know about twins, triplets,
etc.). So if someone thinks they can know someone by that person's
public acts and general public disposition, then Ted Bundy would
be alive and free today.
At another point in the past, I made a comment about how the writers
were zooming right in on many (emphasis *many* not *all*) womens'
psychological dream of finding a guy, who is "bad" but
shows great potential growth, and helping him change. Of course,
no one can change anyone but themselves, and when one tries, it
usually backfires. But that instinct or socialization or inherit
drive exists, and shame on writers for not knowing it, or knowing
it and using it to hurt. Worse still, it is demeaning and cruel
to then say these women who like "bad" characters are
sexually fixated, or fixated at all, on mass murderers, serial
rapists, abusive men and psychopaths. Writers don't create within
a vacuum, and extraordinary writers understand the motivations
of various peoples. Television writers are in a sticky situation
that that a storyline can go on for years, so understanding human
psychology and storytelling is even more important. It's not a
one shot deal -- story told. The standard come back: "If
you don't like the story, turn the channel." This is quite
true, and some people are perfectly capable of doing so, but for
viewers who have been avid fans for 6-7 years, this is a difficult
if almost impossible thing to do. It's like an addiction, which
the writers profess Buffy to be about, especially during season
6. I swore I'd never watch Buffy again, but the very next day
I rationalized my decision by watching a season 4 re-run that
I had never seen.......Somehow it made it different. I know it
didn't. I was watching Buffy.
And yes, I'm still a Big Bloody Bag of Hot Air (BBBHA)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poll -- Miss Edith, 18:02:38 12/08/02 Sun
It's good you are still a Buffy fan and haven't let David Fury
put you off as I agree he was out of line. Because of him snide
comments were made about Spike fans. On the Buffy boards I visited
in season 5 if I tried to defend Spike the number of times I was
patrionisingly told "I pity your personal life". Not
to mention being advised to follow Fury's advice and go write
to a sexy serial killer. Watching a tv show has nothing to do
with my real life taste in men. I don't see how liking Spike belittles
the damage real life serial killers do and I still think David
Fury owes the Spike redemptionist fans an apology for the way
he dissed them and encouraged other fans to treat them as a laughing
stock
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Poll -- JM, 21:07:07 12/08/02 Sun
Going to start out with hoping-praying that my words neither hurt
nor offend anyone. That is never, ever my intention. And I apologize
ahead of time for anything my own weaknesses or failings reveal
or cause. (And it probably won't do any good if I have hurt anyone,
but I really, really debated posting at all, for hours.)
Deb, Iím so glad to see you are still posting. Your contributions
in the last few days have generated a lot of thought provoking
discussion. And they have been very brave. And Courage is just
as much an emotion as rage, frustration, and offense. And always
admirable. (And if you are hot air, then you do hot air proud.)
One of the things that struck me about the survey results is that
Iíve seen a lot of references over the years to the fact
that rape scenarios are not all that uncommon in the fantasy life
of het women. Although Iím sure none of those women ever
experienced that or would ever deliberately seek it out. Many
if not all are probably also people who would support strong punishments
and protections against real world rapists. My point, if I even
have one, is just a suspicion that fantasy doesnít always
tell us much about a personís real world actions and convictions,
because like dreams, they can be less wish fulfillment than working
out anxieties and unarticulated fears. And for men and women sex
and control, of oneself and the other, is a very scary arena.
And the fantasies may have a lot more to do with confronting those
metaphorical internal demons than any ability to conceive of the
reality. Everything in our culture that facilitates fictionally
defanging the horrible reality should be fought against and denounced
but the survey results may not actually indicate that 75 % of
men would actually go in for rape if they didnít think
they would get caught or punished. The other consequences, including
a betrayed and damaged person and the memory of what they did,
would probably also have to be absent. The tragedy is that there
are those who would and do. And I am so sorry and saddened for
those Iíve know who have survived this, and those Iíve
only met on the boards. From what Iíve seen the consequence
really do go on and on in time and space, in unanticipated ways.
My heart and prayers go out to you.
(The rest of the discussion is about bad relationships, not at
all about sexual assault and rape.)
I do want to say some words about Fury, who seems to generate
quite a lot of fury. Some of his points really resonated with
me, though I donít think he can be the last or definitive
word on any character. Men and the male gaze are not the only
stereotyping going on in our culture. And just as we women are
often offended by such things as the Madonna/Whore complex, both
as perpetuated in art and acted on in real life, how can men as
fellow complex human beings not be frustrated and offended by
stereotypes? Because women have them too. The bad boy saved is
a huge female stereotype. An idea where cruelty is dangerously
confused with strength. The majority of women I have known have
had at least one bad, early relationship that expressed this.
Where they couldnít imagine any greater expression of their
love than putting up with crap. This was almost always behavioral,
not physical, abuse. And it wasnít about these men deliberately
manipulating their women, it was about these young women choosing
to live out a scenario with equally young men. And most of them
grew and were stronger because of it, and much better able to
judge and interact with the rest of the men in their lives. And
of course a few of them never did get beyond it, still contemptuous
of gentle, controlled men, still looking to put up with crap just
for the excitement.
I canít help but be sympathetic to quite a lot of well
behaved men being very, very frustrated watching their female
friends get into sad relationships that were partly a function
of their own other issues, but also partly a function of their
refusal to discard a masculine conception for the unromantic reality
that men are as often weak as strong, timid as aggressive, easily
manipulated as emotionally rigid. As men they probably understand
the reality of other men a bit more rapidly than we do and would
love to be able to communicate that to the other half the planet.
And despite the fact that you canít know that someone who
treats others well, will treat people well in private, I fully
believe the reverse. Any man who treats others badly is not someone
you can trust or respect. And you cannot express respect for yourself
by joining yourself with someone you canít respect. And
that goes for guys as well as gals. Itís probably not going
to reach itís denouement in attempted rape but it probably
will in some distasteful encounter where one realize that oneís
morals cannot countenance tolerating someone who doesnít
and wonít share them.
And one last thing, please donít take offense. In my opinion,
there are few greater gifts that we as humans (IMO particularly
as women) have been given than ìinstincts.î Theyíre
not mystical or illogical. They are the compilation of a thousand
subtle clues that we canít consciously quantify, but produce
a remarkably reliable judgment of an event or person. Maybe my
instincts werenít always right but every time I have ignored
them Iíve regretted it. Just cause itís you doesnít
mean itís not them.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Very happy to see you posting, Deb! & Thanx.... --
Briar Rose, 01:22:03 12/09/02 Mon
That made a whole lot of the poll information more reasonable....
And I definitely agree that the most interesting (and telling)
thing that came out of the poll was the difference between how
females view sex and how males view sex. But I won't go into broad
generalizations.... Some women and some men are opposite of the
"norm."
I agree, JM - the "rape fantasy" isn't purely a male
thing. The only difference being that it's more difficult for
a woman to rape a man, [However, I have heard that a little Vick's
can aid that balance.....*L] so it is usually a woman's inner
fantasy to release the "good girl" and be controlled
instead of as the perpetrator. The other side of this, is that
there are women who have fantasies of being a hooker or a domanitrix.
Both of which are many times a fantasy version of empowering of
the female sexuality.
Actually - I know that some women that have experienced real
rape still have what would be classified as "rape fantasies."
The difference is in the situational parts of the fantasy, usually.
But then I know an odd lot of people.*LOL It is also true that
some survivors of rape have the hooker/dominitrix fantasy. It's
about reclaiming the power of their sexuality.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Poll -- DEb, 05:01:15 12/09/02 Mon
I don't view anything in the world as mystical, but of course
I dont' view it as reality either. Instincts are logical, but
I must profess a belief in reincarnation of the soul, which is
not mystical to me either, but is the only *real* thing that exists
in this *place and time*.
I believe that stereotypes are archetypes found within the collective
consciousness, and I agree that some women have fantasies about
rape, but they don't involve violence as much as "unrecognized
love" which technically isn't rape, and it's a passive, even
if the woman fights back, fantasy.
Also, I don't think that the women who post to this board are
"typical" women, and I'm not dissing the "typical"
woman, whatever she is. I'd guess that we are all what society
would label intelligent, and according to people who know us,
we think a great deal too much for our own goods.
I have spent a great deal of time with women who, in states of
shock, explain they are with a man because he was so "kind"
when they dated. "Kind, kind, kind" to them. "Kind
to their friends" "Attentive" "Kind to their
mothers" "Interested in what I do." "Is a
member of the school board or some other community welfare organization."
This is their experience. It was my experience before and during
first six months of marriage. Then slowly, someone emerged I didn't
know at all and didn't like at all.
The thing I have learned is if a man tells you something, before
you are married, that even hints to the fact that he never quite
saw himself with someone like you.......run, don't walk, to the
nearest exit. Even little things like: "I always thought
I'd marry a blond." Also, don't marry a guy just because
he has to move hundreds or thousands of miles away, and, even
though you have never talked about marriage before, he asks you
to marry him and go with him. He's afraid of being alone. OK,
sorry. Not trying to give advice, but these are my observations.
And if feeling "courageous" means feeling sick to my
stomach, then I guess I'm courageous. I've always viewed it as
necessary for sensible reasons or because I just need to be true
to myself, no matter what. It's still a sickening feeling. But
then again, it is a rush at times. Like when your apartment building
in one fire on the third floor in an interior stairwell and you
live on the fourth floor. Of course, I felt sick to my stomach
a couple of days later, after I ran out of adrenaline. Huge quantities
of adrenaline gives everything total clarity. Perhaps vampires
are on an adrenaline rush. They're allergic to life and need the
histamine and adrenaline a frightened person has in their blood.
. . . Sorry, pulling a Virginia Woolf here.
Vampire killings
are NOT murder!! -- Wisewoman, 09:18:18 12/06/02 Fri
Okay. My buttons have been pushed to the nth degree. I posted
at length on this over a year ago, but obviously it's time I expressed
the opinion again. If I see one more reference to Spike as a murderer
or a serial killer, I'm gonna blow!
Vampires are not human beings. They are a different species,
in the same way that bears, tigers, and sharks are different species
from human beings. Vampires kill humans for food, and to procreate.
Bears, tigers, and sharks sometimes kill humans for food. It would
be ridiculous to call a man-eating tiger a murderer. A
grizzly that repeatedly attacked and killed human beings would
never be referred to as a serial killer.
The extentuating circumstance here is that the vampire looks
like a human being (when not in game face) and sometimes acts
like a human being. That's camouflage, and very effective as a
survival tactic. Unfortunately, this similarity leads people to
believe that vampires should adhere to the sort of moral code
that humans do and refrain from killing a species that looks so
similar. Well, hey, not much difference in looks between human
beings and primates, but we manage to kill a whole whack of them
every year and the charge is poaching, rather than murder. It's
the species that determines the crime. A human being can
only, by definition, be murdered by another human being. Also,
by definition, a human being can only murder another human being,
so Buffy's killings of vampires and demons are just that--killings,
not murders.
Whether any of these killings are morally or ethically defensible
is beside the point. It's the terminology that's pushing my buttons.
William the Poet never murdered anyone and probably never would
have. He was a human being. Spike the Vampire killed hundreds
of people, but he never murdered anyone either.
Sheeesh!! Hand me that blood-pressure cuff, would ya?
[> Re: Vampire killings
are NOT murder!! (spoilers, BtVS S7, AtS 4) -- Rahael, 09:28:10
12/06/02 Fri
Is Angel human or Vampire? If he killed Cordelia in a fit of jealousy,
would that be murder, or a simple killing?
Why does he feel so guilty of his past crimes? Why does Spike
feel so guilty?
If Vamps cannot murder, and cannot be accorded the moral faculties
to judge such things, should Spike be given any credit for anything
good? Or is he just becoming more human?
What about other demons? Can they murder? Or does it go species
by species?
What Animal drapes its victim on the bed of her lover, puts on
La Boheme and leaves champagne and roses as an extra taunt? Can
an animal draw? If we are saying species differ, aren't we now
discussing what characteristics separate animals from humans?
I think you have to accept that there are going to be differing
arguments from this, all of them legitimate. I don't think it's
so obvious, so clear cut.
[> Well, let's get REALLY
controversial. -- Darby, 09:29:53 12/06/02 Fri
I realized while reading your post that this is an effective metaphor
for the abortion debate, and the answer is both a) entirely unclear
and b) absolutely clear if you see it that way. Wouldn't it be
fascinating to watch ME couch this in metaphorical terms
for an episode?
Is a vampire a human being with an infection, or a completely
different animal? The problems lie with definitions - whether
a fetus is a human being depends on how you view the essence of
humanity.
I don't see vampires as predatory beasts only - there's too much
going on in their heads to pardon them as merely following their
instincts. And I absolutely see a vampire preying on a person
as committing murder, while lacking the empathy to see it as something
they shouldn't do. A vampire is a human lacking in certain decision-making
capacities and prone to murderous violence.
But I've got no trouble seeing your slant on it, too.
- Darby, who's participated in the other version of this discussion
too many times to have an absolute opinion anymore.
[> [> Don't see it, darby
-- VR, 10:22:25 12/06/02 Fri
A vampire is a human lacking in certain decision-making capacities
and prone to murderous violence.
They make a lot of decisions. The one to track prey, attack prey,
feed on prey, not track prey, not attack prey, not feed on prey.
They just have very strong instinctual urges that are sometimes
are too intense to control or they don't even realize they're
doing it. Okay, many of their instincts are towards violence and
evil acts, but human's have them, too. They just aren't as strong
in us as they are in them.
[> [> [> Re: Don't
see it, darby -- Darby, 11:08:44 12/06/02 Fri
That's what makes the differences differences in capacities -
not pure capabilities. Vampires have always been portrayable as
seriously skewed humans, with the caveat that the skew is explainable
and potentially "excusable" by the "lack of soul"
thing. But as has been increasingly shown on both programs, this
just shifts the landscapes of grays for each group.
[> [> I think it depends
on the MO.... -- Briar Rose (Original Mizz Shades of Gray),
15:49:09 12/06/02 Fri
Is it feeding or torturing in the scene?*S*
As for "Feeding" alone. I agree that Wisewoman's right,
Now if you're talking about Angelus/Dru and "Torture"
(both mental and physical) and stalking with intent not to feed
but to kill? Then psycho killer is correct.
I don't see the majority of the mayhem on BtVS as "murder"
by definition. Simply because murder has to be planned, executed
and without any form of provocation to be purely the definition
of taking a life with forethought and deliberate execution of
the act.
At most, Buffy (and everyone that kills "evil undead")
is usually acting in proactive self defense. That is more about
"negligent homocide" because the real and present danger
was percieved, but not in active motion at the time than murder.
And most actual courts in the human world would see it as that.
Of course, we aren't talking about the "real world"
with BtVS.*LOL
But the fact that a Vampire has to feed off humans and other animals
to survive takes the actual act of feeding OFF the definition
of Murder and places it in the realm of dog eat dog survival
of the species.
And is killing a deamon that is reeking havoc in your town "murder"
even if you plan it? Then call me a murderer! Because killing
evil (human or inhuman) is a calling we should all aspire to,
IMO.
[> Afraid I can't agree
-- Vickie, 09:42:57 12/06/02 Fri
Vampires may no longer be human, may be a separate species, but
that species is clearly sentient. I consider a sentient being
killing another sentient being, when not in self defense or defense
of another, as murder. I consider vampires people, and when they
kill humans they are committing murder. The fact that people are
their natural food complicates matters, but doesn't excuse them
from responsibility for their actions. We know that they can
survive on non-sentient animal blood (I know the ethical vegetarians
amongs consider this very little better, but that's not my argument).
[> Re: Vampire killings
are NOT murder!! -- Apophis, 09:43:51 12/06/02 Fri
Vampires are guilty of murder. It's not a matter of animal vs.
man, it's a matter of one sentient being killing another when
a less violent option (animal blood or a willing donor) is available
(judging from the faux-vampire subculture, there would be plenty
of hip 20-somethings willing to let a vamp bite them). Maybe the
soulless condition drives the vampire to kill; that doesn't absolve
them from the fact that they, as self-aware, intelligent beings,
go out of their way to end the life of other self-aware, intelligent
beings. The fact that they take pleasure in not only the killing,
but in taunting and frightening their victims, seperates them
from the innocence of animals.
I apologize if this pushes any buttons (not entirely sure what
that means), but these things happen in such discourses. That's
what makes it interesting.
[> [> Killing and Eating
-- Wisewoman, 10:31:34 12/06/02 Fri
Gotta quote Campbell here: "The essence of life is that it
lives by killing and eating."
It's that simple. Even vegans survive by ingesting previously
living plant substance.
Again, I'm not condoning acts like Angelus torturing Giles with
Jenny's body. I agree that was unconscionable behavior for a sentient
being. But the actual killing in itself was not a murder.
The definition of murder is one human being killing another. There's
been no need for a definition that encompasses sentient
beings because we still consider ourselves the only ones, in the
RW.
There's some evidence that cetaceans may be sentient. I'm not
gonna quote it all here, just point out that whaling, even where
it's illegal, still isn't murder.
[> [> [> Angelus broke
her neck (possible mature subject matter) -- Apophis, 11:04:55
12/06/02 Fri
He never fed off of Jenny. There was no consumption of blood involved.
He killed for the sake of killing and thus that example is one
of murder.
As for sentients, the Buffyverse isn't the real world. There are
multiple non-human sentient beings, vampires among them. This
invites many questions about pre-existing norms. Is sex with a
demon beastiality? They are sentient, feeling beings, yes, but
they still aren't human. If Buffy and Angel and Buffy and Spike
having sex is okay because both vampires are "nearly human,"
then vampires are guilty of murder under the same system of thought.
Otherwise, our heroine has done something fairly disturbing.
We've seen demon/human hybrids with children of their own, meaning
that humans and demons are close enough to breed successfully.
If they're that close to us, they must be judged under the same
parameters.
[> [> [> [> As
did Spike (still for mature audiences) -- Vickie, 11:58:18
12/06/02 Fri
In School Hard, Spike kills a teacher who is "too old to
eat," saying that he's "a veal man." Meaning, he
likes them young.
Plays right into the Never Leave Me speech about girls Dawn's
age.
I can't agree to apply "real-world" rules to the Buffyverse
regarding the definition of murder. If vampires are people, then
then they're people. If they're not, Buffy shouldn't be having
sexual relations with them either. (agreeing with Apophis.)
Aren't we skipping the metaphorical approach here? Vampires, being
the shows' metaphor for pure appetite and arrested maturation,
are clearly metaphors for people (read, humans, as WW
says they are the only kind we have right now) in those situations.
And clearly, arrested adolescents who kill because of their own
uncontrolled appetites can be considered murderers.
[> [> [> Ever watched
a cat with a bird/mouse?*L Animals, too, take pleasure in torture.
-- Briar Rose, 15:52:35 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Re:
Ever watched a cat with a bird/mouse?*L Animals, too, take pleasure
in torture. -- auroramama, 15:22:45 12/07/02 Sat
IMHO, the cat isn't getting off on the pain and suffering of the
prey; it's just playing with a toy, or practicing moves. The cat
doesn't think of the bird or mouse as a fellow being with sensations
and emotions. It's the opportunity to exercise skills against
a target that's the draw. Otherwise, how could you keep a cat
busy with a piece of string or a ping-pong ball? Can you imagine
a human sadist playing happily for hours with a crash-test dummy?
This doesn't make a lot of difference if you're the mouse, of
course. (Although the occasional mouse does get away.) And I'm
not saying that human killers are OK as long as they're just oblivious
or uncaring. But we're talking about fictional characters whose
mental states we want to understand; in that context, intention
does make a difference.
auroramama
[> This tiresome pushing
of buttons -- slain, 11:43:35 12/06/02 Fri
This phrase 'pushing my button' has apparently sprung up on the
board over the past few months, and I swear if I see it again
I will bang the desk in a very frustrated fashion and probably
spill my cup of tea.
I would like to be able to express myself on this board without
worrying about which 'buttons' I'm going to 'push'. I'm not pushing
anything, excepts the keys on my keyboard. It's very rare that
anyone writes anything which is expressly 'pushing' another's
'button'; rather, we all push our own buttons. If
you get angry, have a nice cup of tea.
That said, I think there's an element of your argument that I
agree with, dubdub. Certainly from a vampire's perspective they're
not guilty of murder. They view humans as very much the Other,
and view themselves as demons which coincidentally look like humans.
But vampires aren't demons, they're humans which instead of having
a soul, have a demon. The division between William and Spike,
Liam and Angelus, Willow and Vamp Willow, etc, isn't that great.
James Marsters has always played his character as one person who
went through various internal and external transitions, and I
think that's how the writers portray vampires; a vampire is not
a non-person, it's at most a hybrid, but it is a person.
A very evil person. A vampire understands all human morals, understands
how it's possible to live without killing, has intelligence, reason,
rationality. That's more than many human murderers do. Vampires
may not view themselves as murderers, but I certainly do.
[> [> Re: This tiresome
pushing of buttons -- Sara, hoping the cup of tea is moved
before this is read..., 12:12:56 12/06/02 Fri
I gotta say that it's very inconvenient that people have all these
messy emotions that get pushed, but we've got them, like 'em or
not. I think it's a good thing that in a discussion forum that
can go into particularly personal or serious issues people have
a way of letting others know that their response is very influenced
by pre-existing feelings about a topic.
As someone whose button got pushed a short while ago, and who
wrote a highly emotional reaction, I used the button statement
as a warning so that people reading the post would have a context
for the strength of the statements in it. I know that when I read
a post that is inflammatory, if the writer says up front that
one of their buttons just got pushed, I'll give that read a little
more rope. I don't think this gives anyone a right to be offensive
or ugly, but we can be a little more understanding about a really
emotional reaction. I'd love to send my emotions away for a very
long term holiday, but they just won't go! I've talked to them
about the South of France, or Palm Springs, and yet they keep
hanging on like a albatross wrapped around my little neck.
One of the joys of this forum is the depth and sensitivity of
the discussions, I'd hate to see it either turn uncivil, or flat,
because people didn't care about buttons, are didn't have a way
of communicating about them and became afraid of saying anything
controversial.
- Sara, whose hoping her emotions might be intersted in a nice
trip to Venice, and they don't even have to send a postcard!
[> [> [> On the subject
of buttons -- Apophis, 14:35:59 12/06/02 Fri
For me, the issue of button "pushing" is troublesome
because, basically, someone has the power to take something that
I may think/believe and say that this subject irritates them to
the point that they'd rather I not mention it in their presence
ever again. They are saying that I (and this goes for anyone else
in my position) am wrong for thinking this and my thinking this
pisses them off. When did we start having "buttons"
on this site? Why are we limiting what we can and can't discuss/say/think
(without exiting the boundaries of good taste, natch)?
[> [> [> [> Re:
On the subject of buttons -- Darby, 14:59:51 12/06/02 Fri
I agree with Sara (it does happen) that the button issues are
not ones that you need avoid, but issues where maybe a little
extra sensitivity is needed. And where we might be expected to
extend a bit of extra understanding when told we've pushed them.
I mention having buttons pushed when I feel that I might have
lost some objectivity and that a reply may be a bit too strong
- it's kind of a warning that I may be treading a dangerous line,
and that it isn't entirely purposeful.
[> [> [> [> [>
Exactly! -- dub ;o), 16:04:40 12/06/02 Fri
Actually, I enjoy the button issues. That's were the passion and
drama comes into play. Announcing that something pushes one of
my buttons should never be construed as an attempt to stop
discussion on that issue; just the opposite. If I didn't want
to talk about this particular issue I wouldn't have posted on
it at all!
Come to think of it, I don't often post in this particular vein.
Maybe I'm feeling the need of a little adventure during the hiatus
or something. Hey, could be poor impulse control as a result of
brain surgery, who knows? It got the kind of response that I anticipated,
and I'm enjoying the discussion, so the best I can do is hope
that others are as well.
;o) dub
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Exactly! -- slain, 16:23:47 12/06/02 Fri
So really what you're saying is you want us to push your
buttons? Well, why didn't you say that in the first place?!
Clem eats kittens by the bucketload.
How's that? ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> WHA...??!! OMG!!!! NOW YOU'VE DONE IT!! --
Whipwoman, 16:42:44 12/06/02 Fri
Come here, you little...Slain, huh? Yeah, you'll be slain
alright, by the time I'm finished with you!!
(And thanks for entering into the spirit of the thing!)
;o) dub
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Whipwoman, you all got a spare........kitten
eating is cause for a beating....;) -- Rufus, 17:36:01
12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Buckets of kittens???? -- Sophomorica,
drooling..., 17:39:37 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Sophomorica is very naughty and
deserves special attention....:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:47:25
12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and she's gonna GET
it, don't you worry!! -- Whipwoman, 17:51:34 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sophomorica! No!
The kittens are not for eating! -- Sophie, taking Sophomorica
by the hand and dragging her home, 18:14:09 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, they're
for juggling. ;o) -- RobAndMurder, 20:51:16 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You just
watch your pom poms, buddy! -- Whipwoman, 22:15:30 12/06/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey,
you leave my pom-poms out of this! -- RobAndMurder, 11:20:20
12/07/02 Sat
[> [> [> Heh --
Rahael, 15:28:00 12/06/02 Fri
I'd love to send my emotions away for a very long term holiday,
but they just won't go! I've talked to them about the South of
France, or Palm Springs, and yet they keep hanging on like a albatross
wrapped around my little neck.
Know what you mean!!!
[> [> Re: This tiresome
pushing of buttons (CWDP spoiler) -- shadowkat, 12:43:07
12/06/02 Fri
Hmmm mostly agree.
Certainly agree on the button pushing.
It's not hard to push my buttons - but I work hard to keep angry
phrases and words with a heavy emotional tone out of my posts.
Of course when I intentionally, very rarely, get provocative -
people ignore it. LOL!
As for vampires being murderers? Well yeah, I agree. They are
murderers. Worse than human murderers? Agree and disagree. Worse
because they can turn human's into murderers - a type of twisted
living death, while a human murderer just kills you. But death
is death after all. So is the degree that important? I think Warren
was as bad if not worse than any vampire Buffy had slayed. By
the time he shot her, he had become a sociopath and was partly
responsible for turning Willow. And DarkWillow was just as bad
in her evil acts. And least we forget? Anyanka who for 1000s of
years had no qualms in ripping men's hearts out, although I'm
not so sure she could be classified as human - rather more as
demon. Actually Anyanka like the vampires may in fact be worse
than the humans - I just had an epiphany while writing this =
the difference is that anyanka and the vampires turn the people
they kill into killers. Anyanka turned the man who showed up at
Hells Bells into a demon who later tried to kill her and numerous
others. Anyanka turned Ronnie into a murderous worm. Dru turned
William into a twisted killer. Angel turned Dru into one of the
most evil vamps ever - that is far worse than just killing someone
- because what it is is killing that person and turning the person
they had been into a murderer like yourself. So yes - the vampire
is far worse than the human murderer - not only are vamps less
vulnerable but they also have the capacity to create more like
them.
I think the vampires saw themselves as murderers and don't care.
As Webs says to Buffy to CwDP -"I'm dead, I have no worries
except wondering if __came to my funeral and the prospect of seeing
her again, definitely biteable."
Buffy's response? "That's the problem with you vampires,
love, sex, pain, violence, death it's all the same to you. and
believe me I know."
But ...I think there's a point in which we have to realize that
this is a FANTASY/SCI-FANTASY/HORROR show we are watching and
NOT your run of the mill cop, lawyer, doctor show. It's a show
told through metaphors and as you note so brillantly below the
gothic tradition.
I have to admit at the risk of sounding provocative that I find
essays discussing how Buffy is a murderer for slaying vampires
or a racist for killing demons that are killing people to be absurdly
amusing. It reminds me a bit of the Westerns years ago - on Sat
afternoons on the Hallmark channel you can watch old 1950/60s
westerns. One of these is Marshal Dillon which starred James Arness,
Dennis Weaver, and later became Gunsmoke. One of the writers included
Sam Peckinpah. I saw an episode recently which dealt with the
morality of an idiot being coaxed into shooting a man in the back
inadvertently by the town marshal. The Marshal knew he wasn't
directly responsible but he felt responsible for it happening,
for allowing it to happen. Later episodes of Gunsmoke dealt with
other controversial issues and in later years? Racism. But mostly
it like other Westerns of the time were accused of being too white
and not representative enough, part of this was the time period
- 1950s/1960s/1970s... As time progressed the Western grew out
of favor, people knew the frontier didn't exist and found the
whole idea of gunfighters and the cowboys vs. indian motif to
be faintly offensive, not to mention the lack of minorities -
at any rate along comes the science fiction genre with Star Trek
franchise - and we have once again the morality play.
In Star Trek - questions of racism came up over and over again.
Most recently with the Cardissians which my brother and others
were convinced represented the Iranians/Iraquis even with makeup.
And they felt that DS9 was racist in doing this. I failed to see
the symbolism and found this view faintly idiotic. Maybe I'm just
blind to these types of metaphors I don't know.
In Buffy? I can see some demons being representative of the prejudice/racisim
issue. But vampires?? Actually I'm more likely to go along with
Rah's fascinating and often provocative posts in the archives
which suggest that Spike/Angel/Dru/Darla are representative of
imperialism and colonial conquerors, particularly Spike than they
are representative of minorities. That makes more sense. Even
though I still don't personally believe that was the writer's
intent. The writers' don't appear that well versed in history
nor that interested in it to pursue that tact, but hey I could
be wrong on that. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it's
not valid.
So what's my point? I guess it's that I find this whole tendency
to get riled up over what vampires are or are not capable of and
whether Buffy should slay them to be...pardon the word, laughable.
Of course she should. Of course vampires do every evil act imaginable.
Vampires are evil that is made clear in the show. The show is
after all Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it's not Marshall Buffy -
who first nabs the demon or criminal then sends him off to trial.
Nor is it Prosecutor Buffy or Councilor Buffy. She doesn't have
a license to kill but she is similar to a gunfighter - she takes
care of the dangerous infections to humans. Vampires are similar
if you like to an Aids virus or Cancer - they bite you and sire
you and you become your own worst nightmare, living death. I've
always seen vampirism as more of a metaphor for AIDS than as a
metaphor for minorities or imperialists - perhaps this is the
result of reading one too many Ann Rice novels. ;-)
[> [> [> I agree with
ya Kat, but I have a question for you -- Dochawk, 18:31:36
12/06/02 Fri
Given where Spike is today, after NLM, if Buffy were to find Spike,
should she stake him? She is unable to restrain him as we have
seen, so thats not an option. Long term he has great potential,
but in the short run, she can't keep the FE from causing him to
kill. Buffy has Spike cornered, what should she do?
[> [> [> [> If
Buffy feels someone's redeemable, I'm trusting her judgment.
-- cjl, 20:21:30 12/06/02 Fri
It would very easy for Buffy to stake Spike the next time she
sees him. Makes things easy for just about everybody, including
Spike. But Buffy learned from Angel that: 1) souled vamps can
be an incredibly powerful force for good; and 2) Spike's current
black hole of despair doesn't necessarily have to be a permanent
condition. After a long and hideous period of adjustment, Angel
and his demon eventually reached an uneasy truce, and Broody Boy
is (un)living a productive existence with a family of his own.
(Yes, an incredibly twisted and messed-up family, but let's not
get into that here.)
Buffy believes in Spike. She's convinced he WANTS to be good.
She's betting the Scoobs can break the First Evil's conditioning,
and Spike will get his head together and join the good guys. I'm
with her on this. Excluding all of the Buffster's possible emotional
reasons for keeping Spike alive, it's just sound strategic planning.
If he can manage to get all his noodles together in one bowl,
he'll be an incredible ally when the hammer comes down. Besides,
even a non-shipper like me is enjoying the Spuffyish moments this
season. Who wants to put a stake through that?
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh you put it so much better than I did. Thanks!! Ignore mine,
read cjl's -- shadowkat, 20:35:25 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Re:
I agree with ya Kat, but I have a question for you -- shadowkat,
20:32:38 12/06/02 Fri
Okay struggling not to go into a rant right now...you pushed my
Spike button, naughty Doc. (Pushing that makes me want to go into
a rant and I keep deleting it. LOL.)
1. Buffy's NOT unable to restrain him. She had him chained up.
The FE's harbingers attacked her and kidnapped him. That isn't
Spike or Buffy's fault. What if the harbingers captured Angel
in Amends - should she have staked Angel??Also he hasn't killed
anyone else - he's crucified on a cross and being used. And as
Buffy states - he is trying to change. To become a better man.
It's not his fault. IF she killed someone who was not choosing
to do evil that would make her a "murderer" in her eyes
- it's the reason she doesn't kill OZ in either Wild at Heart,
Phases, or New Moon Rising. Spike's story right now is similar
in some ways to OZ's and to Riley's in Season 4.
So Definitely not stake him. He's helpless. Bleeding. Tortured.
To stake him would IMHO be horribly wrong - it would be like staking
Angel after Beauty and The Beasts or killing OZ after New Moon
Rising or better yet killing Riley after they discovered he had
been on drugs and could harm people, and gee even had a behavior
modification chip planted in his chest, or killing Faith, particularly
if Buffy can stop it. The time to have staked Spike was in Sleeper.
Now? no. Also if she stakes him she plays into the first evil's
hands. That's what the first evil wants. Because a vampire who
goes after a soul, who chooses to become a better man shifts the
tide, it could change the whole balance. If she staked him? Buffy
loses the game. Just as she would have lost if Angel succeeded
in killing himself in Amends. I think the end of the season will
prove me right on this point.
I'll turn the question around on you - should she have staked
Angel in Beauty and The Beasts or let him die in Amends? After
all he was wild, an animal totally capable of harming people in
Beauty and the Beasts and he breaks free of his chains. Just because
he saves her - doesn't mean he isn't hurting others. When she
finds him in the woods it's implied he killed someone. Or should
they have killed OZ who also escaped in Beauty and The Beasts?
Spike is not in control - true. But she could help him just as
they helped Oz and Angel and Willow - who also has serious addiction
problems.
Staking Spike at this point in time would IMHO be no different
than killing Willow in Two to Go or Grave and Willow btw is still
a greater threat - she could if turned take out if everyone. Or
killing Angel in Beauty and The Beasts. Personally I've always
seen Angel as the greater threat.
Because Angel's soul was NOT chosen it was forced on him and could
disappear at any time - also Angel only did good in Btvs to help
Buffy. (I think if rumors are true - i may be asking you this
question about Angel soon ...hee hee hee. Who btw I also don't
want to see staked. They kill Angel, Wesely or Fred? I stop watching
Ats. They kill Willow and/or Spike? I stop watching Btvs. )
But truth to tell? I really don't think it matters what you or
I think. Killing Spike hurts the story arc they've been building.
It would be like killing well Dawn or Xander or Willow or Anya
right now. The story isn't about killing vampires or killing things-
it never was. If it was about killing vampires - for the reasons
you state?? Angel would be dead and not in his own series. The
story is about growing up. Slaying our demons and our fears and
incorporating those that can help us. The vampires, demons, etc
on the show are meant as metaphors largely. Spike made the first
step in the growing up arc. He chose to become something more,
to become a better man. To kill him - would cut that whole arc
at the knees and IMHO make the show unworthy of my attention and
just another run of the mill fantasy show like so many others
that have come and gone.
The type of run of the mill show I thought it was when I started
watching in Season 1 - big whup she killed a few bumpy heads,
bored now, but then Angel popped up and The Pack and Nightmares
and I realized whoa not your run of the mill show.
Not sure that made a lick of sense, since it is close to impossible
for me to be objective on this issue. I'm too invested in Spike's
character arc - actually time for honesty here - Spike's character
is the reason I watch Btvs. He dies? I stop caring. (Now watch
the flaming begin...sigh...it's all your fault Doc. Evil man.
You knew full well that Spike is the main reason I watch Btvs...;-)
)
[> Okay, if vampires are
murderers are they also then cannibals? -- dub, 13:10:41
12/06/02 Fri
A human who intentionally kills another human is a murderer. A
human who eats another human is a cannibal.
If we consider vampires to be people (and I'm perceiving
an assumption that people are somehow different from humans that
I'm not quite clear on here) and consider them therefore capable
of murder, is their feeding behaviour cannibalistic? That just
doesn't make sense to me in the context of the vampire as character
or metaphor. Their whole raison d'etre would seem to be
to stalk and feed off other people.
Having brought this whole thing to light again, I must say I'm
not as emotionally vested in it as I may at first have appeared.
That has a lot to do with the essay below on Wittgenstein's Poker
and the fact that a certain sarcastic wit (the lowest form of
humour, I admit) does not translate well into strictly written
communication. However, it has opened up a larger issue for me,
personally and that is, "Can I accept that vampires are,
in fact, evil?"
I don't think I could see a tiger or a shark as being evil. I
realize that the analogy isn't close enough, but I'm trying to
work my mind up to it. Vampires do things that we consider evil,
because of the effect they have on humans, and because we would
classify those acts as evil if a human commited them. The vampires
themselves have been known to brag about their extreme evilness;
to wallow in it, if you will. But is it the same thing as human
evil? Isn't the demon just doing "what a demon's gotta do?"
I need to think about this some more...and I think I need to take
both Angel and souled-Spike out of the equation, as they are something
else entirely.
;o)
[> [> Agreeing this time
(I think) -- Vickie, 14:29:36 12/06/02 Fri
No, vampires are not cannibals.
And, if you don't think that vampires are people, then I agree
that they are no more evil than a shark that feeds. In both cases,
the effect on the person eaten (when it's a person) is evil from
the perspective of the eaten. But in gamer terms, the alignment
isn't Evil, it's Hungry.
However, I think vampires are people. They aren't exactly human
people, which is why I complicated the discussion with the whole
aliens-among-us motif. And so, I don't think they are cannibals
either, as cannibalism means (I think?) eating one's own kind.
A vampire who ate another vampire would be a cannibal. I guess
by that definition that vampire "reproduction" is cannibalistic.
How on earth did we get here?
[> [> Re: Okay, if vampires
are murderers are they also then cannibals? -- slain, 15:42:06
12/06/02 Fri
Vampires aren't animals, and they aren't just demons (and, unless
you're the Initiative, demons aren't always animals, either).
If a shark doesn't kill anything, it dies, and it isn't capable
of living any other way. If a vampire doesn't kill, then it can
feed in other ways; to feed it can quite easily leave humans alive,
and no doubt could easily find dozens of goths willing to let
themselves be fed on. Furthermore not only does a vampire know
it doesn't have to kill, it also knows that killing humans is
morally wrong and knows the pain it causes. Vampires kill because,
like cats (the only evil animal, in my opinion - and if that isn't
a 'button' what is!), they simply enjoy it, they enjoy the power
and enjoy going against human morals.
[> [> [> Slain!!!
Not just cats.... other animals torture as well for pleasure.*S*
-- Briar Rose, 16:08:05 12/06/02 Fri
chickens and various other birds come to mind readily. Apes and
Monkeys also are known to torture, as do cats and big cats, and
what do you consider a dog fight or elks/lions fighting to the
death over mating rights?
Nope - a lot of animals are in it for the pleasure of inflicting
pain. Some might say that mating is about survival. True. But
ever watch those fights? They're worse than two drunk groupies
brawling over the same big name guitarist back stage!*LOL
I think that for random and psychotic violence reasons, people
shoud be more concerned about getting Animal Planet and
National Geographic Nature Specials off the air instead
of Buffy and the like.
[> [> Delurking: Persons
and Sheep -- Cassandra's
Hope, 17:04:20 12/06/02 Fri
I've been enjoying the thoughtful, often deliciously insightful,
conversations that take place on this board for some time. I usually
just sit back and "listen" because you all do such a
great job of presenting a variety of different opinions, and I
feel like I have nothing original to add.
I would like to offer a possible explanation of the term "people"
as it has been used in this thread. I read the posts and thought
the term should actually be "persons," which is standard
philosophical shorthand for sentient beings. While almost all
human beings are persons(possibly excepting those who are brain-dead),
not all persons must necessarily be human beings. Think Star Trek:
it's murder if a Klingon kills a Vulcan, even if they are from
different species.
I agree that we don't consider lions, sharks, and wolves murderers.
But we're human. What do the zebras and sheep think? Ultimately,
how we're going to apply the word murder is a matter of semantics,
and this thread is helping us to clarify our definitions. I do
think, though, that, as the prey, we must identify the predator
as evil--for our own safety and continuation of the species.
C.S. Peirce explained belief as what someone would act on. If
I were a character on BtVS, and a vampire were coming towards
me, I'd certainly act on my belief that vampires are evil killers!
CH
[> [> [> Re: Delurking:
Persons and Sheep -- slain, 07:27:11 12/07/02 Sat
Great post - delurk more often, I think!
Of course, setting vampires aside for the moment, there's argument
about whether demons are sentinent beings. Some certainly are;
when Giles became a f'ral (sp?) demon his mental faculties didn't
turn to mush, but instead became slower and more aggressive. The
Initiative would have it that demons are just animals - that's
clearly not the case for all, but are some demons not persons?
[> [> That has always
been my theory. -- Sophie, 18:21:28 12/06/02 Fri
[> Vampires kill people
for reasons other than feeding (spoilers up to current) --
Dan The Man, 13:34:41 12/06/02 Fri
Sometimes, vampires kill to just to kill.
Examples include:
Spike breaking the teacher's neck in School Hard.
Angelus breaking Jenny's neck in Passion.
Dru killing Kendra in Becoming.
Spike breaking the slayer's neck in Fool For Love.
And I'm sure that I'm probably missing a few other examples.
Dan The Man
[> [> So do hyenas. But
they're not "murderers," either. Scum-eating scoundrels
of the savanahh, maybe... -- Solitude1056, 15:29:50 12/06/02
Fri
[> [> Re: Vampires kill
people for reasons other than feeding (spoilers up to current)
-- Miss Edith, 16:41:37 12/06/02 Fri
Vampires see humans as beneath them, a seperate speices almost.
Spike tells Buffy in FFL he saw becoming a vampire as bringing
him up to a higher level in his existence. So I don't think vampires
are guilty of murder as such. The Master tells the anointed one
that the killing of vampires (equals) is a serious matter as opposed
to eating humans, the lesser animals, for food.
We can argue that vampires are guilty of torture and killing brutally.
But then again humans have been known to inflict horrendus pain
on animals because they consider animals beneath them. Ordinary
people can work in slaughter houses and close their ears to the
animals screaming in terror. In fact often the animals are kicked
and end up with broken legs when being transported. Yet the men
responsible more than likely live perfectly ordinary lives and
are not sociapathic killers.
The master was using humans on a conveyer belt in The Wish talking
of mass production being a demonic concept. He seems monstrous
at the point preying on the helpless. Yet humans will forcefeed
geese for christmas until their livers explode. Countless animals
are kept in cages to small to turn around in so that that they
can keep providing humans with their creature comforts. That is
how vampires see us. An easy convienience but not a moral issue.
Again in The Wish there are humans in cages in the Bronze if anyone
fancies a snack and it seems evil because we are human and can
visualise ourselves in those cages.
We can argue that humans only use animals for food but that isn't
true. Over here in the UK there are currently protests against
fox hunting which is a pleasure sport. People chasing foxes fleeing
for their lives get the thrill of the chase. There's hare coursing,
bull fighting etc which are all to do with killing for pleasure
or sport. So it's not accurate to say that all humans except sick
and twisted individuals are against torture and killing for fun.
In fact many of us are quite capable of doing that provided it's
a lesser speices we are inflicting pain and misery on.
For example as soon as Spike began interacting with humans and
seeing them as more than happy meals with legs his attitude changed
slightly. He needed to talk himself into attacking the girl in
Smashed and Marti herself said she believed he would have been
remorseful after eating her.
Personally I would see vampires as killers but not murderers as
vampires simply aren't human and have a completely different moral
code. Once they have a soul and a conscience I would say the issue
does become slightly greyer. JMHO.
[> [> [> Vampires
are big old hypocrites -- Rufus, 17:33:32 12/06/02 Fri
Vampires see humans as beneath them, a seperate speices almost.
Spike tells Buffy in FFL he saw becoming a vampire as bringing
him up to a higher level in his existence.
Psyche's Transcripts for Angel "Hero"
Lucas: "The Scourge."
Doyle: "Who the hell is that? (Blend to Doyle talking to
Angel) An army of pureblooded demons. They have a big hate-on
for us mixed heritage types. Very into pedigree. They hunt us
down like animals."
Angel in vamp face: "For what? (Pulls Doyle around a corner)
For this? (As some soldier hurry towards him) Back off! It's my
kill."
Commander: "Vampires don't feed on demon blood."
Angel: "Oh please! I wouldn't eat this. He reeks of humanity."
Commander: "You're one to talk, vampire. Yours is the
lowest of all the half-breeds."
Angel: "You think I don't know that? You think I don't
smell the humanity inside me day and night - polluting me?"
Season one "The Harvest"
Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality
fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another,
and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their
blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the
animals to die out, and the old ones to return.
I say that vampires are murderers in the most basic sense that
they do kill people, and they are still the person they once were
with a demon supplement. They also are hypocrites in that they
themselves are human in form, infected by a demons soul. They
seem to be out to prove that they are the biggest bad because
even they know they are a human/demon hybrid.
[> Actually it is. --
Rufus, 14:35:29 12/06/02 Fri
Killing and murder are basically the same thing, except for one
fact....murder generally means the unlawful taking of life of
one human by another....but one part of the definition by dictionary.com
is simply.....To kill brutally or inhumanly. or to..To put
an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. Kill also means to
murder. We can say that Spike and Angelus are no longer human
so it isn't murder, but think of how both of them have killed....they
have been unhumane and put an end to life. This is where the curse
of vampirism is the most effective, it sets what was once fully
human against the whole human race in order to cause as much suffering
as possible. It doesn't really matter if we tie the deaths of
so many down to specific terms such as killer or murderer, the
result is still the same a lot of people died needlessly.....and
the effect upon the newley ensoulled Angel and Spike are the same,
horror. Now if you ask if there would be a defence against prosecution
because of what either vampire did without a soul I say, maybe...depends
on if a mob is involved.
[> Re: Objectivity is overrated
-- 110v3w1110w, 11:12:53 12/07/02 Sat
you are right in the sense that if you look at it from a netural
point of view then vampires killing humans is no differant than
from humans that wat animals. what i don't understand is why would
you want to look at the killing of fellow human beings for food
objectivly do you think that if cows were intelligent they would
be standing around doing nothing looking at us killing them in
an objective way or do you think they would be fighting back ?.
i would say that there is no natural state of right or wrong only
what we create for ourselves and humans have decided that killing
humans for food is wrong and i don't see why a human would try
to look at such a rule objectivly.
[> [> Re: Objectivity
is overrated -- Miss Edith, 12:35:29 12/07/02 Sat
I don't think anyone's saying that we should objectively realise
humans being killed isn't any more evil than humans killing lesser
animal species. In my post for instance I was just looking at
the perspective that vampires may have on humanity. It becomes
more confusing with recent vampires such as Harmony who still
felt the need to prove herself to others and wanted a friendship
with Cordy. But the Master for instance saw humans as cattle and
treated them as such. I just thought it was an interesting way
of looking at the topic. Obviously I do see the vampires on Buffy
as evil and their behaviour inexcusable from a human perspective.
Yay! I just
got the AtS "Casefiles" book for Chanukkah! -- Rob,
15:16:13 12/06/02 Fri
Having gotten "Fighting the Forces" as a present about
a week back, this is turning into a very satisfying holiday season
for me! Now if I can only convince someone to get me the OMWF
Scriptbook... ;o)
Rob
[> Good for you! --
Wisewoman, 17:15:52 12/06/02 Fri
Obviously, your friends and relatives know what you like!
Happy Channukah ;o)
[> [> Thanks! And yes,
they are all well-trained. ;o) -- Rob, 20:23:08 12/06/02
Fri
[> Happy Chanukkah!...(and
a quick Holiday Wish p.s. for everyone) -- Nightingale (delurking
for a moment), 20:33:50 12/06/02 Fri
er, Hannukah...er, well, there are SO many ways to spell it. :)
I hope you enjoyed those "8 crazy nights".
Happy to see another Menorah lighter in the bunch...
-NG
P.S. This is a quick shoutout to everyone who's been posting of
late. The board has been amazing lately...I simply don't have
time to think of worthwhile responses - so I remain in 'lurker-land'.
But have no doubt, I appreciate all the thoughtful posts!
*****I hope EVERYONE has a Happy and Healthy Holiday season (whatever/whenever
you celebrate!) and a Wonderful New Year. (Was that enough capital
letters for everyone??) :)*****
< After barely escaping the clutches of the syllabi, Nightingale
admits defeat and returns to studying for finals....Ah, the Friday
night of a Grad Student!> :)
Current board
| More December 2002