December 2002 posts

Previous December 2002
More December 2002

Was it really rape? for those who haven't already had this discussion -- luna, 17:32:02 12/12/02 Thu

Sorry, I know this has probably been aired here before--but just watched the rerun and needed some corrective discussion.

I know that most of the thinking about real rapists is that it's about the power--not about the sex. Now with Buffy and Spike--who has the power? Physically: Buffy is a superhero, and Spike has a device that prevents him from harming humans. In Dead Things, Buffy beats the bejuice out of him and he doesn't defend himself. And even later in the same episode as the rape scene, Buffy holds her own with the super-empowered Warren.

So IRL, most men can physically overpower most women, but of course there are many many times when women hold the psychological edge--when men are young, their mothers can overpower them physically, so as they grow older, I suppose a woman who pushes the right psychological buttons can overwhelm a man psychologically, and that much rape is revenge for that.

The Buffy/Spike situation does not quite work like that. What we know of Spike/William and women in the past is that he is very attracted to women who then put him down (Cecily, Dru), which would account for his motivation, but he's just not physically equipped to overpower the Slayer--again, reference his chip and her powers.

How could Spike rape her then? If the essence of rape is that a man can overpower and humiliate a woman, it seems very unlikely that this could be happening with Buffy and Spike. This has bothered me since the first time I saw this scene, and I still don't see how it's supposed to work.

Any explanations?

[> Re: Was it really rape? for those who haven't already had this discussion -- Rook, 17:37:59 12/12/02 Thu

I've had these discussions before, and don't want to get into it much. Just wanted to point out that the chip is not a factor. It doesn't work on Buffy.

[> Buffy was already hurt. -- HonorH, 18:15:20 12/12/02 Thu

She hurt her back on a gravestone in the preceding vamp-dusting, and while struggling with Spike, slipped and hit that very injury. That's why he was able to overpower her. Also, it doesn't matter what his intentions were; he very nearly forced her into sex against her will. That's rape.

[> It really was Attempted Rape -- Rufus, 18:21:27 12/12/02 Thu

I don't think the AR was about physical power as much as it was about betrayal. Buffy didn't think Spike was capable of what he tried to do, and furthermore I think it came as a bit of a surprise to Spike or he wouldn't have had the reaction of going in search of a soul. It isn't an easy situation to talk about as many people take it as proof Spike has never been good and others verbally attack Buffy. But the simple fact is what we saw was an Attempted Rape, and it's up to Buffy to determine what she does about Spike....who she clearly believes in because of what she has seen since he came back from Africa.

[> [> A nicely-balanced viewpoint. -- HonorH, 19:09:43 12/12/02 Thu

I agree with you completely on all points, Rufus. It was a betrayal, and it was really the only thing I can think of that would horrify *Spike* enough that he'd go in search of a soul. It is an emotionally-charged issue, and for what it's worth, I think ME has handled the fallout admirably.

[> [> What you see vs. what you hear -- Silky, 08:07:39 12/13/02 Fri

The AR scene bothered me for some time until I realized that if you watch it with the sound turned down, you see the AR. If you close your eyes and listen to what Spike is saying, you hear a man begging to be let in, begging for a second chance. So, the scene is rather schizo - actions and words in conflict.

Rufus said: "I don't think the AR was about physical power as much as it was about betrayal." I agree. Buffy, for all her protestations to the contrary, did trust Spike up until that moment. In Entropy, Spike stated that he didn't 'hurt her' and Buffy agreed. Then, Spike hurts her by sleeping with Anya and then by attacking her. He betrayed the trust she claimed not to have in him.

Last spring, after reading many posts here, I decided that perhaps Buffy did not love Spike after all. But, seeing S.6 again on Fx has brought me back to my original feeling that indeed, the writers wanted us to think that Buffy did love Spike, but couldn't admit it to herself or anyone else. Even the words to the graveyard song in DT said something about all the barriers are self-made. OK, so I'm a hopeless, naive romatic. But, that's what I see in S.6. Both in the dialogue and the actions of the characters. Time will tell.

[> [> [> Re: What you see vs. what you hear -- luna, 10:20:31 12/13/02 Fri

That seems to fit much better with what we are seeing on season 7. Her reactions to seeing him at the wedding and to the scene with Anya seemed to show definitely feelings for him that fit with her conversation with him in NLM and with Dawn in Him. It seems to be one of the major issues of her psychology in Season 6 that only Spike really seems able to reach her, and that for that reason she turns on him.

If we saw their relationship in the last two seasons with Buffy as a man and Spike as a woman, we'd assign blame and feelings differently, I think.

However, one more query: did the chip never work on Buffy, or just not at some point?

[> [> [> [> It did work....... -- Rufus, 10:27:55 12/13/02 Fri

Spike discovered that the chip didn't work in Smashed...he thought it wasn't working at all til he tried to attack a woman in an alley....he then went to the Troika to find out what was happening. The chip is not working on Buffy because of a slight molecular change in her as a result of being brought back.....nothing that makes her less human, just a human with a molecular suntan.

[> [> [> [> The chip once did work on Buffy -- HonorH, 00:17:38 12/14/02 Sat

"Out Of My Mind", for instance--he thinks he has it out, then tries to bite her and gets zapped. Not to mention it zapping him twice in "Fool For Love". It just stopped working after her resurrection.

[> There are long discussions in the May/June archives. I recommend them -- Sophist, 20:33:39 12/12/02 Thu

[> Re: Was it really rape? for those who haven't already had this discussion -- Miss Edith, 21:06:14 12/12/02 Thu

Spike was not trying to overpower and humiliate Buffy. He was drinking before going over there (not that that's an excuse) and not thinking clearly. He wanted to restablish his bond with Buffy and the only way he had ever been allowed to get close to her was through sex. Hence him trying to make her love him. He wasn't intending to hurt her, he was simply desperate and perhaps experiencing an emotional breakdown. Remember the abusive relationship the two of them had, with the mixed signals.

It was attempted rape though no question and Spike was very wrong in what he tried to do. But it has nothing to do with the recon ME have attempted by suggesting Spike often raped in the past. The bathroom incident had nothing to do with a pattern of serial rape.

[> [> Re: Was it really rape? for those who haven't already had this discussion -- Shiraz, 09:34:35 12/13/02 Fri

Oh, I see,

he was only a serial *torturer*. That's much better. And whats a little being-nailed-to-a-tree-with-rail-road-spikes between friends?

Come on people, like the man himself said:

"William's been a bad boy."

-Shiraz (who is having a hard time restraining the sarcasm today)

[> [> [> Re: Was it really rape? for those who haven't already had this discussion -- Miss Edith, 21:13:16 12/13/02 Fri

I'm not denying Spike was evil. I just don't think every evil vampire automatically has a pattern of rape as part of their repertoire. JMO.

[> [> [> Re: Was it really rape? for those who haven't already had this discussion -- Miss Edith, 16:42:49 12/14/02 Sat

And sorry to keep harping on this but do we know Spike was a serial torturer? I don't remember it ever being said that he crucified people with railroad spikes as you suggest. The IRA takes all night to crucify someone so I'm given the impression it takes quite a while. A while longer than Spike has the patience for. In FFL the party guests were talking of having railroad spikes driven through their heads. I assume when Spike was first turned he gatecrashed a party, and terrorised them and killed them off by doing exactly that. I don't think he would have the imagination or patience to use the railroad spikes in another way.

I hate to keep bringing this up but Angelus does tell Spike the same year he was turned that he needs to learn the artistry of torture and Spike is not interested. He wants to unleash his vampire side "all fist and fangs". I am not saying Spike is too good to torture. I am saying that both times Angel was tortured in What's My Line and In The Dark Spike did not have the patience to see it through. He liked the idea of Angel suffering so yes he was evil. But it's not something he has the patience to do himself. Yet in the original script for NLM we have Spike talking of torturing young girls for weeks and making them his playthings. That is why I am saying the writers are being inconsistent with the character and confusing him with Angelus.

[> [> [> [> Spike and torture -- LittleBit, 17:18:31 12/14/02 Sat

In our very first introduction to Spike (season 2, School Hard) the following dialogue took place:

Giles: Oh, there you are.
Jenny: There who is?
Giles: Our new friend Spike. He's known as 'William the Bloody'. Earned his nickname by torturing his victims with railroad spikes. Very pleasant. Well, here's some good news: he's barely two hundred. He's not even as old as Angel is. (frowns) Oh.
Xander: That's a bad look, right?
Giles: I think your suggestion of running away this Saturday might've been a good one. Spike has fought two Slayers in the last century, and... he's killed them both.

If we go by canon, then this gives every indication that Spike did indeed torture a series of victims with railroad spikes. Whether or not he put them through their heads, or crucified them, or precisely how he tortured them is not described. But the fact is, he earned his name by his deeds, and those deeds were torture.

[Quote from Psyche]

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike and torture -- Miss Edith, 17:36:40 12/14/02 Sat

I agree and I have never doubted that Spike did torture his former "friends" with railroad spikes. I am just saying I don't see any evidence that he tortured them for hours and nailed them to trees. In FFL a guest specifically jokes about having a railroad spike shoved through his head leading the audience to believe that Spike earned his reputation by doing exactly that. I mean come on railroad spikes aren't exactly the most ingenuis way of torturing someone. Not that I have any experience at the finer points of torture lol.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I took the FFL scene -- Sophist, 20:41:40 12/14/02 Sat

as evidence that the "torturing with railroad spikes" may never actually have happened. I think ME was deliberately creating ambiguity there for plot and dramatic purposes. Because of that ambiguity, I would not say it's canon that Spike did do so (though he certainly could have).

[> [> [> [> [> The late CoW was often wrong ... -- bl, 02:49:50 12/15/02 Sun

Giles: Our new friend Spike. He's known as 'William the Bloody'. Earned his nickname by torturing his victims
with railroad spikes. Very pleasant. Well, here's some good news: he's barely two hundred.

In School Hard Spike is 200 and his sire is Angel. Both not true by current cannon. The CoW makes mistakes.

Another thing Spike mentions in School Hard is I don't like to brag. (can't keep a straight face) Who am I kidding? I *love* to brag! And so the CoW records of the bragging of vampires as if they were true.

Spike likes to talk big. We like to talk big. (indicates himself) Vampires do. 'I'm going to destroy the world.' That's just tough guy talk. Strutting around with your friends over a pint of blood. And the CoW records the tough guy talk as true.

After FFL showed Spike lying and twisting what he told Buffy about his past, vampire and human, I believed that both the "torturing with railroad spikes" and "I've always been bad" stories were made up. Spike bragging. Tough guy talk. Painting himself blacker than he was. Which is what I hope he was doing in Never Leave Me. Spike liked to brawl. That is canon. Till Never Leave Me it was also canon that he didn't have the patience or inclination for torture (I've never been much for the pre-show.)and there was no indication that he was a serial rapist.

I think ME made a big mistake in suddenly redefining him as a torturer and serial rapist (even worse than the AR). They should have left it ambiguous so those of us who thought he wasn't could still keep believing that and those of us who believed he was, could believe that. By putting the serial rapist thing in canon I think they did a diservice to the character and show. Not to mention deliberately struck at many Spike fans.

[> Re: Was it really rape? A little R -- JM, 14:28:44 12/13/02 Fri

OK this is another one of those posts I suspect I shouldn't make. I really hope to not offend or hurt anyone. If it's too far beyond the pale, I hope Masq kills it. It's just that some of these thoughts have been pinging in my head since season three at least.

I think that ME good did a pretty job of showing how incredibly and complex a situation acquaintance rape is (though one with crystal clear morals), even in the real world. They did try to level the physical strength playing field, with Buffy's injury in the graveyard and again when she bangs her head on the bathtub. But she still remains strong enough to kick him off, thankfully for both of them.

I think that ME was also exploring the emotional dynamics of physical and sexual assault. Lots of assaults are purely possible because the assailant can physically overpower their victim. But not every one.

The following is not in any way meant to insinuate that victims of rape are complicit in any way. First the argument is stupid, and second because it is only the small minority of cases where the disparity of physical strength is not the clear deciding factor.

That said there are women who beat their husbands and boyfriends. There are same sex couples where physical and sexual abuse occurs, and not always by the physically stronger partner.

Hell, it's even technically in some circumstances for a woman to rape a man. (And I'm not talking sodomy.) The fight or flight response to danger is more accurately the fight, flight, or f**k response. Adreniline can affect a few of the crossed wires in our heads. Men sometimes in circumstances of fear or danger can develop erections as an unintented response. Can technically, physically be engaged in sex that they were not willing partners to. (There was a Picket Fences ep on the issue that really squicked me. Never forgot it.) I thought that this was what ME was implying in Xander and Faith's almost fatal encounter. Which was incredibly heavy with sexual overtones.

Part of what complicates fending off an attack even when one can is how deeply many of us are reluctant to hurt another person physically, deliberately. The mechanisms are unconscious and very difficult to disarm in stress and surprise. And I suspect particularly difficult to disarm in response the idea of hurting some one you care about, even one who is currently hurting you. I thought that there was some of that in Buffy's response. I think DT made her reluctant to physically attack Spike, probably subconsciously. The only time after DT that I remember her striking him again was AYW. She was quite stressed out and I think the fact that Riley hit Spike first pushed that barrier. In SR it seemed clear to me that she was not fighting as hard as we were used to was not because she was hurt, but because she DID NOT WANT to. She didn't want to hurt Spike and she did not want to have. She wanted this not to be happening.

[> [> No offense taken... -- Dariel, 09:25:45 12/14/02 Sat

I don't see anything offensive about your post. The "Buffy did not want this to be happening" part really fits. Who wouldn't have that reaction when it's someone you care about, someone who is supposed to care about you?

When Buffy realizes that it really is happening, that begging is not going to stop him, then she fights Spike off. (Unfortunately, not usually an option for women in RL). Even after Spike is gone, her expression is still somewhat disbelieving, ie., "did that really happen?"

Sadly, I think this disbelieving is one of the reasons women can feel guilty after a rape, as if it's their fault.

[> [> Re: Was it really rape? A little R -- luna, 10:50:26 12/14/02 Sat

The scene in Dead Things when Buffy beats Spike almost to a pulp was part of what made me question his ability to overpower her in the rape scene--and I'm not convinced in DT that it was just the chip that held him back. (It seemed to me that in various scenes in seasons 5 and 6, we began to see the germ of his desire to return to humanity, not to be a demon any longer, just as we see that in Anya several times before Helpless.)

I agree that any form of rape, including acquaitance rape, is despicable, and that many, many women suffer and are blamed for their suffering.

However, if a woman who is not as strong as a man physically throws her body on a man's and tries to get him to make love to her, the general public doesn't consider that as rape. I can imagine that it could be psychologically difficult for the man in that situation, but most of us probably would not put it in the same category as rape. For example, suppose the now undemonized Anya were to wrestle Xander to the ground, using just her current human strength. Would that not be essentially what happened with Spike and Buffy? Sad, reprehensible, damaging to the relationship--yes. A crime--???

Not to harp on this! But I find it not quite logical to equate Spike's attacks of any kind on Buffy with his attacks on human victims, pre-chip. She's just not that vulnerable, even with a bruised back.

[> [> [> Re: Was it really rape? A little R -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:39:40 12/14/02 Sat

Keep this in mind: in Dead Things, Spike doesn't even TRY to fight back. Buffy was able to beat him up pretty bad, but only when he let her. And several times in the past he has fought Buffy and done a pretty good job of it (in the cases of School Hard and Out Of My Mind, one could even say he beat her, though he was stopped from actually killing her by outside forces (Joyce in School Hard, the chip in Out Of My Mind)). I didn't have a hard time swallowing the attempted rape because I've always considered Spike to be roughly on the same plane as Buffy when it comes to strength and fighting.

Also, your comparison doesn't work for another reason: if a woman jumps on top of a man and tries to have sex with him, it's not often viewed as attempted rape since sexual intercourse can't occur if the man remains unerect.

[> [> [> Re: Was it really rape? A little R -- Miss Edith, 16:29:32 12/14/02 Sat

Buffy is generally presented as much stronger than Spike. E.g she could swing the troll hammer above her head whereas Spike could barely lift it. And Spike couldn't handle fighting one overweight vampire in Bargaining and in general Spike is shown as weaker physically. A lot of people disliked the AR scene because they said it was making the heroine vunerable for a plot point. E.g in Doomed Buffy cracks her back on a gravestone, yet is able to do a little flip when Riley arrives and is fine. She is bruised in the bathroom scene despite of the fact she fights vampires nightly and herself states she doesn't bruise easily. In NPLH Glory throws her into a wall so hard Buffy leaves a dent on the wall but no mark on her face. That is why I had trouble accepting Buffy's lack of strength. I could accept her being shocked and forgetting all her fighting moves. What puzzled me was when she was pushing Spike off her and all her strength seemed to have sapped away. After all in Smashed when she pushed him she could send him flying across the room so I was unsure as to the reason why she couldn't push him across the bathroom.

Actually female rape has been addressed on Bts in some way. In Consequences Faith threw Xander on the bed and began chocking him whilst trying to get him turned on muttering about how she could do anything to him right now and he's want her too. But that attack isn't usually seen as sexual by most people. It's the attempted murder that gets focused on. Indeed there are people that want to see Xander and Faith get together and interestingly enough the fact that Xander was almost raped by Faith is never brought up in terms off the message it would send out to impressionable people.

Similarly Willow mindraping Tara is not treated particularly seriously with Tara happy to reunite with Willow as soon as Willow gives up magic. I call what happened mindrape because Tara specifically says she feels violated, a book in OMWF calls it mindcontrol, and Willow was obviously using a forgetting spell so she could have Tara happy and under her control, which may well have led to sex. The human equivelent of slipping someone the date rape drug to stop them making a fuss and ruining your plans for them. Yet Willow and Tara's reunion was not seen as offensive (ignoring the whole killing Tara controversy).

Indeed people are accused of belittling the crime of rape if they even suggest Buffy was out of order in Gone. The episode saw an invisiable Buffy throw Spike roughly against the wall and rip his shirt open. He had no idea who was there and seemed pretty frightened, yet apparently it is triviliasing rape to say it. I wonder if the situation had been reversed and Buffy clearly said she wanted Spike to leave and he ignored her wishes and went down on her what the response would be? Just a few thoughts.

Why I hate Spike -- Jay, 20:56:38 12/12/02 Thu

Okay, that's not exactly true, but eye-catching. You see, I don't hate Spike as much as I am totally burnt out by the obsessive Spike posting that's been driving me out. I'm not sure what I think about him this year, and I don't really feel like speculating on it yet. In past years, I've thought of Spike as the one with the best lines. If any other character got to say the lines he's been blessed with, they'd be obscenely popular with the fans too. I am just majorly put off by the sheer volume of posts you have to wade through to get to something that isn't all about Spike. And then, that'll have a 50-50 chance of being hijacked into Spikedom anyway.

I'm not to the point yet of avoiding Spike posts like I avoid spoilers, but I wish I didn't have that gut reaction to all of them. I'm sure there is some good stuff in these posts that I reject out of sight, but doesn't someone have anything to say about anyone else? It's not a small cast. Anya and Willow have gone through some pretty big changes lately. For us unspoiled few, Giles' future (and present) is a huge question mark. This would be considerably better if AtS would have a new episode, oh, say... EVER!

But here I am, stuck in rerun hell, with nothing but Spike posts to ignore. I actually wrote a viciously, sarcastic post that I never posted last week "defending" Spikey-poo. I'm glad I didn't post it because, well, it was mostly blotting. Which no one wants to hear. Especially me.

I want to thank those who have posted on subjects other than Spike, but for one reason or another I never responded. I'll try to keep lurking, and you can be damn sure I'll be back after a new episode airs. In the meantime, I should have put up an mini-exhibition tournament to distract me. I had an idea for one, but I never got around to putting it together. My bad. I may downsize it a little and do it in the week of the new year...

[> Re: Why I hate Spike -- Miss Edith, 21:00:21 12/12/02 Thu

If you want to read threads on topics other than Spike why not start them? And if you hate reading Spike posts why not just avoid them as you say you are thinking of doing. I'm not sure what the problem is?

[> [> Re: Que problema? -- JBone, 21:29:10 12/12/02 Thu

I guess my problem is instead of 40-50% of the posts being about Spikey-poo, it's now 80%. Don't challenge me. I have the numbers to back it up. The fun thing is, I see Spike being 15-20% of BtVS. The numbers are out of wack sweetheart. And about avoiding the posts, darling, I'm doing it, but I didn't have to before. I use to enjoy checking the board out everyday. And I will again. I'll wait this Spike hysteria out, because I got staying power. Unlike N'Spike and the Spikestreet Boys.

[> [> [> Re: Que problema? -- Miss Edith, 22:40:30 12/12/02 Thu

Fine there are too many Spike posts for your liking. But people post on what they are interested in discussing. Spike's character grabs my attention more than Xander does for instance because IMO Spike has the more compelling plot. If Xander or Dawn are suddenly given really juicy storylines I have no doubt people will discuss them. But Spike having a soul is a big deal and worthy of discussion, hence more people feeling inspired to post on his character. The writers choose to give Spike the compelling plot arc of having a soul and neglect characters such as Xander and Dawn. It's not surprising that this trend continues on discussion boards as Spike's plot simply gives us more to discuss.

I'm not trying to challenge you and I'm honestly sorry that the board isn't discussing topics you are interested in. I'm just not sure what you were hoping to achieve with your post. Not wanting to be snooty, I am genuinely curious. Did you wish to draw peoples attention to the number of Spike posts? Most people are already aware that he generates more discussion than other characters. Do you wish to inspire people to post on different topics. If that's the case like I said you should feel free to do so.

[> [> [> [> Re: bananarama -- Jay, 05:18:25 12/13/02 Fri

I have a 10 step evil plan.

Step 1: Sucker em in with the shocking subject thread.

Step 2: Whine about something that's not going to change.

Step 3: Finally get to sleep.

Step 4: Upon awaking, forget steps 5-8.

Step 9: Drag my uninspired ass to the living hell that is work.

Step 10: Read all the posts people are pouring their energies into about anything other topic than the artificially blonde one.

[> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...which chemically blond one do you speak of? ;o) -- deeva, 08:42:33 12/13/02 Fri

[> [> [> Agreeing with Miss Edith -- Malandanza, 23:09:02 12/12/02 Thu

I have to agree with Miss Edith. Last season, Spike was more of a peripheral character -- not central to the main story arcs except in a negative sense (as an impediment to Buffy's spiritual growth) but this season he is (literally) in the center of things.

"I guess my problem is instead of 40-50% of the posts being about Spikey-poo, it's now 80%. Don't challenge me. I have the numbers to back it up."

I think your statistics are open to interpretation. If we count initial postings, Spike is not even a majority -- if you count responses to the initial topic, Spike probably does has a disproportionate number of posts, but I'm not sure why that's a big deal. People respond to points that interest them. Why would you want to curtail the number of responses to a Spike thread just because it's a Spike thread?

Then there's the problem with what constitutes a Spike thread (and why would you contribute to the problem with this posting?) -- is it any thread which mentions Spike? If so, most would also count as Buffy threads. If it is a thread exclusively about Spike, I think you'll find few threads that actually qualify. Many of the recent threads have been ostensibly about Spike, but really about redemption, guilt, the nature of vampires, definitions of rape, Andrew (who is Spike without a century of swagger :), magic, good and evil, etc. All fine philosophical goodness if you just look a little deeper into the thread instead of dismissing it as Spike worship -- and with considerably less animosity and greater concurrence of opinion this season than last.

[> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with Miss Edith -- JBone, 05:36:21 12/13/02 Fri

I think your statistics are open to interpretation.

Statistics? Hell, I just made up numbers. I was just bluffing the rest of it.

(and why would you contribute to the problem with this posting?)

LOL. What simpleton thought that one out?

[> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with Miss Edith -- MaeveRigan, 07:13:36 12/14/02 Sat

You think there's a lot of Spike discussion here? You ain't seen nothing, hon! This board is a refreshing breath of sanity compared to BAPS or Tabula Rasa or any of dozens of Spike-centric boards/lists out there. And when Spike topics arise, they're usually (usually) approached with even tempers, balance, and a willingness to consider other points of view.

This board truly is about all things (philosophical) on BtVS/AtS.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with Miss Edith -- shadowkat, 08:57:21 12/14/02 Sat

Well to be fair: BAPs stands for Bloody Awful Poet Society
and Tabula Rasa is a Spike site. Can't really expect them to discuss anything else. BAPS was created to discuss the redemption of Spike - almost exclusively. The fact it's ventured into other topics - is actually sort of interesting. Just as the Kitten Board was created to discuss Willow and Tara almost exclusively. Now if it were the Angel or Willow web site that was only discussing Spike - I'd be shocked. You can't expect a site devoted to and created for people who love one specific character to discuss other characters in more depth.

That said? I agree with you.

Buffy Cross and Stake, which is not character centric, has become the Spike battle and Spuffy shipper board. And if you say anything remotely derogatory like well that Spike is like Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights - watch out! Atpo is actually pretty even keel - I've seen discussions on every topic under the sun here including gasp "memes" and cultural and biological evolution ;-). And people don't have screaming matches...we just back off and ignore the posts we don't like. We tend to be pretty respectful by and large.

[> Y'know, I hear ya. -- HonorH, 21:59:12 12/12/02 Thu

Only problem is, he's just so darn unpredictable. He keeps us all guessing. Hence the inordinate amount of speculation, which leads to an inordinate number of Spikean posts, which leads to Spike overload.

I've greatly enjoyed posts on the other characters, even if they do reference Spike. For instance, the speculation on what Buffy might have to do by the end of the year--where she's going, what she might have become, how she'll fight the First Evil--has been terrific. There've also been quite a few great Xander posts. He's doing some very intriguing things this season, and I'm thinking there's a reason. Then there's Willow and her abilities and what that all might mean, and Dawn and what she might be, and the eternal question of whether Giles' head is still attached.

Hey, it's all good.

[> A tale of Spike hate -- Apophis, 22:49:17 12/12/02 Thu

A while ago, I felt exactly the same way. I was so sick of hearing about Spike I got angry any time he was mentioned, let alone when vast amounts of space were devoted to him. People's opinions on him infuriated me and the wouldn't stop posting them.
I cooled down a bit over the summer and returned to the board around August. I'm okay now, I promise. Still, I find myself more interested in Angel these days since I don't have to think about Spike whilst watching/discussing it (And the next person who suggests that the Shanshu prophecy is about Spike is gonna get yelled at.)

[> With you all the way.. -- yabyumpan, 02:27:28 12/13/02 Fri

It's not about 'hating' Spike the character, for me he was the only character on BtVS that I was interested in or cared about last season. That's now gone for me, I feel he's just been deconstructed to such an extent that I'm not even looking forward to seeing him on screen when the new season starts in Jan, let alone read another post.
I was actually going to start a 'not another Spike thread' a couple of days ago but I was feeling way to sarcastic and doped up on cold medicine so I refrained. Yes, It's true, that we don't have to read the threads and most of the time I don't now, but when you come on the board only to find that you pretty much can't read anything because they're ALL ABOUT F****** S**** GRRR ARGH ( sorry it just came out!), it does get pretty frustrating.
Oh well, once the new AtS season starts over here I'll start posting some Angel threads again, whinging about Wesley and when the hell are the fang gang going to realise that the real Cordy is still being held captive in Mexico! ;o)

[> All Threads Lead to Spike -- bl, 02:45:06 12/13/02 Fri

Even the people who hate him end up talking about him.

Cross and Stake did a funny thread about it once, twisting every headline to make it about Spike.

[> Re: It's not Spike -- It's Spike/Buffy -- frisby (feeling compelled to add his two cents), 05:00:09 12/13/02 Fri

Without his love affair with Buffy, the interest in Spike would fade. The entire series now is about Buffy/Spike, just as from the first episode it was Buffy/Angel. From our perspective today we know "Darth Vader (or Anakin)" is the key character is the Star Wars series, but that only became apparent with distance. Looking at the Buffy series today (it could change again of course) it seems to me the Buffy/Spike thing can be seen to have germinated, took root, and has now grown strong (but not really flowered with fruit yet). On another level, outside the series proper, Spike took Angel's role because Angel left for his own show -- brutal and undramatic as that is. But the series overall is still about the love between the vampire slayer and the ensouled vampire -- thus creating the ethical flux and confusion we all seem to find so interesting. But then, maybe my observations are colored by my expectation (desire?) that the series as a whole will soon end on a high point that intricately involves the ideal of romance, the power of love to redeem, and the holding of the world together (saving it so to speak) through the fundamental bonding of two persons (a marriage, generally speaking). [There's also the entire "future" aspect which a child brings to the metaphor.]

I love the Spike/Buffy thing, one of the greatest of its kind in the history of television.

frisby

[> I get that -- Jay, 05:51:36 12/13/02 Fri

Sorry about hijacking this Spike thread.

Has anyone else noticed that little phrase popping up a lot lately. "I get that" has been used by Dawn, Xander, and especially Buffy a lot lately. I just googled the psyche site with that phrase, and they don't even have Help up yet, where I swear Buffy says it like 3 or 4 times.

[> Some people are obsessed with Spike; fortunately, JM and ME are team players. (Spoiler spec) -- cjl, 07:45:53 12/13/02 Fri

Jay:

I empathize.

Even though we've been getting too much shirtless and semi-nekkid Spike for my taste (Marti is still running the show, in case you had any doubts), Spike is merely one of many compelling storylines this season:

Will Buffy come face to face with the origin of her powers as the Slayer? Is Faith coming back good, bad, or just glad to be out of prison? If ED came back just so Joss could knock her off (shades of Kristine Sutherland), who will be the next Slayer? Is Dawn a Slayer or the Key (or both)? Can Willow control the nasty side of her magic? Will she find true love again with one of the comely SITs? Will Anya find a purpose before EC abandons ship? Is Giles dead? Is Giles the FE? Is Giles a ghost? (Do we care, as long as ASH is on our screen on Tuesday night?) Are all the Watchers dead, and is this necessarily a bad thing?

What is the FEs plan for utter annihilation? Will we see any more of Dru, the Master, Glory, the Mayor, or does Adam Busch have the FE under exclusive contract? Can the Scoobies defeat the ubervamp, or will they stand around and admire the awesome make-up job while he kills them? Are we going to see any more exotic locales, or have we blown the budget for the year? What is Principal Wood all about, and where does he get those snazzy suits? Is Jonathan dead but still coming back, or is he DEAD dead? (For that matter, why is Andrew still alive?) And finally...

WTF is up with Xander?

You see? Tons o' S7 goodness to consider, and not a mention of his Blondie Bearness. (Hey, speaking of which--where's Harmony?)

Let's all be glad that JM is a great actor and a true team player. A chunk of Buffy fandom may be completely Spike-centric, but JM is interested in making his fellow actors look good and making the writers look like geniuses. No star trip here.

[> [> Casting spoiler in above thread -- LittleBite, 11:03:25 12/13/02 Fri

[> [> Re: Thank you cjl! A valuable list... (spec) -- Just George, 17:53:50 12/14/02 Sat

I want to know about all of the things you mentioned. It's one of the reasons I'm enjoying S7.

I also want to know about:

Willy: did he finally get eaten by a customer or take a bus outa Sunnydale? Actually Xander mentioned him recently, so I've got hope we'll see him soon!

Whistler: I know he was more connected with Angel's than Buffy, but he was there for a previous apocalypse, maybe he'll show up for this one.

Amy: She was in the third friggen episdoe of the sereis. You can't get much more "back to the beginning" than that. And she was around last year. When push comes to shove in Sunny'd, maybe Amy will come out fighting on the right side of things.

Miss Kitty: She'd be all grown up now, but it would be great to see her. Willow could have a lovely scene with the cat.

Clem: Last but definitely not least. One of the few symbols of "neutral" demons on BTVS (there are lots on ATS). Spike must miss him.

I'm sure there are more.

-JG

[> Thank God someone had the nerve to say that! -- Nancy, 09:07:47 12/13/02 Fri

I have real trouble on this board because I'm not a huge Spike fan (and no, I don't think he's ireedemably Evil), and I just get worn out by the sheer volume of Spike posts.

I have nothing against Spike, I just don't get the obsessiveness. Part of my problem with BtVS in the past few seasons is the "All Spike, All the Time" episodes.

This is one reason I love AtS more. One of the reasons.

[> [> Re: Thank God someone had the nerve to say that! -- JM, 13:50:28 12/13/02 Fri

Funny, because I don't really have any problem with Spike on the show, but due the outpouring of interest about him on line, all forums, I don't enjoy him nearly as much as I used to. I find myself contrarily rooting for anyone else in the scene. Which is kind of sad because I remember obsessively rewatching OoMM, FfL, and Intervention. Maybe I'm just a fan pop underdog kind of person. I was really interested Riley's downward arc in early S5, but I think last summer or spring I became an adamant Riley fan just cause no one else was. I alone loved AYW. I made a point to catch the S4 reruns. Now I've suddenly become really into Xander. I'm planning to watch my DVDs and really focus on his scenes. I'm thinking I'm just a pain in the ass.

I know I'm starting to worry a little about Wes on AtS. I first loved him because apparently no one liked him except Joss and me. I just felt so bad for the poor, hapless dear. Still love him, but I'm very thankful for all those whom he still pisses off. Yay! Yapyabyum (sorry never get the spelling right) and Strega. Keepin' it real and fresh for me.

This is no way meant to say people don't have the right to post on what they want to. But I understand the feeling. I think at one point yesterday there was only one thread I bothered reading. But those who speak shall be heard, and that's how it ought to be.

[> [> try thinking of it this way -- anom, 11:44:02 12/16/02 Mon

Unless you have all the time in the world to read ATPoBtVS (& if you do, I'm jealous!), having a whole category of posts & even threads you can just skip can be an advantage. It may give you more time to write replies to the posts you are interested in, & help increase their representation on the board!

Does that help any?

[> My sympathies -- Earl Allison, 14:07:36 12/13/02 Fri

It's why I've pretty much abandoned the board except to Lurk.

I'm sick of almost everything being viewed (by some) through the prism of Spike.

I posted this on TWoP, and I think it fits;

Spike is what Homer wanted from Poochie the dog, from Simpsons fame.

Homer Simpson once voiced a very unpopular new character for "Itchy and Scratchy" called Poochie. When the character was received poorly, Homer's suggestion was that Poochie should be onscreen a lot, and when he wasn't, characters should be asking about him, or where he was.

THAT is what Spike has become. Even when Spike isn't onscreen, everyone talks about him. Remember in S2 when people had their OWN subplots? When the 44 minutes seemed not enough to tell everything? Now we get the same thing, over and over, and no interesting subplots. We get whiny Spike, a little First Evil, and more whiny Spike. There ARE other characters, and I at least would like to see them.

There are other characters that made the show popular, Spike wasn't one of them initially. How about Willow, or Xander, or Giles? I'd like to see Buffy doing something that DOESN'T involve feeling sorry for Spike's self-created problems.

If this is the last season of "Buffy," I would like to see more time devoted to the characters and actors/actresses who made the show. Spike is popular, I understand that, but some of us like other characters, and would like to see them focused on.

I'm going back to Lurking -- it's quieter there.

Take it and run.

[> [> Re: My sympathies -- Dochawk, 15:26:42 12/13/02 Fri

I have avoided this thread because of what has happened to Spike in my mind. I too used to enjoy his character. Still do, but no where near as much. Why? Because many posters here have a tendency to whine about the fact that Spike isn't written the way they want. They ignore the show and complain that the writers are poor rather than the truth which is that they have a romantic notion about a creature who has to this day never shown any ounce of doing anything positive for anyone whose last name isn't Summers (I don't count wanting to avoid killing people as a sign a souled vampire is good, he has yet to make an active attempt to help anyone without the knowledge that he gets approval from Buffy and this includes helping Cassie). There are five years of this, but all of you will strain to try to find something that proves he's good. And in the meantime, posters will continually whine about Buffy and her behavior (especially towards Spike) when she truly is making great sacrifices with little hope of any reward except her death and therefore her release. This deification of a character who has never been presented as anything but a vampire who got a leash and then a soul is what drives so many people away. When Shadowkat or Leslie or one of many other wonderful writers/thinkers talk about Spike in terms of the mythology or the philosophy or the journey, they can be revelations even the rare times when I think they go overboard. But, there are other posts where the entire point seems to be adulation of Spike and attempt to glorify his character at the expense of other characters. Those posts don't really belong here (well I certainly don't condone censorship, so I would never suggest removing them, but their content is not consistent with the purpose of this board, there are other places where they are more appropriate, places I choose not to go because they are meant to be Spike-centric and that doesn't interest me, the mythology and philosophy of the Buffyverse do).

As for this season, I am not quite as cynical as you are EA. I do think too much storyline has been devoted to Spike in the last few episodes, but we have had wonderful episodes about Willow (Same Time, Same Place, part of CWDP), Dawn (Lessons, part of CWDP) and Anya (Selfless). Spike had little to do with Lessons (ok one big, worth discussing scene), STSP, Help, Selfless, Him or CWDP. He played a major role in Beneath You, Sleeper and Never Leave Me. I agree though, what's missing is Buffy's story, since all we have really gotten is explanations of her psyche and her changes from last year, not new growth. Hopefully the upcoming episodes will feature more about Buffy and the slayer mythology.

[> Why do we post? Long ramble on to post or not to post -- shadowkat, 15:11:31 12/13/02 Fri

Yes...I suppose this would be considered a hijack. But feeling a bit down in the dumps and struggling with one killer of a writer's block, can't even come up with a Buffy essay. Go figure.

So I wandered down the board today, partly in reaction to Jay's post and partly out of angst and boredom (there's only so many job want ads a person can look through without throwing stuff) and started wondering why do we post? And more to the point why on Btvs and Ats? What motivates us to spend an hour, twenty minutes, ten minutes or five hours working on a post or responding to one? Why do we even frequent the Buffy boards for that matter? Surely we have better things to do with our time than complain about posting board topics, write lengthy essays, read posting boards or share insights on favorite characters? Is it a means of alleviating the boredom either at work or at home? Is it a means of connecting with other people of a similar mindset? Of feeling less alone?

Jay's post is about why he is sick and tired of Spike posts, and feels there's nothing but Spike posts on the board. Ironic - since today there's really only two and one is Jay's. Gee Jay - did you realize while posting this that you contributed to the Spike posts on the board? While other posters seemed to be drifting away from it? That is almost funny, when you think about it.

I've posted numerous times these past four months - while Spike is I wholeheartedly admit the reason I am currently watching Btvs and am obsessed with that show, several of my posts these past four months haven't really been on him. I've written on language - buffy and Wittensingen, pov - Same Time Same Place Review, Cordelia and Fred - Little Girl Lost, Different Styles of Buffy Writers, Buffy's self-hatred, Art and Commerce, Wesely, The great season of Ats this year, Gunn, Xander and Anya, Religion, and Clarissa to name a few. I've also written on Spike - but usually as a result of a Spike centered episode such as Sleeper (ALL ABOUT SPIKE episode), Never Leave Me (Buffy and Spike and Xander and Anya), CwDP (what's going on with Spike)or in response to a wonderful post by someone else.

Now I admit - I've Been trying and failing miserably to avoid the rape posts which annoy me to no end - how many times do we have to debate this issue before we realize that we are NEVER going to agree on it? 30% will believe Spike is acting out of character and that the writers have pulled a fast one and it's a retcon (a pov that makes 0 sense to me, but whatever), 1% believes that Andrew is Spike without the swagger and of course Spike did the rape because he's a wimp, (Actually I'm convinced that Andrew is Xander without Willow and Buffy or Giles, but believe what you want...we will NEVER agree and posts about Spike being weak or wimpy make me want to throw stuff and write nasty posts on Angel, who always seemed more of wimp to me than Spike ever did(and whom I happen to like btw- sometimes I think I'm like Pavolov's dog on this- hence the reason I avoid responding to these posts - they get me nowhere, hmmm guess I did sort of right there - well ignore it, it was a pavolian response)), 30% believes Spike is capable of the rape and can't for the life of them figure out what the other 30% is going on about and wishes Spike just stayed evil and snarky and never fell for buffy (I think this group is mostly made up of B/A shippers but I could be wrong), then of course there's the group that loves him - doesn't see him acting out of character, doesn't have problems with the whole rape motif (although SR's AR scene did squick me a bit, still can't watch that scene, course I can't bear to watch any rape scene...so that's pavolvian too, I suppose.) and is enjoying watching the story. (I obviously fall into this category.) It's enough to make one want to scream - STOP DISCUSSING THE RAPE!!! sigh. But as long as people feel the need to post or talk about something, they will, and if you want it to go away? The best way of doing that is by NOT responding...hopefully others will follow suite. If they don't? Probably b/c they felt the need to be heard too.

Part of the problem with free speech is the people we don't agree with? Have the same rights we do. They have as much right to blather on about their favorite topic as we do. We can't deny their right without denying our own. A perfect catch-22. So if you hate posts about the xyz topic, how much you want to bet there's at least 20 people who hate the topic you posted on? You can't win. All you can do is tolerate the other guy's tastes and pray they tolerate yours.

When I don't like a thread or post? I try really hard to ignore it. (Don't always succeed, but I do try). Because I've discovered emotional rants get me no where. But there's another reason as well - I've been posting to this board for the same reason someone might go out and buy a carton of rocky road ice cream (my favorite actually is peppermint but no one makes it anymore, Zarda Dairy used to make the best - so I seldom get to taste it...yes, the world is unfair) or you'd overdose on chocolat. I do it to make myself feel better. To find comfort...and feel less lonely and depressed. Yep..posting on this board, rambling incoherently about Buffy, Angel, Spike, Xander and other related or unrelated topics cheers me up. Writing cheers me up period and when I'm blocked - it helps to have something push the block aside to keep the old juices going. So a negative post or rant and the predictably negative responses to it is a bit like getting a bunch of rotten chocolat (you know the dry old junk) or spoiled ice cream. Not good. (Sort of hoping no one sees this as a negative post or rant - it doesn't feel like one but you never know how people will react to stuff.)

My friends are trying to get me to write media articles based on my posts and submit them to online publications. They don't understand - writing an article is different than writing a post...writing a post is a bit like responding to a letter, grammar while important is not essential to posting, posting is largely anynomous (I think I misspelled that so apparently spelling isn't essential either...well not to the majority, there are a few posters out there that it is essential to, but not nearly as much as it is to online magazine editors), no one knows your real name or what you look like, it's safe (you don't get rejected as much), and people respond to you (if you're lucky they gush a bit with all sorts of positive comments like Kaboom! or Wonderful! etc.., which by the way is extreemly addictive, more addictive I think than chocolat or nicotine). So it's sooo much easier to post essays and respond to posts on the Atpo board than to sit down and write an article, particularly when you're depressed and wondering if life has meaning and if there's a point.

These are all probably pretty silly reasons for posting...but there you go.

Anyways..I guess my question is why do you post? And more to the point why are posting on Btvs and Ats and not on some other topic? What is it about these shows that compells you to visit a posting board?

For me? It's because Btvs and Ats speak to me on a deep level. They appear to have layers to them that other shows on TV don't have. When I started posting - I found that there wasn't a single character I couldn't analyze or didn't find it fun to speculate on. Yes - I was obsessed with one character over the others - partly due to the charismatic actor who played him and partly due to the fact that I couldn't predict what he'd do next. I could pretty much predict everyone else - but not this guy and in due course I realized that if you wanted to figure out the show and where it was going and the head of the creator - you had to get a good grasp on this character b/c in some ways this character was who the creator would be if he was a vampire. And I got even more obsessed. That and this one particular character spoke to me, I empathsized with him more than any other character on TV. While I also empathsize with Buffy, Willow, Dawn, Xander, Anya, and Giles - Spike just hit me in a way they didn't. On Angel - I find myself empathsizing the most with Lilah and Fred oddly enough. And Wes? Intrigues me. So I post on them and I watch for them. And I'm invested in their journeys. And I worry that maybe I focus too much on this...b/c what will I do when it ends? When there aren't any new episodes to look forward to? Probably find something else...

One final note - an odd thing happened this summer, I discovered that I've become more addicted to posting on this board than to the shows I'm posting about. So is the board in an odd way supporting my addiction to btvs?

Just a long ramble on a gray dreary Friday in nyc...

SK (who feels oddly better now...it is remarkable what writing something can do.)

[> [> Re: Why do we post? Long ramble on to post or not to post -- JM, 15:30:58 12/13/02 Fri

If it makes you feel any better, or it might not, I have like JBone (wasn't that who started this, I've already forgotten) gradually found myself avoiding Spike posts. Parly because I'm tapped out thinking about him, partly because I like the really dark unadmirable side of him and too often see a romanticism of his positive characteristics that makes me uncomfortable, partly because there's so much spec going on and spec is just as dangerous to my personal ability to pay attention to the actual show as spoilers. That said I am still fully enjoying and supporting his portrayal on the show, and in addition I always, always check out your posts whether they are about Spike or not, cause they're just that good.

I fully suspect that J wasn't trolling or even purely ranting but attempting to flush out other like minded posters who were simply not motivated enough to post on the topic. Or whatever, please keep posting and feeling better.

[> [> Re: (positive comment) shadowkat! -- Jay, 17:22:47 12/13/02 Fri

Damn sk, there's no such thing as a quick answer for you is there? <?joke

What got me going on this one was I had this thought buzzing around my head for the last week or so, and finally decided to post on it. I realized as I was writing it that I was starting a Spike post about how much Spike posts have me burnt out. And it is funny, mostly because I'm funny. I was kind of hoping someone else would have started this thread so I could have just chipped in, but I got tired of waiting.

I use to argue about Spike with the Spike faithful, until I gradually got burnt out on that. You know, "what's the point?" I also decided that I'm more of a reader than a poster. Probably 9 out of 10 posters can come up with more thought out, better written posts than I can. I'm not moaning about it, I'm just recognizing my shortcoming. (I think that's the only one.) So I'm not the one who's going to come up with some brilliant essay about Anya being Buffy's mirror. Plus, when I do post, I try to go for the humor too often that doesn't come across well in text. Having a mostly dry sense of humor doesn't help either.

But I kind of feel the same way about Spike posts as you do about the rape posts. Only maybe not sooo much. There really are some good posts in all those Spike threads. But I usually look for them by author. I don't have the time, ambition, or interest to find them honestly. While I would enjoy it much more if starting tomorrow, a decent percentage of all that thought and energy going into Spike threads would spread itself around to other characters and storylines, I know it ain't gonna happen. So I had this thought, and for the most part, I feel better for getting it out there. I'll feel much better about everything after we get a new episode. Does anyone know when this AtS drought will end?

[> [> [> Re: (positive comment) shadowkat! -- JM, 18:08:40 12/13/02 Fri

I think the drought ends first Wed. after the 1st. Whenever that is. Hope so. Cause it's getting kind of sparky on that roof for my Wes and Gunn.

[> [> Trying again: Why do you post on posting boards and on Btvs/Ats? -- shadowkat, 18:36:26 12/13/02 Fri

Why do you post? And more to the point why are posting on Btvs and Ats and not on some other topic? What is it about these shows that compells you to visit a posting board?

(see my above post for my reasons...don't want to take up board space reposting it.)

But seriously? I'm curious. Why?

[> [> [> If you really want to know - -- Sara, who lives to answer questions, 19:39:44 12/13/02 Fri

It's funny, the board originally acted as a tool to help me enjoy Buffy even more, and it still occasionally does that, but now the board is actually more fun than the show is. So to answer the question why do I post -

1. I love to discuss literature, and there aren't many people who share my taste in books, so I don't have anyone to talk to. The board allows me to indulge in this hobby using Buffy as the focus.

2. I like people, and there are lots of people on the board that I like. At work I'm known as kind of chatty, (I even got a job once because in the interview the Associate Director recognized my ability to chat - not usually a job skill in demand!) and the board is made up of lots of people to chit-chat with.

3. Why this board - the discussions are consistently interesting. I'm not really good at recognizing metaphors but I find them really interesting when pointed out. "Hey Sara - it's right there, no, no, look to the left, up a little, now you've got it..."

4. Why this topic and not another, I haven't found such a good forum on anything else I'm interested in. Not that I've looked really hard, but whenever I have it seemed like the landscape was barren.

I've got to say, I'm way more worried about the fate of the board than I am about the fate of the tv show. I think we should start coming up with potential new topics of discussion to switch to when Buffy and Angel are done with their runs. Anyone want to start deconstructing the Simpsons? In-depth discussions on the plays of Eugene O'Neil? Hey, how about recipe swapping - I've got a killer spice cake recipe I'll share!

- Sara, wondering if anyone else would like to talk about Linux vs Windows?

[> [> [> Why the posting (lengthy, but it's not about size, is it?) -- Tyreseus, 05:36:16 12/14/02 Sat

I suspect that your question is aimed at JBone, but I felt like answering it myself, so I'm sorta hijacking.

A long, long time ago (last year) I was sort of promoted to a position at work where I don't usually have Tuesday nights off. In my panic, I complained to The Powers That Pay Me that I would be missing my favorite show. The response I got from co-workers and TPTPM was scorn and sarcasm that their little workaholic was a fan of some show they had long since written off as a melodrama for teenage girls. I hung my head in shame and learned how to program my VCR.

Then a remarkable thing happened. After missing an episode, I went in search of Buffy news while surfing the net. I followed a link... clicked on an icon... offered up my soul to the gods of google... and found this nifty little board.

During my first return visits, I was blown away. The very show I was watching in semi-secret (for fear of being further mocked) was not only being taken seriously, it was generating the kind of complex and intelligent conversation I haven't had since college literature classes. And the show wan't just watched by 14-year-old girls who still kiss their Justin Timberlake posters goodnight and send fan mail to Carson Daly [Note: the comment is not meant to offend a) 14-year-olds, b)girls, c) Justine Timberlake, d) Carson Daly or e) people who like JT and CD.], it was watched by philosophers and writers and every type of person you can stuff into an ivory tower.

I began to return to this site more and more often, always silent but always devouring as many juicy morsels of philosophical goodness as I could. Season 6 ended while I still lurked about in corners. It was a long, difficult summer. As the beginning of Season 7 approached, two things happened. First, I started getting the courage up to throw in an occasional comment or two. Second, I had loaded up my arsenal for coming out of the closet as a Buffy fan.

Unashamed, I announced to my coworkers that beginning with the new season, they would all be watching BtVS with me until they could prove that it was a silly show without redeeming value, or they could shut up. Sadly (for them), they chose to shut up.

While I have a few friends who enjoy the show, none of them are as addicted to it as I am. I can't discuss with them plot parallels, or the symbolism of staging, or character motivation, or even somthing silly like "If Joss wrote Lord of the Rings." Only one of my friends has an inkling of the show's importance (a political activist who calls it "Buffy: Feminist Mythology for Modern Times"), but she's entirely too busy to spend hours debating how/why Spike's chip works the way it does.

So here I am. You ask what is it about the show that drives me to post on a discussion board? In a weird sort of circular non-answer, it's because the show generated a discussion of this kind. [Q: Why do you find flowers pretty? A: Because they are.]

Also, I'm able to take these friggin' analytical skills my high school English teacher promised I'd need some day and apply them to something other than the gossip column my newspaper runs.

I post (instead of just lurking) because I believe that even some of the most off-the-wall and ridiculous comments may be of value. If I have an idea, or a response, what good does it do the cosmos if it stays in my head. Case in point: a few weeks back (right after CWDP) I was frustrated by the unbridled and rampant speculation about the nature of the BBW. I'm trying really hard to be spoiler-free [which is more difficult than avoiding the 'egg nog' this time of year], and it was hard to sort out genuine speculation from the spoiler trollops slipping something in to look clever later on (not that I'm accusing anyone of doing that). At any rate, I read some random speculation from a poster I'd never seen before (or since) and it had an interesting idea that jogged my brain. Now, in the context of BtVS, the post was pretty useless and contained little philosophical goodness. In the context of the novel I've been promising to write for about 3 years, it was seed of an idea which grew into the missing puzzle piece of the plot and then the carrot before my nose to get my shoulder to that grindstone. [Caution: mixing metaphors wildly] I'm happy to report that this board is responsible for the fact that I'm now nearly finished with my first draft. I'll be sure to mention it when I go on book tour [Tyreseus begins fantasizing of the day he's a respected author who can retire to ocean front property].

I don't know why others were driven to post on this discussion board, but for me, it was a creative outlet, a support group and a community of common interest. And if I could send each of you a wonderful holiday fruitcake, I would. I can't tell you all how much your willingness to espose yourselves by placing your ideas on the public forum has inspired me. Recent discussions about finite/infinite games have forced me to re-examine the characters in my novel, and the story is better for it.

On the subject of those who would avoid certain topics (i.e. Spike or the attempted rape), while I generally read most everything (unless it's labeled spoiler for an ep I haven't seen yet), I do avoid responding to certain subjects. Especially the rape ones. To the best of my memory, I've only posted once on the subject - buried deep within that thread - and it was painful to do so. Regardless, I do get tired of certain topics, whether I post to them or not. My solution is to look for a thread of humor or something like Honorificus's reviews. If none exist at the moment, I'll start one (like my recent thread on choosing theme songs for episodes of the shows, which was born out of my frustration with too much Rape/Spike postage).

Now that I've rambled on this long, I'll just add that I'm hoping you pull through this shadowkat. Here's to hoping that when you do find a job, The Powers That Pay You won't keep you too far away from your Buffy essay writing time!

--Tyreseus, who really, really should go to bed now.

[> [> [> [> Thank you Ty and Sara. Oh? The question Why do you post? For the board not just Jbone -- shadowkat, 07:33:25 12/14/02 Sat

So you weren't hijacking - I was. And thank you for your long response. Your reasons and Sara's are very similar to mine.

It's selfish I know, but I'm more interested in why we all spend so much time posting here and what it is about these shows that obsess us than i am in why so and so dislikes a certain or how everyone reacts to that character, I know how everyone reacts to the characters - we go on and on and on about it at every possible opportunity.

thanks again for yours and Sara's responses!! (And for seeing past my rant on the other stuff to the heart of my ramble. I knew I should have deleted the other stuff on the bleached blond vamp.);-)

[> [> [> Re: Trying again: Why do you post on posting boards and on Btvs/Ats? -- Silky, 07:02:51 12/14/02 Sat

Mostly, I like to read what others have to say. It has been very engaging and enlightening and I love to read other people's opiniions and thoughts - even if I don't agree. If we all thought the same thing and had the same opinions - bored then.

I mostly post when I have a thought or question and wonder what other board posters might think about it. I don't have the deep philisophical background to write amazing posts on those topics. But I like reading them.

And I read and post because my friends aren't into Buffy. And because, like SK, I am unemployed and need something to look forward to and engage my mind that is unrelated to job hunting. Pure escapism. A way to avoid cruel reality for a bit.

[> [> [> [> Re: Trying again: Why do you post on posting boards and on Btvs/Ats? -- shadowkat, 07:35:19 12/14/02 Sat

And I read and post because my friends aren't into Buffy. And because, like SK, I am unemployed and need something to look forward to and engage my mind that is unrelated to job hunting. Pure escapism. A way to avoid cruel reality for a bit.

Hopefully the new year will be kinder to us both!

[> [> [> [> [> Ament (Sorry - Farscapese!) -- Silky, 08:55:24 12/14/02 Sat

From your keyboard to the PTB.

[> [> [> [> Re: Trying again: Why do you post on posting boards and on Btvs/Ats? -- Just George, 18:48:50 12/14/02 Sat

I started reading and posting on this board because of a change in my BTVS viewing patterns. I started watching BTVS with S1, Ep1. My wife discovered BTVS in late S4. We watched most of S5 together. We happily dissected every episode. Over the summer after S5, I recorded BTVS off FX from and we began watching it from the beginning.

However, when S6 started, my wife didn't want to watch the new shows right away. She was in the middle of S2 and didn't want to get confused. So suddenly I was watching S6 of BTVS alone. I missed dissecting the episodes with some one I respected.

I ended up trolling the BC&S Spoiler Board looking for someone to talk with about Buffy. I became a spoiler whore to participate in the discussions there. I enjoyed BC&S for a while, but I got tired of the character bashing and 'shiping. I got to the point of only looking at posts by a few specific authors that I trusted to avoid those topics.

I saw a mention of the ATP board on BC&S and decided to see what was here. At ATP I found an online home. This is the only Buffy board I check with any regularity. Time permitting, I read most of the posts in most of the threads. I post when I think I have something interesting to add (beyond "wow, that was great!") I start threads if I have something I feel would create an interesting conversation or that I would like to get feedback on.

Oh, BTW, my wife and I got caught up and now watch BTVS in "real time". But now I enjoy dissecting the episodes with her and with you-all. I now avoid spoilers when possible (damn TV Guide!) and am enjoying the show and this board a lot.

Thank you to everyone here for increasing my enjoyment of BTVS and for creating a welcoming community.

-Just George

[> [> [> Re: Trying again: Why do you post on posting boards and on Btvs/Ats? -- akanikki, 12:10:18 12/14/02 Sat

I found posting boards back in 2000 about the same time I started getting interested in (a) Roswell and (b) Russell Crowe movies. Having only used email features before on the internet, decided to look for some missed episodes on Roswell and then for a filmography for RC. As Roswell's 1st season was by far the best of the three, my interest waned and so concentrated on acquiring old RC movies and visiting various boards to find out what others had to say about his movies and how to find the ones that had not been released in the US.

Then, in 2001, I made the decision to relocate to Northern California and got here just in time for 9/11 - and the collapse of the job market. So, like Silky and Shadowkat, I was unemployed. Last month (after over a year), I started work - and at a reasonable salary. (PS to Silky and Shadowkat - jobs are out there, so don't lose hope)

In the meantime, I had to find other things to occupy my time, and with Russell not having any new movies coming out (and his personal life is just not what makes him interesting), I decided to look for Buffy/Angel boards.

Now, not only have I been with BTVS since the middle of S3 and Angel since the beginning (in fact, Joss's shows are the only ones I watch regularly or have watched in several years), but my sister and brother-in-law are the ones who got me started. So I have people to discuss all-things-according-to-Joss with. But, all that free time to spend - so, I found Slayage and Scoopme right away - and both are good resources for news and reviews, but Scoopme's board is inconsistent: lots of reading with only a few nuggets of insight, although I do like that their reviews and recaps are so timely. Television Without Pity has a user-friendly set-up for reading posts, but the sheer mass of posts and subjects makes it a laborious task, plus they post reviews so long after the fact and they seem to focus more on what snarky comments they can make, than really reviewing. And after being spoiled for BTVS last season, I now avoid all spoiler boards. As for the many shipper boards, well, I am not interested in B/S or B/A or A/C or whomever else - if that was my interest, then soap operas would be my primary focus, not BTVS or ATS.

I found this board about 2 months ago and have loved it from the beginning. I rarely post, because my background is primarily accounting and business management and I feel a little (actually, alot) out of my element. But I had that recent 10 year stretch doing fundraising, social work, and volunteer management for not-for-profits and guess it awoke my long ago love for literature and philosophy. So, while I don't feel I have much to contribute, I eagerly read almost every word - that is, when there is time. Seems like a discussion starts up and then is gone the next day. One thing I have found is that the discussions and points I read here help me enjoy and appreciate the various levels presented in the episodes.

And that's another reason to not post often - some people (me) cannot write their thoughts consisely.

[> [> [> I post because.... -- Briar Rose, 14:16:47 12/14/02 Sat

BtVS has for some strange reason touched my life in some weird way... I know that sounds really melodramatic - but it's true in many ways.

When the series started, I wasn't going to watch it. I hated the movie. In the past - movie tie in shows have always been plain silly. A good idea for 2 hours doesn't normally relate for 22 hrs. a season.*LOL

I watched the first ep and was hooked! It was so clearly the first show to actually address my own experiences with "good and evil" in real life. We may not have vampires and actual fleshly deamons - but there is evil in all of life. And we are each given the choice to be Slayers or not.

All my life I have been "different" from most people. I am a Witch from birth. I've "seen dead people" all my life. I also have encountered many "paranormal" beings and happenings in my life. When I watched the first ep I related to the character of Buffy so completely that I became an immediate fan. And the series has just grown so much along the same themes that I can actually trace parts of my life path in their time line. I know quite a few people that are metaphysically wired that feel the same.

In a way - I AM Buffy as are all of us.

Since there is such a small group of people that get the bigger issues at work in the world - there are few people that I can talk to about what is the experience of BtVS.

I can understand the ratings numbers of BtVS and even Angel. From my experience, there are only two or three people I know that even watch the show - and of those, only one other gets it like I do. The other two only see the face value of each ep. She kills vampires. Magick is bad. Tree is pretty.

I come to the board because I can finally connect with people who see more than just the obvious in the show. And I must say - This is one of the first boards I've encountered where that is actually the case! There was one other - but the host wasn't like Masq at all. It was not considered appropriate to share anything beyond cursory stuff there, philosophy, theology and personal stories were not appreciated. So I am very happy to have found this board and the people who post here! And I credit that as much/more to Masq as to the rest of the wonderful posters of ATPo.... Masq allows all the posters to be themselves and to explore deep subjects without busilly editing anything that she doesn't agree with personally!

[> [> [> Re: Trying again: Why do you post on posting boards and on Btvs/Ats? -- ponygirl, 08:35:40 12/16/02 Mon

Why post? It's a good question, because it was a big leap for me to go from posting to lurking. The first time I did it I felt very exposed and silly... and I wrote out the NT. Essentially I started posting because it seemed rude to be enjoying posts and offering nothing in response. After a while I just really wanted to join in discussions. The question of whether or not I actually have something to say is one I wrestle with every time I post. Is it just an ego thing? Do I just want my name on the board? And why? On the best days I truly do feel like I am part of a community, and since it is a community built on words, every letter adds something.

As to why BtVS... I used to watch a lot more tv. I used to care about other shows. I'd been a fan of BtVS for a long time, and liked to check out reviews and fansites occasionally. But then came season 6, the start of which found me unemployed, and pretty much questioning every part of my life. Season 6 hit me hard, in so many ways, and I couldn't be satisfied with quick EW reviews, or five minute conversations with the few friends I had who were into the show. This board seemed to answer the need I had to go deeper, plus the discussions here both on and off-topic seemed to wake up parts of my brain that I hadn't used since leaving school. And I like the little glimpses I get of other people's lives, I love how posters' personalities emerge through their writing. I'm interested in you guys, your opinions and views-- I feel sad when people stop posting, and happy when someone long lost (well, a few months feels like a long time) returns.

I don't know if I'd read the board as much if my job didn't require me to be in front of a computer with high speed internet access all day. I certainly don't post very much on the weekends, I feel guilty, I should be doing other things, and plus the damn connection is so slow! But right now, I'd hate to think of my workday without it.

Oh and shadowkat and Silky, if you want a little harmless superstition to aid on your job searches... my mother was after me for years to eat herring on New Year's Day for good fortune. Finally did it this year, got a job three weeks later. Not saying it was the herring, but it didn't hurt. Actually it did since it was kind of gross-tasting, but there you go. ;)

[> [> One Percent? -- Malandanza, 05:30:15 12/14/02 Sat

"1% believes that Andrew is Spike without the swagger"

One percent? I guess I'll have to do some proselytizing, then.

Back to the Beginning

We pan across the crowd to find, sitting alone and staring longingly out the window, young WILLIAM. Spike before he was Spike. The biggest sissy imaginable.

Shooting Script, Fool for Love (pysche)

Hmm... the biggest sissy imaginable. And totally inept socially -- even his peers (or, perhaps, especially his peers, since it's doubtful anyone else knows he's alive) mock him at their leisure. Sounds like Andrew to me. Then there's his Bloody Awful Poetry -- stuff that would make a Vogon shudder. Effulgent? That's a word only an insane vampire would love. Andrew has his music and art. Someone pointed out a while back that William has a creative side, while Andrew's creativity is derivative. There's Nothing original in painting Death Stars after minutely studied (but flawed) designs in his Trek books. The music may argue for more creativity, but since we only saw him playing when he was summoning demons, it may have been a means to an end rather than an expression of latent artistic longings -- we certainly never heard him playing for pleasure or saw him creating new songs. But then, William was writing love sonnets to an unattainable woman -- not exactly an original idea either. What could be more cliche? Had there been Lord Byron conventions in William's time, he would have been there, dressed as Childe Harold and reciting The Giaour from rote with his fellow Bryonies.

a profound and powerful experience.
Fool for Love

Spike explains to a revolted Buffy about how mystical an experience was his vamping. He felt powerful. And why not? Effete and impotent (metaphorically, probably :) William suddenly had the power to kill, to revenge himself for all those real and imagined wrongs. He reinvents himself, rejecting the class and clothes -- even the accent -- of his former life. Yet he's still at the bottom of the totem pole is his new gang -- nothing but contempt from Angelus and Darla -- same as in life. For Andrew, the profound experience was Katrina's death. Before, he was more like Jonathan -- he had qualms about some of Warren's plans. Lost in fantasies (like William). Afterwards, he's changed. More forceful -- bullying the suddenly weaker Jonathan with his newfound confidence. We even see moments when he's no longer Tucker's brother -- he's someone else, vaguely James Bondish (in a Timothy Dalton sort of way). He makes a dramatic speech to the Slayer before rocketing into unconsciousness and almost stands up to Willow in spite of his abject terror. He put on a good show. Give him some time to develop the persona, to smooth out the inconsistencies -- say, a decade or two -- and he might even have an upper class British Accent to go with the slick new clothes. It's Spike all over again (although, like William, he needs a new name -- "Andrew, Scourge of Sunnydale" doesn't strike fear into the hearts of his enemies).

I Like taking orders
Two to Go

Ah, but you say "Spike was his own man. Andrew just follows orders." I'd say otherwise -- Spike likes taking orders too. In the early days he was disobedient (apparently -- we never saw Angelus or Darla give him a direct order) -- but if we look more closely at the scene, we see the vampire claiming to love a good fight, where the outcome is uncertain, just for the sheer love of sport, refusing to strike back at his assailant. Angelus tosses him around and abuses him in front of the girls -- Darla expects a fight. What man would allow himself to be so treated without raising a hand in defense? No fight occurs and Angelus tires of beating and mocking an unresisting Spike. Other times when we've seen Angelus/Angel and Spike square off are in the Season Two finale, where Spike hits Angelus from behind, kicks him while he's down, then runs off with Dru, and on AtS where Spike ambushes Angel, alone once (and runs away) and with the help of Marcus, the child molesting vampire, where Marcus does the dirty work (although Spike does get in a few good shots while Angel is chained up). On the whole, I wouldn't call Spike much of a rebel -- Angelus still holds him in awe from the early years.

And Spike likes taking orders. He had a sort of inversion of Courtly Love going on with Dru -- his passion for her inspired him to do brave, evil and foolish things. He was her dark knight, a legendary warrior for evil in her service. He followed her whims with a blind allegiance -- whether it was fetching birds for her to play with or assembling the Judge because she wanted a birthday gift, her wish was his command. When Spike is wounded in a battle with Buffy, we see how much control he really has -- near tears, he begs Dru to leave Sunnydale with him, but she ignores him -- and he remains. With Buffy, we see the same pattern -- he is the slayer's lapdog, dutifully doing her bidding, eager to please. Nothing matters but pleasing Buffy. The obsession even survives Buffy's death, just as Andrew's obsession survives Warren's death. Spike's relationships with Harmony and the Buffybot underscore his need to serve -- in each of these cases he is dominant and they are the servants -- he is displeased almost immediately.

Andrew follows Spike's pattern. Obedient to Warren, the faithful servant. Anything in Warren's way is evil and inconsequential -- the Andrew who belived that Crimelords shouldn't kill and who curled up and rocked himself when Katrina was killed is gone -- he cheers Warren on when Warren fights Buffy. He wants her to die because Warren wants her dead. Gone are his own motivations, he lives for Warren.

"When they say there is symbolism and meaning in what we're doing, that's true too."

The leather jacket has been inextricably linked to Spike. When Andrew dresses up, he is trying, just as William the Bloody did a century before him, to reinvent himself. To cloak the assumed personality in a stylish facade -- the new Andrew is nothing like the old -- old Andrew doesn't even own any leather. Andrew is meant to be seen as Spike as he developed. But don't take my word for it -- here's what Drew Goddard had to say:

Black boots walk along the street. We move up the body, we see the black outfit, black leather duster, the cocky swagger...

We get to the face and reveal ANDREW. Dressed up like the Spike of old. Trying desperately to look cool.
Shooting Script, Never Leave Me (psyche)

Which emphasizes two things to me: the first is that the old Spike is gone. The second is that Andrew is the new Spike. We are seeing the development of the "good man" (a hopeless romantic leaving in a fantasy world) from Victorian England into the bloodthirsty monster, killing for his warped idea of love via the transformation of Tucker's Brother into the murderous Andrew the Bloody.

[> [> [> I see the light! Now its 1.0001% -- Shiraz, 15:17:06 12/14/02 Sat

[> [> [> The Spike/Andrew parallel -- slain, 15:54:34 12/14/02 Sat

There are many reasons why the 98.9999% of people don't want to acknowledge a parallel between Andrew and Spike; I think for a lot of people, myself being one, it's important for Spike to have been a good man as a human, spotless even. It's also, laterally, important for him to be cool (but I guess it's up to personal taste whether you find bleached blond hair and an ill-fitting leather coat 'cool' or not ;)) - but that Spike was good, and only became bad after he became a vampire is important.

Andrew, on the other hand, is bad; it could be said that he's not maliciously bad, because he's easily led and 'innocent'. I disagree; plenty of murderers and rapists are easily led, but no one who lives in this world is innocent like Andrew seems to be. He knows what he's doing. But William, on the other hand, while innocent, wasn't self-centred in the way Andrew is. William poured his heart into others, and gave; Andrew takes, takes entertainment, orders, property, life. William only gave. So, looking at William the human and Andrew, I don't see a parallel; William was genuinely innocent in the way Andrew is not.

However. I completely agree about the parallels between Spike (big, bad vampire) and Andrew. Spike the vampire, while retaining some of William's good traits, is ultimately self-centred and while he understands morality, disregards it just like any vampire, or a human without much of a conscience, would do. Andrew's attempts to become cool mirror Spike's, and their journey is very similar.

But as far as I'm concerned, souled Spike is a different kettle of bunnies; he's William, minus the innocence and plus the guilt. I don't see him as having the negative qualities that Andrew does and soulless Spike did. So I agree, then, that Andrew is the new Spike; I think that's the obvious intention to the writers, and in that way they're pastiching their own character, much as they did in 'Fool For Love'. The open question for me is whether or not Andrew is going to follow Spike's path any further.

[> [> [> [> I agree with slain's take: Vampire/Andrew/Xander parallel -- shadowkat, 17:35:27 12/14/02 Sat

I mostly agree with slain's take on this - which is probably far less emotional and much better put than mine.

Warning! Been restraining myself on this topic for a while now...So here's my take on it for what it's worth. Hope it doesn't come across as too ranty. You were warned.

First: I still think the true Andrew parallel on is with Xander and possibly with vampires in general. Xander as the positive role model and the "vampire" as the negative one.

Xander could have been Andrew without Buffy and Willow and his friends, just as Jesse turned into Andrew and Xander became Andrew-like in The Wish. Following orders - living at the Master's whim. Being a minion. In the Wish, VampXander takes orders and followed VampWillow's lead and was used as the Master's sheild. He certainly did not survive 100 years.

The whole thing with a jacket is a reminder of Lance and the jacket - Xander tries on the jacket but it doesn't fit just as Andrew is wandering around with the long leather jacket and yep it doesn't fit. Angel and Spike reinvented themselves taking their leather jackets and clothes from their trophies. They didn't buy them. Spike slowly reinvents himself - he doesn't copy someone else - he creates his own image, an image that others have copied. And he rules the vamps - leads them when he enters the scene in School Hard. He is never shown as a follower - that's the problem. That's why they are hiding in a mine shaft in Yorkshire in 1880. Angelus was into discipline, Spike wants to have fun.

Back to Xander: Xander co-opts Spike's jacket and Lance's but chooses not to wear them - instead destroys them. Andrew? He chooses to wear the jacket - he needs the appearance of cool.

Xander like Andrew clearly loves the Klingon poetry and Star Trek (see DMP, Entropy,) but he realizes it has it's place - it should not take up his life. The videos he watches provide information but are not his sole escape.
Andrew retreats into the video world. Andrew has never grown up, he's still a kid. Andrew has never attempted to create anything or invent anything. He summons things to do it for him. He copies other people. His ideas are theirs. Xander showed some leaning in this direction early in the series, being the zeppo, but he changed, he grew, he found his own path. (The Zeppo was partly about that.) By remaining childlike or if you will like one of Alex's violent droogs in ClockWork ORange, Andrew is very similar to the vampires he wishes to emulate - Angelus (who remained a viscious child interested in pleasing it's vampire mother and still hating Daddy) and Spike (who was another viscious teen/juvenile delinquent who enjoyed life, saw it as a game and was into destruction rather than creation) = it wasn't until the vampires got souls that this changed and they began to grow up. They never chose evil as humans (well William didn't at any rate - as far as we know (sorry if writing bad poetry was evil - I guess I'm doomed and not being accepted by peers? ugh don't get me started), Liam stole and deflowered young maids and used women...but whether that's evil or not depends on your pov.), and I'm not sure either really knew what they were getting into when Darla and Dru sired them. Andrew did choose evil - there's nothing innocent about Andrew. Andrew sees evil the way a child does as a toy. Not real. In this way - he also plays the damsel - the weak-kneed pathetic villain which Season 2 Spike often killed out of frustration or the villain sidekick we see in all the old superhero comics. The comic relief. We laugh at him...everyone does.

Xander's conversation with Andrew in Never Leave Me is an interesting one, just as Xander's other interactions with Andrew have been interesting- it's Andrew - Xander tells to shut up and that he didn't get a bit of sex in his life (ironic when we think back to Btvs Season 1-2 when Xander didn't either and loses his virginity to Faith's seduction/rape) and it's Andrew who has the hopeless crush on Warren. Just as it is Xander who has the crush on the hero - Buffy (Warren's counter-part, just as Lex Luther might be considered Superman's).

The writers are comparing SpikeVamp and Andrew true - but on a purely superficial and highly ironic level - they are sort of saying: evil is not cool. Being a killer is not fun. Something if you listen closely, the First Evil keeps telling Andrew is cool. Come on - kill - you'll be a god! Something Warren kept telling Andrew. Something soulless creatures believe is fun. Believes is cool!(The whole comparison is steeped in irony - it's supposed to be evaluated metaphorically not literally - it's supposed to be funny not serious.) Look how pathetic Andrew the killer really is, stalking around in Spike's long leather jacket (or rather trying to stalk)? He can't even kill a pig. He stabs Jonathan but can't stab a pig - how funny, how sad. The geek fantasizes about being the villain - fantasizes having the villain's cool life. The cool babes, the respect. Think back to Warren and his pathetic plea for a vampire gang. Warren and Andrew who freaked at the threat of removing an action figurine's head (Smashed).

Meanwhile in Buffy's bedroom we see just how cool that life really is. Spike in painful withdrawl, filled with self-loathing, drinking pig's blood tied to a chair. The blood that Andrew purchased with steak sauce, that Andrew purchased as if he was purchasing a meal. Trying to be cool. It's almost fitting Spike pulls Andrew through the wall and bites him spider like in that episode. Demonstrating to Andrew just how REAL all this is. (Never Leave Me). It reminded me of Ford in Lie to Me - who also romaticized the vampire life - causing Angel, Spike, and Dru to sneer at him. If Angel was still in Btvs and Spike wasn't? It would be the exact same parallel. They'd do the same thing. The parallel is NOT between human William and Andrew's personalities - please: one creates poetry and one recites Klingon love poems...not the same.
( A comparison that deeply offends me btw. Since when was it wimpy and sissy like to write bad poetry and not want to discuss violence? Since when was it wimpy to tell a girl you cared for that you loved her and cry when she cruelly rejected you? I've done both these things - granted I'm not a guy, I'm a woman but why does gender matter? I've know men who I've admired who've done this in their youth - I would not be surprised if Whedon didn't take the experience from his own youth (I may be a bad writer but I'm a good man). Perhaps seducing your father's maid is far more manly? Or stealing Daddy's silver and getting into a bar fight and picking up some lady on a street while your completely drunk is manly? What a world. Give me the bloody awful poet in the corner any day, I swear Dru made the better choice - sorry I've been holding back on that little rant for six months now...passive agressive? me? nooo...(smile)) It's between soulless demon, evil Spike (the demon from Season 2) and Andrew. And it's between EvilAngelus and Andrew. And possibly even the boy in the jacket in Him and Andrew. It's not between our society's view of the alpha male and the sissy male (or at least I hope not!)The metaphor is how tempting evil is - it promises to make us great, a god, but no matter what trappings we take on - we are still us and no god. Killing something does not make you a god. Beating something up does not make you strong. Drinking pig or human blood is nothing to aspire to - as Spike demonstrates in the next room - in gruesome detail. (the irony is Spike would probably give his eye teeth to switch places with Andrew, to be squeamish at killing a pig again, just as Angel would - they can barely live with what they've done. While Andrew aspires to be Spike. Aspires to be the immortal vampire in the black cape - perhaps he'll get his wish.) Once again the show is twisting the vampire motif - taking away the romanticism from it. Yes vampires are cool but deadly and underneath the trappings? Andrews and Warrens...pathetic little boys dressing up in Matrix Neo's or Darth Vadar's leather jacket trying to be cool. Such a shame the jacket doesn't quite fit.

[> [> [> [> [> Even if you've been ignoring everything else on this thread, READ ABOVE POST! -- KdS, 04:18:41 12/15/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree with slain's take: Vampire/Andrew/Xander parallel -- slain, 08:10:46 12/15/02 Sun

Thanks for that post, S'kat - perhaps a little less emotionally vested than your first one, and it helped to clarify what you meant by weakness or wimpyness. I think William wasn't what I'd consider a weak man, far from it; he had the courage to wear his heart on his sleeve. If you want an example of a weak person, take Cecily or the 'gentlepeople' who mock William's poetry. They're weak, afraid to show their emotions and break from the crowd for fear of being different. They wouldn't have had the courage to step into the unknown like William did, and let Dru bite him; they'd have run, screamed, and been killed.

I don't think Andrew is entirely the reverse of this, evil where William was good; I think there're plenty of adolescent boys (admittedly he's 19 or 20, but emotionally he's 15) who have very similar morals to his, and that's not the fault of entertainment and science fiction, but of society, on both the micro and macro level; as I said in my Gothic essay, the Trokia are the dopplegangers of the Scoobies, and Andrew is fairly obviously Xander. He's Xander minus the friends who care, perhaps plus some brotherly jealousy and repressed sexuality. But he is redeemable, not just because he's human, but because he's always been in the thrall of others (Tucker probably, Warren, the First), in a way that less obviously redeemable characters such as Warren of Angelus weren't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree with slain's take: Vampire/Andrew/Xander parallel -- shadowkat, 10:44:57 12/15/02 Sun

Thanks... wasn't sure how well I put that.

it helped to clarify what you meant by weakness or wimpyness. I think William wasn't what I'd consider a weak man, far from it; he had the courage to wear his heart on his sleeve. If you want an example of a weak person, take Cecily or the 'gentlepeople' who mock William's poetry. They're weak, afraid to show their emotions and break from the crowd for fear of being different. They wouldn't have had the courage to step into the unknown like William did, and let Dru bite him; they'd have run, screamed, and been killed.

That's it exactly. For me a weak person is well, have you ever seen the movie the Fight Club? Brad Pitt's character who is described in the movie as the Alpha Male - a man who steals, cons others, pushes them to kill, has meaningless and violent sex, and destroys buildings. To me? He is weak.
The stronger man - the Edward Norton Character - who struggles to keep a depressing job, struggles with his identity and doesn't want to hurt the world and eventually kills the Brad Pitt character, who turns out to be his alter-ego, the person he thought he wanted to be, to emulate, is in reality the strong one. It scares me that there are people out there who believe the Cecily's and the partygoers and the Warrens and Angelus' of this world are strong and should be emulated. They aren't. That is an illusion. It doesn't take strength or courage to punch someone in the face. Or to make fun of someone's writing. Or to carelessly discuss violence in small talk as the partygoers do. Or for that matter to reject someone. (Cecily - if she is indeed Halfrek's comment about William being beneath her is so wonderfully ironic, since the reverse is actually true. Cecily was beneath William.) It takes strength and courage not to do these things.

What I've found so incredibly ironic about the characterization of Spike is of the two personas: William, the man, the bloody awful poet? Was the strong one. He actually is like Rupert Giles - the model of strength on the show - a man who fights the desire to hurt others, or torture. When the party guests make fun of William, he walks away, he ignores them. That to me takes more guts and more stamina than turning around and starting a brawl - which is what Liam does in the bar in Dear Boy/Darla (and now fights doing as ensouled Angel - it's not a part of himself he values) and Spike later does or Warren does in Seeing Red.
Spike says in Crush - that Dru raised him from a life of mediocrity, that the vampire blood coursing through him made him stronger? How ironic. It was really and truly the reverse and he realizes it finally in Seeing Red. He knows it now. It's not William the Bloody Poet, Spike loathes, it is Spike and William the merely Bloody.

We see this clearly in HIM with the jacket. In Lance's living room we see three key things happen:
1. Spike turns around an angel - clearly showing he despises who he is and neither Spike nor Xander are wearing a jacket.

2. Spike mentions the fact both Lance(who Xander mentions being so charming and cool in high school, a real ladies man and highly intimidating) and Lance's brother AJ, wear the jacket.

3. Lance mentions how prior to the jacket AJ wrote poetry and collected comics - now with the jacket he is the cool jock. But is he? What is remotely cool about causing girls to do anything for you? Treating women like playthings?
Or knocking aside a better player - so you can have the glory, better yet inspiring someone who has a crush on you to do it? AJ isn't evil - true. But is there anything remotely cool about him? I think AJ was probably a cooler better person when he collected comics and wrote poetry.

Btvs is systematically thrusting in our face what we consider cool and making us think about it.

I don't think Andrew is entirely the reverse of this, evil where William was good; I think there're plenty of adolescent boys (admittedly he's 19 or 20, but emotionally he's 15) who have very similar morals to his, and that's not the fault of entertainment and science fiction, but of society, on both the micro and macro level; as I said in my Gothic essay, the Trokia are the dopplegangers of the Scoobies, and Andrew is fairly obviously Xander. He's Xander minus the friends who care, perhaps plus some brotherly jealousy and repressed sexuality. But he is redeemable, not just because he's human, but because he's always been in the thrall of others (Tucker probably, Warren, the First), in a way that less obviously redeemable characters such as Warren of Angelus weren't.

Very much agree with this. Xander has always struggled with his own identity. I found Anya's comment to Xander in Selfless ironic, "What if I'm a nobody." A comment that Xander could have voiced himself. Much of our cruelty comes from our own fear and self-hatred. We so want to prove we are somebody. We put on cool customs to hide our selves, create sarcastic witty put-downs (Xander/Angelus/Cordelia and Spike's snarkiness) and a host of other violent things. All the horrible things Warren does are for that reason - he desperately needs to prove he's a somebody that he is strong. Jonathan has the same problem - in Superstar - he creates an idealized self to do the same thing. And with the Trioka? He wants desperately to be the comic book villain. It reminds me of Ford in Lie to Me - the scariest and saddest villain I'd seen in Btvs up to the Troika. Poor Ford. He's dying of a brain tumor. So he goes to Sunnydale to find the girl who once had a crush on him and fantasizes about being her nemesis, of being an immortal vampire - the femme fatale - like Angel and Spike are. Spike sneers at him. Angel shakes his head and rolls his eyes. Ford doesn't get the cosmic joke - until possibly, Buffy stakes him when he rises from his grave.
And becomes dust. Ford wanted to become a somebody - yet in dying the way he did? He proved he was a nobody.

We see the opposite happen with Xander - Xander becomes a somebody on the cliff with Willow, not for beating her up, remember - but for quoting bad poetry "the yellow breaky crayon Willow" and being honest. He becomes a somebody in The Zeppo - not for beating the crap from the evil dead, but for talking, and bluffing.

I agree I think Andrew like Jonathan has a chance to be redeemed. He hasn't made his own choices yet. And like Xander, the coat didn't fit him. He wasn't able to kill more people and he did want to tell the truth. Perhaps if Andrew can see past the thrall - past what he believes is "cool", he might actually survive to become a somebody instead of dying a nobody like Warren did.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Different Definitions of Weak -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:02:21 12/15/02 Sun

I think that there are two different types of weak:

There is moral weakness, giving in to your darker urges, which is obviously a trait of Spike, Warren, and many other villains.

Then there is objective weakness. The inability to handle rejection or pain, holding back from accomplishing your goals because of fear or doubt. I would call William objectively weak because he still couldn't bear to confront or leave the social elitists he was shown with in Fool For Love. Given what we saw, their mocking didn't seem to be an unusual occurance, and it severly hurt William, but he still didn't have the strength to rectify the situation if he couldn't take their insults.

The problem is that, for many people, it is hard to avoid one type of weakness without giving in to the other.

Also, could you please clarify how discussing violence is a weak thing to do. I'm not quite clear on that point.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Different Definitions of Weak -- shadowkat, 14:51:13 12/15/02 Sun

Then there is objective weakness. The inability to handle rejection or pain, holding back from accomplishing your goals because of fear or doubt. I would call William objectively weak because he still couldn't bear to confront or leave the social elitists he was shown with in Fool For Love. Given what we saw, their mocking didn't seem to be an unusual occurance, and it severly hurt William, but he still didn't have the strength to rectify the situation if he couldn't take their insults.

I strongly disagree with your take on this. Hopefully I can clarify why, since I think it is important.

First: When did William hold back from his goals? He went after Cecily. He wrote poetry. And he did confront the partygoers - he said "that's what the police are for, I prefer to concentrate on works of beauty." That is confronting. If he had offered an opinion on the violent muggings when he didn't wish too? That would have shown weakness. Perhaps he didn't confront the party-goers in the proper manner, but that's not a sign of weakeness, just a sign of lack of experience and immaturity - my guess is William was barely 20 in this scene - although we're never told.

When Cecily confronts him about whether the poetry he writes is about her - he says that it is. That is hardly weak. Actually isn't it the opposite of your statement:
"I would call William objectively weak because he still couldn't bear to confront or leave the social elitists he was shown with in Fool For Love." He confronts Cecily and the partygoers - he just does it NON-Violently, without a raised voice. He doesn't give them the satisfaction of being taken seriously, he dismisses them as the idiots they are. I have to put up with you for.....but I don't have to respect you. What would you have him do? Get in a shouting match? Not go to the party? Not share his poetry?

"Given what we saw, their mocking didn't seem to be an unusual occurance, and it severly hurt William, but he still didn't have the strength to rectify the situation if he couldn't take their insults."

How is it weak to walk away when someone insults you? Would it have been better if he had gotten into a verbal battle?
He didn't cry. He just walked away, ignoring them. So it appeared to me that he took their insults rather well. We don't know if Spike came back for revenge or not, we're never told. What severly hurt William was NOT their insults, he saw them as unimportant in the scheme of things - he cared what Cecily thought. Only Cecily. It was Cecily's rejection of him that sent him out into the street, tearing his poetry, in tears.

And when confronted by Dru? Did he run screaming? The party-goers probably would have. Cecily (assuming she isn't the ditz Hallie) probably would have. He stayed put and confronted her even though he was humilated. He could have denied that he wrote the poems. Denied his feelings for her. But instead he bravely states: "I may be a bad poet but I'm a good man. If only you would see me." How is that weak?

The only thing that William did in that scene that might be considered weak is showing emotion - tears when Cecily broke his heart. Which did not happen until he left the building. And we have no clue how long his flirtation with Cecily had been going on. The writers don't tell us. I don't see crying when someone breaks your heart as weak. And leaving the party - so no one sees? That's not weak. He wanted to be alone to hide his pain. To gather his strength. That is hardly weak. Nor did it kill his goals necessarily. I'm sorry I still don't see William as objectively weak in this scene.

Also, could you please clarify how discussing violence is a weak thing to do. I'm not quite clear on that point.

Discussing violence is not weak. I did not mean that.
But neither is it weak to choose not to. To prefer to focus on creating something, even if you're horrible at it, than focusing destruction and violence is hardly a sign of weakness. Willaim clearly had no interest in dwelling on horrible muggings. I don't see that as weak. Please explain to me why you do?

Nor do I blame him. There have been many times I haven't wanted to discuss violence myself - he was interested in the attempt to create not in focusing on destruction. The other party-goers as slain states far better than I have - aren't interested in words or creating something - they'd rather go over the latest muggings, and their pretentious discussion of poetry and violence is hardly a sign of strength. The best approach was to simply walk away from them, which I believe William did.

I'm not sure if that clarifies things or not. We may never agree, which is okay. I just hope that you don't see characters such as Angelus, Warren, EvilSpike as strong or worth emulating. Much better to be a poet struggling with words.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Different Definitions of Weak -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:52:56 12/15/02 Sun

No, here's the thing: William didn't walk away from the partygoers. I wasn't talking about his refusal to talk about the bloody events in the news. I was referring to how he reacted to the way they taunted him. It was pretty clear that this was no unusual occurance; that he was regularly humiliated and mocked by these people. And yet he apparently tries to remain in their social circle. In this situation, there are three options: immune yourself to their mocking; get the mockers to stop; or to leave the group which mocks you. The second option may or may not involve violence or temper, the other two wouldn't. Granted, the first one may simply not be feasible, but the third is. My guess is he didn't leave both because he still wanted acceptance and because he wanted to be close to Cecily. I felt it was a sign of weakness that he couldn't bring himself to leave the group even though he was constantly tormented by them.

Also, I wouldn't say he really went after Cecily in any way. Given what we've been shown of his character, I doubt he would ever have told her his true feelings if she hadn't figured it out first. If how Spike handled his love of Buffy is any indication of how William handled his love of Cecily, he made himself constantly availble, but was never actually able to get up the nerve to tell her his feelings. Cecily found out from reading into William's poetry (and it seemed that his poems were not something he shared willingly). He only confessed his feelings when Cecily asked him upfront if his poems were about her. I've been in that William/Cecily position before, and I know from that experience that when a guy keeps silent it's because he's not strong enough to overcome the fear of rejection.

That's why I still think William was objectively weak, because he allowed himself to be abused by the group and couldn't bring himself to confront Cecily.

P.S. I don't think that characters like Angelus or Warren should be emulated, but that's because they are (were) evil and hurt people to accomplish their goals and sometimes just for fun. Note that I said that someone like Angelus is morally weak, but not OBJECTIVALLY weak. Namely, if you take morality out of the equation, villains like Angelus are strong. However, since I do have an ethical code, I would not wish to emulate Angelus or Warren. However, I would consider it a noble effort to try to be the inverse of Angelus, to pursue goals with his same zeal, ingenuity, and strength, but directed towards helping people, rather than hurting them. Which, in a way, is kind of what Angel does.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aha, I smell Nietzche! -- slain, 16:22:39 12/15/02 Sun

Nietzche would have it that someone like Angelus is strong, morality aside, because he follows his own path and doesn't let society and others get in his way; William, who's concerned with what people think of him to the extent that he's brought to tears by it, is 'weak' where Angelus is strong.

I don't really agree - I'm not impressed by Angelus' destructive power and ability to sweep aside others; destruction, after all, is nothing to be proud of. But setting aside opinion, I think male power is not something that's held up as an ideal by BtVS or AtS, either. Female power certainly is; Buffy's ability to slay, Willow's to magic and perhaps Lyla's to manipulate, certainly is. But I think male power is not seen as a strength, but seen as explicitly destructive; that's what the evil doubles of so many characters are about (Were-Oz, Angelus, evil Spike, hyena Xander).

Angel might be 'strong' in a sense, but ultimately his strength often doesn't get him anywhere; disregarding others and forging ahead alone, as he did in his dark phase in AtS Season 2, doesn't serve him well. The things which make Angel strong are not his ability to be untied to a group or the feelings of others, but his ability to work with others.

By not leaving the group, I don't think William was weak insofar as the show is concerned; rather he was in love, which is a higher force than social embarassment. He didn't want to leave because he loved Cecily; when he realised she didn't love him, he left. I don't think William really wanted to be accepted by that society; he didn't want his poems read by them are accepted or not, he wrote them for Cecily. For me the message of that scene is that love is the higher good, higher than petty feelings or the mocking of peers. Buffy does the same thing in Season 1, putting her friendship with Willow and Xander above her being potentially mocked by Cordy and the 'popular' kids. Working within the group, disregarding social embarassment, is what made Buffy strong (and ultimately made Cordy strong, too).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very well said!! Agree with all your points. -- shadowkat, 20:02:47 12/15/02 Sun

Once again I find myself agreeing with everything you've said. And once again you've said it far better than I did.

You also may have pointed out to me why I have always had problems with Nietzche. Never could figure out why Nietzche urked me so much. (Outside of the anti-female thing of course). And possibly why Nietzche never understood female power. Is Joss anti-Nietzchian? Don't know. Beginning to think he does as I do - picks bits and pieces of several philosophers to create his own system of belief.

And I have a hunch you're right about the direction the show is going. The first evil expounds on how it is all about power not right or wrong - which I think means the first evil would agree wholeheartedly with Finn's statements about weakness, heck IT has voiced this often enough to Spike, as well as this one:

Nietzche would have it that someone like Angelus is strong, morality aside, because he follows his own path and doesn't let society and others get in his way; William, who's concerned with what people think of him to the extent that he's brought to tears by it, is 'weak' where Angelus is strong.

This is the first evil's view. Take her - you want her. Go after what you want. Power. Forge own path. That is strength , that is power.

And the Watcher Council similarily expounds on this: We are Captains of Our Souls, Masters of our Fates! Before they are blown up.

While Willow realizes touching the earth to bring forth a flower - that we are all connected and we get our power from each other.

This reminds me of another story btw - about temptation and power and strength - Lord of The Rings. The Ring holds within it the power to do whatever you desire. Whether that be for good or evil. Gandalf cautions Frodo and others against the temptation. None can withstand for long except Hobbits. Why Hobbits? Because Hobbits don't care about power or forging their own paths, they care about how things are connected, nurturing the earth, creating things of beauty in their gardens.

I wish you'd had a chance to see Firefly - it also appears to expound on this theme - how by working together forming a "family" of sorts - you can defeat anything. How connected we are to one another and how important that is.
Just as Ats does and Btvs.

Female power - seems to be gaining strength from others - in all of Buffy's battles, she had her friends, it's what distinquishes her from the other slayers. Remember in Checkpoint how the Council wants to strip away her friends and copatriots believing them to be a weakness? Buffy sees them as her strength. And she's right - they after all brought her back from the dead.

Not sure this made much sense...sort of rambling at the moment.

But excellent post!

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> On the One Ring -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:28:04 12/16/02 Mon

"The Ring holds within it the power to do whatever you desire. Whether that be for good or evil."

Actually, this isn't true. In the Lord of the Rings, it is made pretty clear that the One Ring is evil by its nature and will in time destroy or betray its possessor. In fact, the Ring is treated almost like a true entity, capable of making decisions and plotting against people. Someone might be able to borrow power from the Ring, but the Ring always takes far more than it gives, consuming he who wears it like it did to Gollum.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On the One Ring -- shadowkat, 07:13:40 12/16/02 Mon

Oops...didn't make myself clear. You're right of course.

What I meant to say is the wearer's perception of the ring is he can do with it as he desires that he has power over it while in truth it is the reverse. That's what both Gandalf and Gladerial (the elf queen) state - we would take it with the best of intentions but in time it would warp us to our own.

This is a good metaphor for absolute power and how absolute power corrupts. The temptation is take it - as Willow did last year - injest like a drug - but while it appears to make you strong and invincible and it appears that you are in control over it - the reverse is in reality true - it controls you, you have become power's slave, power's robot.

Throughout literature - the good guys or heros often refuse gifts of consuming power - because it takes away their ability to connect with each other and power over themselves - this is a metaphor throughout LoR and in Dune series and in other works of Fantasy and Science Fiction. It also is a lesson passed down historically - Hitler who became consumed with power is an example.

Sorry for stating that wrong - I wrote it quickly and forgot to elaborate.
Thanks for the clarification.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel destroyed the Ring of Amara for precisely that reason. -- cjl, 09:41:51 12/16/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aha, I smell Nietzche! -- Malandanza, 20:32:32 12/15/02 Sun

"By not leaving the group, I don't think William was weak insofar as the show is concerned; rather he was in love, which is a higher force than social embarrassment. He didn't want to leave because he loved Cecily; when he realized she didn't love him, he left."

Whether you consider it a sign of weakness that William remained in the company of people who mistreated him (showing a lack of self-respect) or a sign of strength that he would brave the opinions of the bullies for the object of his devotion, this is another William/Andrew parallel. Before Katrina's accidental death, Andrew was the guy Jonathan could pick on. Andrew, like William, wanted to be part of a group and he wanted to be near Warren.

(I think it is clear that Spike was a very social vampire -- wanting to belong. Season Six showed him devastated when the he realized the Scoobies had kept him out of the plan to raise Buffy -- in tears because he thought he was one of them -- as his recriminations show. As Rufus is fond of quoting -- "What we once were informs all that we become". The vampire with the pathological craving to be accepted came from the man with that same desire -- although, perhaps, reduced somewhat since vamps seem to have exaggerated characteristics.)

Andrew, too, has had moments of strength. He joined Jonathan in protesting Warren's plan to kill Buffy and he managed to survive a confrontation with Willow (who killed 33.3...% of the troika last time they were in town) without wetting himself (presumably anyway). He even managed to be coherent and tried to bluff his way out of the confrontation.

I also seem to recall Spike being a popular character even before FFL -- which indicates to me that not everyone is drawn to Spike because hypersensitive, socially inept poets who love their mothers and stalk women are so very sexy. A big part of Spike's attraction has always been his bad boy image. However, if you like weeping poets, I can suggest reading Radcliffe -- an old gothic author who helped popularize the genre. Her heroes (like Valancourt from Mysteries of Udolpho) were quite sensitive -- spending their time carving mawkish poetry, composed to their lost beloveds, into stone, weeping and generally being ineffectual -- leaving the poor heroines to solve their own predicaments, battling against the evil (yet strangely compelling) villains. I actually enjoyed the novels (strong women are sexy) -- and Udolpho, in particular, helped increased my enjoyment of JA's Northanger Abbey (although the first book of Udolpho was tedious for me, perseverance pays off).

Is walking away from a potential confrontation a sign of strength or weakness? I'd say it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, it is clear. If Larry walked away from Xander when Xander was looking for a fight, it would be a sign of moral strength on his part -- because he could easily take Xander apart. If Xander walks away from Larry, it's not so clear. It could as easily be cowardice as bravery. (And Xander willing to take a beating from Larry could even be seen as weakness if he was doing so because he was afraid to lose face with his peers). Similarly, William allowing himself to be abused (as Spike allowed Angelus to abuse him) can be as easily seen as a sign of weakness -- William/Spike couldn't fight back in any real sense so taking it isn't necessarily strength.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aha, I smell Nietzche! -- slain, 15:40:41 12/16/02 Mon

You obviously missed my Gothic essay, Mal, as that mentioned Radcliffe as least once! I didn't write anything on the male and female Gothic, because I decided that it wasn't relevant to BtVS - but certainly the common theme of female heroines, within Radcliffe's female Gothic, does fit in with BtVS, to an extent. Spike certainly fits a couple of Gothic roles - melancholy poet as well as violent sexual agressor. But the essay was too long, and I decided not to go down that road (it being too reliant on having read at least a few C18/19th Gothic novels).

As for the debate - the point I intended to make was that while it's up to personal opinion whether William, Spike or Angel are weak or strong, the show itself has a view, I think; male power is destructive, and Angel/us' use of this power, or strength, is not a good thing. Whereas I felt we were expect to feel sympathy for William for disregarding the taunting of the socialites; based on the episode, and on the way the Cordettes were portrayed in relation to the Scoobies. Perhaps the reason why William's putting up with the insults seems sensible is because it contrasts with what he did to them later; not defending himself from a few mindless jibes seems inconsequential when compared to torturing his ridiculers to death with a railroad spike.

I think I've exhausted all my decent synonyms for "making fun of" now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> destructive female power (too) on btvs -- anom, 21:52:48 12/16/02 Mon

Can't say anything about Nietzsche, since I don't know enough. But I do want to address 1 thing:

"But setting aside opinion, I think male power is not something that's held up as an ideal by BtVS or AtS, either. Female power certainly is; Buffy's ability to slay, Willow's to magic and perhaps Lyla's to manipulate, certainly is."

I don't think this is certain at all. To take the examples in reverse order (which coincides w/what I consider the least to the most interesting), Lilah's manipulative ability has never that I can think of been presented as an ideal. Has she ever used it for a positive purpose unless she herself was manipulated or coerced into doing so? And she uses it w/no hesitation or excuses, knowing she's doing evil & proud of it.

Willow's abilities w/magic have been shown in both a positive & a negative light. She's used it to fight evil & defend against it, but also for destructive purposes & sometimes just petty or frivolous ones. Until recently, Willow was very invested in seeing her magic use as good or at least harmless (to good guys, anyway); lately she's been forced to face how dangerous it can be.

Buffy's slaying abilities have been portrayed mostly as good but w/the potential for abuse. She's used them to save family, friends, strangers, & the world...a lot. Her entire purpose is to fight evil, which would tend to define her power as good...wouldn't it? But we've also seen how it could be turned against humans. Buffy has used her strength against humans, even her friends, when she's sure she's right & they try to stand in her way; there've been times when it seemed she killed humans, although it later turned out she hadn't; and she's seen Faith use her Slayer power to kill a human by mistake & knows she killed another one deliberately, giving her an example of the ultimate potential abuse of that power. She's been told, although the source may not have been reliable, that her power is rooted in darkness. What makes Buffy's case the most interesting to me is her attempts to come to terms w/the implications of her power. Not only does she understand how she could use it wrongly; she's also expressed concern about how using it even the best way she can will affect her humanity.

Buffy's efforts to deal w/her power & what it means, & her persistence in this even in the face of her flaws or when offered what seems like an out (e.g., in Normal Again) are what I'd consider the ideal that's being held up, rather than the power itself.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree with slain's take: Vampire/Andrew/Xander parallel -- Rufus, 18:35:35 12/15/02 Sun

The metaphor is how tempting evil is - it promises to make us great, a god, but no matter what trappings we take on - we are still us and no god. Killing something does not make you a god. Beating something up does not make you strong. Drinking pig or human blood is nothing to aspire to - as Spike demonstrates in the next room - in gruesome detail. (the irony is Spike would probably give his eye teeth to switch places with Andrew, to be squeamish at killing a pig again, just as Angel would - they can barely live with what they've done. While Andrew aspires to be Spike. Aspires to be the immortal vampire in the black cape - perhaps he'll get his wish.) Once again the show is twisting the vampire motif - taking away the romanticism from it. Yes vampires are cool but deadly and underneath the trappings? Andrews and Warrens...pathetic little boys dressing up in Matrix Neo's or Darth Vadar's leather jacket trying to be cool. Such a shame the jacket doesn't quite fit.

Now fit in Willow, who knows what it is like to have more power than anyone else.....and who does she want to be? Willow wants to be Willow, the softer side of Sears...the girl who wanted Giles to steer around the horsies...too bad she had to kill a few people and almost destroy the world to see the value in who she has always been.

GILES: Do you want to be punished?

WILLOW: (softly) I wanna be Willow.

GILES: You are. In the end, we all are who we are ... no matter how much we may appear to have changed.

Willow was in a world that valued the image the facade, not the person, but that world was largely one of highschool, a time when none of us knows who the hell or what the hell we will be for sure. And it's a time where we are most likely are going to try different decoration or props to attempt to fit in or stand out. In the end it isn't a coat, isn't the hair, it's what we are inside that determines who we become. This makes some of the Scoobies and the vampires choices (pre and post vamping) so facinating to watch. If clothes made the man then you would think it would have made Spike a better poet.....after all this time he is still trying to get things to rhyme.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree with slain's take: Vampire/Andrew/Xander parallel -- shadowkat, 19:39:37 12/15/02 Sun

Agree.

If clothes made the man then you would think it would have made Spike a better poet.....after all this time he is still trying to get things to rhyme.

Perhaps it was shedding his clothes that made him a better man if not poet, after all against all odds, he went to get his soul. And now he's less concerned with rhyming things and more concerned with the true meaning of the words. Did you notice his reaction to Lance's poetry comment? A roll of the eyes.

No, I think you're right about Giles' statement - and it leads us right back to Restless - all the dreams actually.
In each dream the character is running or hiding from what and who they are in some way. Giles runs from being the father figure/watcher, Willow hides from the geek inside fearing the geek more than anything, Xander hides from being his parents (which he isn't), Spike does fake vampire poses, Riley builds useless forts, and Buffy rejects the first slayer - actually I'm wondering if the reason Buffy broke the spell was she was the only one who saw who she really was and went for who she was at her core not the powerful trappings?

[> [> The trouble with newbies -- luna, 18:41:54 12/16/02 Mon

is that we weren't here when you had all the previous discussion about Spike, rape, you name it--we weren't even watching Buffy then. so what's really really old and boring to you is new to us. Just skip what you've heard before--the great advantage of threaded boards over real live conversation.

I know everyone knows this, but then forgets. It's always going to happen, unless you have closed membership.

[> [> [> Apologies for my rant..;-) and welcome. -- shadowkat, 19:45:31 12/16/02 Mon

Unfortunately you had bad timing, which you wouldn't of course know unless you popped onto the board a week or two before, when we just had three separate and lengthy debates on the Rape. I do advise visiting the archives if you can - the Deb post is particularly useful and also check out Hacceity's post in archive 2 or 1 on Spike and the Overheard Self which also dealt with the rape.

The problem with this topic - is we can't seem to make it a month or even three weeks without rehashing it again. Not your faul of course...ours. As I said above as long as people want to post on a topic they will. If you don't like? The best thing to do is ignore...a sentiment that apparently got lost in my post.

Please accept my humble apologies, didn't mean to offend. And welcome to the board. SK

[> Tell me why, tell me why, tell me why, why can't we live together? -- Caroline (hoping for tolerance if unity is not possible), 15:51:11 12/13/02 Fri

I'm happy for anyone with a passion for Btvs to post here on any topic they wish. If I want to avoid the topic, I will and just accept that this is not something I wish to become involved in. No drama, no complaint. If you want to see more non-Spike post, get off you bottom and give us a fabulous non-Spike post then! To all the Spike fans - let me say that not everyone feels the right to condemn your perspective. I'm happy that you've found something that engages you and makes you want to participate with such passion. Can't we accept others likes about Btvs in a tolerant and dispassionate way? And if not, why not? (this is not a rhetorical question).

[> [> Most of us Just skip the posts -- Dochawk, 15:59:09 12/13/02 Fri

Which is fine. I skip posts from many posters I would otherwise read when Spike is the topic. Although I read all of SKs and all of Leslie's regardless of topic. The only problem comes when there is so much Spike talk (mostly among themselves since most of us who have different views won't read them anymore) that other posts are lost or kicked to the archives. Otherwise, who cares?

[> [> [> Who cares - exactly! -- slain, 16:21:14 12/14/02 Sat

I'm sure many of us have had thoughts along Jay's lines - "Oh, I wish there were more threads about things other than Spike". But I think of this as a personal, rather than external thing; that is, I often find myself discussing Spike, often bringing him up as an example to illustrate something, even though I enjoy watching the character less now than I did in Season 5 (or 4). But clearly Spike has a lot to him, a lot to discuss. Not necessarily more than other characters, but he seems to embody the moral dimensions in the Buffyverse more aptly than any other, and in a more explicit way.

I know from threads I've started that Spike gets more replies. Since a month or so before Season 7 started, I've posted three big essays on three disparate topics. The one which had a lengthy section on Spike got by far the most replies, several times more. Spike gets people talking: sometimes arguing!

But for me the reason for this is clear; it's much easier to disagree about Spike, and to make sweeping statements about him. He's been through so many phases of his character, embodying several different moralities, that more controversy surrounds him. The things his character has done (he's tried to kill, save, shag, befriend, rape and ask forgiveness from Buffy at one time or another) are more extreme than any others'; and, crucially, they all specifically involve Buffy. So I think frisby is right to point out that when we're discussing Spike, we're discussing Buffy.

Now, I wonder if I've typo'd him as 'Spuke' in this post?

[> A Response to Stimuli and Playing to Audience -- Haecceity, wearing her eironia mask, 21:14:17 12/14/02 Sat

Is it wrong for me to agree with you when I've got a thread about the peroxide pest just below? The sorta funny/sad thing is, my Shakespeare/Spike post was written as an "If all posts lead to Spike, why?" question to the board. After reading responses (and my own post again), I'm not certain I wrote this clearly enough (I often post late at night and don't always reread before the "approve" is final--practically a recipe for saying things you don't quite mean.) But truthfully, I was trying to figure out why not only the audience, but also the writers seemed to be on the "All About Spike" train recently. There had to be some reason besides cheekbones (which is just too silly to comprehend) that people were reacting so strongly to a fictional character. So I rambled about it and threw it to the board--creating yet another Spike thread, proliferating this apparent "plague".

And it's been up and active since Tuesday. *Tuesday* for crying out loud!

Meanwhile, the finite/infinite games post, which I spent almost three days writing, trying to write out my extremely nebulous and difficult-to-pin-down ideas regarding the working out of conflict and balance in the Buffyverse (and which mentioned Spike once only, and just in a list of other characters, btw)lasted only a day and a half--not even long enough for me to write back to those who did respond.

Frustrating? Yes. But I've got to think that the consistancy of it has some sort of meaning. And I wonder if a part of it has to do with response cycles.

Your own thread is illustrative of this very concept. You dislike all the posts focusing on Spike. So you start a Spike thread because *you know people respond heavily to them*. What you want to say is seriously discussed because you've *engaged people emotionally*. In Season 6 and the last few eps of Season 7, the character of Spike seems to stand at the intersection of emotional stimulus and philosophical debate--the character is presented as a puzzle to solve, i.e. a puzzle that might be "solvable". Ponygirl brought up an excellent point in that Spike seems more fictional than the other characters, more readily abstracted and easier to dissect than the Scoobies who feel like our family. We may be a bunch of sick puppies here on the board, but I'd imagine very few of us enjoy the idea of dissecting our family.

I have a theory that the reason we spend so much time debating the Buffyverse (or any fictional reality for that matter)is for the clarity the resulting discussion brings to our own worldviews. Very few people will sit down to discuss their ideas regarding good and evil and the function of the human soul with a stranger on the street, but people will talk about shows and books and characters to no end--fiction gives us permission to share our most important values/ideas/philosophies within a community of other human souls (even if they might have demon selves as well ;)

I read somewhere (would be terribly fitting if it were on this board) that much of human interaction has to do with the earning and trading of "social currency"--bits of behavior/information which are meant precisely to further interaction. That is, we value highest that which increases our chances of interacting with a higher number of others--we like to be popular and loved and interacted with in turn. The ME writers are not the only ones who worry about audience response.

I imagine that when there are fewer responses to Spike threads there will be fewer Spike threads. Right now his stock is high, but I have the feeling the others will come to the fore in the near future. Apocalypse is, after all, an equal-opportunity situation.

Meanwhile, can I interest you in a discussion regarding the means of balance in the Buffyverse? It's somewhere in the archives, buried beneath a bunch of Spike threads.

---Haecceity

[> [> Re: A Response to Stimuli and Playing to Audience -- Sara, 10:36:31 12/17/02 Tue

One of the reasons a post lasts or flitters away has to do with the accessibility of the ideas. Your finite/infinite games post was fascinating but to be honest I could only get my mind about halfway around the ideas in it. Now there are many people contributing on this board who are much smarter than I am, and I think most of them did respond to it. The threads that evolve into monster threads are the ones that have a reasonably deep core but can be discussed at different levels. Your Shakespeare thread, in addition to having a great title - I love the expression "overheard self", provided more of a platform for character discussion. I'm really glad you posted on finite/infinite games because the concept will be rolling around in my mind for a while and I always enjoy that, but it was a challenging post to respond to.

My theory as to why Spike is an overwhelming subject, is because of the fascination that exists with complex villians. One of my favorite characters is always the Devil, when he's drawn with humour, motivation and depth. Many actors enjoy playing the villian more than the hero. Think of the whole movement towards anti-heros in the 60's and 70's. If someone is a hero, you know why they make the choices they do. Buffy has a strong sense of right and wrong and her actions almost always reflect that, and will be clear and understandable when viewed through the prism of her moral code.

A villian will not be so predicatable, unless they are completely driven for evil. I find nothing interesting about serial killers, or other villians whose only motivation is to cause pain, but show me a villian with a plan and a purpose, beyond cruelty for the sake of cruelty, and I'll say it's going to be an interesting character. Spike fits this mold perfectly. That type of character gives you a lot to chew on. To wonder about the depth of villiany, the reasons for it, what would he do, what wouldn't he do, plus all the lovely scheming we get to watch. C.S. Lewis made a point of not drawing the character of Screwtape with any humour because he did not want the devil to be an attractive character on any level, and yet Screwtape's interactions with Wormwood are still incredibly interesting to read. There are layers to their actions that just make me think, and think some more.

I do totally agree with you on the value of debating about Buffy, literature and philosophy in clarifying our own ideas. Sometimes it's the people you disagree with that gives you the most insight into your own view of the world. But, although I find the whole social currency concept interesting and containing much truth, I don't really think that's why all roads lead to Spike. I think all roads lead to the most interesting villian on the block, who currently happens to be Spike.

- Sara, who likes her villians fictitious

[> Re: Why I hate Spike -- Rufus, 04:02:48 12/15/02 Sun

Okay, that's not exactly true, but eye-catching. You see, I don't hate Spike as much as I am totally burnt out by the obsessive Spike posting that's been driving me out. I'm not sure what I think about him this year, and I don't really feel like speculating on it yet.

Poor Jay....just remember there is still less talk about Spike on this board than others. I also have to note that many of the non-Spike posts are met with the sound of crickets.....like Anya and her bunny statement in OMWF. I can only suggest you post as much as possible about someone else and hope that someone finds that as facinating as the Bloody Awful Poet.

Now, I'll talk about Spike.....I started posting about the character long ago (Mal has accused me of starting the unholy trend of the APLTS). But, how do I see him......not always in a flattering light. I could give two shits what he looks like (remember I'm the one that ordered a Rileybot cause I like nice polite men) but his situation is a way of talking about a human trait....wanting to be adored and considered "cool". The early Spike was funny enough but I thought he was a creep (no offence Marsters)...he reminded me of all the swaggering bully bad boys that bore me....then they turned it around and in FFL they showed that under every bad boy can lurk an awful insecure guy.....the vampire that Spike became is that need to be accepted perverted into a monster. I always wonder what one gives up to be popular, cool, drooled over...and the monster that Spike became told me that image can be a big old bear trap. To see Andrew wear a coat like the one that Spike wore was worth every Spike post that only spoke about the actors abs. I also wonder if the female attention this character gets may bring up the frustration many of us know when someone we fancy likes someone else that is not us.

PS. I hated that f*cking coat...it just made me think that the line "the clothes make the man" is more true than I'd like to think.

[> Need I point out the irony that your post pleading for no more Spike threads ends up creating... -- Rob, 11:59:18 12/16/02 Mon

...another huge Spike thread?!?

Rob

[> [> Look above - threads about other characters - quick before they run away!! -- Helen, 00:45:15 12/17/02 Tue

Current board | More December 2002