December 2003 posts
What
would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- phoenix, 04:05:25
12/12/03 Fri
I was doing some research last night for a story I'm planning
to write, if I ever get time, and I started wondering what diagnosis
the prison psychiatrist would have come up with when s/he encountered
Faith.
There have been interesting and compassionate discussions on the
board about Willow and post traumatic stress disorder, or Buffy's
clinical depression during S6,(having suffered from severe depression
I could empathise to a painful degree) but I don't recall reading
anything about Faith except "she's psychotic." I may
have just missed the thread of course, and there have been plenty
of insightful and sympathetic discussions of our favourite rogue
Slayer, but not of a diagnostic kind.
After doing some reading about Borderline Personality Disorder
I stopped and thought, "you know, that sounds a hell of a
lot like Faith," and, as a scary aside, my father! Symptoms
include rapid extreem unpredictable mood swings, including intense
bouts of anger, depression and anxiety. Impulsive agression, self-injury,
substance abuse. Distortions in cognition and sense of self. Sufferers
often view themselves as bad or unworthy, and may feel unfairly
misunderstood, mistreated, bored, empty and have little idea of
who they are.
They may form sudden intense but stormy attatchments to people,in
which they idealize the other person, but when a slight separation
or conflict occurs, they switch to the other extreem, devaluing
the person and angrily accusing them of not caring for them at
all.
Fears of abandonment may relate to difficulties feeling emotionally
connected with another person when they are physically absent,
leaving the individual with BPD feeling lost and worthless.
Tendency to indulge in high risk activities like binge drinking
or lots of casual sex.
Impulsivity, mood instability, agression, anger etc. may result
from impared regulation of the neural circuits that regulate negative
emotion.
Many individuals with BPD have a history of abuse, neglect or
separation as young children, and it is most prevalent amongst
adolescent women.
Of course in the case of Faith you would have to add Slayer strength
and homicidal tendencies, always a bad combination.
I may be barking up completely the wrong tree here so I would
love to hear what other people think...
Replies:
[> The problem with diagnosing Faith -- Lunasea, 06:01:22
12/12/03 Fri
What was Faith like in prison and what did she tell her therapist?
We know she was in anger management classes, which are standard.
Was she raped as a child or experience some other trauma? If she
said something along these lines, she would probably get a diagnosis
of PTSD. If she tried to relate what she saw as Slayer, but without
the supernatural, she would probably get some sort of Anxiety
disorder.
BPD is going through a name change to ERD, which stands for Emotion-Impulse
Regulation Disorder and has a physiological cause in the limbic
system. It is easy to label someone as having something if a Criterion
from DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, now at version IV-TR)
is met. Thing is, five of the nine criteria have to be present.
Criterion 1: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder
make frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment I
don't see how this would manifest in a way for the therapist to
pick up. It tends to appear in therapy with an attachment to the
therapist and feelings about a session ending.
Criterion 2: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder
have a pattern of unstable and intense relationships Her history
of boyfriends fits this, but the degree of it is really shown
with the Mayor, Buffy and Angel. Is she going to talk about any
of these?
Criterion 3: There may be an identity disturbance characterized
by markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self
In jail she is pretty stable, so how would this manifest itself?
We've seen it, but would the therapist.
Criterion 4: Individuals with this disorder display impulsivity
in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging Is
definitely met, but would it manifest in jail?
Criterion 5: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder
display recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or
self-mutilating behavior Again definitely met, but would the
therapist know that she wanted Angel to kill her?
Criterion 6: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder
may display affective instability that is due to a marked reactivity
of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety
usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)
Again, is it going to manifest in jail?
Criterion 7: Easily bored, they may constantly seek something
to do. How would it manifest itself?
Criterion 8: Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder
frequently express inappropriate, intense anger or have difficulty
controlling their anger I can see this one being met, even
without violence. Faith has quite a mouth on her.
Criterion 9:During periods of extreme stress, transient paranoid
ideation or dissociative symptoms (e.g., depersonalization) may
occurWould she be under extreme stress so this could manifest
itself?
You may have made an accurate diagnosis, based on what we have
seen of her. The question becomes what would the therapist see.
That is the hardest part of any diagnosis, detecting if a criterion
is met. I'd probably give her an Antisocial Personality Disorder
diagnosis, especially because the onset was so young.
If she did say anything about Slaying, chances are she'd get a
diagnosis of Schizophrenia with her violence being attributed
to a manic phase. The problem with Faith is in jail she is a model
prisoner. Much of the diagnosis would come from the police reports
and the difference between that and what was showing now. As a
writer, you can make her diagnosis anything you want. If you really
want to go at it from a psychological level, get DSM and show
how the criteria are met or hidden. A wrong diagnosis can make
a story.
I'd say chances are because of her extreme violent history, she
would get antisocial. Her repentance would be considered a ploy
and dismissed by a therapist who has seen people have a change
in heart in order to get off, not because they have genuinely
changed. You can do whatever you want though. That is the fun
of fan fiction. She could have a really good therapist that does
pick up ERD. The backstory does support this diagnosis.
[> [> Re: The problem with diagnosing Faith -- phoenix,
10:32:07 12/12/03 Fri
Many thanks, that was all very helpful.You are right, I can't
really imagine a character like Faith telling a psychiatrist very
much, she's not exactly terribly forthcoming with personal information.
On the other hand, after that whole breakdown at the end of Five
By Five she might have felt the need to get some things out in
the open. She was certainly different when she got out of jail,
well at least she wasn't killing people.
One more question--in Sanctuary she was experiencing violent flashbacks,
would you attribute that to PTSD, or something else? In fact,
would PTSD account for most of her behavior after waking up from
that coma?
I really must get this story written, it's got to the stage where
it's starting to bug me (-:
[> [> [> I am very reluctant to give anyone a diagnosis
of PTSD -- lunasea,
08:09:25 12/16/03 Tue
It's become like ADD, everyone has it. Just pop a few pills and
you'll be fine again. To see Paxil advertised on TV with a Tribble
turned my stomach. People should not be diagnosing themselves
or taking a short quiz to determine if they have it. (see Paxil's
website) If they have a debilitating condition such as PTSD, they
should be in therapy.
I would attribute her flashbacks to guilt. That isn't the same
thing as reliving the trauma associated with PTSD that would be
akin to the visions that Doyle and Cordy got.
Put the link to your story when you get it done. If you need a
beta reader, let me know.
[> [> [> [> Re: I am very reluctant to give anyone
a diagnosis of PTSD -- phoenix, 13:10:56 12/16/03 Tue
I agree about the problem of diagnosing PTSD. In Faith's case
I wasn't just considering the flashbacks but her state in general,(I
probably didn't make that clear enough) after all it would have
been strange if she wasn't extreemly traumatised by the things
she had experienced.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback, it has all been very informative
and helpful. As I said mental health is not my field, I have only
my personal experience and the things I've read to go on, so it's
a big learning curve for me, but I couldn't seem to get the fic
idea out of my head, so I gave in and started doing research.
In fact I never had any intention of writing any Buffy fic at
all, I was simply enjoying reading it, well, the good ones anyway,
then a month ago I sat down at my computer and started writing
and a few hours later I was still there. Ooops (-:
I am actually embroiled in a post Chosen story just now,it's almost
finished, I hope, and this one will be my next project. I will
need a beta reader, so thank you for the offer. When I finish
the story I will certainly post a link.
[> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith? -- Gyrus,
07:57:58 12/12/03 Fri
IMO, there are no people like Faith in the real world.
Faith's behavior back in S3 could best be described as sociopathic
(or antisocial, as they call it these days), but that's not something
you recover from, even with therapy and/or medication. (All personality
disorders, including borderline, are very resistant to treatment.)
So I don't think Faith is a realistic model of any particular
psychopathology.
[> [> Fanwanking on this -- lakrids, 08:41:17
12/12/03 Fri
A fanwank on this, could be that Faith was in coma, that was probably
resulted from a brain damage. The regenerate brain cell, that
resulted in Faith waking from the coma, have then created personality
change Faith psyche.
[> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith?
-- phoenix, 10:50:32 12/12/03 Fri
Of course there are no people like exactly Faith in the real world,
she's a fictional Vampire Slayer, but I've certainly encountered
people who manifest many aspects of her character. One of the
things which strikes me now I've started doing the research for
this story is how consistantly she does seem to meet the criteria
for a condition like BPD (or ERD as I've just learned it's now
called), I know it's very unlikely the writers deliberately set
out to do that, but it's how it reads to me. Anyway, I have to
try and diagnose her, otherwise I have no story(-: As for these
things being resistant to treatment, well the new improved Faith
that broke out of jail clearly still had all those old issues
bubbling away just underneath the surface, that's why I continue
to find her such an interesting character, and why I hope that
spin-off happens eventually.
By the way,I may be having a memory lapse but did you write a
fic called Inside? If it was you I'd like to take the opportunity
to tell you I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks.
[> [> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith?
-- Gyrus, 13:13:10 12/12/03 Fri
Of course there are no people like exactly Faith in the real
world, she's a fictional Vampire Slayer, but I've certainly encountered
people who manifest many aspects of her character.
I agree with that; I was really talking about her dramatic change
from sociopath to moral person.
One of the things which strikes me now I've started doing the
research for this story is how consistantly she does seem to meet
the criteria for a condition like BPD (or ERD as I've just learned
it's now called), I know it's very unlikely the writers deliberately
set out to do that, but it's how it reads to me.
Faith's impulsivity and anger-management problems in S3 are consistent
with both BPD and antisocial personality disorder. Her capacity
for cold-blooded murder, however, seems to fit the latter diagnosis
better.
Anyway, I have to try and diagnose her, otherwise I have no
story(-:
Ohhh, it's a fanfic thing. Well, you may be able to explain a
lot of Faith's actions in BPD terms. Her murder of Professor Wirth,
for example, could be seen as one of what the diagnostic criteria
for BPD describe as "frantic attempts to prevent abandonment,
whether real or imagined." That is she might have killed
Wirth out of a desperate need for the Mayor to continue liking
her and not abandon her.
By the way,I may be having a memory lapse but did you write
a fic called Inside?
Yep, that was me.
If it was you I'd like to take the opportunity to tell you
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Thanks! (glowing a cheerful orange)
[> [> [> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make
of Faith? -- phoenix, 15:36:00 12/12/03 Fri
Okay, I'm off to investigate antisocial personality disorder--sounds
like a fun way to spend the evening. You may well be right about
the diagnosis, as I was having trouble making her capacity for
cold blooded murder fit ERD.
As for her change from sociopath to moral person, do you really
think she has entirely changed? Her former impulses haven't really
gone away, she's just learned to control them better, I think
she even stated as much, or if it wasn't explicit in the story
it was certainly implicit.Perhaps I'm looking on the bleak side
but I could definitely imagine her having a relapse, or at least
coming extreemly close to it, a la beige Angel, at some point
in the not too distant future. She's been in a very controled
environment for years, what effect could being back out in the
world long term have on her, all those pressures and choices and
temptations? Maybe it's just me, but I think she is going to have
one hell of a struggle staying on the straight and narrow, even
though she's clearly trying very hard. On a human level I would
like to belive she would succeed, but in character terms it might
be much more interesting to make her suffer, and JW certainly
loves to torture his characters.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist
make of Faith? -- Gyrus, 16:37:41 12/12/03 Fri
As for her change from sociopath to moral person, do you really
think she has entirely changed? Her former impulses haven't really
gone away, she's just learned to control them better,
Which, in my mind, is why she's not a realistic sociopath, either.
A sociopath wouldn't bother with control unless there was some
concrete benefit she could derive from it.
An alternative just occurred to me, though: oppositional defiant
disorder. Here's a description (from Oppositional Defiant Disorder
- By Dr. Deane G. Baldwin, M.D.):
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric
Association, fourth edition (DSM-IV) defines ODD as a pattern
of negativistic, hostile and defiant behavior, lasting at least
6 months, during which four or more of the following symptoms
are present:
1. Often loses temper
2. Often argues with adults
3. Often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult's requests
or rules
4. Often deliberately annoys people
5. Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehaviors
6. Is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
7. Is often angry or resentful
8. Is often spiteful or vindictive
Does that help?
[> [> Re: What would a psychiatrist make of Faith?
-- skeeve, 14:11:16 12/16/03 Tue
Perhaps there has been a truly major name change, but at one time
being antisocial did not make one a sociopath.
Being antisocial meant that one, e.g. a stereotypical nerd, did
not feel much like interacting with people.
Being a sociopath meant that one, e.g. Ted Bundy, would interact
with people in pretty much any way one wanted that one could get
away with.
[> [> [> Name changes -- Gyrus, 12:19:38 12/17/03
Wed
Perhaps there has been a truly major name change, but at one
time being antisocial did not make one a sociopath.
Being antisocial meant that one, e.g. a stereotypical nerd, did
not feel much like interacting with people.
Yes, there has been a major name change. Psychopathy became sociopathy,
and then sociopathy became Antisocial Personality Disorder. Those
who shun personal interaction with other people and who have a
restricted emotional range are now considered to have Schizoid
Personality Disorder.
[> [> [> [> And if it wasn't obvious -- KdS,
14:09:38 12/17/03 Wed
"Psychopath" was abandoned because of the extent to
which this specific word had been popularly adopted to mean "drooling
nut-job".
And just to top things off there is now argument over whether
"schizoid personality disorder" is really a personality
disorder or a mild version of autism.
[> [> [> [> Re: Name changes -- skeeve, 07:30:04
12/18/03 Thu
Ouch. Someone's been really stupid or really nasty.
At best the changes are confusing.
They practically coerce character assasination.
[> Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters
-- KdS, 02:31:50 12/13/03 Sat
Psychiatric diagnoses are always imprecise to some extent, because
human psyches and personalities are so different. A problem with
assigning a specific psychiatric disorder to a fictional character
can be that one becomes too hung up on it and makes the character
the perfect textbook case of it, with no room for individuality
and making their behaviour far too predictable and boring.
[> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional characters
-- phoenix, 03:53:47 12/13/03 Sat
That's a very good point.
Something else has just occured to me, who said she can only be
suffering from one psychiatric disorder at once? Couldn't there
simply be a combiation of factors? After all, that feels more
like real life to me. So, say she has an underlying disorder like
ERD but then the accidental murder of Alan Finch sets off something
else, which is how the story seems to play out. It's only after
she kills him that she begins her seriously sociopatic behavior.
The question is, what could push her from troubled and violent
to cold bloodedly murderous? It could actually have been a temporary
thing, in which case she is still suffering the psycological hangover
and the deep seated fear that she could do a repeat performance,
but has actually just reverted to a slightly more controled version
of the condition she had before that happened. Arrrg. My head
hurts! I think I might be contradicting my last post. Anyway,
maybe that is a more satisfactory explaination, and it's easier
than trying to make everything fit under one heading. What do
you think?
As a side note, I think my fictional psychiatrist may well misdiagnose
Faith anyway, as Lunasea pointed out that could actually make
for a more interesting story.
[> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional
characters -- Gyrus, 13:18:41 12/13/03 Sat
>Something else has just occured to me, who said she can >only
be suffering from one psychiatric disorder at once? >Couldn't
there simply be a combiation of factors? After >all, that feels
more like real life to me.
Good point. From what I've read, 85% of people with mental illness
have more than one. (That includes substance abuse.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional
characters -- phoenix, 15:21:44 12/13/03 Sat
Yeah, I think that solves the problem.
I may have spent too much time reading about psychological disorders
though, as now I'm seriously begining to wonder if all the Buffy
characters are actually stuck in the Asylum-verse too. Wonder
if Buffy and Faith have adjoining rooms...
[> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional
characters -- details, 13:01:52 12/15/03 Mon
Faith's turn for the worse did seem to be set off by the accidental
killing and later condemnation by authority figures like the Watcher's
Council. How about a John Malvo defense of brainwashing by the
Mayor when she was in a vulnerable state and was desperate for
adult validation. Could that work?
[> [> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing fictional
characters -- phoenix, 13:26:00 12/16/03 Tue
Interesting.
I don't think that Faith actually was brainwashed by the Mayor,
after all her attempted rape/murder of Xander happened before
she went to work for him. Her behavior in that case did seem to
be a very extreem reaction to the accidental killing of alan Finch.
Her state was then made much worse by the Watchers' Council and
the Mayor, but she was already heading down that path.
As for using brainwashing as a defense in court, I don't know
if it would have worked, but I have the feeling they probably
didn't try, or if they did it certainly didn't work.
Could you tell me more about the John Malvo case?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Other problem with diagnosing
fictional characters -- details, 00:00:35 12/17/03 Wed
CHESAPEAKE, Va. - The jury in the murder trial of Lee Boyd
Malvo got the case Tuesday after his lawyer argued the teenager
fell completely under the spell of mastermind John Allen Muhammad
when he took part in the Washington sniper shootings.
Defense lawyer Michael Arif said Malvo, desperate for a father
figure, found the wrong man to emulate in Muhammad and eventually
became "a cult of one" with Muhammad as his leader.
"Lee could no more separate himself from John Muhammad than
you could separate from your shadow on a sunny day," Arif
told the jury.
"He was not the idea man. He was a puppet, molded like a
piece of clay by John Muhammad," Arif said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=4&u=/ap/20031217/ap_on_re_us/sniper_shootings_trial
Malvo was a 17 year old homeless kid taken in by 42 year old John
Muhammad at the time of the murders. The defense is claiming that
Malvo was brainwashed by father figure and war veteran Muhammad.
Unlike Faith, it sounds like prior to Muhammad, Malvo was a well
behaved, good in school, kid.
Faith has the difficulties and moral ambiguities of Slayerhood,
the death of her Watcher, the Watcher gone bad, and the accidental
killing to contend with as well as her terrible childhood and
obvious longing for a father brought to life in the Mayor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the extra information.
-- phoenix, 09:25:46 12/17/03 Wed
why do you guys like buffy so much? what does
she mean to you? -- friendly visitor, 09:01:02 12/12/03
Fri
I'm just trying to figure out what it is about buffy that makes
you all so into to her? so if anyone out there can help me understand
i'll be really grateful thanx alot
Replies:
[> Re: Potential -- Brian, 10:50:35 12/12/03 Fri
Buffy is about potential: that anything, even the most concrete
prophecy is mutable; that the good and the bad have choices, choices
to be good or choices to be bad; That self-sacrifice can be for
the most idealistic of motives or the most selfish; and that forgiveness
and redemption are always possible.
[> why I like Buffy so much -- manwitch, 14:26:51
12/12/03 Fri
I would certainly be interested in hearing the many answers to
this question.
For me, the short of it is that Buffy is basic life instruction.
In the last decade or so, it seems to me that people, at least
in the US of A, have begun to show a desire for lives that are
more fulfilling at a spiritual level. I expect this could be easily
documented. It manifests itself in a number of ways. Increased
attendance at church, political swings to the right, endlessly
increased discussion of values and ethics, an increasingly obsessive
interest in the afterlife and the mystical. On television you
can see a great increase in shows that address the paranormal
or the afterlife or religion. I don't know whether or not it began
with the X-files, but that certainly got it going in high gear.
Now you have Mr. Edwards, shows about dead people, shows about
Angels, shows about religious families. I won't claim to know
the source of this phenomenon, but it seems reasonably clear that
many people are finding that material and political prosperity
does not seem to be a recipe for happiness or a fulfilling life.
They want something more. Most of these shows are, I think,
indicative of that desire.
And a lot of these shows are very successful, and I expect quite
good at what they are attempting to be. I certainly loved the
first five years of the X-files. So I don't mean in any way to
knock any of these shows. But I will say that while they appeal
to the interest for something more, they do not provide it. They
do not help us to find it. They give us lessons in ethics, ideas
to think about, a few moments of escape into a world of fantasy.
Nothing wrong with any of that. But it is my personal feeling
that Buffy gives us more.
Buffy gives us instruction. It shows us where the something more
is to be found, how to get it, how to hold on to it in our
own lives. In this way it is truly mythic. Joseph Campbell,
the scholar of comparative mythology who some on this board swear
by and others swear at, outlined four functions that a living
mythology had to provide. First was what he called "the mystical
function: to waken and maintain in the individual a sense of awe
and gratitude in relation to the mystery dimension of the universe,
not so that he lives in fear of it, but so that he recognizes
that he participates in it, since the mystery of being is the
mystery of his own deep being as well." A lot of shows attempt
to appeal to this idea through the inclusion of mysterious things.
Buffy certainly has no shortage of mystical things, magical spells,
vampires, demons, other dimensions. But the sense of awe it awakens
in us comes from showing us the mystical dimension of very real
things. The mystery of Joyce's death, of Buffy's life, of Willow's
grief, of passion, love, purpose, commitment, fear, destiny. The
mystical component of Buffy is not in the fantasy elements of
its plot, but in the way it handles the very real emotions and
experiences that are so familiar to us all, reminding us that
they cannot be Scullied, reduced to an explanation about chemicals
in the brain or hormones in the blood, that they are pointers
to something much larger and more significant than themselves,
and that when we grieve, love, fear, live, or even die, we are
an expression of that great mystery.
The second function, according to Campbell, is "to offer
an image of the universe that will be in accord with the knowledge
of the time, the sciences and the fields of action of the folk
to whom the mythology is actually addressed." Campbell follows
with the point that on this score, the current desire in some
parts to return to religion is doomed to failure. The story of
Christ is compelling, but it doesn't take place in the reality
in which we must actually live. He argues that what we need to
do is find the message in the old religious stories and bring
them into a new and relevant set of metaphors. And it seems to
me that Buffy does that. The message seems to be, repeatedly,
that we save the world through the sacrifices we make for others,
the love we express for them, through compassion and forgiveness
for those who display our hidden weaknesses, and that by participating
in the common sufferings of this world, even unto death, we become
an expression of the divine presence in the world itself. Hardly
original. But it takes place in our world. One can certainly argue
that there is some confusing science in the Buffyverse. I'm still
trying to figure out how Angel sported a fever in Graduation Day
or how vampire flesh heals. But the technology and science of
the day is present in the show. The fields of action are recognizable
to us. We do have schools. We do have hospitals, mayors, stores,
jobs, colleges, police forces. We have computers and scanners
and labs and microscopes, electrical grids, cell phones, cars,
cold fronts, and on and on. By and large, the world we see in
Buffy is the one in which we actually live. Obviously any show
set in the present could say that, but the combination of the
message with the image is perhaps a little more rare.
The third function Campbell describes is "to validate, support,
and imprint the norms of a given, specific moral order, that,
namely, of the society in which the individual is to live."
Buffy does this as well, not simply in its admonisions to floss
or to not kill people, or its reverance for love and compassion,
but also, in my opinion, through its recommendation of a sort
of postmodern ethics. It tells us not to desire authority, not
to desire power over others, to avoid heirarchy, to be suspicious
of institutions and their inertia, to allow ourselves to change,
to recognize our identity is made up not simply of ourselves but
of those around us as well, to find new forms of expression and
to say new things. It gives us a moral model very specific to
the culture in which we actually live today, articulating a set
of values and the dangers and opportunities in which it will be
tested.
The fourth function of a living mythology is "to guide him,
stage by stage, in the health, strength, and harmony of spirit,
through the whole foreseeable course of a useful life." Buffy
does this twice over. Campbell reviews the sequence of these stages
of a useful life. The first stage is that of the physically and
pyschologically dependent child, under the guidance and protection
of the surrounding family of adults. At some point, that child
will need to be "twice born," to die to its "childhood
season" and take its place as an independent and self-responsible
adult, to assume its role as the life, the action of its community.
And Buffy of course does this at the end of season one. Through
all of season one she has behaved as the child, but at the end
of that childhood season she dies, literally, and comes to life
anew as a committed and self-responsible member of her community.
But that second stage must eventually pass to a third stage when
one's role as the vital energy of the community begins to diminish
and one's knowledge and experience must be passed on to others,
younger ones, who will be the new vital energy of a community
in which the elder is simply wise. Buffy spends several years
as the vital energy of her community, but at the end, at the very
end, she recognizes that it is time to pass it on, to take on
a new role while a new crop of vital adults shapes a new world.
Buffy shows us, in a rather compressed format, the changes we
will need to make and what life will be like on the other side
of the divide.
But of course, Buffy isn't only about growing up physically, it
is primarily about growing up spiritually. Its messages of growth
are not aimed only at 16 year olds, they are aimed at people of
any age that still have spiritual growing to do. And to that end,
each season tells the story of a spiritual transformation that
is not dependent on age, but merely on a pyschological reorganization
to see oneself in a new light. In season one, she resists the
idea that she has a spiritual calling, a spiritual life, seeking
instead to stay a "normal" child. But she changes by
the end of the season, setting her fear aside and willingly embracing
her spiritual destiny. Through this act she is transformed into
a new and spiritually higher person. In season two, the passion
and desire awakened by her embracing of this calling threaten
to overwhelm her, and the result of her fixation is a pathological
monster. But by the end of the season, she overcomes that passion,
without rejecting it, to live out of a sense of passionately informed
commitment rather than as slave to her own desires, and she is
transformed again. In the third season she is transformed yet
again, as she overcomes both the idea of living life for herself
and the idea of living the life others would impose upon her,
to instead choose to live her life in service to others. She is
transformed again in season four, through knowledge of her spiritual
source. In season five she recognizes that spiritual source as
the energy of her own being, transforming herself again. In season
six, she transforms herself yet again by overcoming the worlds
petty bitterness and recognizing that same spiritual source and
potential in all the world around her. And finally, in season
seven, she makes the ultimate transformation, recognizing at last
that she is not unique, that she and everyone else are all one.
These spiritual transformations are addressed to anyone, of any
age and at any stage, who is interested in progressing spiritually.
And Buffy gives us sound and specific instruction on how we might
stir these powers and begin to effect these transformations.
These transformations are not random, either, not simply the spewling
of Joss Whedon's mind. They can be matched in considerable detail
to the seven chakras of Kundalini Yoga or to the story of the
Buddha, who was tempted by fear (season 1), desire (season 2),
and social responsibility (season 3). When the temptations were
rejected and the temptor dispersed, the Buddha acquired the knowledge
of previous existences (season 4), followed by the divine eye
(season 5), and then the Twelve Knots of Dependent Origination
(season 6). Finally at sunrise, the Buddha acquired omniscience
(season 7). I expect there are other traditions that recommend
the same or similar series of transformations. But my point here
is that Buffy is serious spiritual literature, of exactly
the sort that people seem to be seeking. I, at any rate, was happy
to find it.
All the characters on Buffy are metaphors, usually for some aspect
of Buffy who is herself a metaphor for us. Consequently every
episode of Buffy can tell a story of deeper richness and significance
than its plot alone suggests. Today I saw The Wish, in
which Cordelia, distraught over Xander's infidelity with Willow,
and suffering the slings and arrows from her supposed friends,
wishes that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale, and a vengeance
demon grants the wish. Cordelia is immediately placed within a
new world in which the Master rose and took over Sunnydale, since
Buffy was not there to stop him as she did in season one. Xander
and Willow, whose lives Buffy saved so many times, are dead, vampires,
since Buffy was not there to save them. Cordelia quickly recognizes
that the world was better with Buffy in it and tells Giles to
get her, but Xander and Willow kill her. Buffy arrives, a scarred
and hard loner, and goes to fight the Master, meeting along the
way the Angel that had waited for her to arrive in Sunnydale.
As they fight, Angel is killed, as are vamp Xander and vamp Willow.
The Master kills Buffy as Giles, making an enormous leap of faith
in the possibility of a better world, destroys the vengeance demon's
charm and reverses the spell, reverting everything back to normal.
We seem to end up, right where we were, with just an hour of escapist
fun.
But it was more than that. Cordelia is a metaphor for Buffy without
spiritual commitment. She is what Buffy was and would still be
had she not become the Slayer. Because of her own pain, Cordelia
makes a selfish wish to have the world be made to her liking,
into a world that lacks spiritual commitment, and she is immediately
placed into a colorless and dark existence. Cordelia, as selfish
non spiritual Buffy, has condemned her heart (Xander) and spirit
(Willow) to death, and the weight of that spiritual death ultimately
drains Cordelia herself of life. At the same time, Buffy, having
never come to Sunnydale, never found the personal commitments
to give context to her spiritual calling. The result is that she
becomes the job, a product of the institutions that created her,
with no personal connection to the world in which she must live
and struggle. So in the final battle, we see that her heart and
spirit are doubly killed, the desire (Angel) that was supposed
to kindle her love and compassion as a context for her spiritual
duties turns to dust, and Buffy's fear (The Master) of her mysterious
powers once again wins out, and she is destroyed. The only thing
that saves them all is that Giles, metaphorically Buffy's mind,
makes an explicitly conscious leap of faith, to believe that through
his small action the entire world can become a better place.
I think many of us walk on a knife's edge. We are one word, one
slip, one selfish wish away from a world in which Buffy never
came to Sunnydale. So when I see that episode, I don't just see
a great story. I recognize that I too must make that leap of faith,
that I must recognize that the pains and insults I endure in life
will not be cured by wishing the world were made to my liking.
Life will be what it is, but if I stay committed to my spiritual
progress and connected to those around me who give that progress
its worth, I just might make the world a better place.
Like it is when Buffy is in it.
That's what Buffy means to me, why I like her. That and how she
looks. I would be interested in what attracts other people to
it.
[> [> I love your posts manwitch. That was wonderful!
-- phoenix, 15:48:56 12/12/03 Fri
[> [> manwitch put it so brilliantly! But I'll add it's
about great TV.... -- Briar Rose, 00:59:41 12/13/03 Sat
Everything that manwitch said is what attracted me to BtVS and
held me watching it for so long, but I must add that if it had
only been the storylines and they hadn't come though with a fresh
and dynamic way of presenting them time after time I wouldn't
still be hooked on BtVS.
Then I look at the absolute brilliance of the interwoven stories
that even if this (and every other) board thought we'd discussed
a particular ep to death and knew every nuance? Well, something
that happened for two seconds in a bare mention that seemed rather
insignificant in season 2 might pop up as a cataclysmic turning
point in season 6!
Did BtVS "Jump the Shark?" Heck... too many times to
count!*L And in a way, that was exactly what made it so uncommon
and so enjoyable. No matter how far out JW got and ME pushed the
envelope, it always came out to where it made perfect sense in
the Universe they had created and what went on in it.
Joss Whedon and the rest of Mutant Enemy never really lost an
opportunity to shake up the audience and to give the story so
much MEAT that you could chew on it for weeks after an ep and
never quite see all the facets of the story line. A bad episode
of Buffy (and there were a few!) was better than the best of most
of the derivative stuff that is shown on TV or even cable. Ratings
be damned, the truth of the story being told always lead the show
and was respected even if the viewers didn't necessarily like
it.
The story telling is top notch, the dialog and the way that familiar
stories are re-told through JW/ME's filters is always fresh, even
the photography is done in such a way that it carries the story
- no matter which season's budget we're talking about. Even the
"lean days" of season 1 and 2 when it appeared that
ME was shooting without permission in Hollywood Memorial (and
which has been said they DID!) the mood of the shots was never
spoiled to where it took away from the story being told.
I would also add that the cast had a large part to play in bringing
the show to life. I can't even imagine any other actors in any
of the roles that were portrayed. And that definitely needs addressed
when speaking of BtVS.
And, yeah... I realize that I keep mixing present and past tense
in this. I feel like BtVS is still there and just lying dormant
for a whle. So it's hard to write in past tense when it still
feels as if it's here and on-going - if only on DVD.>^..^<
[> [> Lovely post ... but I don't agree -- dmw, 10:24:23
12/13/03 Sat
I enjoyed your analysis, which eloquently explains a great deal
about what I like about the first three seasons of BtVS and what
they began to lose after that point.
The second function, according to Campbell, is "to offer
an image of the universe that will be in accord with the knowledge
of the time, the sciences and the fields of action of the folk
to whom the mythology is actually addressed."
While BtVS didn't show as many absurdities in its early seasons
as many fantasy or SF shows, it's always had its share, and by
the last two seasons, the self-contradictions shredded the setting,
exposing gaping holes in the thin, painted facade that revealed
the reality of limited human creators underneath the illusion.
Unfortunately, Buffy fails on this function, either because the
story was continued beyond its expiration date, or because its
authors had insufficient forethought and skill to create a world
that could last for the duration of their story.
In addition to its failures of science, BtVS never managed to
find a universal modern setting like that of the high school that
would serve this function after season 3. The show restlessly
moved from the university, which might have worked, to the magic
shop, more the domain of fantasy than any place that reflects
the image of our modern world, to the claustrophobic confines
of the Summers' home, as Sunnydale and the formerly peopled world
outside receded into a solipsistic oblivion as deep as that of
the Buffy of Normal Again.
I don't have time to write similar essays about the other functions,
but I generally find your statements to be reflective of the early
seasons in general but only occasionally true for the later seasons,
where they're more often directly contradicted than affirmed.
On the other, there is a modern work that I find to fulfill all
four functions: Neil Gaiman's Sandman. It's the only modern mythology
that I've read that deeply satisfies all four functions.
[> [> What manwitch said, and more -- purplegrrl,
09:35:41 12/15/03 Mon
What is great about Buffy is that it can be satisfying on various
levels. The show delivers as strictly escapist entertainment with
its witty banter and pop culture references. On the other end
of the spectrum it delivers as a deep philosophical essay (whether
intentional or not) on modern life. And repeated viewings of the
episodes don't diminish their appeal. You enjoy reliving them
like being with old friends, or view them with new eyes as your
life/knowledge changes.
[> Why I love Buffy so much -- fidhle, 19:45:29 12/15/03
Mon
I started watching Buffy late. The first ep that I saw was Once
More with Feeling, recommended by a review in the paper. What
I saw blew me away. I have been involved in theater, and the respect
for theatrical traditions and the quality of the performances
were simply not what I expected from a teen-angst TV show with
a silly name. I started watching as much Buffy as I could after
that, and have continued to date, thanks to tape and DVD.
Buffy, for me, has great staying power. I usually don't like watching
TV shows or movies more than once, in most cases. Watching a second
time becomes boring. But not with Buffy. Every time I watch an
episode, I learn something or see something I hadn't seen previously.
The writing is that good.
Buffy is, to me, about life and living. To be sure, the setting
involves things we don't normally see in real life, such as demons,
vampires, and spectactular magic spells. But the issues in the
show are very real world. Further, Buffy seems to explain and
explore those issues in a manner which is both relevant and understandable
for the viewer.
For example, I recently saw an episode of "Joan of Arcadia"
which involved God telling Joan to take the high school bully
to a dance. At the end, in a explanatory speech by God, it turns
out that, by precipitating a crises for the bully and getting
him arrested, Joan has saved the lives of a number of students
who the bully apparantly was going to shoot, rather like Columbine.
I immediately thought of the Buffy episode "earshot"
in which Buffy disarms a student who she thought was going to
shoot the students at school. In reality, he was going to shoot
himself, but Buffy did not know that until they talked. The Buffy
episode discussed many of the pressures than might cause a student
to decide to shoot other students, and provided an excellent psychological
explaination of Columbine, which co-incidentally occured shortly
before the episode was to be broadcase.
The Joan episode, on the other hand, didn't really explore or
explain anything. Just God, in the guise of a lady with muffins,
telling Joan of the people she saved. I felt very disappointed
in that story. No question that the Buffy episode was far better
and more satisfactory, both as a story and as a discussion of
some very serious issues in society today.
For whatever reason, the most likely being the genius of Joss
Whedon, the writing for Buffy has been very insightful and helpful
in explaining and discussing serious issues, which affect most
of us at times.
The "Zeppo" gives me a good insight into why some teenagers
get into trouble, simply because they don't have the courage to
say no to apparent friends, or zombies, whichever the case may
be.
The major characters of the show, Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles,
Tara, Dawn, Spike, Angel, Cordelia, Anya, are all very human characters,
with definite virtues and flaws, who grow throughout the run of
the show. I think most people can identify closely with at least
one, if not all, of the characters.
Buffy herself, to me, represents everyperson. Most of us will
have problems like the ones Buffy experiences. I have had the
experience of the loneliness of being in charge of others in a
war, being responsible for others, and yet maybe having to put
them in mortal danger if necessary. When my father died, I went
through many of the emotions displayed in "The Body"
and I've had my share of bad, dead end jobs and crazy bosses.
These are fairly universal experiences and Buffy helps discuss
and understand the emotions and feeling involved.
Buffy helps teach how to live life, too. She can be bad and cruel,
but she always comes out of it and her basic goodness, compassion,
and sense of responsibility always help her do the right thing.
When we first see her, she simply wants to be a normal 16 year
old girl, pretty but not a terribly good student. The last thing
she wants to do is to resume being a vampire slayer. But she does
because she realizes that that is her responsibility. As Xander
says, she is a hero and when in doubt, ask what Buffy would do.
I watch the show because it is entertaining - comedy, drama, horror
and action combined in a unique and very entertaining combination.
The characters are very human, and very attractive. What is there
not to love.
[> [> Joan and the Bully -- Sofdog, 11:41:21 12/16/03
Tue
I thought the lesson there was in learning to extend oneself to
those one can't easily relate to. The message about being present
seemed widely applicable beyond the school shooting/teen angst.
It could as easily have applied to plain suicide, rising mental
illness or even saving a shut in from dying of overheat or freezing
cold.
The message seemed to be about the difference the slightest entry
into someone else's world could make.
Free with purchase -- CW, 10:17:03 12/12/03
Fri
I bought my season 5 BtVS and Firefly DVD's today. Like magic,
I find I have a whole shelf more closet space in the house than
I used to.
I'm off to a weekend of binging on ME!
Replies:
[> These are the first ME DVD sets I haven't been able to
watch the day they came out... -- Rob, 10:19:34 12/12/03
Fri
...I'm too bogged down with schoolwork!! I bought them but all
I can do is gaze longingly at my DVD shelf and return to my paper.
*sobs*
Rob
[> [> how much do I feel your pain, Rob? -- Anneth,
10:22:36 12/12/03 Fri
I won't let myself buy them till my last final is finished. (insert
moue here) Which will be in 5 days. Which is 5 days too long.
[> [> Where are your priorities Rob? -- Lunasea,
10:56:19 12/12/03 Fri
As Head Buffy Cheerleader, your number one obligation should be
to the show. You should have no life outside the show. You should
be watching Buffy and Angel constantly. No more of those other
shows that you keep talking about. What is this paper writing
that you are talking about? You already finished your paper on
Buffy (which was excellent and I hope it does get published).
There are no other papers. Get to you DVDs at once and
we will forgive this infraction.
We might have to take your pom-poms away if you don't correct
your behavior immediately. It would be a pity because you look
so dang cute in the skirt.
[> [> [> Re: Rob's Paper? -- Brian, 11:19:21
12/12/03 Fri
Hey, Rob, did you already print a link to your paper? If so, I
must have missed it while I was in Florida. Could you reprint
it? I really want to read it. Many, many thanks.
[> [> [> [> I didn't want to make the link public...
-- Rob, 13:53:39
12/12/03 Fri
...until my paper is back and graded, so I only posted it at my
LJ and sent the link to some of my friends. Even though I trust
all the posters here, including you of coursre, I know that just
about anybody potentially could read anything posted on the board,
so I didn't post it here. But if you want, send me an e-mail and
I can either e-mail you the link or the paper.
That goes for anyone else here who hasn't read the paper yet but
wants to.
Rob
[> [> [> LOL! I wish you could use this argument on
my mean professors! -- Rob, 13:55:19 12/12/03 Fri
[> [> Ah, yes the Firefly DVD -- fresne, 13:22:09
12/15/03 Mon
Which we bought yesterday and the 1st DVD is skip, jump flawed.
Sigh.
Back to the store it goes.
I want my Firefly and I want it in it's natural order. After all,
I've already seen it in disorder.
[> Re: Free with purchase -- leslie, 13:53:12 12/12/03
Fri
I spent yesterday evening watching the first 8 episodes of S5,
and all last night I dreamed about constructing a new order database
(my current project at work) which had to incorporate a morphing
vampire face in the order entry form. It just kept going on and
on and on, and finally I thought, "Why do we need vampires
on a database of sales of archaeology books?" I guess I feel
like this database project is threatening to suck the life out
of me....
[> Nick wont even let me see the BOXES until christmas
-- Giles,
14:38:20 12/12/03 Fri
Darn him and his hiding place for christmas presents that i have
no idea where it is even though it is a very small house and i
have looked everywhere.
[> Post mortem post -- CW, 08:43:32 12/15/03 Mon
Having seen the entire series this past weekend I have to say
that Firefly was doomed, even before FOX laid eyes on it. Just
too much of it was done wrong. Joss' admiration for westerns and
Sci-Fi didn't translate into any knowledge of either genre. Nathan
Fillion is a good actor, but he was wrong person to play Mal.
The character Kaylee was a mistake from start to finish; all potential
wasted on a weekly bout of her fishing for compliments which end
up being insults to her. Book was excess baggage for the sake
of a plot twist down the road. Inara's part wasn't clear enough
to the writers. What seemed like an exciting new charcter type
was quickly devolving into old stereotypes. If she was supposed
to be something more than a cross between a high-class whore and
Counselor Troy (A disappointingly weak, and repetitious ST:NG
character) then the writers needed to know that. Jayne was fine.
Zoe was fine, but why wasn't she the captain of the ship? According
to the commentary Mal's personality was originally supposed to
be very much like hers. Wash as fine except his main purpose in
the plot line seemed to be the other person in the relationship
that Joss felt he had to bust up. Simon was a waste of space.
River could easily have been Mal's sister. River would be a gorgeous
moive character, but I'm not sure how much longer she'd have worked
as a plot device (Objects in Space already showed she needed to
develope into something else quickly.)
The DVD's point out an absurd amount of concern about what others
in the business would think about the camera techiniques, and
precious little about how the show would be perceived by a wide
audience. The constant Chinese, beyond a few masked expletives,
was just foolish. Obviously, no one at ME understood what was
going on linguistically in Blade Runner and why no one spoke anything,
but English in the dialog of that movie. Part of the success of
Buffy was that at least in the earliest years it was suitable
for a wide range of target audiences. Firefly seemed to be aimed
at those people who didn't like traditional westerns or traditional
Sci-FI, the very people who were least likely to bother tuning
in to see what it was about.
FOX's stupidity didn't help one little bit, but Firefly wasn't
going to make it anyway. What was good about it was Joss's masterful
story telling. And that's the reason I wish that despite the errors
Joss made in conceiving and producing the show I wish there were
several more years of shows to view through.
[> [> Re: Post mortem post (re Firefly) -- Ames,
08:15:22 12/16/03 Tue
I've just seen the full series broadcast of Firefly on Space over
the last few months, having missed most of it the first time around.
I agree with some of what you said, but really I don't think the
series got a fair chance to settle down and figure out where it
should be going in just half a season. Perhaps the problem is
that it was overhyped and the expectations were too high - JW
built it up, and everyone was expecting it to be great right from
the start. Even BtVS was a bit erratic in the first half season.
I would agree that some of the characters seemed to lack focus,
but given time they would have become clearer. There just wasn't
time to explore their stories.
I didn't find the Western theme compelling, but I didn't hate
it either. And I liked the way the characters occasionally spoke
Chinese - although it led me to wonder why there were no Chinese
characters (did I miss some sort of backstory there?).
[> [> On characters -- KdS, 10:40:34 12/16/03
Tue
Inara's part wasn't clear enough to the writers. What seemed
like an exciting new charcter type was quickly devolving into
old stereotypes. If she was supposed to be something more than
a cross between a high-class whore and Counselor Troy (A disappointingly
weak, and repetitious ST:NG character) then the writers needed
to know that.
It wasn't Inara, IMHO, but the whole Companion concept that was
the subject of confusion among the writers. We had everything
from Edlund, who bought into the male fantasy aspect uncritically,
to Jane Espenson, who was utterly unconvinced and made it totally
clear. (I feel sure I heard somewhere that Troi was originally
meant to heal people sexually. Or was that just an anti-Roddenberry
rumour?)
Nathan Fillion is a good actor, but he was wrong person to
play Mal.
I remember reading your criticisms of Mal's leadership on various
occasions, but I'd like to know why you thought Fillion was inapproporiate
(or just tell me which thread on the FF board).
Simon was a waste of space.
Right... [ABORT FLAME! ABORT FLAME!]
Can I just boil it down to "I utterly disagree with you"?
I thought that Simon's role as the outsider who surprises everyone
else with his competence was a pivotal part of the ensemble, and
an example of a standard Western trope which fully worked in the
series. I also thought that they were hinting at exploring issues
of social class with him and Kaylee that mostly get whitewashed
in current US shows (where everyone lives like they have a $50,000
yearly income, regardless of their job).
[> [> [> Re: On characters -- CW, 11:48:57
12/16/03 Tue
I think Fillion could play a hero on most shows. I think he could
have played the part of Wash or of Jayne better than he did Mal.
NF says on the DVD's, he told Joss, he wasn't that guy (ie. Mal),
trying to tell him he was uneasy about the part. To me it showed,
but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Part of the problem
is also that it seems Mal was cast as a very closed, very private
character like Angel, but the network insisted that he be funnier
and more open. Fillion could do either funny or serious half of
Mal, but when the two mixed, he came off more than a bit sadistic
and untrustworthy. I think I said on the other board that Adam
Baldwin would have been a better choice, and I still think so.
The big problem with Simon was that he was largely used as the
guy who was supposed to be the butt of Jayne's jokes and to make
Kaylee feel bad. I think the sensitive scientist who can't do
anything, but put his foot in his mouth 90% of the time, and acts
like the competent fellow he has to be 10% of the time, really
isn't worth having, hence a waste of space. Make River Mal's sister
and have him be tender with her to the extent the rest of the
group is worried about their own safety. They'd still have a story,
and one less actor's salary eating up the budget. As a writer
if I was told I needed to trim the fat, Simon or Book would be
the place to start.
I admit I went way overboard with criticism yesterday. I was angry
with much of Joss' commentary. One thing he said was that, as
originally envisioned, Firefly was going to have a cast of five
regulars, but he decided to expand it to nine. From the very first
episode we saw, it seemed to me that there were too many characters.
Joss was definitely thinking two years down the road about the
relationships between these people, when what he really needed
to do was make damn sure there would be second and third seasons.
Go a little deeper into fewer characters would be what I'd suggest
to Joss the next time he has an idea for a new series.
[> [> [> [> I must be weird -- KdS, 12:40:04
12/16/03 Tue
I have to say, I thought the "sadistic and untrustworthy"
bit was deliberate and interesting. It's similar to my view of
Angel - I find a guy who has these tendencies, knows he has them,
and does his best to control them, just as admirable as and more
interesting than someone with no dark impulses. But I know I have
unusual tastes, and I'm sure it didn't make the series any more
ingratiating to the average viewer.
[> [> Alas poor Firefly - sob - (spoilers) -- fresne,
11:58:40 12/17/03 Wed
Funny, I felt the same way - that it was doomed, but not because
it was done wrong, but because everything was done exactly right.
For me. And according to Myers-Briggs, I'm like 2% of the population,
so yeah. Fresne loves it = doom, Doom, DOOM.
I was just grateful that for some reason Buffy lived, because
really, I'm generally Typhoid fresne for shows.
There were some rough episodes to start, but if we'd started with
Serenity then there wouldn't have been that scramble by
ME to make up for lost - who the heck are these people. The
Train Job had the highest ratings of the season. It would
have been nice if the best, catch your attention, foot had been
put forward. Sure, I love Mal's train job -bye bye kick, but I'm
weird.
It would have been nice to have started with mystery and discovery.
Meet Simon (who I grew into my favorite character) for the first
time with those sinister red glasses. To not know who the girl
in the box was. To say, "Huh." with Mal. To see Kaylee's
face as she sat wounded in her engine room, "That's my girl."
Watch Jayne crouching outside the window during Kaylee's surgery
and know that he did in fact have a depth, somewhere in there.
To race away from rievers. To Mad Ivan. Gunfights and battles
and gunfights and fist fights and fly.
Not that I'm sure that if Fox had done things other than utterly
wrong (pilot as last, episodes out of order, not much in the way
of ads once the show started, ads out of joint with the show in
the first place, etc.) that the show would have survived, because
there wasn't an aspect about Firefly that didn't catch
my heart.
And therefore, really, tiny cable network aimed at tiny slices
of the pie. Much better bet.
WHY?? -- Fred, 14:11:43 12/12/03 Fri
Qhy did Amy's spell backfire in Gingerbread. I mean she cast that
spell before right, well she should have had a handle on it. So
why did it turn her into a rat
Replies:
[> BECAUSE!! -- LittleBit (sorry, couldn't resist),
14:37:55 12/12/03 Fri
Amy didn't direct the spell toward anyone in particular, so it
worked on her.
[> I always Thought It workd the way she wanted -- Giles (Nickhawk is
writing but wont post under his own name), 14:51:12
12/12/03 Fri
I always thought that she wanted to turn herself into a rat because
she knew that she couldnt possibly turn everyone in the building
into a rat, and she wanted to get the hell out of there asap.
-Nick
Ummmm.... What he said
-Giles
[> [> Re: I always Thought It workd the way she wanted
-- skeeve, 15:24:09 12/15/03 Mon
This of course leaves the question of why she picked on a rat.
Something that could talk would have been a better choice.
ANGEL reunions: Charisma Rides Again; Gavin Park
Has Risen from the Grave (MissMatch spoilers) -- cjl, 19:57:10
12/12/03 Fri
Miss Match is definitely not my speed. It's a light 'n' fluffy
romantic comedy, and I like my TeeVee a little grittier. But Alicia
Silverstone is wearing me down. Ryan O'Neal is his usual charming
devil whenever he has screen time. And Lake Bell (Victoria) is
REALLY cute. Besides, we have not one, but two ANGEL alumni this
week, with yet a third Jossverse veteran coming up next. (These
actors are very popular for a bunch of TV shows nobody watches.)
I can see why the producers keep bringing Charisma back. She takes
the character of Serena Lockner, who could be an unbearable cliche,
and gives it some human dimension. It's like watching BtVS Season
1 and 2 Cordy, if she'd gone to L.A. and become an agent instead
of an actress. To be honest, I think Charisma could do this role
in her sleep-- but only because Joss' scripts exercised her acting
muscles; it would be hard for another actress to convey that much
undiluted bitchiness, and at the same time convince the audience
there's a tiny spark of genuine humanity underneath. Charisma
somehow balances the two beautifully.
As for Daniel Dae Kim, he's making the rounds these days: an Army
man in The Hulk, a concerned social worker on ER, and now, the
return of Gavin Park on Miss Match. Actually, the character's
name is "Clifford Kim" (points for imagination), but
he's the same shark-in-a-suit representing an evil organization.
(Would make my day if, at some point, we could see that Wolfram
and Hart is on Clifford's resume.)
His client?
If the spoilers are accurate, it's going to be Nathan Fillon.
(Are Joss Whedon fans supposed to believe this is all a coincidence?)
The plot? Serena/Charisma wants to adopt a baby, because it's
the perfect little Christmas-time accessory for the businesswoman
on the go. Kate/Alicia doesn't so much indulge Serena as get swept
away by Serena's relentless energy and shallowness; fortunately,
Serena is paying Kate her usual enormous hourly fee for shopping,
lunchtime chatting and babysitting. Kate is also working to save
the poor infant girl from a lifetime of Serena by convincing the
birth mom to take the baby back. Birth mom does, and we get a
nice couple of scenes where Serena acknowledges that she was over
her head, and she's not ready to be a mom. Fun, wealthy aunt,
yes--mom, no. Holiday episode but not too cloyingly sweet.
The other main plot involves Kate's secret romance with Michael
and her conflict of interest concerning Michael's ex, Lauren (Dina
Mayer). Lauren is shaping up to be a Lilah-level manipulative
bitch, but I'm kind of on her side here. Kate's trying to have
her cake and--well, you know the metaphor--and if Lauren wants
to roast Kate's pretty pink butt on the fire, I think Ms. Fox
deserves it. Kate should have cooled it with Michael the minute
the firm took on Lauren as a client; but no, she and Michael had
to sneak around like giggly teenagers--and now, it's gonna get
ugly.
If all that wasn't enough, Lake Bell moonlights as a naughty department
store elf who has a little Christmas fun with Kerr Smith's Santa
Claus. Now that's quality broadcasting. (For some reason, I enjoy
this type of holiday entertainment. And I'm Jewish. I'm probably
seeing Bad Santa tomorrow, with Billy Bob Thornton and Lauren
Graham as a woman with a Santa fetish.)
All in all, a satisfying hour. Fillon's episode is Monday night,
and I'll be there.
Replies:
[> I watched it too - small world -- Cheryl, 20:15:53
12/12/03 Fri
I was expecting CC but was totally surprised when I saw Daniel
(Gavin) listed in the opening credits. Small role but he could
be back. I had no idea NF was supposed to be on next Monday's
ep - I was planning to skip it but now I'll tape it.
What's the ME connection with Miss Match? Is there one or do they
all have the same agent?
[> [> The connection? Same producer and soundstage.
-- s'kat, 20:54:05 12/12/03 Fri
Gareth Davies was the "producer" which is basically
the guy who makes sure everything comes in on budget and helps
with casting on BTVS, ATS and Firefly.
It's also filmed on BTVS's old soundstage. That's right the Miss
Match sets used to be Buffy's Home and Sunnydale High.
Small World indeed.
See zapzit.com's interview with Nathan Fillion for more info.
Don't have the link.
[> [> [> And there's more... -- Fenugreek, 23:47:33
12/12/03 Fri
...than the sound stage connection to BTVS. There was another
BTVS connection on tonight's Miss Match. Gerta the nanny was played
by Merion Calvert who also played Gina (one of the zombie workers
at DMP) in Doublemeat Palace and Dead Things. I knew I recognized
her from someplace. Just thought I would mention that in an attempt
at completeness
[> Uhm a few disagreements here...;-)(MissMatch spoilers)
-- s'kat, 20:49:33 12/12/03 Fri
Uhm...not completely sure...was Kerr Smith Scott Hope?
Or in Dawson's Creek? He reminded me of Scott Hope. But he's probably
from Dawnson's Creek. His character was part of tonight's episode's
overall theme - men = can't trust them.
The other main plot involves Kate's secret romance with Michael
and her conflict of interest concerning Michael's ex, Lauren (Dina
Mayer). Lauren is shaping up to be a Lilah-level manipulative
bitch, but I'm kind of on her side here. Kate's trying to have
her cake and--well, you know the metaphor--and if Lauren wants
to roast Kate's pretty pink butt on the fire, I think Ms. Fox
deserves it. Kate should have cooled it with Michael the minute
the firm took on Lauren as a client; but no, she and Michael had
to sneak around like giggly teenagers--and now, it's gonna get
ugly.
Uhm, you misunderstood this entire plot point. But it's not your
fault since you'd have to have seen the episodes since the beginning
to understand the plot arc. If you hadn't, I can see why you might
jump to that conclusion. IF you did see all the episodes, you'd
have realized what a complete ass Michael really is and it's the
big twist. Sort of like Wes suddenly ending up in bed with Lilah
- you just don't understand the impact of it unless you've seen
the build up.
The Michael plot has been going on since the first episode. Lauren
didn't appear until about fifth? sixth? I've lost track.
At any rate - a bit of an overview, just to give an idea of what
a sleaze Michael is: Episode 1 :Kate meets Michael, tells him
she's a matchmaker - he flirts with her then asks her to set him
up with someone. To be his matchmaker. She sets him up with someone,
they don't click. A few weeks pass. Next episode. Serena appears
- Kate sets him up with Serena - they appear to click, Kate is
shocked. A week passes. They go on a double date with Kate and
her chiropractor, who Kate's started dating, Serena makes an idiot
of herself. Michael and Serena part ways. Episode 4: Kate finds
Michael someone else, a lovely art professor- Michael seems really
serious about this new girl. They date for a few weeks. The girl
falls deeply in love with Michael. She throws a huge birthday
party for him. Goes out of her way. Kate gets him a signed baseball
card. New girl is a little jealous, asks Kate to back off. Kate
backs way off. Michael calls Kate and complains he doesn't see
her anymore. He pushes his girlfriend to make up with Kate. Kate
calls him on it. They're all friends again. Episode 5: The girlfriend
(I think her name was Amy) invites Michael home for Thanksgiving.
Michael gets squirmy and forces Kate to get in the middle of it.
Luckily for Kate, there's this other, much nicer guy, but sort
of frumpy, whom she sets up with the girl and they hit it off.
Episode 6: Finally, Michael tells Kate that he has the hots for
her, and why does she kept setting him up with other people when
he loves her. Doesn't she like him. After much fretting and going
out with a client, Kate caves in and they set up a first date.
Episode 7: Kate manages to convince a bitchy new client named
Lauren who alternately insults and flatters Kate to sign up with
the firm. Kate goes to meet Michael for their first dinner date.
First DATE. HE set it up. HE talked her into it.
And guess whose there? Lauren. Michael brings his ex-girlfriend,
who Kate never heard about until now, who, I might add he hasn't
seen in a year?? Michael introduces Kate to Lauren as his matchmaker...and
makes it somewhat clear he's now interested in Kate, and is friends
with Lauren. Lauren and Michael reassure Kate that they aren't
involved. Kate goes on date two with Michael. Lauren asks Kate
if she ever wanted to date one of the people she played matchmaker
for - knowing Kate was Michael matchmaker and had planned a dinner
date with him. Lauren sees Michael and Kate kiss - and that's
when she goes to Ryan O'Neil's character (Dad) and tells him she's
uncomfortable being represented by their firm if Kate is involved
with her "ex-boyfriend", "whom she broke up with
two years ago". Dad orders Kate not to see the guy. Kate
caves. Michael pushes. Kate tries to break it off. Michael convinces
Kate that he and Lauren are just old friends, there's nothing
else going on. Kate sighs and gives in. That was where last week's
episode left off...
Okaaay...tell me again, whose the nasty here? ;-)
Poor Kate. I'm sort of hoping sparks fly with Nathan Fillion (playing
Lauren's ex-hubby) and Kate gives Michael the boot - now, that
would be a "real" conflict of interest.
This? Not a conflict of interest. Except maybe for Michael, whose
lied to Kate repeatedly. And for Lauren whose not only lied to
Kate, but may have been involved with someone while married, giving
her ex-husband grounds to cut her off without a cent. Confusing
plot arc. Not the best. But there it is. Kate's a bit of a doormat..unfortunately.
I keep waiting for her to build a little backbone. Maybe her friend
can teach her.
sk
[> [> Michael: Dreamboat, weenie or smooth-talkin' bastard?
-- cjl, 07:27:56 12/13/03 Sat
This is more thought than I wanted to give to this show, but I'll
play along here. Now that you've given me all the background information,
I'm thinking much less of Michael, but I'm not exactly sure (despite
the episode-ender) that he's been telling bald-faced lies to Kate;
I think he still has feelings for Lauren, but doesn't want to
acknowledge them, to Kate, Lauren or himself. (On the scale, I
think he's solidly in the "weenie" category.)
That said, Michael could well be a smooth-talkin' bastard, trying
to have his cake and...well, you know the metaphor...stringing
Kate along while pursuing Lauren. But I think Lauren pulled a
neat little power play at Laguna Sands, telling Michael that Kate
blew him off and she oh-so-kindly decided to pinch hit. (Or something.)
Besides, the producers have exerted a lot of energy setting him
up as the nice guy in a city of sharks. (Would be interesting
if they pulled a switch, and made Michael the villain.)
And Kate? I still think she made the wrong decision.
Is the situation fair? No. Lauren had no right to reach into Kate's
personal life, and Kate's dad shouldn't have backed Lauren up.
But that's business. Lauren is going to pump a TON of money into
the firm, and she's the client. Kate's relationship with Michael
is too new to stand the kind of stress we're dealing with here.
Time to step back, Katie. Michael insists he feels nothing for
Lauren? Fine. K&M will pick things up when the case is over. And
if Michael is lying about his feelings for Lauren? Then he's a
liar, and K&M are doomed anyway.
I sympathize, though. Given the same circumstances, I'm not sure
I would I be Mr. Ethical and tell my pretty new GF to back away.
But then, this isn't my show...
[> [> Scott Hope -- Dochawk, 16:09:16 12/13/03
Sat
Nope, Scott Hope was played by Fab Fabrizio, who is currently
Ethan Gold, a gay man, on Queer as Folk. This explains the reference
in CwDP where Webs tells Buffy that Scott is now gay. I always
wondered if that part was originally written to be SH, but the
actor was previously engaged so it had to be changed.
[> [> [> One of my other favorite tv shows :)
-- Giles,
19:51:15 12/13/03 Sat
He does a great job on QAF, btw, how are you dochawk? i haventseen
you in ages
[> [> [> Thanks! It was Dawson's Creek then...
-- s'kat, 23:31:22 12/13/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Yup...Santa was played by Kerr Smith,
who used to play Jack, the gay character on 'Dawson'... --
Rob, 07:47:50 12/14/03 Sun
...which may be why you got him confused with the guy from QAF.
Rob
[> Batgirl vs. Capt. Mal & Gavin Park vs. Batgirl, or: Shadowkat
was right (Miss Match spoilers) -- cjl, 21:35:01 12/15/03
Mon
S'kat, you were right. Michael went so far beyond "weenie"
in this episode that I'm not sure Kate wants to see him again.
(Heck, I'm not even sure I want to see him again.) I mean, possibly
having residual feelings for a psycho ex-girlfriend is one thing;
concealing a months (year-?) long erotic e-mail correspondence
with said ex-girlfriend is another. Thank god Kate found enough
backbone to tell him to GO AWAY.
A question to all the lawyers on the board: how did Clifford/Gavin/DDK
manage to spring that "surprise" in the courtroom? When
Capt. Mal's lawyers subpoenaed Michael to show up in court, weren't
Kate and Jerrold entitled to a look at whatever evidence the other
side was going to present? Either I don't have enough knowledge
about the law, the show's creators don't have enough knowledge
about the law, or Fox and Associates are really stupid. (None
of the above options would shock me.)
Nathan Fillion was supremely charming as Lauren's ex, and he looked
and sounded relatively honest and straightforward. Of course,
compared to Lauren, a used car dealer would sound honest and straightforward.
He was flirting with Kate and she didn't seem too opposed to the
idea. (Especially by the end of the episode.) I still think he's
evil, though--and if Kate decides to hook up with him, I can all-but
guarantee another car plowing into the already-blazing wreck.
There were other plotlines, but not much of interest. I have no
idea what's going on between Nick and Victoria, but I don't feel
the heat. And as for the Indian client, you had to be completely
oblivious not to see the Brother Option coming a mile away. (Although
I did like the Hindu-ized version of "Every Breath you Take.")
I don't know. I'll wait for Nathan Fillion to end his run, and
I'll tune in when Charisma visits--but otherwise, I don't know
if I want to stay with the show. By turning Michael into a complete
weasel, I don't have any reason to be invested in his relationship
with Kate. The creators may have sabotaged themselves here.
Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- Felicia,
11:53:54 12/13/03 Sat
I'm confused about something. In "Something Blue", Willow
casts some kind of "I will" spell, causing Giles to
go blind, Xander to attract demns, and Buffy and Spike to get
engaged. Now I realized that everyone's basic characters do not
change because of this spell. But what I don't understand is why
Buffy and Spike would believe that they were in love. All Willow
had said was why don't Buffy marry Spike. She said nothing about
the pair expressing their love for one another. And quite frankly,
not everyone who get engaged are automatically in love. So how
did Buffy and Spike end up believing they were in love?
Replies:
[> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- angelverse,
11:59:02 12/13/03 Sat
one can only speculate that the "love" and "affection"
we see them have for one another in season 6 and 7 was latent
during that season and that willows spell brought it out in full
force. maybe it took their feelings and exaggerated them to that
point. thats my take
[> [> Or alternatively... -- KdS, 14:44:10 12/13/03
Sat
Both Buffy and Spike are pretty romantic types - it's perfectly
possible that in their minds marriage would automatically imply
love.
[> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue' -- Claudia,
07:34:33 12/15/03 Mon
[one can only speculate that the "love" and "affection"
we see them have for one another in season 6 and 7 was latent
during that season and that willows spell brought it out in full
force. maybe it took their feelings and exaggerated them to that
point. thats my take]
Considering my own theories about Buffy and Spike's feelings for
each other, I'm inclined to agree with you.
[> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue'
-- The Sorcerer, 03:34:57 12/16/03 Tue
If you consider realverse magic to be any bearing on Buffyverse
magic, it is more probable that in Willow's mind marriage necessitates
love or at least instantly evokes the sense of marriage requiring
love and therefore the effect of the spell reflected such.
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something Blue'
-- Claudia, 10:44:12 12/16/03 Tue
Or their behavior could be a reflection of . . . well, not their
true feelings for one another, but some kind of attraction that
neither was willing to face.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something
Blue' -- The Sorcerer, 06:14:19 12/17/03 Wed
I suppose the spell could have provided a medium or "excuse"
to express those feelings which may have been buried deep within
them, but I think it has more to do with Willow than Buffy and
Spike. Then again, I'm presupposing Buffyverse magic works on
the same principles realverse magic does.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's Spell in 'Something
Blue' -- auroramama, 14:58:24 12/18/03 Thu
I like that take on it. After all, "marry him" was the
climax of a complaint about Buffy's being more involved, in a
manner of speaking, with Spike than with Willow. The rational
reason offered was that Buffy had to pursue Spike because was
evil, but Willow discounted him as a threat or even as a fugitive.
So what did Willow think was going on? Buffy must prefer chasing
Spike around to comforting her friend! Therefore the marriage
that Willow's mind created had to involve a desire on Buffy's
part to spend all her time with Spike. A marriage of convenience
or necessity wouldn't fit the bill.
A note about analytical psychology and an apology
-- lunasea, 18:29:48 12/13/03 Sat
I apologize to anyone I have offended, especially Shadowkat. I
have been working on phrasing things. I am sorry if my words have
been inadequate to explain Dr. Jung's theories. That is what I
have been trying to do and my failings come from attempting to
focus the show, specifically the character of Cordelia Chase,
through the lens of Analytical Psychology. I will freely admit
that the show does not exist on one plane and requires many lens
in order to see it in its entirety clearly. I am using but one
lens in order to get one plane into focus. This is necessary in
order to get that one plane into as sharp a focus as possible.
We have many wonderful discussions on the board about the archetypal
images. The archetypes are but one part of Dr. Jung's theory about
the self-regulation of the psyche. The archetypes fit into a much
larger picture and I was trying to expand discussions we have
had in the past so that we could see how the characters and show
fit into this much larger picture. I did not use the words allegory
or metaphor. Since I was speaking from the lens of Analytical
Psychology, I used the terms that Dr. Jung used to explain his
theories. If I were to use anything, I would say archetypal images,
as he did.
Allegory and metaphor can be conscious or unconscious. The allegory
which punkinpuss has spoken about as "prosaic" tends
to be deliberate/conscious. The demons on BtVS tend to be this.
They are deliberately/consciously designed to represent something.
Another example is in "Older and Farther Away" everyone
trapped the house represented something in Buffy's psyche. In
"Primeval" when Buffy/Willow/Giles/Xander are Hand/Spirit/Mind/Heart
that is also a conscious design for that episode. There are many
examples of deliberate allegory and metaphor on the shows.
What I am exploring are the main characters, which "Primeval"
labeled as Hand/Spirit/Mind/Heart. If we look back to the seasons
prior to this, we can see how the characters filled these roles
before this. Was this a conscious design? I don't think so. In
tracing Xander's evolution the three seasons prior to "Primeval,"
which I wrote about this summer, I knew I was looking at evidence
of a complex. This is defined by Dr. Jung as feeling-toned ideas
that over the years accumulate around certain archetypes, forming
the archetypal images. Xander was an archetypal image. There are
plenty of essays by plenty of posters supporting this in the archives.
To label something a particular archetypal image can be seen as
being limiting or it can be seen as a necessary part of the self-regulation
of the psyche, a process that leads to individuation. Dr. Jung
did not believe that complete individuation was possible. He also
said "The goal is important only as an idea; the essential
thing is the opus which leads to the goal: that is the goal of
a lifetime." Just because something can't be done, doesn't
mean it shouldn't be attempted. That may be the ultimate message
of Angel. Shanshu may be just an unattainable goal, but a goal
that Angel should still strive for. In striving for it, he becomes
more human, which is not limiting. It is dissociating into the
complexes and exploring those complexes that leads to individuation.
We have discussed Buffy/Willow/Giles/Xander from Hand/Spirit/Mind/Heart,
mainly because "Primeval" labeled them as such. That
isn't the only archetypal image they are. Buffy is not only Hand,
but also Hero and Self. Willow is not only Spirit, but Feminine
Consciousness. An interesting exploration is why Feminine Consciousness
is portrayed in Buffy by Spirit and not Heart. When Buffy loses
her connection to Willow season 6, she leaves the realm of consciousness
and goes completely into shadow with Spike. How the viewer perceives
this (good or bad) speaks to our own complexes.
BtVS is gone, but not forgotten. We will continue to talk about
that side of the Buffyverse as much as people still talk about
Middle Earth. AtS is still around and giving us new material for
the story. I have been trying to see how the process of individuation
is being demonstrated with Angel's hero's journey. Currently my
focus is Fred as anima. That is the archetypal image I am currently
interested in. Cordelia used to fill this roll and as such, she
is something I wanted to explore through this particular lens.
The animus or anima does not tie us to the world. It ties us to
the unconscious. It is often the soul-image of the unconscious.
On the show this manifests as tie to the supernatural. Giles is
the animus of Buffy, just as Cordelia is the anima of Angel. What
ties us to the world is the consciousness. That would be Willow
for Buffy and Wesley for Angel. This triangle between anima/animus,
consciousness and self is something that interests me now. It
is something I have been exploring on the board, in the journals,
talking with friends, and in my dreams.
That isn't limiting, because just like the writers brought in
extra characters to round out Buffy's psyche in "Older and
Farther Away," my psyche can always expand what I am interested
in. Today my favorite character is Fred. Tomorrow it may be Eve.
I only limit myself if I force myself to stay with Fred. A few
months ago, my focus was more on Angel. Season 6 of BtVS, it was
Willow that held my interest. That is the beauty of the show.
Many archetypal forms are there, so I can latch onto whatever
my particular needs at the time dictate. That is why when I watch
the seasons again, I see different things. The shows haven't changed.
I have.
The show is written from many different layers. Just as Cordelia
is Angel's anima, Lilah was written to be her foil. I am not saying
those layers don't exist. I am just not discussing them at this
particular time. I am interested in the interaction between anima,
conscious and self. I am focusing on that to better understand
it. That is what my psyche is driving me to do. I see nothing
wrong or limiting in doing this.
One more thing before I go. I am not saying that what I am seeing
was consciously written or that the writers try to pigeon hole
the characters into these images or even should. Xander as Heart
was probably unconscious seasons 1-3 and by the time they got
to "Primeval" the image was assimilated into the consciousness.
The show changes after this point and that could be because of
the individuation writing "Primeval" represented. All
I am trying to do is consciously analyze the show so that I can
consciously analyze the relationship of anima, conscious and self.
If that attempt offends anyone, I am sorry.
Replies:
[> Apologies not necessary... -- Corwin of Amber, 21:46:13
12/13/03 Sat
I think people took some of your phrasing...overly personally.
BTVS is unusual for network TV in that it rewards the viewers
for investing themselves in the characters. That's good, in that
it leads to passioned debate, but it's bad, in that people are
surprisingly easy to offend because they identify with the characters.
Personally, I find your essays some of the most thought provoking
on the board (even forcing me to do outside research, which i
thoroughly enjoy) and I hope I you don't change them because of
the latest brouhaha.
[> [> Re: Apologies not necessary... -- jane, 22:10:54
12/13/03 Sat
I agree with Corwin. I thoroughly enjoy the debates this board
brings, and find so much to think about because of them. Although
I might not agree with you (or with any other poster) about a
particular point, the fact that a TV show can stimulate such thoughtful
discussions is amazing. Everyone sees it through their own lens.
My feeling is "vive la difference!" I like a good debate,
as long as it focuses on the issues.
[> [> [> Thank you both for the very kind words
-- lunasea, 19:39:32 12/14/03 Sun
I will keep posting and hope that my next stuff about anima/animus
is interesting. It may take a while to get it out. I need to go
back and reread a few of Dr. Jung's papers. I will try to define
terms as I go along.
I love how the show can be warp for us each to weave ourselves
around and create these amazing tapestries. The posts and various
perspectives that people bring to the show are as interesting
as the shows themselves. Sometimes I can't help but analyze those
instead of the shows.
[> Apology accepted. Want to try again? (spoilers to Destiny
5.8) -- s'kat, 22:41:19 12/13/03 Sat
Thank you for the apology.
I don't think you and I will ever agree on certain things.
But hey, that's a given in any interaction. ;-) And you do have
a tendency to push my buttons...
Also as I admitted below, I'm really uncomfortable discussing
things in pure Jungian or Freudian terms. I have troubles with
both analysts on a certain level and the terminology often confuses
me. Allegory happens when something is shown in purely archetypal
or symbolic terms - everything is examined as merely a symbol.
The series the Prisoner is a good example of this - literally
every character was used as a psychological archetype. The Matrix-
the last two films slipped into this as well, all the characters
became symbols for Neo's journey. Red Dwarf - a friend of mine
describes purely in this manner as well. From what you've said
above, you clearly realize that BTVS and ATS aren't allegories,
so I misunderstood you and possibly over-reacted. What pushed
my buttons were comments like: "Spike is sketchily written",
"He's just Buffy's shadow""the idea of Cordy as
hero? blech!" and "Fred needs to spend more time with
Angel than with Spike!"...it distracted me and made it impossible
for me to see anything else you wrote, I got angry and upset,
you took me out of calm analytical mode and all I saw was red.
So, what I think happened is your emotions got in the way of your
analysis as did mine. That's a shame, because from what you stated
above? I think we do agree on a few things and are in some ways
interested in figuring out similar issues, just not going about
it exactly the same way. IF you'll forgive the analogy, one of
us is going at it the way Fred might and the other the way Willow
might.(I use those two characters b/c we both share a love for
them, that way no one gets offended.)
Okay that said, I'd like to attempt to start our discussion again,
but unfortunately you're going to have to tolerate the fact that
I'm not familar with most of the Jungian terminology and not comfortable
with strict formulas. What I can offer is my love of finding patterns
and reading visual metaphors. I like playing that game and am
willing to attempt to do that more in pseudo Jung terms than say,
noir ones. So, I guess what I'm asking is would you like to attempt
this again with the understanding that I'm no expert on Jung,
and my syntax will be completely off at times? (Heck I've been
known to make up words as well).
***********************************
(Bear with me, this may seem rambling at times, also, I'm writing
this in a posting box not word and have been disconnected from
the net three times already...so mistakes will be numerous.)
A friend and I have been trying to figure out Angel's psychological
journey in discussions for over a year now. Tonight we were discussing
the psychological/archetypal roles. For instance - tonight we
came to the conclusion that Xander was Buffy's animus (he was
by the way, I believe you're mistaken about Giles, no wait, not
completely mistaken, you just didn't go far enough - Giles fulfilled
an element of that, just as I believe Angel, Wood, Caleb, Warren,
Andrew, Holden, Forrest, Spike and Riley did, but Xander was the
central one = the heart/animus, the writers say as much in Primeval
and again in Selfless. The animus takes many archetypal forms
- it might be interesting to examine how each male in the show
symbolizes a different way or function of Buffy's animus? Or rather
her relationship with it? Part of the difficulty my friend and
I had with S7, is we wished the writers had made Xander the co-hort
of the First not Caleb, and Buffy's task was to forgive Xander
her animus, as opposed to slicing him in half...this would have
echoed Angel and Cordeli perfectly in S4). Cordelia, I believe,
had always been Angel's. I think they may have even set this up
as early as S2, which is why it's interesting that Xander and
Cordy get hot and heavy the same time Buffy and Angel do.
Then when Xander and Cordy break up in Lovers Walk, caused by
a stomach wound - which is repeated in Becoming (Angel stabbed
through the stomach), Selfless (Anya through the stomach) and
Habeas Corpus (Lilah through the stomach) - Cordy almost dying
b/c of Xander - is when Buffy breaks up with Angel. It's a nice
corollary. What I like about the shows is ME gives all the characters
arcteypal representations, Angel has an anima, Buffy does, Spike
does (it's Buffy), Willow does (it may be Warren). But to focus
on all of them or analyze all of them at once would drive people
nuts and confuse them. So I'll restrain myself. My mind tends
to be a bit like Fred's it spits out tons of information at once.
I do enjoy Fred, she is my favorite female character currently,
written two essays on her already. But I don't think she's Angel's
"sole" anima. Fred symbolizes one aspect of the anima...hmmm
I wonder if that might work better? To see each of the female
characters as aspects of Angel's anima? (Similar to what I did
with Buffy above?)
Cordelia is still in the show by the way (just asleep, which is
vitally important) Angel has put the portion of the anima he can't
deal with to sleep, while allowing the portion he can deal with
to remain awake - Fred, the studious, non-agressive, damsel as
opposed to the powerful, aggressive, tell it like it is, in your
face bitch goddess. By denying the one and permitting the other
- we see an unbalanced Angel filled with a sense of self-loathing.
The portion asleep is also popping up and taunting him through
EVE who may in fact be an echo of it - just as Lilah was possibly
in Home. If so, isn't it interesting that the echo has teamed
up with Angel's shadowself? Wonder what that means? And Harmony?
Another echo of the sleeping Cordy. Putting Cordy to sleep - causes
the aspect of the anima she represented to split into three: Fred,
Eve, Harmony. With the sleeping Cordy - sign of Angel's desire
to suppress her. Another way of interpreting Unleashed - may be
that Nina represents both sides of this anima - the monster and
the damsel - the damsel -Angel talks with and saves, the monster
- Angel puts to sleep. Note Fred befriends the damsel but does
not interact with the monster. (What pushed my buttons in your
post below was the statement: Angel should be spending more time
with Fred than Spike. What I'm more interested in, is why have
the writers chosen to put Spike and Fred together? I'm wondering
if Spike may be the mirror of Angel? Not the shadow and here I
realize I'm leaving Jung behind and this why I'm not comfortable
with Jung because the analysis limits me in my own analysis..if
I stick with Jung I get stuck...but I've never much liked formulas
or limitations, as you no doubt noticed about my unstructured
rambling posting style...;-) I think Spike is Angel's mirror self,
the split side. (If you want to explore this through the head
cheese - Whedon, I'm wondering if Spike and Angel may be two halves
of Whedon's persona? Spike - the side with the aggressive radical
feminist mother who became sick and Whedon couldn't save and Angel-the
side with the successful and busy father who demanded a great
deal but was never there. So perhaps Spike and Angel need to find
a way of joining, becoming partners, to resolve their issues?
Sorry, one of my current obsessions with the show is the Spike/Angel
relationship.) I think the shadow this year is Lindsey, as it
was in S1-2.
(In S3, it was definitely Holtz, with a little of Wes thrown in,
although I see Wes in S3/S4 being more of a mirror character as
well. I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable with the idea of Wes as mind
or spirit, it doesn't work for me. I do see him forming some of
the same functions as Willow though...something just feels off
about it. Maybe it's just the spirit archetype that doesn't work
for me? So I can't help or add to that one.) In S4, the shadow's
Connor, although I see him as the inner child as well.
Lindsey though is the shadow this year.
Well I hope that made a lick of sense. I also hope I didn't inadvertently
push your buttons in it. Button pushing is a tough thing to avoid,
I'm afraid. I will try hard not to overreact again to what you
say...but can't promise anything. Emotionally volatile right now.
sk
PS: Thank you again for the apology. I hope this will start us
off on a better foot.
[> [> A bit more Jungian theory -- lunasea, 08:38:24
12/14/03 Sun
The hero's journey is just that--a journey. The symbols that make
up the story are there to give form to this journey. The journey
is what I am most interested in. This journey illustrates what
Jung termed the self-regulation of the psyche. So that we are
on the same page, this process is described at the following:
1. Difficulty of adaptation. Little progression of libido.
2. Regression of energy (depression, lack of disposable energy).
3. Activation of unconscious contents (fantasies, complexes, archetypal
images, inferior function, opposite attitude, shadow, anima/animus,
etc.). Compensation.
4. Symptoms of neurosis (confusion, fear, anxiety, guilt, moods,
extreme affect, etc.).
5. Unconscious or half-conscious conflict between ego and contents
activated in the unconscious. Inner tension. Defensive reactions.
6. Activation of the transcendent function, involving the self
and archetypal patterns of wholeness.
7. Formation of symbols (numinosity, synchronicity).
8. Transfer of energy between unconscious contents and consciousness.
Enlargement of the ego, progression of energy.
9. Assimilation of unconscious contents. Individuation.
Not only does the hero's journey give form to this, but it is
a part of it. It is step three. The various characters are an
activation of the writers' unconscious. As the writer goes through
the process towards individution, when the story continues, the
characters also progress towards individuation and vice versa.
It is often through writing the story that we can go through this
process. Have you ever looked back on a story to see why you wrote
it? Why that particular story? What personal meaning does it hold
for you? If Joss is Xander as he realizes, what did he learn from
writing the story? The final empowerment that Buffy/Willow do
in "Chosen" is done on a smaller scale throughout the
series by Xander.
Later today, I will be looking at several things: how Angel and
Giles were Buffy's animus, how and maybe why Angel's role evolved
beyond this, Cordy as possessed by animus (give me a chance to
explain the concept, before you get upset). Then tomorrow, I will
do how this carries over to AtS.
First a few terms, so we are on the same page. If you need a good
resource for Jungian terms, I recommend Jung
Lexicon It is a lot easier than trying to work with the Collected
Works.
Soul: I have been compelled, in my investigations into the structure
of the unconscious, to make a conceptual distinction between soul
and psyche. By psyche I understand the totality of all psychic
processes, conscious as well as unconscious. By soul, on the other
hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that
can best be described as a "personality." [Definitions,"
CW 6, par. 797]
"The "soul" which accrues to ego-consciousness
during the opus has a feminine character in the man and a masculine
character in a woman. His anima wants to reconcile and unite;
her animus tries to discern and discriminate."[The Psychology
of the Transference," CW 16, par. 522.]
This will be something that I will focus on in later posts. Buffy
is so rich because she is Joss' anima, but also as hero/self has
animus. Angel is seen to be less metaphorical than Buffy because
he lines up with the writers for the most part, so this level
is missing for the most part.
BtVS is about reconciling and uniting, but Giles is trying to
get Buffy to discern and discriminate. I will focus more on BtVS
to illustrate the concepts before moving onto AtS and Cordy. I
will refrain from discussing Spike and season 6 until much later.
Anima and animus get interesting because they are both a personal
complex and an archetypal image. Archetype is an "instinctual
image" which is the psychic counterpart to instinct. The
process of individuation is taking instinct and making it conscious.
This is done through the process I give above, the process of
individuation. "Psychologically . . . the archetype as an
image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature
of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way,
the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon."["On
the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 415.]
Jung admits that much confusion of his theories comes from using
the word archetype in place of archetypal image. An archetype
has no form and "can be recognized only from the effects
they produce."["A Psychological Approach to the Trinity,"
CW 11, par. 222, note 2.] I wish to avoid such confusion, so I
will use archetype when I mean archetype and archetypal image
when I am talking about the form it is taking.
When we look at Cordelia, she is an archetypal image. Her role
as anima or good mother or anything else is also an archetypal
image. The archetype would have to be something tied back to instinct,
such as our desire to be nurtured or to nurture others. At this
point, I'm not going back that far. Anima is far enough for the
purpose of this discussion.
Anima and animus get complicated in a society that has lived through
feminism. Things aren't assigned to sex any more, or at least
we try not to. There are still biological drives/instincts that
are determined by sex. It is hard to apply Dr. Jung or Dr. Freud's
theories that do have this sex component to them to a society
that has tried to get away from sex, but I still find what they
said to be valid, even if it needs some modification.
Maybe that helps clear things a bit or muddies it up completely.
I will do a separate post to address specifically what you have
said. Hopefully what I have said above can serve as a framework
for the discussion and keep things on a less personal level.
[> [> Now a direct response (spoilers Destiny) --
lunasea, 10:19:08 12/14/03 Sun
I think it may be best to separate my responses to you from any
additions I make to the discussion. I don't want you to think
I am not listening or directly responding to you and instead am
just spouting off my own theories/perspective. I will add on my
own stuff about Buffy, Angel, Giles, Cordy to the subthread that
I started "A bit more Jungian theory." I would like
to keep the lens of psychology to one thread, until it gets as
long as the initial Cordy thread did.
I find pure allegory uninteresting. The episode that most illustrates
allegory on BtVS isn't "Restless." It is "Older
and Farther Away." Let's get all Buffy's psychological components
under one roof, even if we have to bring in a few extra characters.
The house is a very standard symbol of Self. I am exploring Cordy
as anima so that I can work up to Fred and see how Angel's relationship
with this component has changed. We can use Darla, Buffy, Cordy
and Fred as the four levels of development that Dr. Jung theorized
or perhaps it is Darla, Buffy, Cordy/Fred, Buffy. The progression
from character to character, from Eve to Helen to Mary to Sophia
is what interests me. We could even trace Cordy's development
in these roles. There are various things that can be done beyond
just pigeon holing Cordy into a title.
One of the things I like about Stephen DeKnight's writing is the
thing he does exceedingly well, IMO, is show how one thing leads
to another. His dreams aren't about symbols, but how one symbol
gives rise to another. These connections are the heart of his
episodes. It is a visual word association. It is one thing I wish
I could do in my own writing.
"Spike is sketchily written" I don't see this as an
insult, to the character or his fans. Gunn is sketchily written.
So was Tara. Other than Buffy's kid sister, Dawn didn't have a
whole lot to her most of the time. How much do we know about Fred?
Season 1, how much did we know about Angel? How much do we know
about Spike outside of Buffy? I thought it was fitting he came
back noncorporeal, because he didn't have much of an existance
outside of Buffy. This isn't an insult. It's just the needs of
the story and medium. It isn't meant to be a put down of the character
or as a fan. It is just an observation about how much of the story
he got.
"He's just Buffy's shadow" There is nothing demeaning
about that. It isn't just as in he is beneath Buffy or that the
shadow is no big deal. It is that he isn't animus. He can't be,
by virtue of his character. The animus is Logos. That is why it
is Giles and Angel and not Xander. Psychologically speaking, I
think Xander is author's self. That is why he is heart. Heart
is the part of individuation that Joss was working on. The reconciliation
and uniting is Eros often symbolized by heart. In many ways, Xander
was witness to what was happening. Buffy is hero/self that needs
to learn the lesson, but even as far back as season 1, Xander
knew and exhibited that lesson. Please don't take this as an insult
to the character or you as a fan.
I spent a great time and libido (psychic energy) on a image I
refered to as "The Bitch." When I was exploring how
far I had come and if in fact I had changed, I was most interested
in the dichotomy between Angel and Angelus. Seeing Angelus in
a cage confirmed for me that this image was no longer a complex
for me. That is why Spike holds little interest for me. That is
me. I am not interested in that aspect of Buffy's shadow. If you
are, that is great.
I think something happened on the show though. With Giles being
gone season 6, the female writers had no animus any more. Spike
became that for them and they wrote him more sympathetically then
the male writers did. Fury's comments about Spike are Spike as
shadow and Jane and RRK probably saw him more as animus. I think
our own disagreement arises from this. Perhaps later, if we survive
discussing Cordelia, we can discuss Spike through this lens. It
is this complexity of the role of the character in relationship
to Buffy played against what he is for the writers that give the
show such texture.
"the idea of Cordy as hero? blech!" Cordy had a history
on BtVS that they just ignored when she crossed over. Greenwalt
isn't Joss and when the story changed hands, the characters became
what the new author saw them as. Wesley barely was a character,
so that was ok. Joss had a pretty good idea of what Angel was
and set this down in "Amends," so that was ok. Calling
Cordy "big smile girl" to me misses her whole character.
As Skip said, "No, Cordelia was chosen to become a higher
being because she's such a pure, radiant saint. (scoffs) Puh-lease."
This is after Greenwalt leaves. Maybe Greenwalt saw her as a hero.
Maybe you do. I think Skip was speaking for those of us who don't.
Maybe my tone is a bit off, but it is just fan girl. She keeps
the essays from getting too academic. The show used humor to undercut
even the most dramatic moments. I do the same with fan girl. I'm
sorry if the style is offensive to you. It is still a TV show
and even though I get a lot of out it personally, the key is to
remember the fun.
"Fred needs to spend more time with Angel than with Spike!"
Fred is anima and heart. Angel needs her. Angel is still the hero/self/story.
I can rephrase that as Angel needs Fred to spend more time with
him, though I think Fred will need it as well. Fred is instead
spending her time in the shadow. If you want to see my wacky idea
with what I think they are going to do with her this season, it
is in my journal. Just ignore the fan girl stuff dismissing Spike.
**************
We are seeing season 7 a bit differently. Season 4 was a transition
that occurs once Joss has individuated regarding the archetypal
images of Giles/Xander/Willow, which he consciously labels Mind/Heart/Spirit.
Seasons 5-7 are taking each one of those things and incorporating
them into Buffy. In season 5, Buffy doubts her ability to love.
After this season, Xander is pretty absent. Heart has been Individuated.
Season 6 focuses on Willow, Spirit. We see what happens to Buffy
when she loses touch with this, what it takes to get it back and
how this affects her. Season 7 focuses on Mind, Logos, Animus.
Buffy is what is known as possessed by Animus this season. This
manifests negatively in fixed ideas, collective opinions and unconscious,
a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. Buffy needed
Giles' opinion and approval when it came to the Sycthe spell.
Season 5-7, Buffy incorporates and transcends heart/Xander, spirit/Willow
and mind/Giles. It is too bad that ASH wasn't more available for
Season 7, for this should have been the season of Giles. That
is what I see.
Season 2, we have three couples--Buffy/Angel, Willow/Oz and Xander/Cordelia.
Buffy is self/hero. Angel is animus. Willow is feminine consciousness
and she connects with the unconsious/beast part of Angel. Xander
is the author's self and he connects with a representation of
Buffy as not Slayer. We have the supernatural pair of Buffy/Angel.
The completely human pair of Xander/Cordelia and the in-between
pair of Willow/Oz. There are many parallels going on here, but
I don't see Cordy as Angel's animus season 2, other than Buffy
is sort of (if we are looking at it from Angel's perspective,
though that perspective is limited) and Cordy parallels to Buffy.
Actually there is one more couple, Giles/Jenny, but we can talk
about that later if you want. There is so many yummies here. I'm
going to gain 50 lbs. That is why I am trying to just focus on
the main characters and how the others relate to them. We can
view the show from each character's perspective, but then we have
the problem that the main character is the one that has the most
material and is Self. I wouldn't say that Gunn is Fred's animus,
but that they got together because Angel's mission became his
son, so spirit/mission and heart/anima got involved.
Angel didn't put Cordelia to sleep. I think that is important.
It isn't he can't deal with that part, but that part has been
incorporated/evolved and isn't necessary to the story any more.
She is in the coma for the same reason Spike got toasted and ghosted.
People have commented on how Angel's tends to rescue the damsel,
but it is this part of Angel that Angel needs to rescue in himself.
I am also interested in why Fred is the one helping Spike, though
psychologically I know the answer. Angel/Spike are self/shadow.
Shadow is unconscious. Wesley is masculine consciousness/Logos
and is where Angel is right now, though Angel disses him too.
Angel is exhibiting many of the traits that in a woman would be
termed possession by animus. Fred as anima has been pushed into
the shadow, into dealing with Spike and not Angel. Spike occupied
her time.
Spike is corporeal now. He won't need Fred's attention. At this
point, Fred is disconnected from Angel. "Lineage" did
a good job disconnecting her from Wesley. She's not going back
to Gunn, who is disconnected from everyone by virtue of being
lawyered up. That leaves Knox. Fred needs to reconnect with Angel,
for both of their good. Eventually, she needs to end up with her
true love, Wesley.
Very interesting idea about Joss re:Spike and Angel as split sides
of him. Angel will have to find a way of dealing with Spike, just
like he has to deal with every character. I think this season,
Spike isn't the ultimate one he has to work with, but the ultimate
shadow, the Senior Partners. Jasmine kicked Angel's evolution
up a few notches.
[> [> [> Re: Now a direct response (spoilers Destiny)
-- sukhrit, 13:34:58 12/14/03 Sun
"Spike is sketchily written" I don't see this as
an insult, to the character or his fans. Gunn is sketchily written.
So was Tara. Other than Buffy's kid sister, Dawn didn't have a
whole lot to her most of the time. How much do we know about Fred?
Season 1, how much did we know about Angel? How much do we know
about Spike outside of Buffy? I thought it was fitting he came
back noncorporeal, because he didn't have much of an existance
outside of Buffy. This isn't an insult. It's just the needs of
the story and medium. It isn't meant to be a put down of the character
or as a fan. It is just an observation about how much of the story
he got.
don't believe you didn't intend this as an insult, given past
discussion, lol.
figure out how many eps BtVs and Angel are ALL about Spike-not
sketchy imho-you keep saying it, but it isnt true. Spike has got
WAY more of the story than others. you just refuse to see it if
it doesnt match your fantasy.
[> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Random, 15:59:07
12/14/03 Sun
Fantasies aside, you seem to have some issues here. If you want
to make your coming-out party (you did say you were a generally
a lurker in your previous post, no?) an exercise in antagonism,
so be it. Up to you. It's not going to impress most of us, but
we can just pointedly ignore future posts from you. Up to us.
Or -- just a radical suggestion -- you could post an idea of substance.
Perhaps something about what you think. Not that I'd be
so cavalier as to suggest such insight is required for posting.
Far from it. Your posts have been enlightening, I'll grant, but
perhaps not in quite the manner that reflects best on you. Since
you choose to grace us with your wit and wisdom, perhaps you could
deign to submit something edifying as well as revealing.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... -- sukhrit, 16:15:18
12/14/03 Sun
huh. no issues. no need to impress. do you?
just tired of sameold sameold from lunacyposter/spikehater.
did not know straightforward comment would trigger combative response.
simple really-lots of eps center on Spike, lots more than others
mentioned in lunasea's post-therefor lunasea's not stating fact,
hust his/her fantasy.
thats it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I will not respond
-- lunasea, 18:47:45 12/14/03 Sun
Except to point out that this response constitutes a personal
attack and this is a violation of board policies.
Earlier, my character was inpugned when this poster came out of
lukerdom to say that I would not respond to punkinpus. This thread
constitutes a response, as it has referenced what punkinpus said,
and I see that that accusation has not been retracted nor any
attempt conciliation made.
I could defend my earlier statements about Spike, but will not
to a poster that has already made up his/her mind about me and
will simply dismiss what I say as coming from "lunacyposter/spikehater"
or "fantasy." As the section about board netiquette
in the FAQ's which can be accessed at the top of the screen on
the main index page says, "personal attacks are not reasons
for or against a viewpoint." Since I have seen nothing but
personal attacks, I see no need to respond because these do not
constitute a reason against my viewpoint.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I will not respond
-- sukhrit, 10:17:23 12/15/03 Mon
why all this immediate and overblown animosity?
apologize for lunacyposter, that was perhaps personal, but spikehater
is accurate given past discussions, imho.
BUT my main point remains the same and is very simple and worthy
of discussion rather than dismissal-many more episodes of both
Buffy and Angel have focused intently on Spike. examples would
be Fool for Love and Lies My Parents Told-both give a far more
detailed look as Spikes history and cause of his current actions
that has been done for characters mentioned like Gunn, Fred, etc.
I see a reason for this, in that Spike is more important, integral
to the stories being told that you continually state as fact.
my view has merit, too, don't know why it can't be debated, but
I have now been unnecessarily and unfairly abused by you and another
as if I had no piont to make at all, just wanted to flame you,
which is NOT clearly NOT the case.
way too touchy for me, didnt use to be such a clicky board IIRC-back
to lurking
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I am tempted
to assume that you didn't want AtS before Spike showed up
-- lunasea, 10:47:56 12/15/03 Mon
Because both Gunn and Fred's history has been given along with
much growth. Fred isn't the shy she-cow from Pylea and her motivation
is in that growth as much as it is her backstory. Same with Gunn.
He isn't the self-destructive young man haunted by his sister
any more.
Fred first appears in "Belonging" on May 1, 2001. Her
story is set up with being sucked into Pylea and the effect being
a slave and fugitive for five years have had on her. "Fredless"
sets her up as the anomaly she is, namely the only character (besides
Riley) that has two good parents and the strength she gets from
this. "Supersymmetry" really goes into her feelings
about being sucked into Pylea and what a true genius she is. "Shiny
Happy People" and "Magic Bullet" show her strength
and lack of self-esteem. She is as well drawn as Xander, Willow
or Giles. Eventually, I will have an essay on Fred for the character
essays. I wouldn't say she is sketchy at all.
Gunn has been on since Season 1's "War Zone" which aired
May 9, 2000. That episode sets him up pretty well. He should have
the number 2 spot in the credits. This is furthered specifically
in "That Old Gang of Mine," "Double or Nothing,"
and "Players." He is as well drawn as the Xander, Willow
or Giles.
I know no one who has watched AtS that has any doubts about Fred
or Gunn's motivation. That Spike's is so hotly contested on the
board shows how sketchily this is drawn.
The shows focus around hero/heart/mind/spirit. The characters
that respresent these are the most drawn, having not only centric
episodes, but pretty big hunks out of hero centric episodes.
If you are going to call me a Spike hater, would you call David
Fury or Steven S. DeKnight one? My opinions seem to line up with
theirs. If you would use this term to describe the people that
take the time to write the character (and are now in charge of
him), I consider myself in good company.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I
am tempted to assume that you didn't want AtS before Spike showed
up -- alcibiades, 14:39:12 12/15/03 Mon
I know no one who has watched AtS that has any doubts about
Fred or Gunn's motivation. That Spike's is so hotly contested
on the board shows how sketchily this is drawn.
Come on, that is just silly.
First of all, I'm expecting Gunn's motivations to change a great
deal now that he had the injection from W&H. I couldn't say
what his motivations are now -- I knew what they were originally,
but change does seem to be in the air.
Secondly, you are taking a Jungian framework, imposing it on the
show, then saying Spike doesn't fit with said framework to
your satisfaction, so this shows his motivation is sketchily
drawn.
You know, if the theory doesn't work, alter it.
Spike is a lightning rod -- people love him or hate. Either way
he invokes strong emotion from them. Very few people feel blase
about him. And that doesn't happen when characters are sketchily
drawn either in fiction or in real life.
If you are going to call me a Spike hater, would you call David
Fury or Steven S. DeKnight one
In a recent interview Fury said Spike was his favorite character
to write.
Which doesn't speak much for the fact that he agrees with you
that the character's motivation is sketchily written. To me it
implies that he enjoys getting into the spirit of the character
because it is a rich character, not a sketchy one. His former
favorite was early Cordy, btw, also not a character that is sketchily
written and one that also invoked strong feelings in people, both
negative and positive.
It is interesting, however, in light of Fury's statements that
these are two characters you appear to have little liking for.
My opinions seem to line up with theirs.
Um...so the Spike of Seeing Red has motivations that are sketchily
drawn? In what possible way? It seems to me just the opposite.
He has competing motivations of good and evil, from the superego
and the id, both of which are intense.
I think you are confusing complex motivation with sketchiness.
Fury's Spike is not consistently motivated but tugged from various
sides of his personality. So, too, is DeKnight's. But that does
not reduce to sketchy characterization, quite the opposite, it
indicates complexity.
Spike is a chaos figure. His purpose until now on ATS 5 is literally
to walk through walls that others are imposing, to break through
boundaries, to destroy complacency.
He ain't never going to conform to any damned rules.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent
points! Well said! -- Pony, 16:18:17 12/15/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I am tempted to assume that you didn't want AtS before Spike showed
up -- lunasea, 17:02:52 12/15/03 Mon
I really was trying to hold off on discussing Spike or how he
is/was written until after I got a better handle on Cordy/Fred
as anima. The shadow, whether it is Angel's or Buffy's, is sketchy.
If it wasn't, the individual would be fully individuated. Spike
as shadow is drawn enough for that whatever particular issue Buffy
is dealing with that season.
Season 3 we learned he was "Love's Bitch." We didn't
get the motivation for that motivation until LMPTM, episode episode
17 of season 7. There were some interesting discussions about
whether Spike was Oedipal or pre-Oedipal before this. Those could
be had because we didn't know. To use LMPTM to say that Spike
was drawn in well says that before this he wasn't. He appeared
episode #15 and his motivation was finally given #139. That is
124 episodes without this motivation. That motivation was supplied
by the viewer. When this was validated by the show, many rushed
to say "I told you so." Told me what? That the writers
finally decided to sketch in his motivation for this main character
trait since he was going to cross-over? I agree. It was Spike's
"Amends." His motivation fit standard Freudian thought.
It isn't the first time the show has gone to Dr. Freud and I'm
sure it won't be the last. I don't think "Life of the Party"
will be. A show that deals with the importance of dreams and the
un/subconscious is going to be influenced by psychoanalytical
thought.
Gunn's motivation for getting lawyered up was given last season,
both in "Players" and in "Home." We can still
trace this all back to what happened to Alonna (I hope that isn't
a new mini-troll). When his motivation changes, we will be given
that. It was started with him marking his territory in "Life
of the Party." We still need a Gunn-centric episode this
season. I'm sure that will cover the change that he has undergone.
Spike is a lightning rod -- people love him or hate. Either
way he invokes strong emotion from them. Very few people feel
blase about him. And that doesn't happen when characters are sketchily
drawn either in fiction or in real life.
The strong emotional reaction, also known as a complex, tends
to be a case of projection. That can't happen if the character
is well drawn in. The ones that are well drawn in are complexes
for less people so they have less of a reaction. I think the beauty
of his character is how people can fill him in with themselves.
Xander, Willow, Giles and Buffy had too much story to do this
with. Spike in some ways can be all our shadows, more so than
Willow can be our conscious or Giles can be our animus.
I am looking through the show through one lens right now. This
doesn't mean I am altering anything, the show or the theory. I
would appreciate people not make such accusations before I even
give the theory and how it applies to the characters. I have just
given a framework. I haven't really applied it yet.
In a recent interview Fury said Spike was his favorite character
to write. Which doesn't speak much for the fact that he agrees
with you that the character's motivation is sketchily written
I think it does support it. Spike wasn't sketched in over on BtVS,
so Fury can do that sketching now. That is fun to write. I said
the character is sketchy. How much of an existence does he have
outside of Buffy? That is one of his character traits, that he
doesn't have much of a life outside of the object of his obsession.
Now that there isn't a Buffy around, I can imagine it being fun
to sketch in more of Spike.
I think you are confusing complex motivation with sketchiness.
Complex motivation? Good v evil, superego/Buffy v id/demon is
not complex. It is a simple conflict. The simplest. A against
B. A is given and B is given. This conflict is often confused
with complexity. When A is complex and B is complex, THEN you
get complexity. It takes a lot of screen time to develop that
sort of complexity.
Spike is a chaos figure. His purpose until now on ATS 5 is
literally to walk through walls that others are imposing, to break
through boundaries, to destroy complacency.
He ain't never going to conform to any damned rules.
If that is how you see him. I am sure there are others that will
agree with you. I see his purpose on AtS season 5 until now to
be to set up the next few episodes. He has to be exposed to those
who didn't watch BtVS, who didn't watch LMPTM or FFL. His role
is just beginning as Angel doesn't go dark, but rather ineffective
If he never conforms, he isn't redeemable. His redemption lies
in not having to be the rebel without a cause/clue. He has to
truly do it his way, not in the jacket of the woman he killed,
but in his own skin. Sometimes that means we do follow the rules.
Not because they are rules, but because they are right.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Check out this site some time. -- Arethusa, 17:37:34
12/15/03 Mon
http://madinkbeard.com/buffy/
It has a list of many academic Buffy articles, some of them available
on-line. There are many papers here exploring the complexity of
the character. I believe you are saying that you are only exploring
a part of one of many ways to analyze the characters? So naturally
other ways of looking at the character would provide more insight
into him. No conflict is simple when one character goes from unwilling
schoolgirl to mature, powerful woman, and the other goes from
violent, obsessive, immature vampire to souled Champion. Not to
mention that their relationship goes from hatred to lust to quiet
understanding.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Another go round -- alcibiades, 19:14:57 12/15/03 Mon
The shadow, whether it is Angel's or Buffy's, is sketchy. If
it wasn't, the individual would be fully individuated. Spike as
shadow is drawn enough for that whatever particular issue Buffy
is dealing with that season.
Well I don't agree that Spike (or Cordelia) is only Buffy's (Angel's)
shadow.
At most, I think, he was explicitly a shadow self during season
6 but then the rules changed. Once he went off to get a soul and
began changing, he wasn't a shadow anymore.
Season 3 we learned he was "Love's Bitch." We didn't
get the motivation for that motivation until LMPTM, episode episode
17 of season 7.
...
Gunn's motivation for getting lawyered up was given last season,
both in "Players" and in "Home."
The first thing that strikes me about this is that you are confusing
unconscious and conscious motivation. in LMPTM we learn Spike's
deep down unconscious motivation for loving without boundaries
and having a borderline personality.
What you are calling Spike's "motivation" appeared at
the moment he was about to solve it. It is certainly not the motivation
that is ruling him now. The whole point of the arc from LMPTM
through Chosen is that he could be seen transcending this complex,
done with it at last. But before he could transcend it, he had
to be stuck in it for a long while to give the show a semblance
of psychological verity, so we could see how it was his weakness.
And then he had to come face to face with it, see it clearly in
his mind's eye, readjust and put it away.
That is very different than learning Gunn's conscious motivations
for his actions in Players and in Home. Do we know what lack of
love in his early life motivated his growing resentment and jealousy
of Wesley that meant that he came to resent being the muscle and
not the brain, or why he needed to act for Fred in Supersymmetry,
despite the fact that she didn't want him to. We can supply those
psychological motivations based on what we know -- ghetto upbringing,
didn't get the education, needed to be a protector to his sister
and ghetto family, etc, but when did his parents die to create
the insecurity we see him manifesting last year -- don't know
it, etc. We never really saw Gunn manifesting insecurity before
last year -- and then it became severe. Yet we don't know what
the scenario with Fred and Wesley triggered deep down in him to
make him act out that way with all that anger repeatedly.
That the writers finally decided to sketch in his motivation
for this main character trait since he was going to cross-over?
I agree. It was Spike's "Amends." His motivation fit
standard Freudian thought. It isn't the first time the show has
gone to Dr. Freud and I'm sure it won't be the last.
First of all, it wasn't known that Spike was going to cross-over
full time when LMPTM was written -- that knowledge came out when
Joss was writing Chosen. Originally, they were just thinking he
would have a multiple episode arc on Angel.
Secondly, Amends wasn't Angel's LMPTM. The Prodigal was. Season
1 ATS. And the difference is that Spike resolved his psychological
quandary in LMPTM. Angel hasn't solved his -- all he has done
is circle around it for the last 4 years, trying to solve it and
coming short every time. And that is his essential tragedy --
trying to save Darla and not being able to, trying to save Connor,
then killing him to save him is the symbol of all this. Not to
mention creating a son who kills his own offspring -- Jasmine
-- in return.
Thirdly, how boring to reveal all the characters deep seated motivations
all the way at the beginning of the show. What you want in storytelling
is to set up deep down motivations and then reveal the answers
slowly. Otherwise things aren't surprising, and there is little
drama. So the fact that this point isn't told us about Spike until
late season 7 doesn't mean his motivation is sketchy, it means
this issue that has driven him so long and so hard is about to
be resolved --it needs to be before he can complete his heroic
arc because it has been the thing controlling him and sabotaging
his sense of self. He needs to be whole before he can be heroic.
So, frex, we only see Xander's abusive family at work Hell's Bells
and the effect that had on him. And he was actually on the show
from the beginning. So, using your method, "motivation wise"
we are actually getting Spike's "motivation" earlier
than Xander's "motivation,"
because Spike wasn't on the show for 33 or so of those episodes.
And the difference is that Xander doesn't face down these motivations
either. He quails at the sight of them, refuses to marry Anya,
refuses to deal, doesn't solve his relationship quandary, still
wants to be involved with Anya and clearly still loves her, but
can't commit because he is ruled by that abuse, relationship-
wise. He's afraid of it. He hasn't set himself free from that.
And he leaves off never transcending it, not having the inner
clarity, hence the fact that he is left half blind symbolically.
Me: Spike is a lightning rod -- people love him or hate. Either
way he invokes strong emotion from them. Very few people feel
blase about him. And that doesn't happen when characters are sketchily
drawn either in fiction or in real life.
Lunasea: The strong emotional reaction, also known as a complex,
tends to be a case of projection. That can't happen if the character
is well drawn in.
Your writing is telling here -- first you are tentative: "tends
to be a case of projection" -- and then you are definite.
"That can't happen... " Sounds like you are hedging
here. In any case, what you are missing is this is story telling.
Characters with secrets are more compelling than those about whom
everything is known -- the whole mystery of character thing which
is fun for the audience to speculate on because it involves them.
If you know everything right up front, the writing doesn't intrigue.
Secondly, it seems to me that what most writers want are really
characters on whom people project because they are the ones who
fascinate us. So I am not buying this whole bit how you can't
project on a character well drawn in. But deep down motivations
reveal deep fissures in the personality. One doesn't want all
that stuff right up front.
I am looking through the show through one lens right now. This
doesn't mean I am altering anything, the show or the theory. I
would appreciate people not make such accusations before I even
give the theory and how it applies to the characters. I have just
given a framework. I haven't really applied it yet.
Then you should write more carefully. If you are just giving the
framework without applying it, then it seems to me you don't know
that Spike is sketchily drawn as to motivation, though that may
be your feeling at this point.
Meanwhile this is a conversation. If you say things that are provocative
without explaining yourself -- why wouldn't you expect a response?
Frankly I can't see why you want to look through this lens so
exclusively and strictly that you miss out on a great deal of
the story, but that is just me. From my perspective, it seems
to limit rather than illuminate.
Using psychology to bolster interpretation is one thing -- using
it to the exclusion of all else borders on the didactic.
If he never conforms, he isn't redeemable. His redemption lies
in not having to be the rebel without a cause/clue.
I wasn't referring to the moral rules of the universe, actually,
but to some external framework.
Of course Spike doesn't fit into the box Angel wants to shove
him into. Spike is quite right about why Angel can't stand him
-- because it reminds him too much of his immoral depradations
as a vampire, and also of the thing that Spike doesn't know. Here
is the son outside of Angel's realm who managed, unlike Connor,
to save himself. But Spike isn't Angel's evil mirror, nor his
shadow nor a representation of a bit of his psychology. He is
his own self.
One could read him that way, if one wants to I suppose, but what
is the reason for it? How does it illuminate the show?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Another go round -- lunasea, 07:42:27 12/16/03
Tue
Here we go again about a character I really don't want to talk
about. As you said there are a great many people who are invested
heavily in this character. Discussions about him tend to make
the board go boom. It tends to make people go boom.
Well I don't agree that Spike (or Cordelia) is only Buffy's
(Angel's) shadow.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I see Cordelia
season 1-2 also as Angel's anima. If anything, what I am interested
in is the transition from Cordy to Fred, why it happened, how
it happened. I haven't even gotten to this yet and people are
already arguing against what I haven't even said said yet. I made
a comment that I didn't see Spike as Buffy's animus. That becomes
the focus on the thread.
Spike is often praised as having many feminine traits. I don't
see how such a character can be labeled as animus. He is known
for being illogical. Just because he has a penis, doesn't make
him animus. Hopefully I will reread Aion and The Development
of Personality today and I will be able to elaborate on what
the anima/animus is and how it relates to the rest of the soul.
Until then, you are making arguments against points not made yet.
At most, I think, he was explicitly a shadow self during season
6 but then the rules changed. Once he went off to get a soul and
began changing, he wasn't a shadow anymore.
Someone earlier said something about episodes that were all about
Spike. First, there are no episodes that are all about any character,
including the heroes. Second, when we look at those episodes that
are secondary character-centric, they are still showing something
that is going on with the main character. LMPTM is seen as explaining
Spike's motivation for being Love's Bitch. The title isn't "Lies
My MOTHER Told Me" as originally thought of, but "Lies
My PARENTS told me," because Giles is a parent figure to
Buffy as well. The two story lines are often compared on the board,
but I think the interesting part is how they contrast.
"CwDP" states explicitly Buffy's abandonment issues.
In LMPTM we see a preliminary resolution of those issues. With
Buffy, we see her reject the parent, literally close the door
on him. In the Shadow/Spike, we see the flip side of this. The
final resolution of it comes in "Chosen" when Buffy
incorporates both. Neither sides is an actual resolution. Any
side causes something to be in the shadow. Individuation requires
this to be assimilated, not pushed to the shadow.
What you are calling Spike's "motivation" appeared
at the moment he was about to solve it.
He hasn't "solved" anything. All he discovered was that
mummy did love and adore him. He blew off what she said as a demon
laying into him. He is still in denial and still thinks that love's
bitch is the way to go. I wrote a lot about what I considered
the real lie the parents told them. How does this "solve"
anything?
It is certainly not the motivation that is ruling him now.
He thinks he deserves a reward because he threw himself on the
proverbial hand granade for love, honor and all the right reasons.
Now love's bitch deserves a reward. It is just an expansion on
his central character trait.
And I think that is pure brilliance on the part of ME. They took
a trait that was made explicit season 3, had foundation season
2 and used it season 5 on to explain the actions they needed him
to take. They didn't make him any more complicated. They used
him to make the story more complicated. They took a stick of chewing
gum, some tin foil and a rubber band and made a satellite. That
is why I get so upset in these discussions. It would have been
easy for the writers to make Spike into this complicated character,
but they didn't. They kept him a vampire, something Joss repeatedly
reminded people of in interviews. They stayed within the definition
of what a soulless vampire is and did amazing things. That is
impressive.
We never really saw Gunn manifesting insecurity before last
year -- and then it became severe.
We didn't? From Redefinition, ""Hey, I got a rep to
maintain, all right? I can't have you all seeing through my brusque
and macho exterior." His confidence when it came to Fred
contrasted with Wesley's insecurity, but what else caused him
to go see Lorne after Angel fired them?
I'm not going to say that any character, even Angel, is fully
colored in. The original contention was that Gunn and Fred were
more sketchy than Spike.
First of all, it wasn't known that Spike was going to cross-over
full time when LMPTM was written
They key is "full-time." Joss did know that he wanted
Spike to go on, so he had to have some existence outside of Buffy,
some issue that got beyond his obsession with her and would even
explain that obsession. Even then, he is still shadow in LMPTM.
Secondly, Amends wasn't Angel's LMPTM. The Prodigal was.
"The Prodigal" sets up why Angel feels he has to be
someone. "Amends" sets him up wanting to make amends.
It launches the series. If the series had stayed a detective serial,
there wouldn't have been "The Prodigal." The Prodigal
takes Angel beyond wanting to make amends for what he has done.
It goes beyond the amends making that drives the detective serial
and sets up the character arcs that will follow. "Amends"
adequately gave Angel motivation to act outside of Buffy.
You see Spike as having solved his problem. I don't. You say Angel
hasn't solved his. Depends on how you define his problem. I don't
think he has to prove himself so much as just figure out who he
is. That isn't an issue so much as part of the human condition.
He doesn't do good to be someone, but because he wants to help.
He doesn't want to help because that is what his father would
want, but because that is what he wants. Push come to shove, in
his deepest moment of despair, he realized that he wants to help
people because he doesn't think they should suffer.
Why fight? Who am I? Those the fundamental questions to AtS.
Thirdly, how boring to reveal all the characters deep seated
motivations all the way at the beginning of the show. What you
want in storytelling is to set up deep down motivations and then
reveal the answers slowly. Otherwise things aren't surprising,
and there is little drama. So the fact that this point isn't told
us about Spike until late season 7 doesn't mean his motivation
is sketchy, it means this issue that has driven him so long and
so hard is about to be resolved --it needs to be before he can
complete his heroic arc because it has been the thing controlling
him and sabotaging his sense of self. He needs to be whole before
he can be heroic.
He does? We can go back and apply the motivation once it has been
given. It should fit what we have seen. That doesn't mean it was
there all along. As Marti said about Spike, "So a lot of
times people who see this as a grand design, an opera about good
and evil. It's just really a slowly evolving thing, and sometimes
form follows function." In hindsight it sure looks like there
was some grand heroic arc. That is why ME are the professionals.
Buffy wasn't close to whole until the end of Season 7. Does that
mean that she wasn't heroic until then? She's still cookie dough.
So, frex, we only see Xander's abusive family at work Hell's
Bells and the effect that had on him.
We only see the family itself in "Hell's Bells." Xander's
family has been either talked about or heard in "Amends,"
"Restless" and "The Replacement." Their dyfunctional
nature was well documented before "Hell's Bells." In
"Amends" we see clearly what effect they have had on
him as he is left alone in the cold of the snow, huddled in a
sleeping bag. Prior to this, Xander's motivation is Buffy herself.
He isn't a very dysfunctional character, beyond being a male on
a feminist series.
Sounds like you are hedging here.
What do you want me to do? Say all strong emotional reactions
are a case of projection because by definition strong emotional
reactions are complexes and all Spike fans are nuts who have serious
issues with their shadow? 'Cause I will. ;-)
In any case, what you are missing is this is story telling.
A story about Buffy. She gets arced out seasons in advance. It
was always known that Willow would go dark. Where Spike went was
interesting, but there was no grand design behind him. By virtue
of his function as Buffy's shadow, he went some interesting places.
I wish I could talk about those places, but the character is just
too hot (and I don't mean sexy) for such discussions to stay calm.
It's frustrating to have to keep explaining how I see the character
rather than be able to get into those places the writers took
him. Just because his journey wasn't by design, doesn't mean it
doesn't bear examination.
So I am not buying this whole bit how you can't project on
a character well drawn in.
I modified that somewhere. I said that less people can project
onto a character that is well drawn in, like Fred or Willow. If
your issue is what a particular character is, you are going to
project onto that character. Spike works because he is a "hook."
He wouldn't be a hook for so many people if there were things
that eliminated him being a hook for those people. That is one
reason why so many reacted harshly to "Seeing Red."
Harder to identify with the attempted rapist.
If you are just giving the framework without applying it, then
it seems to me you don't know that Spike is sketchily drawn as
to motivation, though that may be your feeling at this point.
I'm not going to "know" anything ever. How do I separate
my own projections from the world? As Dr. Jung said, "Just
as we tend to assume that the world is as we see it, we naïvely
suppose that people are as we imagine them to be. . . . All the
contents of our unconscious are constantly being projected into
our surroundings, and it is only by recognizing certain properties
of the objects as projections or imagos that we are able to distinguish
them from the real properties of the objects." Change people
to characters and the idea still holds. I'm trying to explore
Cordy and see what has been a case of my own projection and possibly
even changing my opinion on her. Same thing could happen to Spike,
maybe. If I ever get to him.
I said the character was sketchily drawn. Others have taken that
to motivation. So now I am talking about a character that holds
little resonnance with me, repeatedly, instead of discussing things
I find fascinating, like should AtS hold to "reality"
with something like Shanshu being impossible because evil cannot
be destroyed in us or should it offer hope and say it can be done,
or what are they doing with Fred's character this season.
Frankly I can't see why you want to look through this lens
so exclusively and strictly that you miss out on a great deal
of the story, but that is just me. From my perspective, it seems
to limit rather than illuminate.
I am photographer and I will use photography as a metaphor to
explain. We can only focus a lens on one plane. One plane is crystal
clear. There is an acceptable range of focus before and behind
this plane, but only one plane is actually in focus. I am limiting
what I look at to the one plane that is crystal clear. It's hiatus
and it's not like I haven't dissected the show to death before.
Earlier this summer, I looked at the shows through the lens of
the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I've done the parent thing,
the feminist thing, the empowerment thing, the rape metaphor,
connection/disconnection. I've looked at the show many ways. Psychology/spirituality
has always been in the background. Now it is the foreground. Maybe
I'll go at it from Adler next. Sometimes, you can't see the trees
for the forest. It is good to go in both directions.
Of course Spike doesn't fit into the box Angel wants to shove
him into
The get-the-hell-out-of-my-face box. Spike doesn't recognize personal
boundaries. This is a good thing? It's part of his problem. He
didn't recognize Buffy's and he doesn't recognize Angel's.
One could read him that way, if one wants to I suppose, but
what is the reason for it? How does it illuminate the show?
Because the show is the hero's journey. I am focusing on the hero
and that journey. The hero's journey is a metaphor for the process
that Jung termed the self-regulation of the psyche that leads
to individuation. I am narrowing the focus in order to crystalize
this process. That is what I am interested in. How does Angel
as representative of us all go from one step to another in the
self-regulation of the psyche?
That doesn't just illuminate the show. It illuminates humanity.
It illuminates me. That is my interest.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Another go round -- dub, 10:05:38 12/16/03
Tue
What do you want me to do? Say all strong emotional reactions
are a case of projection because by definition strong emotional
reactions are complexes and all Spike fans are nuts who have serious
issues with their shadow? 'Cause I will. ;-)
You just did. As an inveterate and unapologetic Spike fan (one
of the ones addressed in your quip above) I feel justified in
saying there is only one shadowy nut with a case of projection
(on Angel, the character) here, and I think we all know who it
is...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Another go round -- punkinpuss, 17:37:04
12/17/03 Wed
I'm coming into this a little late in the game, but wanted to
expand on one of alcibiades' very succinct and cogent points:
Then you should write more carefully.
It seems to me that in dialectical matters, precision of language
is all. And lack of precision in the trenches is where arguments
fall apart and/or fall to better arguments.
Lunasea says: I have just given a framework. I haven't really
applied it yet.
If you haven't really applied it yet, you can't know yourself
that the framework will stand, can you? You may have very strong
feelings or opinions about it, but that's no substitute for critical
thinking. If you had applied the framework in a rigorous manner,
you'd have tested the weaknesses of your arguments yourself and
questioned why it doesn't work in some instances. That should
tell you something. It should send you scrambling back to see
where you've made a mistake.
If, on the other hand, since you appear to dismiss the need for
dialectical reasoning, presuming to write in the style of Jung,
shouldn't you possess applied knowledge of the framework's viability
in order to express it truthfully? It seems to me that you yourself
"argue from assumed premises to incontestably deduced
conclusions." Also, while the Jungians may employ
this style of writing, does this have a direct causal relationship
to the development of the theories themselves? How does this merit
more "truthful" meaning than other forms of philosophical
or psychological inquiry (or algebraic inquiry for that matter)?
Because that is the editor's opinion? If that is your opinion
as well, is that because you've examined other forms/frameworks
and judged them wanting while Jung's remains viable? Have you
read Jung's critics? Because I understand (from other posters
here, not from my own readings) that he has quite a few. It doesn't
seem to me that you've brought a critical eye to your readings
of Jung, but have bought into them wholesale.
I'm not going to "know" anything ever. How do I separate
my own projections from the world?
Then why the need for making insistent and literal statements?
Why the didactic tone? If you are searching and exploring for
understanding, why maintain that the frameworks you choose
to see these shows through are anything more than your own personal
projections? Why push these ideas as having objective value when
you haven't established that as the case?
I am limiting what I look at to the one plane that is crystal
clear
That may be your critical mistake. One which you won't see unless
you step back and allow that perspective (or how you see)
determines what you see and how you interpret it. And that
it is the accumulation of many perspectives that helps the viewer
from making judgements based on distorted views.
So many of your arguments are steeped in value judgements that
suggest unfair bias towards characters you don't care for, like
Spike or Cordelia.
He hasn't "solved" anything. All he discovered was
that mummy did love and adore him. He blew off what she said as
a demon laying into him. He is still in denial and still thinks
that love's bitch is the way to go. I wrote a lot about what I
considered the real lie the parents told them. How does this "solve"
anything?
"All he discovered was that mummy did love him and adore
him." That's a pretty major issue, even in psychological
development circles, or so I'm given to understand. You denigrate
it as meaningless because he hasn't resolved other issues yet.
Psychologically or storywise, it would be pretty ludicrous for
such a revelation to be anything more than a new starting point
for Spike's development. It's a major revelation to him and without
it he cannot grow up, but he doesn't instantly become grown up
from that moment. We see it in the last episodes of S7, that he
is not Love's Bitch any longer. Because Love's Bitch seeing the
B/A kiss would most certainly betray Buffy and her mission.
Love's Bitch doesn't go and take out his anger on a punching bag,
put aside his hurt to take on responsibility in the mission (in
the form of the amulet Buffy gives him), and then comfort Buffy
and accept her affection. Love's Bitch goes out and hurts people,
the people who've hurt him and everyone else around. Love's Bitch
doesn't take no for an answer and doesn't tell Buffy "no,
you don't" when she finally tells him she loves him. Love's
Bitch would say, "Hah! Yeah, I knew it all along. You just
had to be a bitch about it, didn't you?" So, yeah, he has
solved something and now he can move on to more things 'cause,
lordy when you're a demon you gotta whole plateload of issues.
You're not interested in Spike's story. Except that you feel the
need to denigrate the character at every turn. Whether that's
a defensive knee-jerk reaction because you're so invested in Angel
or you just can't stand the character, well, it should make you
question yourself, but it's clearly not your bag. You say that
Angel is the hero and the hero's journey is where it's at, what
with the illuminating you and all of humanity. What your fixed
focus suggests is that you see what you want to see and work very
hard to make it meaningful to the exclusion of all other points
of view. Alcibiades' question was how does seeing Spike or Cordelia
as mere adjuncts to Angel illuminate the show. You replied that
the show is Angel's journey, the hero's journey and that's all
you're interested in. To go back to the visual metaphors, that's
like having a spotlight on one person in one part of the stage
and leaving the rest of the cast in darkness while they interact
and play off each other. Thus, it doesn't illuminate the show,
it distorts it. Any examination of the show that purposely ignores
or denigrates a major character, whoever that may be, is going
to lose its way in the interpretative process.
Maybe we can't help how we feel, but we can help how we think.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Precision & Clarity -- Rahael, 00:35:21
12/18/03 Thu
Punkin, why did you ever lurk? You have an astounding clarity
of thought and expression!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Hear, hear! (Here, here?) You know
what I mean... -- dub ;o), 08:56:39 12/18/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Lessons for us all -- Pony, 15:43:49
12/18/03 Thu
Thanks for such a well-written and measured response. I think
that any of us attempting to write and think critically would
be helped by studying the points you raise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Conformity & Redemption -- Claudia, 09:58:41 12/16/03
Tue
[If he never conforms, he isn't redeemable. His redemption lies
in not having to be the rebel without a cause/clue.]
Why does one have to conform to be considered redeemable?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> It's kind of a tradition in some literature
-- Doug, 15:23:07 12/18/03 Thu
There's less tolerance for a character who has sinned to sin again,
and a character seeking redemption is expected to turn his or
her back on what they were before and reject it. The former whore
becomes a puritan, the blood-stained warrior gives up the sword,
and the rebellious punk gets a suit and a professional-looking
haircut. By this theory since Spike during his evil days was violent,
sensual, and rebellious in order to be redeemed he must become
peaceful, sexually-restrained, and both obedient and deferential
towards his "betters". Personally I think Jos is deliberately
trying to contradict this: Willow is allowed to keep the power
she misused, Faith continued fighting and even got to keep her...um...'Flexible
sexual mores', and from all appearances Spike is still an aggresive
rebel.
As for why this tendency exists; I dunno. I guess the same reason
second offenders get harsher treatment by the legal system than
first offenders do, if that makes any sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: It's kind of a tradition in some literature
-- Rufus, 17:17:56 12/19/03 Fri
I like what you said. How the hell do people ever stop sinning,
even if it's only the small stuff? It's unrealistic to think that
an Epiphany will be a cure all or that a sinner can suddenly gain
perfection of mind and actions in an instant. People are people
and if there were frequent flyer points for sin the airline industry
would go out of business as noone would ever pay for a flight
(well maybe one or two). Joss shows us a more realistic picture
of what real redemption is about, a few steps forward along with
a few back. It's work and that work never stops.
[> [> Off-balance Angel (spoilery for first part of this
season) -- purplegrrl, 09:17:11 12/15/03 Mon
**Cordelia is still in the show by the way (just asleep, which
is vitally important) Angel has put the portion of the anima he
can't deal with to sleep, while allowing the portion he can deal
with to remain awake - Fred, the studious, non-agressive, damsel
as opposed to the powerful, aggressive, tell it like it is, in
your face bitch goddess. By denying the one and permitting the
other - we see an unbalanced Angel filled with a sense of self-loathing.**
Interesting. This explains a lot of Angel's behavior this season.
This dichotomy makes Angel's issues not just about having to head
up an evil law firm and dealing with that weirdness on a daily
basis. Angel *is* off balance. In losing Cordelia not only has
he lost someone he thought he could love, but his harsh voice
of reality as well. Fred cannot fulfill these roles (when Fred
does get aggressive - such as when she berated her staff for not
working hard enough - she feels some remorse afterwards).
Just some, few thoughts this morning.
[> [> [> Re: Off-balance Angel (spoilery for first
part of this season) -- s'kat, 09:28:41 12/15/03 Mon
Thank you, good post.
This dichotomy makes Angel's issues not just about having to
head up an evil law firm and dealing with that weirdness on a
daily basis. Angel *is* off balance. In losing Cordelia not only
has he lost someone he thought he could love, but his harsh voice
of reality as well. Fred cannot fulfill these roles (when Fred
does get aggressive - such as when she berated her staff for not
working hard enough - she feels some remorse afterwards).
I think this is very true. Fred is different from Cordy, she's
more introspective, more brainy, and not fond of confrontation.
She's like a little sister to Angel, I think. (Although he seemed
to like the kiss she laid on him in The Magic Bullet...even though
she wasn't into it.)
He feels protective of Fred. This goes back somewhat to having
been the person who saved her in Pylea. Even with all the stuff
that happened last year - Angel still seems to see Fred in the
damsel category, hence the reason Fred is playing damsel so much
right now. Wes, to his credit, doesn't seem to see Fred as damsel,
but more as equal. Which may be why Fred gets so upset with him
when he resorts to treating her like a damsel again when she gets
hurt. Something he does - after talking to Angel in Lineage.
It's interesting that it is *Angel* that puts the notion of Fred
as damsel in Wes' head. And it is b/c of Angel's situation on
the rooftop, with his *will* being removed, that Fred puts herself
in the damsel position. In both cases, Angel is somewhat responsible.
[> [> [> [> Wes & Fred -- Claudia, 10:26:53
12/16/03 Tue
[Wes, to his credit, doesn't seem to see Fred as damsel, but more
as equal. Which may be why Fred gets so upset with him when he
resorts to treating her like a damsel again when she gets hurt.]
If Wes doesn't seem to see Fred as a damsel, why does he still
treat her like a damsel, whether she's hurt or not . . . as he
did in "Lineage"?
[> Re: A note about analytical psychology and an apology
-- Ender, 02:08:46 12/15/03 Mon
Umm, I'm not really privy to what the drama behind this e-mail
is, but your writing style is bizarre. I mean that in a good way.
It's just funny because I was thinking something in a similar
vibe but different tone today about Restless. I was watching it
and there became a real lucidity to the characters in a context
of a dream. Words and phrasing that are bent to accommodate known
future plot twists with enough detail so the writers can say "Look
at the set up." Misleading with such skill and grace to create
such a sense of prophecy and character analysis, god I loved that
episode. And yet there sits in the episode a single element that
runs through, stings it together, and is totally unaccounted for
by the creator no more than, "He's the part of the dream
that makes sense"- the cheese man. Among all the purposeful
set-ups, the cheese man remains purely an addition of environmental
situation. But he holds meaning, meaning that almost transcends
the confines of the narrative to become some thing more. How about
meta-narrative? Yeah, that sounds good. I'm not sure Mr. Jung's
philosophical view point can account for something that odd easily,
if you look at that particular layer of Buffy. I really do like
looking at the show in that way though; I just think the complexity
the show provides moves characters in such complex ways that more
philosophy is needed for a complete encompassing view. But neat
stuff, I think it's just a way you write that's being a bit over
baring. No worries though, I probably do to. I like the way you
write anyways.
[> [> A note about how I write -- lunasea, 08:23:25
12/15/03 Mon
I posted this when I talked about "Prophecy Girl" and
the pattern to Joss' writing. It is a quote that appears in the
introduction to Dr. Jung's "Man and His Symbols"
The second point I wish to make is about a particular characteristic
of argumentative method that is common to all the writers of this
book -- perhaps to all Jungians. Those who have limited themselves
to living entirely in the world of the conscious and who reject
communication with the unconscious bind themselves by the laws
of conscious, formal life. With the infallible (but often meaningless)
logic of the algebraic equation, they argue from assumed premises
to incontestably deduced conclusions. Jung and his colleagues
seem to me (whether they know it or not) to reject the limitations
of this method of argument. It is not that they ignore logic,
but they appear all the time to be arguing to the unconscious
as well as to the conscious. Their dialectical method is itself
symbolic and often devious. They convince not by means of the
narrowly focused spotlight of the syllogism, but by skirting,
by repetition, by presenting a recurring view of the same subject
each time from a slightly different angle -- until suddenly the
reader who has never been aware of a single, conclusive moment
of proof finds that he has unknowingly embraced and taken into
himself some wider truth.
Jung's arguments (and those of his colleagues) spiral upward over
his subject like a bird circling a tree. At first, near the ground,
it only sees a confusion of leaves and branches. Gradually, as
it circles higher and higher, the recurring aspects of the tree
form a wholeness and relate to their surroundings. Some readers
may find this "spiraling" method of argument obscure
of even confusing for a few pages -- but not, I think, for long.
It is characteristic of Jung's method, and very soon the reader
will find it carrying him with it on a persuasive and profoundly
absorbing journey.
[> [> Just had to say, love your posting name. I've read
'Ender's Game' at least 8 or 9 times. -- Rob, 10:22:27
12/15/03 Mon
[> [> [> Thanks is just called out to me -- Ender,
10:13:01 12/18/03 Thu
what happened to whistler? -- Michele,
19:22:30 12/13/03 Sat
whistler brought Angel to Sunnydale to help Buffy. Where did he
go? Did he work for the powers that be?
and while on this point. if whistler found angel eating rats in
the alley, just shortly before he brought him to see Buffy, how
could he have lived in the Hyperion hotel in the 40's and how
would he know about such things as Bonanza and Lorne Greene.
Replies:
[> Some answers -- KdS, 02:18:00 12/14/03 Sun
In internal continuity, we have no idea what happened to Whistler.
In Real Life, he was meant to be a regular character in AtS, but
the actor had some serious drug/legal problems.
And in Orpheus we discover that Angel was relatively functional
for much of the twentieth century, but became a down-and-out in
penance and self-hatred after feeding on a dying murder victim
in the 1970s.
Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes would
you pick? -- s'kat, 23:29:24 12/13/03 Sat
Found out from whedonesque that character themed DVD's are now
a reality. They are actually releasing four character themed DVD
packages sometime in the summer or fall 2004.
The four characters selected are:
Willow, Faith, Spike and Angel. Oh they are only episodes from
BTVS (No ATS episodes, unfortunately)
From the information - it appears you get one or two discs per
pack - which may be 6 episodes per set? (Has to be limited to
BTVS)
Which one's do you think they should pick per character?
Assuming it's just 6?
Here's mine:
Spike:
1. School Hard S2
2. Lover's Walk S3
3. Harsh Light of Day S4
4. Fool for Love S5
5. Beneath You S7
6. Lies My Parents Told ME s7
(Honorable Mention? Smashed. The reason I picked the above six
is they are all stand-a-lone. You don't need a huge previously
to understand most of them and they connect. All the other Spike
episodes are really part of arcs and hard to separate out well.)
Faith
1. Faith, Hope, & Trick S3
2. Bad Girls S3
3. Consequences S3
4. Enemies S3
5. This Year's Girl S4
6. Who Are You S4
(Excluded Choices, Graduation Day I & I, because not as Faith
centric and well, not as self-contained.)
Angel
1. Angel S1
2. Surprise S2
3. Innocence S2
4. Becoming S2
5. Becoming Part II S2
6. Amends S3
(Again all self-contained and all focus on Angel.)
Willow
1. I Robot You Jan S1
2. Gingerbread S3
3. Dopplegangland S4
4. Wild at Heart S4
5. Something Blue S4
6. New Moon Rising S4
(Willow is almost impossible - I wanted to include Villians, Killer
in Me, Hush, Tabula Rasa, Seeing Red, Triangel,
Grave, Two to Go, Tough Love, The Gift, Bargaining...but
decided to focus on more Willow centric episodes and somewhat
self-contained/standalones.)
They are also releasing a DVD called the Best of Buffy, 6 episodes
I think. So what would you pick?
HEre's mine:
1. OMWF
2. Hush
3. The Body
4. Fool For Love
5. Becoming Part I
6. Becoming Part II
Again went with largely self contained.
Replies:
[> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes would you
pick? -- grifter, 04:11:48 12/14/03 Sun
On the "Best of Buffy" DVD´s I´d put:
1. Prophecy Girl
2. Innocence
3. Hush
4. The Body
5. One More, With Feeling
6. Chosen
You seem to lean in favor of the early seasons with your "character"-DVD´s.
Don´t you think it´s important for viewers to know
what happens to the characters later on (excluding Angel oc)?
If the last thing the viewers of these DVD´s see of Willow,
for example, comes from s4, aren´t you denying them a large
part of her development? Of course, later episodes may not be
as self-contained, but they are essential to Willow as well, if
not more so, then some of those you picked IMO. Without Willow´s
later developments an episode like "I Robot, You Jane"
doesn´t make as much sense as with them, and does seem rather
boring really (in comparison to other episodes on your list).
[> [> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes would
you pick? -- s'kat, 07:33:47 12/14/03 Sun
I don't think the point of the special DVD's is to get new viewers,
but to reward fans. As someone mentioned on another
board - it would truly be a shame if someone just bought a Willow
DVD - that's all the episodes they had.
To get the complete story of the characters - you have to get
the Season DVD's. There is *no* way of doing it on a 6 episode
DVD.
For instance in your best of list - Innocence makes no sense without
Surprise, unfortunately, you have to have Surprise. Chosen, makes
no sense without all the other episodes. Prophecy Girl? Not a
lot of sense either.
Same problem on Willow - you can't do Choices - b/c it makes 0
sense. Even if a diehard fan bought it - the episode is so tightly
part of an arc. Becoming I & II have to be together as well. Smashed/Wrecked.
Two-to-Go/Grave/Villians. Bargaining I & II. All of these episodes
can't easily be separated.
I Robot You Jane is a stand a lone, don't need any explanation
or another episode to explain it. Same with Dopplegangland, Wild
at Heart and Gingerbread. Also all three episodes are fairly Willow
centric - she's the center of them. Something Blue and New Moon
Rising are equally Willow centric and only need Wild at Heart
to explain them.
This isn't the same as trying to convert a new viewer - what you're
trying to do is sell a bunch of DVD's but without having to explain
too much.
That said? I have no idea which episodes the producers chose,
just making guesses. ;-)
(My favorite Willow episodes, Spike, Angel, Faith, or Best of
Buffy - aren't necessarily the ones I listed.)
[> [> [> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes
would you pick? -- grifter, 09:22:05 12/14/03 Sun
I guess that´s what those "Previously on Buffy"´s
are meant for: so you can understand whats going on in an episode
without having to see the previous ones. Granted, it might not
be ideal, but it helps.
And while, for example, "Fool for Love", "Lover´s
Walk" or "Doppelgangland" may be stand-alone episodes,
I don´t think they´re easily accessible if you haven´t
followed the series closely. "Doppelgangland" without
"The Wish" makes even less sense then "Prophecy
Girl" without the previous 1st season episodes IMO, btw.
Also, if it´s primarily meant for people who already know
the series, then why do the episodes need to be stand-alones?
The people watching them should know what´s going on anyway...
All in all I just think these DVD´s arent a very good idea,
but that´s not your fault. 6 episodes just don´t cut
it for a series like Buffy or characters like Willow! ;P
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6
episodes would you pick? -- s'kat, 10:01:45 12/14/03 Sun
You'll probably hate the idea of these DVD's even more
when I tell you, that my guess is "there's no previously"
attached. ;-)
Personally? I like the concept of the DVD's. But then I have every
episode on tape and it doesn't bug me to see a few character specific
episodes.
My ideal DVD for a character?
Faith:
1. Faith, Hope and Trick
2. Bad Girls
3. Consequences
4. Enemies
5. Graduation Day Part I
6. Graduation Day Part II
7. This Year's Girl
8. Who are You?
9. Five by Five
10. Sanctuary
11. Salvage
12. Release
13. Orpheus
14. Dirty Girls.
That would be the ideal for Faith. But if I were producing the
DVD to sell to a mass audience, which is composed of diehard fans
and casual ones? I'd do what I mentioned above.
Remember not everyone cares about the essential story arc, they
just enjoy watching the character do stuff.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which
6 episodes would you pick? -- grifter, 10:18:30 12/14/03
Sun
Well, I own all seasons on DVD (except s7, oc), so they probably
just seem redundant to me. ;)
Good Faith-list, although I´d include "Chosen",
just because it´s the last we see of her and it brings more
closure of her character then "Dirty Girls" IMO. Faith
is probably the easiest though, she´s not in that many episodes
after all. ;)
Any word on what they´re gonna cost?
[> [> [> I think 'Prophecy Girl' can stand on its
own -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:46:14 12/14/03 Sun
You barely even need previouslies.
The Willow/Xander/Buffy triangle is explained in a matter of seconds
as Xander preps with Willow.
While Angel's status as a vampire in love with Buffy gets explained
in the previouslies, it's not entirely needed. It becomes pretty
clear after Angel appears that he loves Buffy. As for his vampire
status, that's pretty heavily implied by comments Buffy and Xander
make, and is directly stated when Xander comes to Angel's apartment.
No, we aren't told that he's a vampire with a soul, but veteran
viewers already know this, and newbies won't realize that Buffy's
vampire mythology conflicts with a vampire just deciding to be
a good guy.
The Master doesn't actually need much of an explanation, even
though he, like Angel, is mentioned in the previously on segment.
His appearance alone makes it clear he is both a vampire and a
bad guy, and his rant about the final days implies his desire
to end the world. If a new viewer can't infer he's the main bad
guy by then, they're not too bright. Then, later in the episode,
Giles explains all about the Annointed One, the Master, and their
plan of world destruction to Jenny.
Jenny herself, while her Technopagan background isn't brought
up, from the first time she appears it's clear she's in the know
about the supernatural and is on semi-friendly terms with Giles.
At this point you don't really need to know much more about her
anyway.
The Pereganum Codex is the only plot element that I feel is diminished
by not having some backstory given, since otherwise it seems odd
that Giles just happens to stumble upon this prophecy. But it
is in the previously on section and it won't ruin the whole ep
to not know about it.
Something that's always amazed me about "Prophecy Girl"
is its ability to wrap up the season and resolve several plot
and character arcs while still being an episode anyone could watch
and follow the story perfectly. Of course, the arcs were much
simpler back then, but, even so, it's an amazing feat.
[> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes would you
pick? -- RJA, 12:13:52 12/14/03 Sun
Ooh, fun, I like these things!
Anyway, onto the DVDS. I did these without checking what anyone
else had put down, because its more *pure* that way ;-)
Turns out we both agree episode for episode on both the Angel
and Faith DVDs, for much the same reasons.
For the Spike DVD I had down:
1) School Hard
2) Lover's Walk
3) The Harsh Light of Day
4) Fool For Love
5) Intervention (strange one this, since I was trying to go for
standalones, but it just called out to me. Either way its a good
Spike episode)
6) Lies My Parents Told Me
I think that Smashed would be better in place of Intervention,
but I stick by my choice.
The Willow DVD I found a whole lot more complicated, so I chose
two alternate listings.
First, the most likely one (or rather chosen on the same basis
as the rest, i.e. the ones that could really be said to be Willow
episodes).
1)Doppelgangland
2) Something Blue
3) New Moon Rising
4) Tabula Rasa
5) Wrecked
6) Same Time Same Place
However, I really wanted to include the DMW arc, which is impossible
since you need at least three episodes in a row. So I went for
a thematic DVD
1) I Robot..You Jane
2) Choices (although having seen you put Gingerbread I think thats
a much better choice)
3) Villains
4) Two To Go
5) Grave
6) The Killer In Me.
And The Best of Buffy DVD:
1) Prophecy Girl
2) Hush
3) Restless
4) The Body
5) Once More With Feeling
6) Chosen
(All Joss this one, but then he did make the best episodes. I
wanted Propehcy Girl on there since I wanted an early episode
of his, but only in standalone. I would almost say Lie To Me,
but thats too much of a minor classic to warrant going on the
DVD).
And of course this merited more time and attention than I plan
to spend on the DVD, because there had better be some damn good
unique extras for me to buy them.
Oh, who am I kidding...
[> [> LOL! Thanks RJA, I like your choices ;-) --
s'kat, 15:29:33 12/14/03 Sun
1) School Hard
2) Lover's Walk
3) The Harsh Light of Day
4) Fool For Love
5) Intervention (strange one this, since I was trying to go for
standalones, but it just called out to me. Either way its a good
Spike episode)
6) Lies My Parents Told Me
Oh I would buy this DVD. Actually I think I prefer Intervention
to Beneath You...or Lies. But then Intervention is one of my all
time favorite episodes.
Tough one. I'm not completely fond of LMPTM but it's such a necessary
episode to Spike's arc. You can sort of live without Beneath You.
Spike like Willow is a really hard one, b/c there's so many Spike
centric episodes.
And of course this merited more time and attention than I plan
to spend on the DVD, because there had better be some damn good
unique extras for me to buy them.
Oh, who am I kidding...
LOL! Well, I'm in an interesting place, don't have a DVD player
really and can't afford DVD's yet. So it's just a fantasy for
me. If I could? I'd probably start with Firefly, then get the
character themed ones depending on the episodes. Why? Because
I got every episode of both series pretty much on VHS tape right
now. What I *really* want is commentaries.
[> [> [> Hmm, if there are commentaries on them...
-- grifter, 15:42:16 12/14/03 Sun
...I might grow fond of them yet!
If you´re mainly in it for the commentaries, I´d suggest
getting the s4.1 DVD´s (are the seasons split in two parts
in the US-versions as well?), just for Doug Petries´ hilarious
commentary on "The Initiative" alone. It´s actually
one of my Top Ten Episodes, with the commentary turned on. ;)
There´s Joss´ commentary on "Hush" on it
as well!
Now if only Firefly came out for Region 2 as well. :(
Oh, and btw, s´kat: Getting DVD´s as presents from
loving relatives is what christmas was invented for! It says so
somewhere in the bible I think... ;P
[> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes would you
pick? -- dmw, 15:36:34 12/14/03 Sun
This is a fun thread idea, s'kat. I don't have time to do them
all, but I'll do a couple. I'm tempted to put down WttH/The Harvest
for all the core characters, but I guess that'll have to be assumed
background. Restless is also tempting as a universal episode.
Willow:
1. Prophecy Girl S1
2. Halloween S2
3. Choices S3
4. Doppelgangland S3
5. New Moon Rising S4
6. Tough Love S5
I agree with your Faith list completely, but for the Angel list,
I'd drop Amends and add Passion instead.
Best of Buffy:
1. Hush
2. Becoming I/II
3. Doppelgangland
4. Who Are You?
5. Prophecy Girl
[> [> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes would
you pick? -- s'kat, 09:18:44 12/15/03 Mon
The best thing about this exercise is it really isn't just academic,
these DVD's will be released between 2004-2005.
The Best of Buffy may be first.
How did they choose which episodes? A while back, people voted
for their favorite on the Fox website...or a website related to
Fox and teens, I think.
The one's in the top running were:
Once More With Feeling
Becoming II
The Gift
Fool for Love
Chosen
Hush
Graduation Day I &II
Interesting. I'm waiting to see which were chosen. Not b/c I can
afford it, can't right now. But b/c just from a marketing standpoint
it would be interesting.
Willow:
1. Prophecy Girl S1
2. Halloween S2
3. Choices S3
4. Doppelgangland S3
5. New Moon Rising S4
6. Tough Love S5
I agree with your Faith list completely, but for the Angel list,
I'd drop Amends and add Passion instead.
Hmmm...I struggled with this choice on Angel. I prefer Passion.
I'm not fond of Amends. But is Passion about Angel or Giles? It
feels more like a Giles episode. On the other hand we sort of
need Passion to show how twisted Angelus was. Amends on the other
hand really completes the arc and sets up ATS. I sort of hope
the DVD can do more than 6 episodes.
On Willow - I'm curious, why Prophecy Girl and Halloween? While
they have great Willow moments, they seem to be more centered
on Buffy and the others somehow? The reason I ask is I was also
tempted towards Halloween.
I'm not sure how the DVD producers will deal with these characters.
They may hold votes. Or do focus groups - small groups of fans
who tell them what they want. That's how I'd do it. Personally
I see Spike and Willow as being nearly impossible to limit, because
their arc is so tangled with the rest of the characters and the
main arcs - that to separate specific episodes...requires way
too many previouslies.
Prophecy Girl may be the only Season Finale that stands completely
on its own with the possible exception of Restless. (Ah is that
why you included it?)
Willow's dark arc - requires way too much explanation to make
sense - so you almost have to cut those episodes.
Be really curious to see what the DVD is. And I really really
hope that part of the reason they chose these four characters
was - that they were all willing to do commentaries. I'd love
to see the actors,writers, stunt people, and directors comment
on the episodes. (I admit, I'm a sucker for commentaries.)
[> [> [> Re: Buffy Character DVD's! Which 6 episodes
would you pick? -- dmw, 12:03:39 12/15/03 Mon
Hmmm...I struggled with this choice on Angel. I prefer Passion.
I'm not fond of Amends. But is Passion about Angel or Giles?
It feels more like a Giles episode. On the other hand we sort
of need Passion to show how twisted Angelus was. Amends on the
other hand really completes the arc and sets up ATS. I sort of
hope the DVD can do more than 6 episodes.
Yes, six episodes is quite limiting. I'm not sure that Passion
is more about Angel or Giles, but like you, I think it shows how
twisted Angelus was and I like it better than Amends. I also think
that the Angel arc would've been better if it had ended with Becoming,
so if someone's not going to watch the whole series, let them
see the Angel arc ending at its peak in season 2. (Please note
that I like the TV show Angel, just not how they brought him back
on BtVS in s3.)
On Willow - I'm curious, why Prophecy Girl and Halloween?
While they have great Willow moments, they seem to be more centered
on Buffy and the others somehow? The reason I ask is I was also
tempted towards Halloween.
It's hard to find a good Willow-centric season 1 episode other
than IRYJ, which I'm not terribly fond of though it has some great
moments. As for Halloween, I think it does a great job of showing
the many facets of Willow, from shy girl to reluctant group leader
and researcher to the more confident Willow at the end. It also
gives us hints of the beginning of the Oz/Willow relationship.
I chose Tough Love because I think it offers the best glimpse
of Willow's darkness. Though I like Something Blue, I think it's
a bit too unintentional on her part and too lighthearted to give
a feel for the darker aspects of her character.
You're right that Willow and Spike are very difficult to limit
as their arcs are so entangled and each has many different facets
to show. Commentaries from the characters would be a great addition
and really the only aspect of the DVDs that would tempt me to
buy them in addition to the regular seasons.
Prophecy Girl may be the only Season Finale that stands completely
on its own with the possible exception of Restless. (Ah is that
why you included it?)
That's part of the reason I chose it, but I do really like it--it's
my third favorite finale overall (Restless is a fun episode to
overanalyze, but it's more of a transition than a finale.)
[> [> [> [> Good points. I agree. -- s'kat,
17:40:27 12/15/03 Mon
[> Speculation is over. Here's the line-up for all five
special DVDs. -- cjl, 12:39:11 12/16/03 Tue
Region 2 Relases only (so far):
THE BEST OF BUFFY:
EPISODES
Becoming, Part One (Season 2) - Angel prepares a ritual to awaken
a demon that will suck the world into hell; Buffy prepares to
kill him, but is torn when Willow discovers the ritual that could
restore Angel's soul.
Graduation Day, Part Two (Season 3) - As the hours tick away to
graduation, the impending doom of the Mayor's ascension hangs
heavy with the gang. With Angel near death, Buffy must risk her
own life in an effort to save his.
Hush (Season 4) - After the residents of Sunnydale lose the power
of speech, Buffy battles strangely silent assailants alongside
an incredulous Riley.
The Gift (Season 5) - Buffy must square off against a true god
when Glory prepares to use Dawn to break down the walls between
the dimensions and unleash Hell on Earth.
THE SLAYER COLLECTION - SPIKE
EPISODES
School Hard (Season 2) - Spike and Drusilla come to town, and
Spike invades Parent-Teacher night.
Lie to Me (Season 2) - Buffy's childhood crush comes to town,
but he's not looking to reminisce - he's looking for immortality
as a vampire.
Lovers Walk (Season 3) - A broken-hearted Spike returns without
Drusilla; relationships are torn apart due to a liaison between
two members of the gang.
Fool For Love (Season 5) - When Buffy forces Spike to recount
how he was able to kill two Slayers, his flashbacks reveal his
first meeting with Drusilla.
EXTRAS
* Spike profile featurette - 15 minutes
* Buffy / Angel Trailer
THE SLAYER COLLECTION - FAITH
EPISODES
Bad Girls (Season 3) - Buffy's new Watcher comes to town; Faith
lures Buffy into her world of reckless abandon, with fatal results.
Consequences (Season 3) - Buffy struggles with Faith's lack of
remorse over last week's incidents; Faith initiates an alliance
with the dark side.
Graduation - Part 1 (Season 3) - While the Mayor prepares for
his diabolical transformation on graduation day, Buffy battles
Faith to save Angel's life.
Who Are You (Season 4) - While Buffy is mistakenly kidnapped by
the Watcher's Council, Faith wreaks havoc in Buffy's life.
EXTRAS
* Faith profile featurette - 15 minutes
* Buffy / Angel Trailer
THE SLAYER COLLECTION - ANGEL
EPISODES
Angel (Season 1) - Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and
she finds out who he really is.
Innocence (Season 2) - Angel loses his soul and his demon self
takes over; Buffy must deal with him and stop the Judge.
I Only Have Eyes For You (Season 2) - The tortured ghost of a
former student haunts Sunnydale High School, re-enacting the murder/suicide
he committed.
Amends (Season 3) - At Christmas-time, evil haunts Angel, torturing
him with visions of his murderous past and urging him to kill
Buffy.
EXTRAS
* Angel profile featurette - 15 minutes
* Buffy / Angel Trailer
THE SLAYER COLLECTION - WILLOW
EPISODES
Phases (Season 2) - The gang tries to save a werewolf from a poacher;
Oz makes the startling discovery that he is the werewolf in question.
Doppelgangland (Season 3) - Anya wreaks havoc again when a spell
goes awry, bringing Willow's vampire doppelg-nger into the Buffy-verse.
Wild At Heart (Season 4) - Oz and Willow's relationship is up
in arms when Oz is powerfully drawn to a female werewolf.
New Moon Rising (Season 4) - Oz returns to Sunnydale and is captured
by the Initiative during a full moon; a conflicted Willow tells
Buffy about her new relationship with Tara.
EXTRAS
* Willow profile featurette - 15 minutes
* Buffy / Angel Trailer
[> [> Wow -- KdS, 14:15:50 12/17/03 Wed
I fully get the desire to have stand-alone eps, but some of those
choices are just... weird.
Nothing at all from S6-7?
No Spike episodes after mid-S5 - isn't that a worse provocation
against Redemptionists than anything I've ever said? ;-)
GD2 in the "best of" list?
GD1 on the Faith disk? Lots of violence, but hardly a big
character ep for her.
Willow disk based entirely on Willow/Oz? Where's the KittenBoard
when you need it?
[> [> [> I most of all don't get... -- Rob, 10:22:18
12/19/03 Fri
...the two-parters of which they've chosen to only use one part,
particularly with Becoming, Part 1. At least had they only chosen
to do part 2, there's resolution at the end, not to mention one
of the finest endings of any "Buffy" episode ever.
People here took so much time and care to make the perfect choices
for each character that some of these disks seem completely slapped
together. "Lie to Me" is a great episode, for example,
but why is it on the "Spike" disk? It's no more Spike-centric
than GD 1 is Faith-centric, although I understand that choice
more because of the climactic Buffy/Faith fight to the finish.
The problem really is also that it's very hard to separate the
episodes on this show into ones that are only about a particular
character. Ironically, a character who actually has had episodes
pretty much completely about him--The Zeppo, BB&B, The Replacement--Xander,
doesn't even get a disk! And all of those are examples of true
standalone episodes that one does need to have seen other episodes
to watch.
Yeah, that settles it. I'm so not wasting my money on this.
Rob
Lindsay & W+H -- David, 14:03:56 12/14/03
Sun
I can't remember what episode but in season 2, lindsay tells Angel
something like don't let W+H play their game, make them play yours.
Can someone tell me what that means because i don't get how it
will defeat wolfram & hart
Replies:
[> Re: Lindsay & W+H -- Sgamer82, 18:54:12 12/15/03
Mon
I think the gist of it was that you can't fight Wolfram & Hart
by playing by the rules THEY set down. You have to fight your
own way, and make THEM respond.
here's one for drizzt! -- anom, 21:16:51
12/14/03 Sun
Seen at Philcon:
"Stop the memes! (pass it on)"
@>)
Replies:
[> I need that! -- d'Herblay, 21:43:12 12/14/03 Sun
[> used it -- lakrids, 23:49:23 12/14/03 Sun
[> [> Hey lakrid! -- Masq, 09:16:51 12/15/03 Mon
Do you post here often? 'Cause I don't remember seeing you here.
Welcome!
[> [> [> Re: Hey lakrid! -- lakrids, 15:40:27
12/16/03 Tue
Sorry about the late reply. And yes i have posted here, but now
I mostly lurks in the shadows, waiting for the right momment,
and when it comes, and it will come!. I will write The Essay,
that explains every thing about Buffy and the world around her,
with foodnotes!. Hmm ok back from fantasyland, and no spellchecker
:(.
[> [> [> [> We love foodnotes around here!
-- Masq, 09:19:53 12/17/03 Wed
Foodnotes are they key to a good essay. And yummy.
Technical questions: how is the series is shot?
-- oshunwunmi, 00:36:15 12/15/03 Mon
Do any posters know technical stuff about how the series is shot?
For instance, how long are rehearsals and what form do they take,
what sort of stock do they shoot on, is it transferred to digital
format for editing, how long does editing take, that sort of thing?
Are TV shows in the states generally shot on film, because in
Britain I think it's usually video (and getting people access
to film training is a whole big issue-loaded thing)?
Replies:
[> Can't answer most of the BtVS tech questions but...
-- Briar, 13:57:30 12/15/03 Mon
The US sitcoms and reality shows tend to rely on video with a
few exceptions that I can think of: Friends, Just Shoot Me, Frasier
and Scrubs and I believe Will and Grace. (Funny - these are all
NBC distrubuted shows.*L)
Most hour long (or longer) shows, regardless of genre, TV movies
and mini-series are shot in film.
Many directors see film as the only viable form of creating visual
entertainment. The film is much easier to manipulate with lighting
effects and focusing choices than video is, unless you want to
do a lot of post-editing and adding effects or filters to make
shots look as you want them to.
Most actors prefer film because it's much more fogrgiving than
video where physical attractivness is concerned. Many older actresses
and actors refuse to work in video because of this very reason.
The lighting and camera focus can be used to make them look better
in film than in video.
[> Here are a couple of answers to your questions. --
Fidhle, 16:59:28 12/15/03 Mon
Buffy is shot on film. If you have the DVD's and look at the special
features, you will see that they use Panavision cameras, which
are film cameras. The first two seasons were shot on 16mm, but
then they went to 35mm film for the later seasons.
Also, the commentaries generally indicate that the actual filming
takes about 8 days per episode and that about two weeks is allowed
for creating and filming an episode. Obviously, rehearsal would
have to take place in that two week period. Since the show did
22 episodes per year, except for the first year, that would mean
that the cast and crew worked about 44 weeks out of the year.
Can't say anything about the editing, but the special features
do show that they are using video to preview the shots and are
keeping track electronically of the frames, etc, so some editing
may well be done electronically and then the edits transferred
to the film stock.
The wild feed in the US was done analog, which is why some people
could pick it up, which would indicate that the show is based
on film, and not digital video, since, if it were done digitally,
it would probably have been easier to send the feed digitally,
which would also prevent most of those wild feed people from being
able to read it.
Can't say anything about Angel, but I suspect the same is true
for that show, since it is the same studio.
Hope this helps.
Fidhle.
[> [> Re: More about editing, production -- punkinpuss,
08:12:13 12/16/03 Tue
Nowadays, anything shot on film or video, whether it is a tv show,
commercial, music video or documentary, will be edited on some
kind of computerized editing suite, such as an AVID. Filmmakers/directors
are intimately involved in the editing process with an editor,
which is just one aspect of what's known as post-production. In
post, you're working with special effects, music, sound effects,
title sequences, etc., as well as editorial or story issues.
In the case of tv shows, where directors will vary from episode
to episode, a strong editor is essential for maintaining a consistent
style, but the final cut belongs to the showrunner/producer. You'll
never see the same director shoot back-to-back episodes because
there's no time. While the director of episode 1 is shooting (called
principal photography), the director of episode 2 is working on
pre-production. The shoot may take 8-10 days, but post work extends
beyond that. It's also during that time that reshoots and looping
are done to fix problems found in the editing process, and deal
with network execs' concerns (charmingly referred to as "notes").
[> [> [> Re: More about editing, production --
oshunwunmi, 12:56:20 12/18/03 Thu
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
I think the lighting and set design on Ats & early BtVS is incedibly
seductive, particularly the use of diffuse lighting in nighttime
interiors and the use of colour. Can't think of another American
series with such an attractive use of light except perhaps Ally
Macbeal (not that I like anything else about it).
Having a stable electricity supply and street lighting tends to
flatten nightime out into ordinaryness, lack of threat - where
I grew up we often had to rely on hurricane lanterns and candles
at night, and that sort of soft, glowy lighting really creates
for me a mood in which there's anticipation about a story to be
told, and uncertainty about the outcome. So it was the look of
Angel's apartment in early BtVS that drew me into the programme!
That, and a detail of mise-en-scene: that apartment is full of
overflowing ashtrays. I think that's a beautifully subtle bit
of storytelling: Angelus smokes, Angel is trying to quit, something
that has one very oblique mention in, I think, Enemies: talking
about going evil again, or drinking blood, "Damn! Just when
I thought I'd quit!"
Incidentally there's an interview with one of the camera people
on Ats at http://www.buffy.nu/article.php3?id_article=2235. Think
it's from the City of Angel site but don't know the url for that.
[> Another related tech question about season 7 -- DorianQ,
17:20:41 12/16/03 Tue
I know that for the first two seasons of Buffy they used 16mm
and thaten they switched to 35mm. My question is: did they do
something differently shooting wise with the final season?
One of the things that really irked me about it and really contributed
to my general ongoing disliking of that season was the fact that
everything to be a shade of browish biege. In previous seasons,
I seem to remember a diverse color palette in both the costumes
and the set throughout the series even as late as Grave, but in
Lessons and thereafter everyone was wearing tasn jackets, really
faded jeans and a off-white shirt.
I remember that sets sort of being like that too; at Sunnydale
High, the only major set introduced that year, all the walls and
floors and lockers were all the same color: a sickly beige. This
happened with other sets too. I distictly remember there being
a lot more color in the Bronze and even in the Summmer's home.
I think it even extended to the character's hair: I know for a
fact that Buffy used to to be a much lighter shade of blond, Willow's
hair was far less vibrant that it was even after it had been died
back at the end of Grave, and Xander and Dawn's dark brown hair
and been significantly toned down.
The only noticable exceptions to this that I can remember are
Spike's very blue shirt in Beneath You and a mojority of the outfits
in The Killer in Me, for some reason.
The way I was seeing it, a lot of the scenes seemed really washed
out to me; there wasn't much that was visually distinctive going
on onscreen and all the images just sort of ran together in my
mind.
I know that this could all very well be in my head and maybe I'm
just not remembering things correctly, but did anyone else notice
anything similar? I know that ME switched the Special Effects
team at about the same time. Did they change set and costume designers
at the same time?
Please do let this not offend you if you liked the new look, I
am a very critical person in many things and believe me, I am
very critical of myself as well. It is just something that bothered
me personally and was wondering if anyone knew anything about.
[> [> I don't think you actually imagined it Dorian...
-- Briar Rose, 00:09:11 12/17/03 Wed
There wasn't as "bright" a look to the seventh season
as to other seasons and I think it was purposefully done, but
not with fx or the change in film or lighting. Did you notice
that Dawn and the Potentials always stood out more in the scenes
than the Scoobies? I definitely did! Up until Buffy pulled out
her red blouse and ran a little lemon juice through her hair at
mid-season for "The Jacket", she was pretty much in
the background the whole time. And I think she was meant to be.
She (and the rest of the original SG) turned in their highschool/college
bohemia rags for the standard adult uniform of white shirt, dark
bottom and sensible shoes.
Season seven was about finally accepting ADULTHOOD. And adulthood
is not about bright colors and happy, happy stuff. It's about
making life changing decisions, and to some extent all of us that
have went through it DO feel rather beige and gray about life...
a lot.*L
This is another reason why I, many film afficianados and even
the critics had good things to say about BtVS (a fantasy show
no less!) The production values and direction always did a "whole
concept" with the show. If it was about Dark!Willow, we got
everything in shades of Black and Blue and Red. If it was about
highschool angst, we got bright colors and lots of sunshiny day
shots. The entire mood matched from lines to lighting to costumes
and sets. It was an emmersion experience.
They do the same with Angel, just not as noticably in the first
two seasons (IMO) anyway.... Now you can tell how the season is
going to go by the colors that are around the characters and what
they are wearing. That really started to become apparent to me
last season. They were sticking to the dark and gloomy a lot,
up until Jasmine came along. At that point they started to mix
jewel tones with muddy tones. It was a striking contrast that
played into the sense that something just wasn't right with the
subject we were seeing portrayed.
[> [> [> Re: I don't think you actually imagined it
Dorian... -- DorianQ, 22:35:37 12/17/03 Wed
I didn't think of that, but now that you mention it, that definitly
makes perfect sense. However, that certain color scheme is one
of the reasons I vowed a long time ago to avoid working in an
cubicle or office building (I know, really unrealistic, but so
far I've kept to it) and I think was one of the reasons I was
less emotionally invested in the characters, not the main reason
by a long shot, but still a reason.
But the idea of using the color scheme like that is a great idea
that I hope that ME continues to implement.
P.S. Is that how 'implement' and 'definitly' are spelled? It doesn't
look quite right to me and I have a horrible eye for spelling
[> [> [> [> :) I spell horribly Dorian, so they
looked fine to me... -- Briar Rose, 12:54:37 12/18/03 Thu
Remember that Einstein couldn't spell either, so no worries on
it reflecting negatively on either of us.>^..^<
Sometimes i wish we could go back to the colonial days of both
the UK and the US when you didn't worry about actual spelling
- you worried about the words being understandable and great PENMENSHIP!
[> [> [> [> since you asked, dorian... -- anom,
15:25:44 12/18/03 Thu
..."implement" is fine as is, but "definitely"
has another e in it (the one before the -ly). I don't think the
-ly suffix ever changes the spelling of the word it's added to,
if that helps any (so in this case, the e at the end of "definite"
isn't dropped).
I can understand BR's feeling about spelling vs. understandability,
but I don't agree. I don't think it's a q. of one or the other,
& correct spelling can make things easier to understand, esp.
in English, which has so many words that sound or look similar
& mean very different things. If Dorian had spelled "quite"
as "quiet" above, sure, many readers could've figured
it out, but in other contexts it wouldn't be as clear--& who wants
to have to pause to figure these things out? Plus, thanks to the
wonders of the Internet, many people who aren't native English
speakers are reading boards like this one, & it's even more difficult
for them if words aren't spelled right! Oh, & when you do a search,
you're more likely to find what you're looking for if you spell
it right.
I'm not even gonna get started on omission of commas, e.g., the
difference btwn. "Since you asked, Dorian..." & "Since
you asked Dorian...." At least not right now. >sigh<
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks a bunch! -- DorianQ,
19:27:11 12/18/03 Thu
Current board
| More December 2003