Previous December 2002

More December 2002

[> She did -- Indri (sleepless in Austin), 02:38:25 12/11/02 Wed

Why didn't Willow ever use her pencil levitation power while fighting Vampires?

She did once, when escaping from the Mayor. It was in "Choices". I don't know why she hasn't used this since.

Why didn't the writers figure out that if a Vampire can't be seen in a mirror, it wouldn't show up from a shot taken by a camera either?

I agree, this makes no sense, unless it's the brain that removes the vampire's reflection. If so, then mechanical items such as cameras might nevertheless be able to record the vampire. Which leads to my 4am question---would a camera record a vampire's image in a mirror? Answers on a postcard, please.

[> Re: Why didn't.....(Past spoilers) -- Rook, 02:50:36 12/11/02 Wed

Why didn't Willow ever use her pencil levitation power
while fighting Vampires?

She did, in Choices.

Why didn't the writers figure out that if a Vampire can't be seen in a mirror, it wouldn't show up from a shot taken by a camera either?

There have been various discussions of this on many boards, but I believe the official ME answer is that Cameras aren't the same, in a metaphysical sense, the same thing as mirrors. It's magic, not physics.

[> [> More on cameras. -- Rob, 07:08:52 12/11/02 Wed

From Annotated Buffy. My answer there is a mix of Masq's from her site, and some small additions by me.

Rob

[> [> [> A clairification on cameras -- lurker, 11:26:58 12/11/02 Wed

Actually, a camera does not use a mirror to make an image on film. I does, however, use a mirror to aid in focusing the image. The viewer focuses, then when the button is pushed, the mirror flips up at the same time the shutter opens, then flips back down when the shutter closes. Thus, when the image is actually being recorded on the film, the light is simply passing straight through to the film. This is why vampires can be photographed, though I imagine most of the time they would be out of focus.

[> [> [> [> Cool! Thanks for the info. I'll modify that note! -- Rob, 12:00:18 12/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> It's fixed! -- Rob, 12:16:42 12/11/02 Wed

Here! And I gave you credit, of course.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hummmm..... Cameras and mirrors. But I disagree w/.... -- Briar Rose, 12:54:32 12/11/02 Wed

the way Joss worded what he thinks about Magic said 'Magic is outside "Natural Science."'

That I definitely disagree with. Magic is nothing but natural science. What I hope he meant is that MODERN Science (as we know it) doesn't explain magic, just as it can't explain a lot of natural occurances? I can definitely agree with that - but not that Magic isn't natural science.*L

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll try tinkering with that. -- Rob, 13:39:32 12/11/02 Wed

Perhaps the best way to reconcile it would be to say that magic exists outside of the realm of how we now understand science. In other words, as you said, there's no way to explain magic in the confines of what science is currently perceived to be.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or... -- Darby, 20:25:06 12/11/02 Wed

...Buffyverse magic is beyond natural science, which it is - it breaks too many basic rules. It also allows Joss to ignore the rules (or not bother to check them), which is way more annoying on Firefly because that's not supposed to be magic.

I'm not against breaking rules - biology, like French, is all about setting and then breaking the rules. But there's breaking and then there's breaking.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey Rob! I Agree with Darby a lot.... -- Briar Rose, 13:47:51 12/12/02 Thu

I'm sure that Joss meant exactly what he said..... And somehow that annoys me more.*L

I have only had one long standing criticism of BtVS and that is how ME has handled the subject of Magick. Everything from the mis-use of the term "Wicca/Wiccan" at any point in time for Willow to the fact that in the Buffy-verse all magick is inherently perceived as dark and dangerous.

Well, of course it's all dark and dangerous on BtVS because the majority of the magick used is not based in the principles of natural science and law! If it was - and done as magick should be done - it wouldn't have all these pesky repurcussions.*L

True Magick (which the spelling is only a way to differentiate metaphysical energy work from slight of hand 'magic') is not outside the natural science or law, it is also not outside of the modern science of the lab - if they would just admit it.*L It is -- at it's base -- nothing more off the wall than e=MC2: Everything is made of energy. We are made of energy. Energy can be changed, channeled and deflected. And energy tends to attract Like energy. Magick is simply putting motion to energy.

[> [> Wow! Thanks on "Choices" - great answer... I forgot that. -- Briar Rose, 12:45:29 12/11/02 Wed

[> My favourite "Why didn't..." -- KdS, 07:38:17 12/11/02 Wed

Or rather "Why weren't..."

Why weren't Collins, Weatherby and Smith supplied with the Slayer-neutralising drugs used in the Cruciamentum when they arrived in Sunnydale to collect Faith in "Who Are You?"? As a result they ended up deciding to kill her because they didn't feel confident of their ability to keep her under control.

As I see it, there are three possible explanations:

1) They weren't supplied because the CoW wanted Faith dead but didn't want to admit to it. That's entirely possible, but I find it hard to see why the CoW would be so sensitive when they were happy to make it obvious that they were willing to risk Slayers' lives with far less justification in the Cruciamentum. If the CoW had wanted Faith dead (and it would be a defensible position IMO), I can't see why they wouldn't have just told Collins to kill her at the beginning.

2) Incompetence on the part of the CoW. This was my preferred position until "Never Leave Me", which suggested that, contrary to my earlier-expressed positions on this board, Quentin actually was the absolute head of the CoW, and that the CoW was a relatively small organisation. If Quentin was in that high a position, I can't see why he'd have kept the drugs secret from Collins (unless he wanted Faith dead, but again why not simply tell Collins to kill her?)

3) The drugs only work cumulatively after a period of time. It's certainly suggested in "Helpless" that Giles has been drugging Buffy over several days or weeks. If it's weeks, that certainly might explain why Collins didn't have the patience. Don't like it, though, because it simply seems post hoc and not elegant.

Any other ideas?

[> [> Post hoc or not -- CW, 09:23:24 12/11/02 Wed

three is the best explanation. That way, they actually could have given Faith/Buffy the drugs at some point we didn't see. But, no one would have expected them to take serious effect until days of treatment later. It would also explain why they didn't give her some other kind of tranquilizer, which might not mix well with the slayer-power drug. It's all just fan-fic type speculation, of course, but it would make sense.

[> [> [> Interesting idea! Another.... -- Briar Rose, 13:12:35 12/11/02 Wed

Why didn't Anya know that Dawn was not a normal human?

Anya has the ability to see human souls versus non-human souls. She can spot a deamon or an immortal at first site. So why didn't she realize that Dawn was not completely human?

Now I've tired to base Anya not knowing on the fact that Buffy provided the DNA to create Dawn. But then wouldn't the actual Soul of Dawn still be the energy that is her real essence?

And if Anya is able to read the energy that well as to be able to tell a robot or a deamon or a human or an Immortal or a Slayer, then why didn't she also notice that Dawns's DNA (and I have to assume the Slayer Clause is also imbedded in the DNA of the Slayers) was that of a Slayer, or picked up that Buffy and Dawn were actually carrying the same DNA and questioning why there were two Buffys?

Since this was basically an "Immaculate Conception" the DNA issue wouldn't be explained as 'Dad's DNA mixed with Mom's and produced a combined DNA' as happens in Natural Conception. I am going to assume that Dawn is an exact replica of Buffy's DNA components. (Yes - I know, they don't look or act alike - but that's television unless you use the Patty Duke thing.*L)

Oh - there are lots of interesting loose ends to tangle with on these two shows! I think that's why I like it so much.

[> [> [> [> Re: Interesting idea! Another.... -- slain, 13:29:55 12/11/02 Wed

Anya can see souls, but I don't think she could tell the difference between a human who happens to be a mystical key and a human who isn't (after all, Glory couldn't, and neither could most demons). But of course the real answer is that Anya didn't have any powers in Season 5, she was human and didn't have the ability to see anything!

As for Dawn - I think that while she was constructed from Buffy, she isn't Buffy. She's only as closely related to Buffy on the physical level as a real sister would be, as after all they don't even have the same hair colour; mystically, she's closer, however. But I suppose Dawn's soul must be funny in some way - it's her mystical essence, after all, so it's presumably in some way unusual. But I don't think Anya could see that - Dawn was designed to be hidden, and designed to appear human, even to a God, never mind a common or garden vengeance demon.

[> [> [> [> [> This is what i love about this board! Everyone thinks and tracks eps. -- BriarRose, 14:04:10 12/12/02 Thu

[> Re: Next Week's Episode Trailer (ok for discussion?) -- skpe, 06:33:13 12/11/02 Wed

I cant speak for the board sense it is Masq's board and I understand she is away for a while. But I imagine if you follow the **Spoiler Policy** as indicated in the board header it would be OK.

[> Bring on the Night Preview (Major SPOILS) -- neaux, 06:45:01 12/11/02 Wed

ok.. well I'm posting this anyway. If anyone else saw last's nite preview for next week's episode it does indeed look like a Christmas Episode.

First off is the return of St. Nick. well you know who...

but here is just some wishful thinking on my part.

If this is truly a Christmas themed episode, could the 3 slayers in training represent the 3 wise men? It would be cool to see ME's take on the nativity scene.

[> [> Re: Bring on the Night Preview (Major SPOILS) -- Sophie, 06:52:17 12/11/02 Wed

First off is the return of St. Nick. well you know who...


Makes me tingly down to my toes! :)

S

[> [> Awww! No Fair! Explain! Explain! (Hoping for SPOILERS) -- Trollop #1, 07:53:44 12/11/02 Wed

We trollops-who-won't-get-to-see-this-'til-next-year need, want, desire, yeaaaarrrn for more information, piiiiine for more descriptions....

Pleeeeaase! WHO is St. Nick?

T#1

[> [> [> No need to elaborate go to buffy.com and watch it yourself -- neaux, 08:43:40 12/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> It doesn't work on my computer! -- dream of the consortium, 12:52:28 12/11/02 Wed

It downloads; my cursor gets all jumpy, and the screen displays...nothing!

Anyone know how to fix that?

[> [> [> [> [> hmm.. depending on your internet connection and realplayer version -- neaux, 13:43:45 12/11/02 Wed

if you have a cable modem or better.. just re-download that crappy realplayer. To be honest the new RealOne for Mac OSX is actually pretty good.. just dont buy it. always use the free download.

once that is downloaded, the Buffy trailers should pop up in its own window.

but why did they ever switch from Quicktime is beyond me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hmm.. realplayer is like a terrier -- Brian, 13:59:26 12/11/02 Wed

It will fight with your computer every day to take over.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hmm.. realplayer is like a terrier -- Sophie, 16:39:52 12/11/02 Wed

That is why I refuse to have Real Player installed on my computer. Thpththth to UPN.

Sophie

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with you on that -- Brian, 18:41:14 12/11/02 Wed

[> [> [> Ya better watch out, ya better not cry! -- ZachsMind, 12:41:19 12/11/02 Wed

He sees you with his glasses.
If he's not wiping them clean.
He'll figure out if you've been bad or good
And throw a slayer at you if you're too mean.

Sooo...!

Ya better watch out! ya better not cry!
You better not pout, I'm telling you why
Rupert Giles is coming to town!
Rupert Giles is Sunnydale bound!

..maybe. Sorta.
Provided he's not dead

[> [> [> [> Thanks, ZM! Can't download here. Curses! -- T#1, 04:19:17 12/12/02 Thu

[> Re: Notice to frisby of eventual continuation of discussion (and a non-lyric mondegreen) -- frisby (short anecdote), 13:34:26 12/11/02 Wed

Ha! That reminds me of one of my favorite anecdotes from Leo Strauss (who I'm persuaded was a closet-Nietzschean for many decades). As an old man on stage with his best friend Jacob Klein, he says that when they were young graduate students he often couldn't resist whispering "Nietzsche" just loud enough for everyone to hear when the two of them were at coffee shops talking philosophy -- he couldn't resist because of the extreme embarrasment this would cause his friend. He also reveals elsewhere that Nietzsche possessed his studies for years as a young man. And I think, he reveals in his one published piece on Nietzsche (one of his publications) that he "is" a Nietzschean, even though the American right wing conservative thinkers extoll his virtues as their greatest intellectual, and as the most anti-Nietzschean of them all. I'm working (at an initiative from Masquerade) on a small piece titled: "Selected Illustrations of Nietzsche's Philosophy of Power within the Framework of the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" Television Drama" and in my own mind its amazing. Here's an example from the beginning:

1.a. Joss Whedon's Buffyverse is a world ruled to a great degree by the power of magic.

1.b. Our world according to Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of power is ruled to a great degree by the power of thought.

2.a. In the Buffyverse a young Buffy Summers played during her childhood at being the heroic "Power Girl" (2.18), the one who rescues and saves those needing her help.

2.b. In Nietzsche's epic world of _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ the (pre-superman) Zarathustra taught the people to prepare for the coming of "the Superman," the one who will teach them or their descendants the meaning of the earth.

And it goes on and on making comparisons, but I'm having trouble finding time to finish it. Masquerade put that quote of Joss Whedon at the top of the forum, something like "there IS a philosophy behind his buffy show" -- and I can't help but see that philosophy as Nietzsche's in my eyes. The comparisons are enlightening. But then again, we often see not what is but what we want to see. Still, it would be interesting if Joss actually meant a particular philosophy as opposed to some general well-thought out position. Anyway, no hurry or urgency on my part, of course, but I do enjoy the exchange. Later.

[> Re: What did Lurky do to Spike? -- leslie, 13:51:43 12/11/02 Wed

Well, the thing is, especially after a season in which we observed the human and souled Warren and Willow commit evil acts, what makes us think Lurky cares whether a being has a soul or not, as long as it's evil? And, in fact, this might help resolve the did-he-go-to-get-a-soul-or-did-he-go-to-get-revenge-on-Buffy debate: what if Lurky thought that Spike would continue to be evil even if he had a soul?

Nonetheless, I don't see why we have to view Lurky as evil any more than Clem. Yes, he's a demon, but I think his statement about Spike being a warrior of--I forget the exact phrasing he used, but anyway, it seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact rather than approval or disapproval of his actions. That's what he's done. The point of the kind of challenge and trial that Spike undergoes, in folklore and mythology at least, is that if you survive it, you get what you ask for no matter how the granting party feels about it--and the granting party is inevitably falsely secure in the assumption that you're going to fail anyway. Hmm, brings up another folkloric analogy--after being forced to grant the wish, the granter usually stamps its little feet in rage and tries to come up with a way to negate the good it's been forced to do, so is that why the FE was sicced on Spike?

[> [> Agreeing with leslie here...going back to the text -- shadowkat, 17:55:41 12/11/02 Wed

Lots of people were suprised by the whole getting a soul deal - for numerous reasons. But if you rewatch the season?
His choice to go after a soul is almost obvious. But I don't want to revisit that debate right now.

Now people are questioning the demon in the cave. Was the demon the cliff-hanger? Did the demon plant the sleeper?
(Sort of a deja-vue to Angel getting his soul and being sent to hell...Spike also gets a soul and this time, metaphorically goes to hell.)

When Buffy asks Spike how he got the soul in Never Leave Me, Spike says:

"Saw a guy about a girl." beat. "Sought this legend out. Went to the other side of the world. Made a deal with a demon. "

He doesn't state type of demon.

Flash back to Villains:

SPIKE: Yeah. I seek you.
DEMON: Something about a woman. The slayer.
SPIKE: (nods, barely concealed anger) Thinks she's better than me. Ever since I got this bleeding chip in my head, things ain't been right. Everything's gone to hell.
DEMON: And you want to return to your former self.
SPIKE: Yeah.

and-

DEMON: Look what she's reduced you to.
SPIKE: It's this bloody chip-
DEMON: You were a legendary dark warrior, and you let yourself be castrated. (Spike looking angry) And you have the audacity to crawl in here and demand restoration?
SPIKE: I'm still a warrior.
DEMON: You're a pathetic excuse for a demon.
SPIKE: (angry) Yeah? I'll show you pathetic. Give me your best shot.
DEMON: You'd never endure the trials required to grant your request.
SPIKE: Do your worst. But when I win ... I want what I came here for.
The demon watches him, breathes loudly but says nothing.
SPIKE: Bitch is gonna see a change.

Note he states : "legendary DARK warrior" not evil warrior.

Now flash to Grave:

SPIKE, laying on his back, beaten and bloody, seemingly dead. PUSH IN as the SHADOW of a figure moves and looms over him. Spike's eyes flutter open and he looks up at the unseen figure.

VOICE You have endured the required trials.

SPIKE(weakly)Bloody right I have.He pushes himself up to address the DEMON of the cave. SPIKE (cont'd)So, give me what I want. Make mewhat I was... so Buffy can get whatshe deserves.

VOICEVery well. GNARLY DEMON HAND reaches out to Spike's bare chest VOICE (cont'd)We'll return your soul.As the hand touches him, Spike throws his head back and SCREAMS in agony...

So what we don't know? Is whether the demon is good or evil. There's no obvious about it. We don't know. Demons - aren't necessarily evil - Whistler, Doyle, Cordelia (made half demon), Skip, Lorne, Clem...to name a few.

Assuming the First did get sicced on him - is this any different than the First allegedly bringing Angel out of hell? The devil wants to tempt man to sell his soul. I think the first gets more if Spike decides to go evil on his own then if it makes him evil. It tried the sleeper approach. It's important though to the First for Spike to choose it just as it was important to the First for Angel to choose it. Warren was evil because Warren chose to be evil - this made him in some ways worse than the vampires who never chose it. They just were. Same with Anyanka - anya chose to be a vengeance demon. She chose it. This year and last year focuses a lot on the power of "choice". How our choices define us and create our identity.

[> [> I'm a bit reminded of the Ramayana. -- HarryParachute, 18:07:36 12/11/02 Wed

In the prologue of the story the villain, a Demon named Ravana, performed a ritual that involved severing one of his ten heads every thousand years and throwing it into a fire. When he was about to sever his final head Brahma, creator of the universe, came to him and granted his wish...namely that he be unslayable to Gods, Demons, and the like.

Brahma knew, of course, that this was going to have some serious reprecussions and unbalance things quite a bit. But he had to obey the rta (pronounced ritta), which means...I guess cosmic order and is the root of the word "ritual". If you perform the sacrifice and do it right, then you reap the benefits.

Lurky was probably in the same boat. Regardless of whether he's a bad guy, good guy, or somewhere in between, he has to fulfill Spike's wish because...well..Spike performed the sacrifice.

But since Ravana left humans off his list of those he's invulnerable to, Vishnu, preserver of the Universe, allowed himself to be born as a human child, Rama...who grew to finish Ravana off.

So maybe the manipulation of Spike was a way of subverting the wish. Or maybe something else is in store for him.

[> [> [> I like it, I like it -- Juliet, 18:23:45 12/11/02 Wed

I just finished studying Rama, too...

Have Joss and Co. ever used Indian mythology before? I'm curious.

[> Re: Comparing Saviours.. -- Helen, 09:07:14 12/12/02 Thu

Your post looked really lonely, so i thought I'd say hi.

Can't add too much to your thoughts, which are really, wow. But just thought I'd let you know someone read them , and was impressed and appreciative.

God, I can suck up.

[> Re: Comparing Saviours.. -- HumanTales, 10:19:30 12/12/02 Thu

Some interesting thoughts; at this time of year, I have little brain-power to get too deep into it. One thought/clarification/whatever: Osiris is one of many resurrected gods. I would assume (always dangerous) that Osiris was chosen because he is one of the better known (to Westerners) of the resurrected gods; the only one, or at least best known, of the Egyptians.

I want to put in a comparison of Jesus vs. Osiris/Horus (Osiris' son and other half), but . . . Time of year, limited brainpower. Fire bad, tree pretty.

[> Re: Comparing Saviours.. -- Tyreseus, 11:58:01 12/12/02 Thu

Don't forget about when Buffy' basement flooded and she was walking in water ... okay, so that doesn't really match, does it.

Seriously, though, I really don't think we can call ME's decesion to make Xander a carpenter a frivolous or coincidental choice. He wasn't a carpenter in the high school years, and by the time he found his calling, the ME staff knew that every decision they made would be analyzed and poured over. Also, they've been calling attention to the whole "carpenter" thing lately.

Now, I don't know about all of you, but if someone had asked me to describe the job of a real-life person who did what Xander does, I might call them "construction foreman" or something along those lines. My mind wouldn't leap right to "carpenter" because that conjures up images of old German men shaving wood into the back of a cabinet or something. Not to mention the obvious Jesus parralel. Yet, that's exactly where Andrew's mind went in "Never Leave Me."

In the words of many melodramatic mystery moments: Coincidence... I think not!

[> [> I agree -- Sophist, 13:13:18 12/12/02 Thu

that ME's references to Xander's profession are deliberate. Compare what you said:

Now, I don't know about all of you, but if someone had asked me to describe the job of a real-life person who did what Xander does, I might call them "construction foreman" or something along those lines.

To what I said in a post on May 24, 2002:

Xanderís not really a carpenter, you know. Heís a construction worker who does carpentry as part of his job.

GMTA. And no, it's not coincidence.

[> Re: Comparing Saviours.. -- Michael, 18:35:35 12/12/02 Thu

Interesting comments about the saviors. Mind if I step in for a bit?
Yes, Jesus was said to be born of a virgin, but that is a New Testament reading of an Old Testament passage that refers to a "young woman," not necessarily a virgin.
It is considered by some that Virgin Birth refers to the birth of God/Deity/Spirit in the life of an individual. It's not a new concept with the NT writers either. Remember all those Greek myths where Zeus assumed a different form and impregnated mortal women? Same thing: Virgin birth.
So, Buffy doesn't need to be born literally of a virgin. When she is selected to be the Slayer, she is Chosen and the spirit of the slayer comes into her. Sort of like the Holy Spirit entering into her and bestowing her with wonderful powers, enabling her to do marvelous feats.
Any time a hero is called forth, he or she is endowed with miraculous powers or some sort of special weapon.

Trying to interpret the prophecies about Buffy reminds me of the way that NT writers cobbled together the prophecies of the OT in such a way that they pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. They were after the fact and they sort of made sure that the record of His life on earth matched the prophecies. Could we be looking at the prophecies concerning Buffy in the same way?

Jesus had his disciples who were supposed to reveal that the life of the spirit could be lived here on earth. Buffy's Slayerettes try too hard to be like her, but they really succeed when they face danger and beat it using their own gifts: i,e, Xander in the final episode of season 6 where he "loves" Willow back into sanity. Willow is discovering the gifts within herself. Buffy's presence is to call forth the gifts from those whom she comes in contact with. She's not supposed to do this all by herself.
In that respect Buffy is what the Buddhists call a bodhisatva-one who has received enlightenment, but instead of going on to Nirvana, voluntarily stays to share in the suffering of the world in order to lead others to enlightenment. Jesus was a bodhisatva, so was the Budhha, so was Moses, so was Ghandi.
Her return from whatever spiritual plane she visited meant she was to be here and help others instead of going on and enjoying her rest.

If you have read Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces, you'll find amazing parallels in world cultures as relates to heroes.
Yes, sacrifice, death, and rebirth are repeated because they are part of the heroic journey/cycle, which is really about our daily lives. This is what gets me all excited about Buffy. She's a great visual lesson on how we live our lives, fighting the darkness, coming to grips with our shadows, and finding life through it all, in spite of it all.

Now as to the carpenter thing. I can't help but feel that it's a coincedence. Although Xander being a carpenter puts him on the level of everyman, which he is. It's a job that involves building, making structures, creating order out of chaos. In fact, now that I think of it, Buffy, Willow, and Xander form an interesting trinity.
Xander is earth, the world, the real, the present.
Willow is spirit, magic and transcendence.
Buffy is the Goddess figure out of which the new is born; the warrior goddess who sheds blood that others may live. Hmm, going to have to chew on this one for a while.

[> Yikes! Too bad... -- WW ;o), 08:30:01 12/12/02 Thu

I've been waiting to hear how Dance was received in NY. It was a smash hit in Europe, but all the delays made me suspicious.

Personally I think Jim Steinman is a genius based on Bat Out of Hell, and Bat Out of Hell II, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient to pull this off. Oh well...back to the drawing board!

If I had more than two cents to rub together I'd consider angeling OMwF, for sure!

;o) dub

[> Oh gods, forgot. Spoilers through 7.9 in above, but they are deliberately vague. -- Haecceity, 01:17:29 12/10/02 Tue

[> Absolutely fantastic! -- KdS, 04:24:49 12/10/02 Tue

Have to go away and think about this, but major kaboomage over the style of the rape scene, and character development vs. revelation.

One minor problem - I'm not so sure about Spike's insight. His confidence and charisma tends to make him convincing, but all his speeches to and about Buffy in S5/6 strike me as such a tangled mixture of genuine insight, wishful thinking, and conscious manipulation that one can't really assume that anything he says is the whole truth.

[> [> Tangled mixture and evolving usage as metanarrator -- Haecceity, 05:16:22 12/10/02 Tue

Yes, when I was referring to the insight, I was speaking more to Season 4 Spike and his role of Teller of Uncomfortable Truths. As soon as his involvement with Buffy shifted, he lost a great deal of that perspective, so while he could still function as revealing insight guy for other characters--his comments regarding Willow in Afterlife for instance--he's blinded when it comes to Buffy, or maybe just scrambled--he picks up on things but mistranslates them. And I don't think his comments are necessarily truthful, just rather signpost-y for the audience--Iago, again.

In some ways I think his appearence in Lovers Walk, then Season 4 Wacky Neighbor/Master Manipulator set Spike up as a character who could be used to speak to the audience and the other characters in a rather semi-metanarrative way. That all changed once he was entrenched in a 'leading man' arc--had to play that part, not known for it's clarity of thought where the love interest is concerned.

[> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- Angela, 04:41:11 12/10/02 Tue

Thanks Haeccity...I'm afraid I have to save this for later; hopefully it will still be up on the board tonight!

[> cut-print -- Sophie, 06:04:50 12/10/02 Tue

I have to do homework, first - it's sort of due this afternoon. But quickly skim reading this, it looks facsinating! I like your writing style and I love your screen name!

Sophie

[> [> Re: cut-print -- Sophie, 07:05:07 12/11/02 Wed

I love the "overcrowded self" concept with the vampires, and the "soliloquy as inner voice" idea.

I may have to *steal* (with credit, of course) this from you for some writing that I am contemplating during xmas break.

Sophie

[> Wow! Haecceity you rock! -- ponygirl, 08:40:41 12/10/02 Tue

Love love love all of your Shakespeare comparisons! I think you've pretty much summed up why all threads lead back to Spike, we can chart his changes, track his progress over the years -- it's complex, but at the same time possible to grasp. At any given point it's usually pretty easy to state what his goal is, can we say right now that we know what Xander wants, or Willow, or Buffy? One always get the sense that Spike is a character in a narrative, even if it's a play that's only going on in his head, while the others try to live a real life, one with murky motivations, circular progression, and unknown goals.

[> [> And You Totally Roll (pronounce "rule", of course;) -- Haecceity, 19:46:13 12/12/02 Thu

You wrote: "One always get the sense that Spike is a character in a narrative, even if it's a play that's only going on in his head, while the others try to live a real life..."

I find this idea really intriguing. It helps explain, I think, the overwhelming reaction to his character--in a more dignified way than "the actor's handsome and that's why you think his character is significant" crap we get thrown at us by those who aren't interested in looking at how his character might actually be constructed differently.

Spike is more clearly other, defined, followable, what have you. It makes it easier to see Story working in his life, something I think we all long for a little.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this, thought I'd have more to say, honestly. Seriously, this work thing and packing for a move cross-country, starting school, holidays, etc. just makes me want to turn the world off and do nothing but post for days on end--of course that's when the universe conspires to make it imperative to do all the things you'd rather not.

Maybe TCH's snow post will prompt the gods of unbelievable coincidence into giving us a snow day off soon.

---Haecceity

[> I would love to hear about Spike and a King Lear connection. -- neaux, 09:04:23 12/10/02 Tue

not that I'm the one to elaborate.. I usually contradict myself.

but I would like to hear more of the madness of Spike in relation to King Lear. Any takers?

[> [> Your Wish is My... -- Haecceity, 13:15:18 12/10/02 Tue

...homework.

Just let me get out of work, get to and from the gym, grab some food and hit the books. In the meantime I'll use this as an excuse to extend the thread time :)

Thanks, all

---Haecceity

[> [> [> Re: Your Wish is My... -- slain, 13:53:00 12/10/02 Tue

Haecceity, did you read my post about Spike and King Lear? (maybe save yourself some trouble!) I think it was shortly after Same Time Same Place, in a thread about, er, something or other.

Forward, to the archives!

[> [> [> [> Having Trouble With the Archives -- Haecceity, 00:42:32 12/11/02 Wed

Slain,

Can't find it, but am new to the archive hunt, so probably doing it wrong. Do you recall a subject name? "King Lear" came up with nothing. Would love to defer to you re: Lear, as I've only read it once or twice and from what I remember Spike could be Lear or the Fool or Edgar (this one strikes me as important, but can't quite figure out why--maybe because of his hiding behind the Tom O'Bedlam persona, and his total dive into self-humiliation? Maybe because he's left standing at the end and I don't want them to go the sacrificial martyr route with Spike?), or an Edmund/Edgar split, which sort of speaks to the FE as Nasty!Hypnotic!Spike/Tormented Soul!Spike scenes.

Bloom (whom I really find odious at times--actually says in S:IotH that there's never been a performance of Lear that can live up to reading the play--codswallop!)has some fascinating things to say about the characters, which might shed some interesting light on Spike's character/the ME penchant for all things Bard, etc. but I'd have to refresh my memory of the play to speak to it.

It's one I find myself avoiding because of its brutal bleakness, but its theme of how we can corrupt/contaminate love in our desperate desire for it certainly bears examining in the light of B/S.

Looking forward to reading your post, but need help finding it.

---Haecceity

[> [> [> [> Hey Slain.. I'll start looking for it now! thanks! -- neaux, 04:13:15 12/11/02 Wed

[> Excellent! -- HonorH, 10:27:06 12/10/02 Tue

I always thought that one of the big points of S6 that people kept missing was that Spike *hadn't* changed as much as he thought he had. When the object of his desire is within reach, he does his best to drag her down to his level. His relationship with Buffy is vampiric in almost every way. And finally, when she breaks things off, rather than being all Noble!Spike about it, he regresses to his worst self. The AR brought it home to him that he hadn't changed so much that he could be good for Buffy--that he really wouldn't hurt her. Thus, he sought out a soul in order to make the change real.

I totally agree with you about Spike being a Shakespearean character, too. The way he uses language, Marsters' hyper-real portrayal of him--very, very different from any other character on the show. And boy--does it ever work!

[> [> Different view -- luna, 11:51:08 12/10/02 Tue

I disagree about Spike dragging Buffy down to his level. Who starts the S/M games--do we know for sure it's him? It seems IRL that when things go weird in a relationship, it's very much a result of synergy.

We also see him trying to take care of her, save her, care for Dawn, etc. The reruns are making me see the Season 7 Spike as a continuation of Season 6--wanting to be the kind of person Buffy could love, as Haeccity says.

I think that's one of the many reasons (besides his excellent acting and cheekbones) that we're so taken with him--he really embodies the angst of the time, the longing to be human and the suspicion that maybe we no longer are.

[> [> Re: Excellent! -- slain, 13:49:04 12/10/02 Tue

I don't think Spike is that exceptional (that's way too many 'very's for me, HonorH!), though it is true that James Marsters' more consciously solid portrayal of him separates him out from the ironic distance of some other characters, most obviously Xander and Anya; that is, while Xander can seem like he's both in the situation, and also outside it thinking up quips and witty comments, Spike is almost always fully in the story.

Comedy is there, of course, but (as in the Spike/Anya scene in 'Sleeper') it doesn't often come from Spike's lines, so much as his apparently unintentional reactions - Spike is funny, but he doesn't 'know' he's funny. Other characters are often written to make it seem like they know they're in the horror genre, or even in a TV series; look at OMWF. Xander and Anya's song, aside from having an actual fourth wall, is comic and very obviously musically - Spike's is serious, and heartfelt. I disagree that he's all that different - for me, Buffy has long been portrayed as just as 'real', and in Season 6 they briefly tried to bring Willow into the same sphere (unsuccessfully, in my opinion).

Spike is interesing to me partly because he hasn't always been 'real'; in Season 5, we saw his transition from villain archetype, or other roles, to a fully fleshed out main character. To my mind, we actually saw the exact moment of this transition, and it was written specifically to show that. In FFL, the moment Spike changes is in his reaction to Buffy's grief at her mother's illness; in this last scene, he goes from shotgun-toting former big bad to someone recognisably capable of much more. I get kind of tired of everyone praising James Marsters (my instinct is always to rebel against the majority view, even if I originally agreed with it), but considering he has almost no lines in this scene, he does a really astounding job. And that's all the hyperboly you're getting out of me!

Though I have to agree with luna that Buffy brought herself down to Spike's level just as much as he dragged her down (he might have taken advantage of her impressionable state to try and turn her to 'the dark side', but she chose to confide in him), but the point of Season 6 was that Spike hadn't changed all that much; he didn't aspire to change himself in Season 6 at all, but rather to change Buffy, in contrast to his approach in Season 5. The ending of the season, though confusing, was the point at which he decided to change himself.

[> [> [> Re: Excellent! -- Just George, 19:37:07 12/10/02 Tue

HonorH: "I always thought that one of the big points of S6 that people kept missing was that Spike *hadn't* changed as much as he thought he had. When the object of his desire is within reach, he does his best to drag her down to his level. His relationship with Buffy is vampiric in almost every way. And finally, when she breaks things off, rather than being all Noble!Spike about it, he regresses to his worst self. The AR brought it home to him that he hadn't changed so much that he could be good for Buffy--that he really wouldn't hurt her. Thus, he sought out a soul in order to make the change real."


I agree with your take. In S6, Spike brought himself up as far as he could go as a soul-less vampire. Simultaneously, he tries to bring Buffy down to his level "...in the dark, with me." And for most of the trip Buffy goes willingly.

But it is still not enough for them to connect for any length of time. He could only be "up" so far. She could only be "down" so far. The post-coital talk: "I like what you've done with the place" "I ate a decorator and some of it stuck." "Are we having a conversation?" was as close as they could get. Even that talk broke down.

Ultimately Buffy had to pull herself back up because being down with Spike was "killing her." And Spike had to get a soul so he could climb up the next step and "become the man she deserved".

-JG

[> [> [> [> And I don't deny Buffy was at fault for some of the B/S badness -- HonorH, 22:45:30 12/10/02 Tue

When things are that bad, there's plenty of blame to go 'round. However, Just George and I are on the same page re: Spike. He'd gone as far as he could without a soul, and truly believed he'd changed enough to be good for Buffy. He believed he'd never hurt her, ignoring the fact that he already had. It was only when he hurt her in a way that left him with no doubt, no excuse, that he realized he had to do something drastic, or he'd never be good for her. Hence the soul.

[> [> [> [> thoughts, rambling, and questions -- Sophie, 07:18:24 12/11/02 Wed

After Buffy had to dig herself out of her grave, she gained that in common with Spike. My understanding of getting vamped is not only does the human/vampire experience death, but many times gets buried and has to dig its way out of the grave. One has to make assumptions about whether William/Spike was buried and had this experience or not, but I am inclined to think that he did. Which leads to a last thought/question - when person dies who is becoming a vampire, does their soul go to heaven and result in an experience like Buffy had? - she went to heaven and when Willow restored (not the right word) her, she felt ripped out of there - would a vampire have possibly experienced this as a result of the dying person's soul going to heaven and the person (breifly) remembering this? (I hope this isn't too confusing or been hashed out before).

Sophie

[> [> [> [> [> Re: thoughts, rambling, and questions -- slain, 11:42:10 12/11/02 Wed

I take it what you mean would be something like a near-death experience; as the human dies, fairly slowly, and the soul is 'released', there'll be some memories there, which the vampire would in turn remember.

I don't think anyone can answer that, because we don't know exactly what a vampire's relationship is to its human memories. It could be that a vampire remembers everything perfectly clearly, right up until the moment of death. My personal thoughts are that, for a vampire, the human memories are to an extent hazy, or disjointed; they can remember them all, but they're more like a complex dream than an actual past. So while they might remember everything, all the memories are seen through a new vampire perspective; if a vampire were to remember the human soul departing its body, they'd see it more as a kind of release from human morals and frailties, with more of a focus on the act of being vamped than on the act of dying, just as Angel seems to remember Darla vamping him more than he does the death of Liam, and the same could be said of Spike/William. It's not like they're remembering their own death, but remembering another persons, despite their personality not having radically changed - like dying in a dream, then waking up afterwards.

[> Really Fine! -- luna, 11:44:27 12/10/02 Tue


For those of us less well educated in acting, could you talk a bit about the difference between acting for camera and for the stage, as you see it in Marster's performances? I had thought "Shakespearian actor" a couple of times watching him, esp. the last scene in BY, but don't know that I could say why.

[> Art imitating life -- cougar, 15:45:24 12/10/02 Tue

I have read several times that JM loves Shakespeare, especially Hamlet. He also talks of how the whole gang gets together at Joss's house on weekends and reads over Shakespeare and explores it's depths for fun. So this may be another example of the personality of actor himself influencing the writers. For example JM has admitted that he tried to inject a sexual tension into to scenes with Buffy while he was still a disposable character, in the hopes that the writers would pick up on the sizzle and keep him on longer and give him more screen time with the star. Good call I'd say.

Very thoughtful and astute post Hec, but I just got my MLvF books yesterday and they are already going out of style!!!

[> [> Just curious, which ones? And not out-of -style, just resting a bit:) -- Haecceity, 21:55:00 12/12/02 Thu

[> Long live the Long and Thematics! -- Tchaikovsky, 16:10:35 12/10/02 Tue

I'm not sure if we could ever make this as militant as MOLOJ, because I don't think we've ever been wronged against. In fact, we've been positively encouraged to ramble.

Good post. Have thoughts but no time, (as usual). Will respond in next few days.

TCH

[> [> Revealing My Ignorance to buy time on the thread so I can track down slain's post -- Haecceity, 18:12:51 12/10/02 Tue

Will kick myself later, surely, but am going to type out MOLOJ followed by a great big question mark ?, thus, 'cause after several (increasingly bizarre) rounds of "Suss Out the Acronym", I still haven't found one that wasn't a.) lame b.) obscene c.) In a foreign language, possibly French, given the state of my French.

Help out a fellow tribe member, will you?

---Haecceity

[> [> [> Um...oh...uh... -- Wisewoman, 18:42:14 12/10/02 Tue

I hope I get it right. It was coined during the cut-throat voting for Buffy and Angel character favorites in the tournament set up by JBone (while he was still JBone) this summer. Many posters were devastated by the loss of Jenny Calender to I-can't-remember-who and so MOLOJ was born.

Oh, damn, now I've lost it! I think the LOJ was Lovers of Jenny, but what the heck was the MO for?

[> [> [> Marginalised Othered Lovers of Jenny -- Tchaikovsky, 11:14:28 12/11/02 Wed

Largely as Wisewoman explained, the scary organisation, (run by Rochefort) got more militant and powerful as the summer went on. But Angel still beat Jenny 41-40, (amusingly, if only darkly comic). Sorry I probably should have explained the acronym.

[> [> [> [> Ahh, now I get it. Combining your two posts I thought "Militant Order of LOJ" -- Haecceity, 18:59:22 12/11/02 Wed

But if the Long And Thematic Tribe gets organized, we could probably kick their butts. Or at least talk them to death :) Our motto could be, "And *Another* Thing..."

---Haecceity
whistling and snapping (but leaving the street-fighting moves to toe dancer boy-friend)her way through...

"When you're a LAT you're a LAT all the way,
From your first 'How 'bout *that*?' to your last Voy-ing
day......."

See? Even managed to bring that back 'round to Shakespeare by a tour through the West Side. Thematic indeed.

[> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- shadowkat, 20:57:12 12/10/02 Tue

(Rambling thematic calling in...although I am trying to get away from this hobby - it may be responsible for one killer of writer's block and let's face it as wonderful as this board is, posting doesn't pay the rent or get me published, sigh.)

Your post got me thinking - not always a good thing. And remembering my Shakespear - which I should brush up on, so excuse me if my memory is a tad foggy, it's been a very long while. There's three Shakespearen characters I see in Spike's portrayle besides Iago (whose the most obvious comparison due to Yoko Factor.)

MacBeth - who in his climatic "Tomorrow and Tommorrow and Tomorrow " speech comes to an epiphany of sorts that he is already dead and merely living on borrowed time. That everything he cared for is gone. And everything he's done - has lead him NOT to what he craved, ie the power and the glory (well there was a little of that) but rather to this sorry dead space of having lost everything that makes life worthwhile. "Out brief candle!" Let it be over. Pain is too much. (Reminds me a little of Spike at the end of Seeing Red or rather in Never Leave Me...before Buffy tells him she believes in him.)

Hamlet - who has many soliqueys but the most famous is the climatic one "to be or not to be" - where he contemplates suicide or rather if life has any meaning whatsoever. And where in the heck he should go next and who he should be.
A question he repeats in his speech asking what is a man.
Through his speeches or soliqueys he comes to somewhat the same conclusions as Macbeth...that life is worthless, he has no true purpose outside of revenge - or seeking justice for his father's murder. And decides to take action - to seek the vengaence. (A path many on the boards predicted Spike would take at the end of Seeing Red.)

Caliban in the Tempest - the most monsterous of the three characters - has his climatic moment shortly after he betrays or rather attempts to betray Prospero, he attempts to rape Miranda, Prospero's daughter who he covets. After doing so - he comes to a conclusion that he can either be the beast or the man and chooses to strive to become a man. (I think, memory is foggy here, so don't kill me if I'm wrong - it's been a while).

Then there's King Lear who does not realize what he's lost until well he's lost it, but first must go through a journey of poverty and betrayle to realize it.

Like you - I found the scene in the crypt far more interesting than the AR scene - actually my favorite scene in the whole episode is the crypt scene. I've watched it many times. It is not only brillantly written but also brillantly shot.

Let's look at the dialogue again: (courtesy of Psyche Transcripts)

Cut to Spike's crypt. The door bursts open and Spike rushes in, still without his leather coat.
Flash to the earlier scene of Buffy protesting and struggling.
Flash back to now. Spike closes his eyes and clenches his jaw, looking pained.The sound of Buffy crying and begging continues.
Flash to the bathroom again. Buffy struggling and crying.
Flash back to now. Spike strides across the room and picks up a bottle of alcohol and a glass. He pours, puts the bottle down, drinks.
Flash to the bathroom. Spike on top of Buffy, pinning her down.
SPIKE: I'm gonna make you feel it.
Flash to now. The glass shatters in Spike's hand. He stares at it, lowers his hand slowly.

The lines in bold show how Spike is dealing with this memory and from what we see? Not very well. He's completely traumatized. Now Clem comes in but Spike doesn't really appear to be aware of him, any more than Hamlet is aware of his audience or Buffy is truly aware of the vamppsychologist in CwDP - this is a conversation Spike is having with himself. Clem is incidential. And like most incidential characters - highly likeable - it makes an easier sounding board. Remember how likeable the vamppsychologist is?

CLEM (OS): Uh ... knock knock?
Reveal Clem standing in the doorway holding a paper bucket of fast-food. He waves tentatively.
CLEM: I was just in the neighborhood so I thought, you know...
Clem walks into the room. Spike stares at the floor sullenly.
CLEM: ...there's a Nightrider marathon on the TV, so, uh... (holding up bucket) I got hot wings!
SPIKE: (shakily) What have I done?
Beat. Spike frowns, looks bemused.
SPIKE: Why *didn't* I do it? (looks up at the ceiling, sighs) What has she done to me?


To understand these words and Spike's reactions - we need to go back a chapter to Entropy - just as to better understand Shakespear's text, you need to metanarrate on the acts that came before. Each episode of Btvs builds upon itself - it is the difference between and episodic or anthology story and a serial, serials - are continuing dramas where the past is vital to every episode.

In Entropy - when Buffy accuses Spike of spying on her with the hidden camera - Spike responds: (again courtesy of Psyche Transcripts):

SPIKE: You think I could do that?
BUFFY: Because you don't lie or cheat or steal or manipulate... [very similar to Riley's words in As You Were]
Spike gives her back the camera.
SPIKE: (quietly) I don't hurt you.
He walks a few steps away.
BUFFY: I know.
SPIKE: No, you don't. I've tried to make it clear to you, but you won't see it. (pauses) Something happened to me. The way I feel ... about you ... it's different. And no matter how hard you try to convince yourself it isn't, it's real.
BUFFY: I think it is.
Beat. He looks at her.
BUFFY: For you.
She turns to walk away. Spike looks hurt.

(okay trying the bold now...let's see if it works.)

Her last comment wounds him deeply, so deeply that he winces and screams at her to get out and goes to the magic box to numb the pain. Ending up sleeping with Anya instead.

Flashforward to the scene in the bathroom after he almost forces himself on her - she says: "Ask me again why I can never love you."

He says - "buffy I never.."
She cuts him off: "Only because I stopped you. Which I should have done long ago."

Flashforward to Spike and Clem:

Clem says - Oh the slayer, she break up with you again and here's what Spike says:

SPIKE: We were never together. Not really. She'd never lower herself that far.

Then we go into the soliquey or the heart of it where Spike questions his own identity. This scene btw reminds me a little of Anya washing the blood off her hands in Selfless.

SPIKE: (desperate) Why do I feel this way?
CLEM: (shrugs) Love's a funny thing.
SPIKE: Is that what this is? (Clem looking uncertain) I can feel it. Squirming in my head. (puts hand to his head)

SPIKE: The chip. Gnawing bits and chunks.
Spike puts his fingers against his head as if he's trying to dig his way into his skull.

SPIKE: You know, everything used to be so clear. Slayer. Vampire. Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones. It's always been that way. I've tasted the life of two Slayers. But with Buffy... (grimacing in anguish) It isn't supposed to be this way!
He grabs a piece of furniture and shoves it over, with accompanying crashing noises.
SPIKE: (angrily) It's the chip! Steel and wires and silicon. (sighs) It won't let me be a monster. (quietly) And I can't be a man. I'm nothing.

But is it the chip? Even Spike doesn't know anymore. The chip was supposed to stop him - but it doesn't. His love for buffy was supposed to prevent him from hurting her in his head - but it doesn't. OTOH if he wanted to hurt buffy, if he is a soulless evil vampire - than why didn't he really hurt her? Why didn't he kill her? She was vulnerable.
He could have. Numerous times. "Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones. It's always been that way. I've tasted the life of two Slayers." - it's as you state, Hacceity - that was the superficial/immortal self - the public self - which Spike had grown comfortable with, that he believed was real. And for that matter Buffy continued to believe was the real him too - probably b/c she didn't dare believe otherwise, she couldn't risk it. If it is the real him - then why, he wonders, why didn't he?

Flashback to Fool For Love for an answer - they are there if you look for them. Where both Harmony and even earlier Drusilla ask Spike the same exact question - Why can't he kill her?

Drusilla asks it before Spike ever got the chip - way back in 1998, before Angel left Buffy. "Why can't you kill her? She's all around you...laughing." He flashes back to this before he ends up comforting Buffy on the stoop in FFL.

Harmony causes the flashback when she states - "You couldn't kill her before you got the chip..." She states this as he leaves with a gun intent on shooting Buffy. But it's not the chip that stops him this time - it's her tears.

You mention two times that Spike hears an inner voice or has an epiphany. I see at least three:

1. Out of My Mind - the dream
2. Fool for Love - the flashback sequence
3. Seeing Red - the crypt scene soliquey

All three times cause a drastic change in his arc or evolution. You can track simiarl arcs in Shakespear - MacBeth (1) witches and their prophecy, 2) Lady Macbeth's urgings, 3) Loss of everything with tomorrow speech.
Hamlet - (1) seeing his fathers ghost and doing the play
2) to be or not to be, 3) man speech. The shifts don't happen over night or all at once...but gradually with each climax being built up over time.

Another literary piece that did this was A ClockWork Orange (yeah I know...I should stop referring to it...but it works sooo well ;-) ) 1) Alex as head of a violent gange, learns his droogs are going to betray him, gets them first, goes off to be lone wolf. 2) Alex is captured by government and undergoes painful conditioning 3) Alex is deprogrammed and enabled to choose own path. 4) Alex chooses own path.

Spike fits similar pattern: 1) Spike gets betrayed by vampire gange he leads, Dru leaves him, head torture honcho betrays him, decides to become lone wolf - no more minions or partners (see In The Dark - Ats Season 1 and flashbacks in fFL) 2.) Gets captured by government, chip inserted - can't kill. (Initiative - Season 4), 3). Chooses soul and gets deconditioned (Season 6-7)

Seeing Red was the end of part 2 arc and the beginning of PArt 3 arc. If you re-watch the episodes - it makes sense in hindsight. What's interesting to me is how they filmed the crypt scene - starkly, so that Spike is literally stripped of color. Also his last cigarret is literally smoked and stomped out on screen in SR. We never see him smoke or ride the motorcycle again.

When Spike returns, Clem and the crypt are even gone. Spike himself is different. His accent, his manner, his facial expressions are subtly changed. He wears the same clothes (sans jacket and red shirt) - yes. But how he wears them and how he moves even has changed.

Where are we headed next? I'm not sure - there's at least 3 possibilities. If I had to guess based on Shakespeare, a Clockwork Orange - the British verison of the book and what I've seen - I'd say this last arc is most likely a redemptive one or more to the point the becoming a real man arc. Becoming the kind of man - someone like Buffy could love.

At any rate - what I find rewarding is the writers' ability
to build these arcs so that a) they aren't predictable and b) when we trakc back over the episodes, they make sense.


Hope I added and didn't just reiterate what you said...
good post Haccenity as always.

SK (who must be getting to bed herself...)

[> [> Spoilers for SR, Entropy, FFL, NLM, Sleeper & BY in above post! (long too!) -- shadowkat, 20:58:46 12/10/02 Tue

[> [> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- Just George, 00:54:05 12/11/02 Wed

shadowcat: "Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones. It's always been that way. I've tasted the life of two Slayers." - it's as you state, Hacceity - that was the superficial/immortal self - the public self - which Spike had grown comfortable with, that he believed was real. And for that matter Buffy continued to believe was the real him too - probably b/c she didn't dare believe otherwise, she couldn't risk it.


I'm not sure I agree. Not about Spike, he was trying to maintain a public self that had grown inconsistent with his inner progress. About Buffy; she pretty obviously didn't totally accept Spike's superficial self. If she did think he was still the "Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones" kind of guy she wouldn't have slept with him. The fact that Buffy never fully trusts or loves Spike is not the same thing as assuming he has made no progress beyond his superficial self. She treated him as the safe lover, who would not hurt her physically and who didn't matter emotionally.

Buffy accepted that Spike was making progress. Enough progress that she was willing to make herself physically vulnerable to him time after time. But that progress undermined the second half of the reasons Buffy thought Spike was safe. The relationship did matter emotionally to Spike. And unfortunately both Buffy and Spike overestimated the progress he had made.

-Just George

[> [> [> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- shadowkat, 07:17:21 12/11/02 Wed

Actually I think I disagree...with this:

About Buffy; she pretty obviously didn't totally accept Spike's superficial self. If she did think he was still the "Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones" kind of guy she wouldn't have slept with him. The fact that Buffy never fully trusts or loves Spike is not the same thing as assuming he has made no progress beyond his superficial self. She treated him as the safe lover, who would not hurt her physically and who didn't matter emotionally.

Buffy accepted that Spike was making progress. Enough progress that she was willing to make herself physically vulnerable to him time after time. But that progress undermined the second half of the reasons Buffy thought Spike was safe. The relationship did matter emotionally to Spike. And unfortunately both Buffy and Spike overestimated the progress he had made.

Remember what she tells Spike and later the vamppsychologist?

"I'm using you, it's weak and selfish and it's killing me."

"I didn't want to be loved, I wanted to be hurt. Punished."

Buffy wanted to die when she began her relationship with Spike. She wanted to feel fire. "I touch the fire, but it freezes me, why doesn't my skin crack and burn?"
"I know this isn't real but I just want to feel."

For Buffy - sex with Spike fulfilled two purposes: 1) it was a release of anger at all the men who abandoned her.
The first time Spike comforts her and their relationship starts to begin is a bit after her last meeting with Angel which occurs off screen. The second kiss occurrs after Giles leaves. The sex soon thereafter. And in AYW she goes to Spike after her talk with Sam where Sam tells her that Riley has moved on and no longer cares for her. I think part of Buffy wanted Riley to find her with Spike, even expected it. She used Spike as a weapon to hurt Riley. (Remember - she knew Riley was off beating up local informants, Sam tells her as much, so does Riley, and remember the informant Riley went to in Buffy vs. Dracula?)
Unfortunately - Buffy just embarrassed and hurt herself and Spike more than Riley. Riley barely reacted.
2) The chance Spike might kill her was present. When she kisses him in OMWF - she had just attempted suicide. In
Smashed - she is struggling with being alive and tells Willow in Wrecked - she gets the desire to be free, released from life. With Spike - Buffy was boinking death in her head. She hated herself - hated the fact that she resented her friends, resented the men who left and with Spike she was punishing herself. And in a sense him as well - for being the only one who didn't leave, for being a vampire that she felt bad killing, for loving her when she didn't want to be loved.

Yes - part of Buffy saw the progress he was making and believed that it was safe, he would never hurt her. But part of her - the part that could never love him b/c she didn't trust him - counted on him hurting her, wanted it.
It's this factor that still torments Buffy a little, the realization that she wanted it. She'd be less tormented and less uncomfortable with Spike, I think, if she hadn't wanted
him to hurt her last year.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why Buffy hated herself -- Just George, 00:53:00 12/12/02 Thu

shadowcat: "Yes - part of Buffy saw the progress he was making and believed that it was safe, he would never hurt her. But part of her - the part that could never love him b/c she didn't trust him - counted on him hurting her, wanted it."


I'll agree that both things were present. Buffy saw Spike making progress, which made it easier to be with him. No matter how far down Buffy was I don't think she would have been with S2 Spike. But, S6 Spike had made a lot of progress since then.

And Buffy knew Spike was still dangerous. He told her so. She didn't sleep with him until he could physically hurt her.

I hadn't thought of Buffy being with Spike as attempted suicide. If I can accept that Anya was attempting "suicide by Slayer" in Selfless, then I can accept that Buffy was attempting "suicide by Spike" in S6.

A question then is why did Buffy hate herself enough to attempt suicide? What could she blame herself for? Not for Spuffy. Spuffy was caused by her self hate, so the hate must have preceded it. Spuffy probably supported the self hate, but didn't cause it. What did?

Buffy wasn't responsible for coming back. Willow, Tara, Xander and Anya did that.

Buffy wasn't responsible for Giles leaving. He was.

Buffy wasn't responsible for Angel being out of her life. He was.

So, What did Buffy do (or not do) that she could hate herself for?

1) She didn't kill herself. She wanted to in Bargaining Part II. But Dawn talked her out of it. This might be reason to hate Dawn.

2) She didn't hate her friends. Her friends brought her back. And she hated that. So she had reason to hate them.

But Buffy didn't want to hate her best friends or her sister. Maybe she hated herself for her negative feelings toward the Scoobies and Dawn. This is actually supported by some of the text:

* Buffy did have negative feelings. She lied to the Scoobies and Dawn in Afterlife.

* Buffy abandoned the Scoobies and Dawn through most of S6. Given Buffy's suppressed negative feelings, she seemed unable to keep her usual close watch on them. Without Buffy's support, all their lives spiraled downward.

* Buffy's final epiphany was all about Dawn and her friends, "Things have really sucked lately. That's all going to change and I want to be there when it does. I want to see my friends happy again. I want to see you grow up, the woman you're going to become."

There are other possibilities:

* Maybe Buffy hated herself because she couldn't kill herself to go back to Heaven. This is possible, but I don't see where it is supported by any text.

* Maybe Buffy hated herself because she drove Giles away. Possible, she told Spike that thinking about Giles was part of why she kissed him.

* Maybe Buffy hated herself because she drove Angel away. I don't see any specific text to support this.

I think the majority of the text supports the idea that Buffy's initial self-hatred came from her suppressed negative feelings against her friends and her sister. Buffy hated herself for hating them.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> Would agree -- shadowkat, 07:40:58 12/12/02 Thu

I think the majority of the text supports the idea that Buffy's initial self-hatred came from her suppressed negative feelings against her friends and her sister. Buffy hated herself for hating them.

Which is also supported by what she says to the vamp psychologist in CwDP - she tells him:

1. I didn't want to be loved, b/c I didn't deserve it.
2. What I did to my friends...you'd be shocked
3. I feel so beneath them so unworthy while at the same time I'm above them and they can't even come close

What we have here is the typical super-hero complex. You have a secret identity, it is your vocation/calling to save the world - you can't get paid, you can't accept credit, and you can't be acknowledged for it, your friends probably shouldn't even know. The power than enables you to save the world - allows you to heal rapidly, gives you superhuman strength and agility, and comes from a dark place. The majority of your job involves killing things - and often you have to make life or death decisions regarding which things to kill and when and if you foul up? The world could end or someone could die. Plus every night you go out to fight - you could die or someone close to you could be killed because of you.

So you're deepest desire is for it all to end. Just so you can be at peace. Warm, safe, comfortable and loved. You finally reach that by sacrificing yourself for the world one last time and for your sister.

But the world doesn't want to let you go - it still needs you - so whammo - your friend, a pretty dang powerful witch brings you back. And you have to face once again all these problems and you resent and hate them for doing it to you, but you hate yourself more for not living up to your own expectations - for resenting your friends, for resenting your needy sister, and for being attracted to one incredibly hot looking vampire who happens, against all odds, adore you and be madly in love with you. It's the equivalent of the inferiority/superiority complex or superhero syndrom - a classic in the comic books.

The thing about self-hate is it is very seldom rational, it usually has a lot to do with the individual not meeting their own expectations which are generally unreasonably high - particularly if you are super-powered.

The problem Buffy has always had is coming to grips with the paradox inside herself. She is superhero by night - she who hangs out in graveyards, and normal California valley girl by day. Everyone underestimates her strength. She can't tell most people who she is. The idea of dating normal guys has become almost ludricous - since a) she can't tell them what she does or much about her life, b) if she did tell them they'd go running for the hills. Or eventually reach a point in which they couldn't handle the fact that she is so much stronger than they are. (See Riley, Scott Hope, Parker, etc.) The idea of leaving Sunnydale - is also apparently impossible. The girl is stuck.

Regarding abandonment issues? Yeah we know it wasn't Buffy's fault Riley, Angel, Daddy, Scott Hope and even PArker left her. Now Giles. But Buffy like most people blames herself for the leavings. Deep down inside she thinks it is all about her. She may be finally getting past that - I don't know. But it is possibly an additional factor.

She doesn't hate herself now. She does however feel some guilt and remorse for how her actions last year effected her sister, her friends and Spike - but that's normal.
Actually everything she's feeling is pretty much normal.
If she was happy-go-lucky about all this? The show would feel like a two-dimensional cartoon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Would agree -- Haecceity, 10:16:53 12/12/02 Thu

Plus, Buffy is a superhero WITHOUT A MASK or secret identity, so this "other self" is not as clearly set apart, can cause confusion of who the "self" really is.

I really want to respond to these more deeply, but am caught in the work week from hell!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Would agree -- Just George, 14:17:15 12/12/02 Thu

Shadowcat: Which is also supported by what she says to the vamp psychologist in CwDP - she tells him:

1. I didn't want to be loved, b/c I didn't deserve it.
2. What I did to my friends...you'd be shocked
3. I feel so beneath them so unworthy while at the same time I'm above them and they can't even come close


Buffy still hasn't come to closure on this. She may have some closure about Spuffy after her talk with Spike in Never Leave Me. But she still needs to talk to Willow about how much the resurrection hurt.

Buffy supported Willow at the end of the Same Time, Same Place. Now Buffy needs to clear the air about her S6 feelings. Willow can take it. She's in a very open mood right now. Her lines at the end of STSP show that.


BUFFY: I have a confession to make. I thought it might be youñ with the flaying.
WILLOW: I know.
BUFFY: I want to be the kind of person that wouldn't think that. Xander never thought it.
WILLOW: He did, a little. Heck, I did a little. Xander has the luxury of not saying it but you're the Slayer. You have to say stuff like that. It's okay. It's okay, too, if you still don't think I can recover from this magick stuff. Because, honestly, I'm not that sure about it, either.


The Buffy/Willow conversation, when it comes, will be painful. But I think both characters are in a position where it will do them a lot more good than harm.


Also, I think Buffy is spending a lot of time this season trying to be better inside. Twice this year, she has told people that. One quote above in STSP:


"I want to be the kind of person that wouldn't think that."


And once in Never Leave Me:


"No. I don't hate like that. Not you or myself. Not anymore."


This is not the kind of thing that pre-S7 Buffy used to say about herself. I think that "being a better person" is high on Buffy's ToDo list this year.

-JG

[> [> Never give up the rambles! -- ponygirl, 07:11:20 12/11/02 Wed

Writing is writing after all, and if you're able to turn out pages of thoughtful posts then you can't be truly blocked. Hope the job hunt is going well!

[> [> Re: Side note -- Brian, 01:55:07 12/15/02 Sun

CLEM:(shrugs) "Love's a funny thing." are the last words Spike says to Buffy and Angel in Lover's Walk before he goes back to find Dru.

[> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- Celebaelin, 21:19:57 12/12/02 Thu

Many thanks for this.

As a relative newcomer I have to ask, is there a Jung moritorium? Personally I haven't got any objections, quite the opposite in fact. Going off on one on the CGJ bit for a moment surely Hamlet defies Jung (single-minded achievement of his goals, warns off Ophelia because he knows his path is self-destructive), so is he mad (insane) or isn't he?

[> [> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- Angela, 08:54:02 12/14/02 Sat

Oh no...there were some nice Jung threads recently and Haeccity was the instigator of one of the nicer ones, that's all.

A belated but warm welcome.

[> [> [> Re: Shakespeare, Spike and the "Overheard" Self -- Celebaelin, 22:25:30 12/14/02 Sat

Thanks

[> [> Neither an Expert nor a Scholar Am I -- Haecceity, 01:17:53 12/15/02 Sun

Welcome to the board. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but the truth is, I wasn't sure how to answer your questions. I am no Shakespearean scholar, just a fan, and the question of Hamlet's madness is a question of the age, isn't it? He says there is method to his madness, but so say many others who cause bloodshed in service of their vengeance-seeking and covert plans for blood-shed. Is it madness or the self-deceptive splitting personality of a soul steeling himself to murder? Is he mad or trying to convince others that he is mad? Or is he trying to convince himself that he is mad, is other, is forced to do this thing? That there is no one answer is the reason we still read Shakespeare, the reason we may always read Shakespeare. His characters lead fated lives, but the possibilities of their selves are limitless--they allow us to see everyone we know, including ourselves, in their reflection.

Single-minded achievement of his goals? I think the point of Hamlet is that he is of two minds about everything, but is following one path, one which seems inevitable, a juggernaut, a tragedy. Hamlet achieves death and ruination. Ophelia is pushed away because there is no room for love in vengeance. He makes a choice. Death over love. Whether his rejection of her is a warning or a commitment to another "self"--Hamlet the vengeance demon (bringing it back to BtVS for the purists)--is an interesting question. One I haven't any idea of an answer for. And how it all fits in with Jung and the individuation process? Hamlet is a tragedy, so I tend to think that Hamlet's journey is a truncated one, he doesn't reach full individuation, because he is left without a life to lead. Of course I could be wrong, I'm sure you guys will let me know if that's the case. Remember, still trying to cure myself of ignorance, but slip into downright stupidity occasionally.

As regards Spike, I don't think he's built on the Hamlet model--a bit too decisive for that, I feel. But a Lear/Edgar/Fool combination has definite resonances.

I'm not certain from your post if you're calling for a moratorium on Jung or if you think we've done so. Don't know how long you've been on the board, but there's been a rash of Jung-related posts lately--partly my fault, as I just can't seem to stop pulling things from my narrative psych notebooks--and this post was an attempt to look at things from another, non-psych perspective.

At any rate, glad to hear from another voice.

---Haecceity

who, coincidentally enough, received a "Sigmund Freud Action Figure" as a happy unbirthday present today and actually owns a pair of Freudian Slippers, but is still Jung at heart.

[> [> [> Re: Neither an Expert nor a Scholar Am I -- Celebaelin, 21:00:07 12/15/02 Sun

I was asking if. I think Jung, or at least a Jungian interpretation, usually says something interesting and worthy of consideration. Hamlet is a construct not created in a single stream of consciousness so he can defy Jung even if real people are regularly influenced by the compensatory action of a rebellious unconscious.

My stance is that Hamlet is a total nut-job. I cite alongside his willing jouney away from the rational 'bide your time and be king in the end' role assigned to any heir presumptive (whether an actual prince or a figurative one), his murder of Polonius in a fit of paranoic/oedipal rage (or maybe paranoic/oedipal prima donna pique, which is worse if such a thing is possible). The other muders have 'forgone conclusion' stamped all over them as those who fear Hamlet attempt to eliminate him and are foiled, but are they trying to kill him (e.g. by sending him to England in the company of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) because of his discovery of their regicide or because he's a homocidal lunatic and a threat to the stability of the realm? Well, not *or*, *and* I suspect. Don't get me wrong Hamlet cracks a good joke every now and then and is clever, cunning and resourceful which makes him appealing but he's a murdering (point) mamma jammer (forgivable) at his core and this makes the end of the play a suitable resolution.