February 2002 posts
Guilt, the ultimate refuge of scoundrels? -- abt, 02:10:28 02/01/02
Fri
I read this article by a self-help Rabbi, and thought of Angel's
situation. I've heard this Rabbi come out with some (IMO) weird
ideas, but I thought this one was interesting.
purpose of guilt
selected section:-
"Guilt is an emotion which allows people to do bad things
and still feel like they are good people. Guilt is the ultimate
escape clause from the human obligation to be a good person and
do the right thing. Indeed, guilt becomes the justification for
bad behavior because it tells us that we are still good no matter
what evil we do just so long as we feel remorseful.
Imagine this: A man knocks on your door and tells you he is hungry.
He asks for something to eat. You look at him and decide he doesn't
look poor enough. "Come back when you really look emaciated,"
you tell him. You slam the door and he leaves. At first, you feel
good, really proud of yourself. "There, I didn't give in
to that parasite. Let him get a job, the lazy loafer." But
a few minutes later, suddenly and unexpectedly, you are racked
with guilt. You feel bad. Now what does this emotion achieve?
Why do you suddenly feel bad about what you have done when just
a few moments before you had no qualms whatsoever?
Because this way you can avoid giving money to the poor and still
feel like you are a good person. If you had simply turned the
guy away and not felt any pangs of conscience, then that would
be proof that you are selfish, insensitive, and basically wicked.
But now, since you feel guilty about your actions, you can get
away with not giving and still be good. After all, you felt bad
that you turned him away, right? Doesn't that show that deep inside
you are a caring person? It is in this way that guilt actually
serves as a barrier between you and your ugliness. It dresses
up your selfishness and painlessly converts it to goodness. Now
you can be good and still keep your money in the process! What
guilt does, in effect, is assuage the conscience. It lets you
have your cake and eat it too. Because it is goodness without
sacrifice, being good without doing good, guilt is the ultimate
form of hypocrisy. That's also why guilt is the ultimate refuge
of scoundrels."
What do you think? Does feeling guilt allow us to deceive ourselves
that we are good? He goes on to say that it isn't a productive
emotion. I disagree with that part, I think guilt can make one
change one's ways for the better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Guilt, the ultimate refuge of scoundrels? -- Rufus,
05:53:23 02/01/02 Fri
Guilt is productive only if you do something about it. Angel didn't
for the first few decades or so. He hid from his responsibility,
hid from the pain of the wrongs he had done. He ended up sprawled
in an alley drinking from rats. When Whistler found him it was
the first step in many that caused Angel to do more than sit on
his ass feeling guilty, or actually sorry for himself. His actions
in setting up AI at least do something to balance the scale by
helping potential victims instead of ignoring their suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The rabbi seems to want people to feel guilty about
feeling guilty. Bizarre. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:02:19 02/01/02
Fri
There are simpler ways to say don't do things you'd feel guilty
about. ;o)
Rufus' point seems self-evident to me. But, it is a good point,
and she didn't ramble on and on to make it. If I needed advice
I'd rather go to her than this rabbi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: productive guilt and Angel -- yez, 09:39:29 02/01/02
Fri
I agree it can be productive when we take action because of it.
Re: Angel, while I can understand how he might feel guilty if
he experiences the memories of what the demon did in the first
person (i.e., he sees everything that happened *literally* through
the demon's eyes), in actuality, the human Angel is *not* resonsible
for anything the demon Angel did. I can understand him trying
to reclaim his body, so to speak, by correcting the wrongs that
were done using it as a tool or otherwise trying to make up for
it. But technically, he isn't responsible. How could those who
sit in judgment (if they exist in the Buffy- and Angel-verse)
hold those things against him, if he were able to come to terms
with the fact that, while the memories may be confusing, he didn't
actually do those things?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: productive guilt and Angel -- Rufus, 12:56:54
02/01/02 Fri
I can't agree with you that Angel is technically not guilty because
"he" wasn't there....I think the point is that he was
there but lacked enough empathy to care about what he was doing.
The vampire is a demon/human hybrid that results from a bite that
infects the host with the original demons soul....an infection,
possession. The person is still there, acting on their most base
emotions.
If it was true that Angel was not there in any way why say this....
Transcript from Angel(season one)
Buffy: Why? (gets up) Why didn't you just attack me when you had
the chance? Was it a joke? To make me feel for you and then...
I've killed a lot of vampires. I've never hated one before.
Angel: Feels good, doesn't it? Feels simple.
Buffy: I invited you into my home and then you attacked my family!
Angel: Why not? I killed mine. I killed their friends... and their
friend's children... For a hundred years I offered ugly death
to everyone I met, and I did it with a song in my heart.
Buffy: What changed?
Angel: Fed on a girl about your age... beautiful... dumb as a
post... but a favorite among her clan.
Buffy: Her clan?
Angel: Romany. Gypsies. The elders conjured the perfect punishment
for
me. They restored my soul.
Buffy: What, they were all out of boils and blinding torment?
Angel: When you become a vampire the demon takes your body, but
it doesn't get your soul. That's gone! No conscience, no remorse...
It's an easy way to live. You have no idea what it's like to have
done the things I've done... and to care. I haven't fed on a living
human being since that day.
Add to that Liams first act as a vampire in The Prodigal:
Cut to Angel's father nailing up his window from the inside.
Angel: "You're no different from the rest of them, - are
you, father? (His father spins around and stares at him) Cowering
in their houses - boarding up the windows - smearing that foul
herb in the doorways. You'd think something evil - and vile -
and monstrous - had taken to terrorizing this village -and everyone
in it."
Dad: "Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home
where it's not welcome. He must be invited!"
Angel: "That's true. - But I was invited."
Angel looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little Kathy
slumped against the wall.
Dad: "Och!"
Angel: "She thought I returned to her - an angel."
Dad spins around and charges Angel with the hammer in his hand.
Dad: "Murderer!"
Angel easily pushes the attack aside, making his dad fall to the
ground.
Angel: "Strange. - Somehow you seemed taller when I was alive."
Dad flattens himself up against the wall: "Lord, bind this
demon now."
Angel: "To think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing
make me feel the way you did."
Dad crosses himself: "I pray ye, give me your protection,
Father."
Angel: "You told me I wasn't a man. (Slowly stalks closer
to his dad) You told me I was nothing. - and I believed you. You
said I'd never amount to anything. (His dad stares at him with
wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong. (Angel morphs into vamp
face) You see, father? - I have made something out of myself after
all."
Angel puts a hand over his father's face and bites him. They slowly
slide down the wall and out of the picture.
Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?"
Angel has his feet up on the table playing with his father's pipe.
His family lies dead around him.
Angel: "Now I've won."
Darla: "You're sure?"
Angel puts his feet down and picks up a mug of ale: "Of course.
I proved who had the power here."
Darla: "You think?"
Angel: "What?"
Darla: "You're victory over him took but moments."
Angel looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angel: "What are you talking about? He can't defeat me now."
Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you - in this world or
any other. - What we once were informs all that we have become.
(Angel looks at his father's body) The same love will infect our
hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother's
and his sister's body) Simple death won't change that."
Angel: "Love? - Is this the work of love?"
Darla steps closer and smiles up at him: "Darling boy. -
So young. Still so very young."
(Again beautiful score music through this whole scene)
For any of Angel's current deeds to have true impact it has to
be because he is truly guilty of the acts he says "he"
did. Without that being true his quest for redemption is false
and meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: productive guilt and Angel -- yez,
13:44:22 02/01/02 Fri
Rufus wrote: "I can't agree with you that Angel is technically
not guilty because "he" wasn't there....I think the
point is that he was there but lacked enough empathy to care about
what he was doing. The vampire is a demon/human hybrid that results
from a bite that infects the host with the original demons soul....an
infection, possession. The person is still there, acting on their
most base emotions. If it was true that Angel was not there in
any way why say this...."
My understanding of how a vampire works is slightly different.
I've understood that the demon is a parasite that takes over the
body -- including whatever memories may be burned into the neural
pathways -- but doesn't get the human soul. As you quoted: "Angel:
When you become a vampire **the demon takes your body, but it
doesn't get your soul. That's gone!**"
And in the scene you cited, you can see that Liam's father doesn't
appeal to his son, because Angel is no longer his son -- instead,
he treats the demon he faces as a stranger.
As far as Angel's action go, from what I understand, the demon
*is* informed by the human's past -- it inherits all the human's
memories, and so Angel takes "revenge" on his father
because he can feel the anger and pain that Liam felt. However,
the human's soul, his core self, is no longer present in the body.
When the gypsies first reinstate Angel's soul in the curse, I
believe they have to reclaim it from "the ether" ("Becoming,
Part I). When that's done, there's a moment before that human
soul has access to the memories the demon created.
Another example is when Angel's "moment of true happiness"
with Buffy breaks the curse, he loses his soul again, and the
demon is back in control. The demon retains the obsession with
Buffy, but its distorted by the demon's nature, and he proceeds
to torment her.
You also said: "For any of Angel's current deeds to have
true impact it has to be because he is truly guilty of the acts
he says "he" did. Without that being true his quest
for redemption is false and meaningless."
I have to admit that I'm only caught up to season 3 of BtVS, and
I've only been watching Angel for this last season. So, I imagine
it's possible that the writers have tweaked things so that Angel's
story has become a redemption saga -- that's a theme that always
resonates. However, based on what I have seen of how things began,
IMHO, it isn't *technically* one because Angel's human soul could
no more guide Angel's behavior than anyone else could.
As I said before, I can understand how, after getting his human
soul back, Angel would *feel* somehow responsible (and therefore,
guilty) even if he technically wasn't: he may experience the demon's
memories in the first person, he may rebel against the feelings
of being out of control and helpless by wanting to take responsibility,
he may want to reclaim his body by taking responsibility for the
things it was involved in while he wasn't in it. But I would think
that after so many years, he would have made peace with the fact
that he was not in control, and so, not responsible.
I guess I just thought Angel's mission now was to fight for good
because he's specially suited for it and he wants to make a difference.
Not because he was trying to seek redemption. Please correct any
of my misconceptions. As I said, I'm a relative newcomer to the
shows.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Remember you asked for it.............:):):):)
-- Rufus, 15:09:19 02/01/02 Fri
Season one....
Creation of the Vampire ....The Harvest....season one
The library. The globe is spinning. Giles stops it while he lectures
and makes his way down to where Buffy, Willow and Xander are at
the table.
Giles: This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular
mythology, it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons
walked the Earth. They made it their home, their... their Hell.
But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way
was made for mortal animals, for, for man. All that remains of
the old ones are vestiges, certain magicks, certain creatures...
Buffy: And vampires.
Xander: Okay, this is where I have a problem. See, because we're
talking about vampires. We're having a *talk* with vampires in
it.
Willow: Isn't that what we saw last night?
Buffy: No. No, th-those weren't vampires, those were just guys
in thundering need of a facial. Or maybe they had rabies. It could
have been rabies. A-and that guy turning to dust? Just a trick
of light. (Xander gives her a look) That's exactly what I said
the first time I saw a vampire. Well, after I was done with the
screaming part.
Willow: Oh, I, I need to sit down. Buffy: You are sitting down.
Willow: Oh. Good for me.
Xander: So vampires are demons?
Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed
off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and
so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their
blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the
animals to die out, and the old ones to return.
I was very specific about the vampire being the result of an infection
a possession because that's what the transcripts say. I think
this is very important because I see the infection as a negative
supplement. What is gone is the soul, what is left is the rest
animated by the demon supplement. If it was just a case of the
soul being the only thing that makes one human then Angel would
have been redeemed by the return of his soul. I think it's more
than him feeling guilty over what the resident demon infection
has compelled him to do, I see it as a direct metaphor for an
addiction such as alcoholism where the demon infection acts in
a similar way to liquor...lowers the inhibitions allowing for
a vampire to act without guilt and remorse.
The scene with Angel's father is one to look carefully at. His
father never saw Liam as anything but a demon, a womanizer, layabout,
waste of space. When Angel/Liam arrives back on his doorstep,
his father doesn't really treat him much differently than before
except that he is now afraid of the power of the demon that Liam
has become. Angelus still see's his father....as his father, dying
didn't change who he was but how he interacted with the world.
Angel has always been about redemption all you have to do is listen
to what Doyle said in the beginning. If the return of Angel's
soul is all that was needed for the world to be right, then why
go through all this pain to redeem himself......I feel that it's
because he is a dry drunk atoning for what he did while drunk.
The vampire surely becomes drunk with new physical power, the
ability to take what they want. Then add in that demon need to
feed and kill, you have quite the monster. Angel was the worst
of them shaped by his insecurities in life, doomed to follow a
pattern of killing to finally win the contest he lost to his father
when he killed him.....he can only win for the moment that a victim
dies, quickly losing the thrill as the realization that the victim
can no longer appreciate the outcome of the contest.
Don't get me started on how evil the curse the gypsies did on
Angel was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Remember you asked for
it.............:):):):) -- yez, 15:29:22 02/01/02 Fri
"Don't get me started on how evil the curse the gypsies did
on Angel was."
And don't get me started about murkiness and potential inconsistencies
the Buffy and Angel writers/creators have left regarding what
exactly vampires are, what exactly the soul is, why vampires are
evil, etc. :)
Thanks for citing that opening explanation, I didn't remember
it. However, I actually don't think it contradicts my understanding.
It's not clear that "human form" means the demon took
on the human's body, took human shape, or whether both souls existed
in the "form" simultaneously, as they do in Angel right
now.
The point where I think we do agree is that the gypsy curse was
"evil." I think it would be clear why I felt that way
(Liam's soul is tormented equally with the demon's), but I'm not
sure why you do.
I was just thinking yesterday when I saw "Becoming, I"
how ironic Buffy's resurrection and her problems with it are,
considering she led the charge to do the same to Angel, theoretically
-- pulling his soul from wherever it was and recursing it. Actually,
for me, that situation would be your most compelling argument.
After all, why bother saving Angel (without his human soul)?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fuel for the fire
-- MrDave, 23:05:02 02/01/02 Fri
This is from the 2nd Season Ep "Lie to Me"
BUFFY: Let me explain this to you. You're what we call the bad
guy.
FORD: I guess I am. Cool.
BUFFY: These people aren't gonna get changed, are they? You, maybe,
in exchange for me, but the rest of them -- they're just fodder.
FORD: Technically, yes. But I'm in. I will become immortal.
BUFFY: I got a newsflash, braintrust. That's not how it works.
You die. And a demon sets up shop in your old house. It walks
and talks and remembers your life but
it's not you.
FORD: It's better than nothing.
Clearly, Buffy has had some more "training" since the
first season. Giles is doing his job in keeping her up to date
on how things work. It really seems rather intuitive to me. You
die. Your Soul moves on to whatever next dimension you have tickets
to. A demonic essence (I kind of like the idea of it being a "contagion")
takes over. Your body is re-animated and transformed by the demonic
essence. Body and mind remain, soul is departed. The mind with
no ethical compass (soul) is influenced by the demonic essence
(and is therefore motivated by "evil")
Restoration of the soul (ala Angel) just suppresses the demonic
nature (but does not eliminate it) and restores the soul to the
body. In the Jossverse the Hellenistic ideal of the Body/Mind/Soul
is in full force. The mind and body remain...the soul only changes
the ethics of the perception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Soul, ugh, what
is it good for? Absolutely nothing? -- yez, 05:50:20 02/02/02
Sat
Yes, good example. That's what I had understood. Good points.
Where it gets confusing for me is in trying to grasp what Whedon
et al think the soul does. At first, it was easy to say that,
as you put it, the soul is the "ethical compass." Angel
is a perfect example of that, because we've seen him before and
after. Or at least afterlife and after...
But the problem for me comes with what seems to be the connection
between lack of ethical/moral compass and evilness. Vampires,
again and again, are described as inherently, unalterably evil.
Yet, what are we supposed to do with Spike's behavior over the
last 2 seasons? He's been a good boy -- he's been better than
many humans -- and it isn't the function of a soul. And what about
the humans who are acting in "evil" ways?
So, if the human soul is the moral/ethical compass, how do we
explain humans (presumably with souls) who act in "evil"
ways, and a vampire who works in good ways?
Also, what do we do with vampires who work more or less ethically,
who love and are loyal, who suffer, etc., to their own kind --
even if they aren't to their food source? Humans, generally, don't
treat their own food sources a hell of a lot better.
And can it really be argued that the human soul is in some ways
an *inherent* compass for morality? That we're born with morality
and it's not a product of what we're taught or what we experience
to a large extent?
Lot-o-questions.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul,
ugh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing? -- Rufus, 16:14:33
02/02/02 Sat
The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001
Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of
a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires,
because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires
have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience?
And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"
JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their
nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are
guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be
good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided
simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe
in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people
believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to
someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that
person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has
sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting
more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural
bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos
where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's
really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but
they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're
all sort of somewhere in the middle."
So, if the human soul is the moral/ethical compass, how do we
explain humans (presumably with souls) who act in "evil"
ways, and a vampire who works in good ways?
The above comments from the Paley Festival were made last year
by Joss in reaction to a question from the audience. The point
is that their simple explanation of the soul wasn't cutting it
for me when you consider just how much of the person who once
was still existed in the vampire. Then tack on the capacity for
evil that lives in each one of everyones little hearts then the
divide between the demon and human is smaller than you'd think.
A soul isn't a guarantee that other elements such as hate, greed,
and lust can't enter the situation and cause a person to become
every bit as evil as a demon, more so if you think about the head
start the inner compass of the human. But when you think of both
demon and human behavior starting at the similar mid point of
a spectrum of good and evil you can see that the potential exists
for either to become attracted to the opposite star to what their
inner compass directs them to. As you don't find many truly evil
humans, you wouldn't find many truly good souless demons. But
the potential is there. To me it's only human conceit that refused
to acknowledge that fact. The same sort of singular thinking spawns
racism ect, and the isolation that the vampire is the metaphor
for. Just my opinion...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Soul, ugh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing? -- yez, 07:52:27
02/04/02 Mon
I agree that would be a more complex portrayal and exploration.
But I just don't think that's what we're seeing or meant to see
onscreen.
Thanks for sharing tha answer, though.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Guilt - an emotion, a choice -- Eric, 10:46:07
02/03/02 Sun
I think the rabbi is full of it. Guilt is an emotion. Its an emotion
a person feels after realizing they did something bad. If they
use the feeling itself to boost their self image, its a choice
they make. Good people that do REALLY bad things and realize it
are too overcome by their guilt to worry about self image. In
fact, their self image itself is so degraded they often contemplate
suicide. They might do that, or they could re assess who they
really are. Doing that they assume responsibility for their action,
suffer whatever punishment is offered and change their life for
the better. Their behavior becomes based on what they're doing
NOW rather than what they did in the past. (Sound familiar, AtS
fans?) Also a choice.
Either is SO much better than a person who commits a crime and
buries the guilt and even the memory in denial. They torment themselvses
and even open the possibility for more crimes. (Sound familiar
Faith fans?) Some people, sociopaths, have no guilt at all. They're
scary people, but few and mostly working as elite commandos types
or rubber room occupants. Worse are those who deny the guilt and
even try to pretend their denial gives them the "advantage"
of a sociopath. The ability to kill without remorse often seems
powerful to the immature. They may be tempted to "prove"
their "advantage" further.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Guilt, the ultimate refuge of scoundrels? -- Rufus,
05:54:29 02/01/02 Fri
Guilt is productive only if you do something about it. Angel didn't
for the first few decades or so. He hid from his responsibility,
hid from the pain of the wrongs he had done. He ended up sprawled
in an alley drinking from rats. When Whistler found him it was
the first step in many that caused Angel to do more than sit on
his ass feeling guilty, or actually sorry for himself. His actions
in setting up AI at least do something to balance the scale by
helping potential victims instead of ignoring their suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMG news (slightly OT) -- vampire hunter D, 12:49:16 02/01/02
Fri
OK, here's a little thing I found on Sarah's latest project:
"Real life couple Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze
Jr. provide voices for the animation feature Happily N'Ever After.
The story is about a young princess whose real love is a dishwasher.
Sigourney Weaver voices the evil stepmother who tries to rain
on everyone's parade. The film is directed by Gerhard Hahn and
written by Rob Moreland"
I fear for Sarah now. She's been reduced to doing movies for her
(soon to be) deadbeat boyfriend. Let's face it, Freddie's career
is already breathing it's last gasps. It will be over before he
is 30. And if Sarah keeps doing project like this, her's will
be over almost as soon. And then, maybe we will be able to go
into a burger place and find Buffy the vampire Slayer asking us
"Do you want fries with that?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Sebastian, 13:19:05 02/01/02
Fri
i agree. although outside of 'btvs', SMG's latest movies have
not been well-received. she wrapped a movie called 'harvard man'
that was released as an indie - and the few reviews it has generated
have been rather dismal.
here's hopin' that the live action version of 'scooby doo' she
is starring in (as daphne!) doesn't turn out to be a disaster.
but i digress......
its rather ironic, considering that the expectation was that FP's
career was going to be brighter than SMG's (only because of the
fact that he does movies, opposed to say, to doing a TV show.)
also, SMG was featured as an 'up & comer' in entertainment weekly's
annual 'power in hollywood' issue a few months ago.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> lone person with opinion -- Liz, 13:34:31 02/01/02
Fri
I really liked _Cruel Intentions._ It was interesting, it was
well acted, and it was a damn good adaptation of the original.
And the sound editing was lovely.
In fact I started watching Buffy because of that movie. I knew
nothing about any of the actors ahead of time and I quickly said,
"Sarah Michelle Gellar, who is that? I must see more of what
she does. Oh, she's in that Buffy show that people at work keep
talking about."
Though I have to agree that I haven't liked any of her other movies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: lone person with opinion -- Rattletrap,
14:05:28 02/01/02 Fri
SMG was great in Cruel Intentions, though I thought the movie
was on the whole a bit lacking. She did a good job doing Glenn
Close's part without trying to do it like Glenn Close did. I would
have liked to see a bit more interaction between she and Reese
Witherspoon's character, just for the opportunity to see two of
the most talented young actresses in the business playing directly
opposite each other.
SMG, and most of the Buffy crew, will have problems w/ movie careers
for a long time to come because of BtVS. TV stars can only very
rarely produce long-running and successful movie careers, often
because everyone irrevocably associates them with one specific
character. The problem is worse for women than men because Hollywood's
obsession with youth and beauty makes it much more difficult for
women, however talented, to maintain careers after 35 or so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: lone person with opinion -- Sebastian,
14:28:48 02/01/02 Fri
dont get me wrong...i liked 'cruel intentions'. i, too, thought
it was a clever adaptation.
i was referring to her stint in 'simply irresistible' along with
'the harvard man' as her latest movies that have not received
popular or critical acclaim.
her other movies ('cruel intentions' and 'i know what you did
last summer') were very well-received either commerically or critically.
'scream 2' doesnt count since she died after the first five minutes
she appeared. :-P
as a sidebar.....which ties into 'trap's comments about character
association....it was an odd experience to watch SMG get 'beat
down' in both 'scream2' and 'iknowwhatyoudid' only because i expected
her character to open up a can of buffy-whup-ass and trounce the
attacker.
because the cast does *such* a good job as these characters -
its going to be hard for viewers to see them as anyone else (i
remember reading that SMG colored her hair to further distance
herself from looking like 'buffy'.)
also, and correct me if i'm wrong, the actors from 'buffy' tend
to be very distinctive looking people and cant just play *any*
character despite their acting prowess - because certain physical
charcateristcs are *so* heavily associated with who they play.
although, it seems out of all of the main scoobs - alyson hannigan
seems to be having the easiest time in doing other stuff with
(the 'american pie' movies and frequent guest stints on mtv shows).
- S (clearly bored at work and waiting for that damn last hour
here to wind down). :-P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Eric, 14:10:10 02/01/02 Fri
SMG has beauty, talent, and brains. Some of her movies may suck
and disappoint BtVS fans, but every star has those. Tom Hanks
in Joe vs. the Volcano, etc. Freddie Prinz Jr. should have nothing
to do with it. If her career peters out, its only due to a lack
of ambition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Celialite, 14:59:18 02/01/02
Fri
It's more than likely that doing a voiceover is the only thing
she has time for at this point. She is the star of a TV show with
outrageous shooting scheduled and she just finished post-production
on a major feature film.
Odds are, she took the voiceover job to (1) earn a few more bucks
and (2) more importantly, to have some extra time with her love.
I thought she was excellent in Cruel Intentions also, and really
had fun with Simply Irristable even though it wasn't the best
film.
Buffy is not my favorite character, but I do have quite a bit
of respect for SMG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> SMG future -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 00:01:04
02/03/02 Sun
There are precedents for actors being so identified with a single
character it damages their future careers. Leonard Nimoy has fought
Spock for three decades -- unsuccessfully, despite his substantial
talent, stage and screen credentials, and years in the business.
Dana Delany, also someone I think is quite good, has been stuck
in McMurphy of China Beach for about a decade and seems to have
disappeared.
Becoming too successful too soon may be a long-term problem. Oddly
enough, being an ensemble actor or receiving second billing may
be a relative plus; you can build a track record of versatility
BEFORE you become a household word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Andy, 18:53:38 02/01/02 Fri
This animated film holds no indication of what her career might
become. Animated movies like this are things that actors practically
just spit out when they're bored and want easy money. They're
all over the place and none of them really affect the voice actors'
careers one way or another (unless maybe it's really, really high
profile, like Robin Williams in Aladdin). Scooby Doo will be vastly
bigger for Gellar than this. Even then, it's kind of premature
to make any judgments on her career until Buffy ends and she's
able to make movies more steadily, instead of just doing one per
year during her summer break.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy ends? -- LeeAnn,
01:38:22 02/02/02 Sat
I'm much more concerned with what will happen to James Marster
than SMG. Hope he has a lot of opportunities..but that doesn't
seem to be happening for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy ends? --
Dyna, 09:38:19 02/02/02 Sat
Generally in interviews when James is asked what he'd like to
do after "Buffy," he talks about returning to the theater.
He was well-regarded as an actor and director in live theater
before he switched to TV, something he did mainly (he says) for
financial reasons.
As for why we don't see more of him now in other roles, the impression
I've gotten is that the "Buffy" shooting schedule is
so rigorous that the actors don't have much time for outside work.
I'd love to see James more in other roles, but it sounds like
from a quality-of-life perspective, he's better off using his
free time to catch up on sleep and have a life!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy ends?
-- Lyn, 10:54:16 02/02/02 Sat
I think James spends a lot of his "off" time on his
music.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy
ends? -- Deeva, 22:19:23 02/02/02 Sat
OK not to sound all stalker-like or anything but I gathered from
the interviews and updates over at Jamesmarsters.com, (before
it closed temporarily, course.) that he was quite busy during
hiatus. He shot a role on the syndicated show Andromeda while
he was in Vancouver filming another movie. It happened to fit
into his schedule while he was up there. (According to Kevin Sorbo,
he's the lead, James didn't come cheap!) And doesn't he have a
part in the movie that Amber Benson wrote, directed and, I think,
showed at Sundance? In addition to the music that he likes to
do and maybe 1 or 2 convention appearances. That's quite a schedule
to have on hiatus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after
Buffy ends? -- grifter, 02:14:40 02/03/02 Sun
"And doesn't he have a part in the movie that Amber Benson
wrote, directed and, I think, showed at Sundance?"
Sure does. But "Chance" sadly didn´t show at Sundance,
there was a sucky film with Amber Benson in it shown there though.
It´s a psychothriller - thing, she probably took the role
for the same reason SMG was in "I know what you did...":
publicity!
Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Copper, 13:10:20 02/01/02 Fri
It occurred to me that we need to look at Buffy and sexual relationships
in a different way. As has been discussed here, Buffy has terrible
luck with her relationships. Perhaps there is a reason for this
beyond those mentioned.
Prior to the late 20th century it would have been dangerous for
a slayer to have sex: she could get pregnant and/or get a disease,
both of which would be deadly for a slayer's abilities to vanquish
evil. Even in the late 20th/early 21st century, sex is not without
risk of pregnancy and/or disease. Therefore, it would seem that
slayers are meant to be celibate.
If we examine the history of warriers or warrier/heroes going
into battle (or athletes going into a game) celibacy is usually
required or preferred. Romantic love can fracture your concentration
and sex can deplete your energies. Although this last is usually
thought to be related to sperm loss.
Buffy's destiny is to save the world, or at least her small corner
of it. She cannot do this if she is concerned about having or
maintaining a sexual relationship. She loses focus and she loses
energy. As a slayer, she must be celibate to be effective.
So, it would appear that Spike will lose her and that no one will
have her. She may have friendships, but not lovers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Sophist, 13:26:36 02/01/02
Fri
I'm not so sure slayers before Buffy didn't have active sex lives.
After all, slaying sure made Faith "hungry and horny"
and it seems to have a similar effect on Buffy. I see no reason
to assume that this is a recent phenomenon.
If slayers weren't having sex before, it probably had more to
do with social mores than the risk of pregnancy or disease. Their
life expectancy would make both risks fairly minor.
The loss of energy supposedly associated with pre-game sex is
an Old Slayers Tale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Copper, 13:51:37
02/01/02 Fri
Sophist, I am not disagreeing that "no sex before a game"
is an old whatever tale, but the point is that having sex does
drain one's energy, which is why Faith has it. She is still so
revved up after slaying that she needs to be drained of some of
that energy and finds that sex works for her. Note, Faith does
not have relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Faith without love -- Sophist, 14:11:35 02/01/02
Fri
I guess that if Faith has enough energy left over after slaying
to need to be drained (nice irony :)) by sex, it wouldn't hurt
the slayer much to have an active sex life. Most of the coital
would probably occur post-slayage anyway, rather than vice versa.
I don't see sex as being the slayer's problem. Love may well be,
and if that was your point, I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Faith without love -- Copper, 14:23:45
02/01/02 Fri
I believe I emphasized relationships. There is so much discussion
over the B/S ship: will it work out?, etc. The point of my post
is that the Slayer is not meant to have relationships, and in
that sense is meant to be celibate. Casual sex that uses others
for personal relief (a la Faith) is ultimately destructive and
not what a hero would engage in. If the slayer is a hero and warrier,
then the slayer should remain celibate. I don't say I like that
conclusion. It would be nice if Buffy could have a relationship,
but it does not fit the reality Joss has created. Think of Buffy's
choice of name in Tabula Rasa: Joan. Joan of Arc was celibate
and a "slayer".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith without love -- Sophist,
16:08:53 02/01/02 Fri
I completely agree that a slayer may find it impossible to have
a long term relationship. Putting aside life expectancy issues,
the job requirements may preclude it. In fact, it's odd how often
great achievers are failures in their personal relationships.
It may be that the commitment to success interferes with the time
or emotional commitment necessary for personal relationships.
Buffy, of course, is different than other slayers, so she may
succeed where others failed. I'd like to think that JW is showing
us that part of her journey.
I personally hope that we will not be subjected to the "hero
must be celibate" nonsense, but your comment about Joan of
Arc certainly suggests that as a possibility within the confines
of the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Liz, 13:36:30 02/01/02
Fri
Considering that Kendra couldn't even _talk_ to Xander, I'd agree
with that for most slayers. But Buffy has always been one for
having it all. She wants to be the slayer and have a normal life
at the same time. This has never really worked out perfectly,
and possibly when it comes to the complexities of a close, sexual
relationship, she's in trouble. Actually she's dropped the ball
a few times just maintaining friendships, but luckily her friends
call her on it and she fixes things. Her lovers don't seem to
be able to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sex beneficial to the slayer? and the role of the watcher's
council -- Kerri, 14:37:21 02/01/02 Fri
I disagree with saying that having sex will hurt a slayer or she
wasn't meant to. On the contrary, I think that being fully in
touch with the more instinctual side of her personality would
strengthen a slayer, and fits in will with Buffy needing to intergrate
all aspects of herself.
However, in the past slayers may have been discouraged from having
sex because of the watchers council, which represents a male dominated
society that trys to oppress the slayer's sexual power and freedom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Anneth, 14:41:41 02/01/02
Fri
"She loses focus and she loses energy. As a slayer, she must
be celibate to be effective."
That's a good point. The author Mary Stewart, in explaining why
she made Merlin celibate in her book _The Crystal Cave_ (the Arthurian
legend from Merlin's perspective - a very good book, with good
sequels), made a similar argument. She didn't feel that she could
legitimately make Merlin a magical being if she also made him
a sexual being.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- fresne, 15:08:19 02/01/02
Fri
Hard to say. After all, while people in the past didn't have as
effective or as varied methods of birth control as we do now,
it's not like they didn't have them. Malnutrition, sheep guts
and vinegar sponges all had a certain amount of success. Not really
up on ancient medicines so, in a women had no Renaissance kind
of way, hard for me to say what kind of herbal remedies were used.
Once we get into literate eras (with an increased emphasis on
higher reproductive rates and male doctors), well they had some
really interesting and bizarre ideas about women's body.
Its specifically difficult to say with female warriors because
they tended to occur in nomadic horse cultures (i.e. illiterate),
where a small body weight and strong thighs (especially sans stirrups)
were more important than the upper body strength required by foot
soldier in (often literate) sedentary cultures. However, given
the Roman descriptions of both the Scythians and the Kelts, they
didn't seem that abstemious.
And as to warrior/hero celibacy in general. Again depends on the
culture. Different cultures perceive casual and for that matter
relationship sex differently. There are heroes like Irish Cu Cuchulainn,
who learned (in at least one version) self control in battle through
learning self control during sex. Come to think of it his teacher
was a vampire (although he slept didn't sleep with her), whose
immortal sister Aoife (not a vampire, just immortal) he defeated
after a long battle and then you know the sex. And then you know
a son, but that was later. Sampson's problem wasn't casual sex,
although really it should have been. There was a phalanx in ancient
Thebes, Greece, that was comprised entirely of male lovers. The
theory being that you were less likely to break ranks in battle
if your lover was your shield mate. Let's not even get into all
the Greek, Roman, Norse and German heroes.
Contrasting to which we have a whole tradition of French/Arthurian
knights pining for a ribbon from their pure lady fair. And only
so and so was pure enough to get the grail, pluck the rose, and
my favorite, defeat the black knight at the sacred well. All of
which has a whole not enough heiresses to go around social dynamic
in addition to religious thinking.
Also, the Watcher's Council seems so very pip, pip Victorian that
it's hard to guess what they were like in earlier, more licentious,
eras.
Mainly, I think it might be very difficult to keep a 15 year old
hormonal girl who faces life and death situations on a constant
basis from having sex or falling in love. Parents think about
teen pregnancy. Teenagers, not always so much.
Problem is we have a limited base of information here. Both Buffy
and Faith (didn't really get to see enough of no I'm not repressed
Kendra, 1st Slayer, New York or Chinese Slayers) seem to have
a strong association between violence and pleasure (food or sex).
Makes sense really. If I were designing a Slayer, I would want
the association between pleasure and doing the duty, which might
kill you. However, that's really not enough information.
Buffy and Faith's relationship problems seem to stem from psychological
issues that aren't necessarily related to being the Slayer. Nothing
for it really, we need more episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What about Buffy teaching Kendra to have passion? The whole
message of "The Yoko Factor"? -- yuri, 17:57:05 02/01/02
Fri
It's been implied and shouted time and again on BtVS that Buffy's
relationships and passions and emotions make her a stronger, more
capable slayer.
"She cannot do this [save the world] if she is concerned
about having or maintaining a sexual relationship. She
loses focus and she loses energy. As a slayer, she must be celibate
to be effective"
The point I've always seen made is that Buffy is strengthened
and reinforced by her relationships, be they friendly or romantic.
To my understanding, that's why she's been such a successful slayer,
and, if I have my facts right, has done more and lived longer
than many slayers before her. (granted, she died twice.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sex and the Successful Slayer -- LeeAnn, 23:57:00
02/01/02 Fri
"To my understanding, that's why she's been such a successful
slayer, and, if I have my facts right, has done more and lived
longer than many slayers before her. (granted, she died twice.)"
But in both cases her friends brought her back. Without relationships
Buffy would still be...in heaven.
Till 40-50 years ago the reasons for celibacy were pregnancy and
disease. Birth Control for most women was limited to ineffective
methods or dangerous ones like self induced abortion. Even informing
people about birth control methods was illegal. Hard to be any
kind of warrior if you have to care for an infant, for children.
Can't imagine a pregnant slayer..or one with an infant in her
arms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> what does that say about Angel? (NT) -- Maxwell,
11:52:12 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shooting Script for Doublemeat Palace -- Artemis, 19:25:32 02/01/02
Fri
Hadn't seen this posted yet.And the old address for the the shooting
script is obsolete. Here's the new one in case you don't have
it .
www.studiesinwords.de/shooting/index.html
I found interesting the counter scene with Spike and Buffy. Wish
it had been filmed like scripted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shooting Script for Doublemeat Palace -- yez, 05:36:09
02/02/02 Sat
Thanks for the link.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Do you mean the alley scene? -- Sophist, 09:50:17 02/02/02
Sat
The script for that scene is very interesting. It reads the exact
opposite of what we saw. Wonder what's going on here.
I liked a lot of the bits that were cut from the script. They
should have left those in and cut others. Maybe there were future
episodes to account for.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do you mean the alley scene? -- Chris, 18:03:33
02/02/02 Sat
I hope you don't mind this lurker jumping in here to ask what
you thought of the description in the shooting script (Spike and
Buffy's sex scene) where it says "...only effort and need..."?
How do you read that? Effort = Spike; Need = Buffy (or both)?
Actually the description provided me with some hope (I am one
of those that likes the S/B relationship) since I found that scene
out by the dumpsters disturbing due to Buffy's vacant expression.
I have been wondering just what JE was trying to convey. Theories,
please!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spoilers here and in the post above for DMP
-- Sophist, 19:02:25 02/02/02 Sat
You hit the nail on the head. Buffy looked lifeless and detached
in the scene, the very opposite of "effort and need".
Obviously, the scene did not play how it was written. I don't
know why, but my guess is that the change was either (1) part
of a continuing disparity in the writers' view of B/S (a relationship
that I also like, but that many don't), or (2) necessary to lead
to already-written future eps. Since I remain spoiler free, that's
the best I can do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do you mean the alley scene?(Spoilers) --
Artemis, 19:25:20 02/02/02 Sat
What I got from the description of "efort and need"
and I actually thought it was conveyed, was that it mostly described
Buffy. When you are in a position where you are drained emotionally
and physically the ability to get lost in a sexual act is not
necessarily easy and might require effort whether you want it
to be be easy or not . Yet because of where you are emotionally
you "need" the act.
I don't think the scene says much about there relationship per
se . But more about where she was emotionally, because of the
job. In a way I find the description more hopeful . JMHO
I too would like the relationship to work. Their chemistry explodes
off screen . I don't know if it will . But I tend to think it
has more to do with Spike. He's not redeemed yet. I understand
why Buffy tries to stay away and I understand why she can't .
That's why I love this show.
I also wish they had left in some other lines that were cut. There
was some funny stuff in the script. Probably had to do wtih time.
Or like someone else said it might have effected other episodes
to come .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The alley scene didn't bother me. -- bookworm,
09:43:12 02/03/02 Sun
Blink and you miss it, for one thing. Here's my interpretation
of the look. Buffy is dead on her feet after a double shift; she's
dirty, smells of grease and meat; is depressed about money and
having to take that dead end job in the first place; she doesn't
know what else to do; she is still disgusted with herself for
not being able to resist the lure of undead sex. She just feels
bad. Spike comes slinking by the window and gives her a look.
She takes her silly chicken hat off, maybe because she doesn't
want him to see her with it on, and heads out to the alley for
a little oblivion. She's thinking, "Oh, hell, why not?"
and "Make me forget." We don't see what transpires between
them after she goes into the alley. Maybe he just grabs her and
backs her against the wall without saying anything and they go
at it. She looks at him, he buries his head in her neck, she stares
into space. Her expression could convey anything from exhaustion
to depression to forgetfulness to shame to pleasure. My guess
is that Buffy was feeling all of those things while he's working
her and Spike may be thinking, "What else can I do for her?
I like it, and if sex can make her feel better ..." What
I noticed is that Buffy is actually pretty animated and energetic
the next day AFTER the sex with Spike, which suggests to me that
he's still waking her up. At that point in time, sex in the alley
may have been what she needed. He offered her an outlet and a
way to try to forget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The alley scene didn't bother me.
-- Lilac, 10:24:07 02/03/02 Sun
This was pretty much my take on the scene. You can almost hear
her thinking, as she sees Spike and whips that silly hat off,
"oh good, here's my break". Probably didn't work the
way she had hoped it would, based on that sad expression, but
I don't think it necessarily says big things about the relationship
over all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - February 1st 2002 - First Anniversary
Special Edition Pt. I -- OnM, 19:38:35 02/01/02 Fri
*******
But I just had to look / Having read the book
I'd love to turn you on...
............ Lennon/McCartney
*******
Evil Clone: So you made it. I must confess that I'm impressed,
I didn't think you had it in you.
OnM: Well, for once I won't argue with you, I'm kinda surprised
myself. But here we are, it's fully one year later, and I've cranked
out a new 'Classic Movie' column each and every week, without
a single miss.
E.C.: So why bring your dating life into this? I thought we were
going to talk movies?
OnM: Wiseass.
E.C. Yes, daddy. You made me what I am today, for which I am sooooo
grateful.
OnM: I'm not your daddy. And we are going to talk movies.
E.C.: So, go dude. Time's a wastin'. (leans back in Barcolounger,
sighing contentedly)
OnM: In honor of the first anniversary of the column, I've come
up with some special features and ideas to both honor the past
and look forward to the future. Some of these will involve showcasing
the talents of my fellow ATPo boarders, and act to get them more
involved in the BtVS/cinema component of the website.
E.C.: Oh, you mean this idea you came up with a while ago to solicit
the writing of Classic Movie guest columns by some of the other
posters?
OnM: Yup, that's one of them. One of the facts of televised Buffylife
is that you have sweeps and you have the intervening hiatus times
between them. Since the main topics of fan discussion inevitably
die down after new eps come and go, it's important to give people
a good reason to visit the board and contribute. Rowan elegantly
QED'ed that theorem last summer with her wonderful idea of the
ATPoBtVS Character Posts, and then there was Solitude1056 and
LiquidRAM with their work done to coordinate, edit and eventually
produce the magnificent Dark Alchemy, which I feel represents
a watershed fanfic event in the halls of Buffy fandom.
E.C.: Yes, it was violent, dark and erotic. Just the way we like
'em!
OnM: Uhhm, yeah, well... the point being, there is no reason we
all need to dry up and blow away like so much vamp dust just because
there's no new ep on the horizon for a few weeks or months. There
is simply too much talent lurking at our board to waste it. I
feel certain that the weekly cinematic musings I provide would
only be enhanced by the addition of regular contributors besides
myself.
E.C.: (smirks) Not to mention that it's been a year now and you
feel entitled to take a vacation, right?
OnM: Hey! Don't go there!
E.C.: I've offered to write a few columns, but noooo..... Mr.
Obsessive Perfectamundo can't relinquish the keyboard for a paltry
week or so, now can he?
OnM: You're not ready for prime time yet. Some weeks I'm not even
sure that I am, and I've been around a lot longer than you have.
Consistent creativity is far harder than it looks, ya know.
E.C.: (gestures at own self): Yeah, dig it!
OnM: Don't get me started. Now, where was I? Oh yeah... In addition
to the guest columns, I'm also going to be re-reviewing a few
of my very earliest columns, since at the time I started this
endeavor last February, I really wasn't sure how well it would
be received. Even by linking the column themes to the current
philosophical goings-on in the Buffyverse, it was still somewhat
OT-ish for a Buffy-centric website and discussion board. I was
very conscious of taking up too much of Masquerade's space, so
I deliberately kept the initial offerings very short in length,
and in fact hardly discussed the film or it's philosophical issues
in anything but the most cursory terms.
E.C.: (sporting evil grin): Well, glory be! That must've really
hurt, O Most Loquacious One!
OnM: (ignoring the jibe) It was a balancing act. Also, it took
a while to come up with a style that seemed to suit both my intent
and my writing abilities. Not being a professional writer or reviewer,
I ended up just attempting to present sort of a personal vision,
and leave it at that. The essay/review/miscellaneous format was
the eventual result. Of course, I'm always open to input from
my fellow ATPo-er's. The Question-of-the-Week idea came from another
poster, in fact.
E.C.: Then there's the occasional techno-babble segment. Do you
really think anybody cares besides us? I'm not sure that stuff's
a real benefit to most of the readers even though, ironically,
you're far better qualified to give that kind of advice than the
actual movie reviews, you know?
OnM: Well, that is entirely true, but as I said, I try different
stuff and wait for feedback on it. DVD's are becoming very popular
now, and good home theater systems are showing up in more and
more 'average' homes. You know how rarely the technology gets
installed or operated correctly; I spend a good part of every
year of my professional life fixing problems that many people
don't even know they have. It's depressing to see someone spend
several grand on good electronic gear and have it set up so poorly
that they're lucky to get $300.00 worth of performance out of
the thing. Just this last week, I did a service call for a customer
who complained that the tapes she played on her VCR didn't sound
very good, especially in the surround sound mode. Turned out the
VCR setup menus had been set to access the older, standard soundtrack
on the tape, instead of the hi-fi track. She was listening in
monaural!
E.C.: (laughs): Whatta doofus! Why didn't she just read the damn
book? Nobody reads anymore!
OnM: (becoming agitated): She's not a doofus! I had to spend nearly
ten minutes scouring through the owner's manual for the VCR just
to find out how to switch it from the tuner to the line input
so she could record programs from her satellite receiver. Once
I found it, it was an easy procedure, but the directions for same
were buried in some ludicrously obscure section of the manual.
If an experienced tech can't intuitively figure out how to use
a feature, what chance do normal people have?
E.C.: Well, the ATPo people are pretty smart. They aren't 'normal',
as you so wittily put it.
OnM: People are smart in many different ways. The power behind
the board is the representation of intellectual and experiential
diversity. That doesn't mean everyone is good at everything. Just
because someone, for example, can code HTML or take great photographs,
or play a musical instrument, doesn't make them hip to anamorphic
widescreen DVD's or that having Dolby Digital doesn't automatically
mean a 5.1 channel soundtrack. So, once in a while, I try to add
a little enlightenment.
E.C.: And more than once in a while, you get off the track. Like
now. Back to the anniversary specials of the month?
OnM: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Got off on a rant there... So there will
be the guest columns, a few selected re-writings of some very
early CMotW's, a review of my choice for the best film of 2001,
and of course this week's offering, a review of Lord of the Rings.
There is another possible big, new item that may some to fruition
in the next few months, but it's still very much a work in progress
at this point. I need to confer with LiquidRAM a bit regarding
it, but I'm hoping it will mean still more good stuff for my friends
here at ATPo to enjoy.
E.C.: You don't mean the...
OnM: (abruptly): Shhh! No spoilers here! Mum's the word for now!
E.C.: (smirking) Yes, daddy. (eyes roll upward) You'll probably
never get it done anyway, knowing your miserable track record
for completing personal projects.
OnM: Yeah, well, I finished high school many years ago, and that
really sucked. Now, thirty long years later, I just finished a
whole damn year's worth of movie review columns, and that really
doesn't suck. And I owe it all to my loyal fans, and their ardent
support.
E.C.: (bigger smirk) Suckup.
OnM: Bite me.
E.C.: (still-bigger smirk) That's right, quote Buffy. Real original!
OnM: You wouldn't get to spend your days eating, sleeping and
surfing the net without me, dude. So I get the last word, remember?
E.C.: (gets up and heads back to the basement): A long one, no
doubt. Ta-taa.
OnM: (sighs wearily, shakes head) Why, oh why do I do this? (flips
on switch to computer, waits patiently for the word processor
to boot, pauses for several long minutes staring blankly at the
screen, then starts to type) Oh, yeah, birds gotta fly...
******* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Classic Movie o/t Week - February 1st 2002 - First Anniversary
Special Edition Pt. II -- OnM, 19:47:27 02/01/02 Fri *******
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: Screenplay by Frances Walsh, based (of course) on
the novels by J.R.R. Tolkien
*******
One of my primary web surfing habits, which I'm very sure will
come as no surprise to any of my regular readers, is checking
out movie and DVD related websites. I have several favorites that
I visit regularly, usually weekly, and still others that I check
out from time to time as the mood strikes me.
At a recent drop-in to one of the 'occasional' sites, I came across
an angry letter/e-mail from a reader who blisteringly excoriated
the site's recent listing of 'desert island DVD's' because they
didn't include a number of films that, paraphrasing the reader's
words, 'were obviously classic films because they sold a lot of
tickets at the box office and also lots of copies on video'.
Uh..... huh. Yeah. Right.
Which was pretty much the response not only of the site owners,
but also in reply after reply after reply of the subsequent e-mail
respondents. Clicking over to study the list in question for myself,
I found that I pretty much agreed with the vast majority of the
site's evaluations. To this humble movie-man, the films listed
were indeed worthy of 'classic' status in all true and righteous
senses of the word, and I had no reason to dispute the assertions
of high quality DVD renderings/packagings of same. Great films,
great videos. What else do you want?
It would be a mistake, however, to write off the letter of one
apparent 'crank' as an aberration, because I can assure you he
isn't alone. Just recently, we were having some discussion on
the board as to how to best deal with those unfortunate souls
who are apparently born 'metaphor-blind', forever incapable of
seeing even slightly below the surface of any artistic effort.
The same arguments are equally applicable to those who judge the
worth of any art by it's commercial success. I personally know
any number of people who absolutely will not go out to see any
movie that is not 'popular', no matter how ardently you attempt
to convince them of the worthiness it may bear.
Now, before anyone reading this starts to panic and assume that
I am about to give the big ol' opposable digit downward to Lord
of the Rings, please quietly return to your seats, for I intend
to do no such thing. I very much enjoyed this movie, but on the
other hand, I feel it is extremely important to address why quite
a number of professional film critics do not place this movie
on their personal 'best of all time', or even 'best of the year'
lists. The need to do so lies less in wishing to nitpick the movie's
relatively minor faults, then in acting to help stem a growing
tide of opinion that film is supposed to be a simple commodity
created by a 'workforce' to appease the 'wishes' of the moviegoing
public, much as if a film were a bottle of shampoo that is OK,
but could use a more pleasant fragrance or come prepackaged with
a cents-off coupon.
In fact, this is the exact tree that the website complainant was
barking up. He felt that 'the director's job is to meet my needs',
and 'if a film isn't popular, then obviously the public's needs
aren't being met'. I don't recall any comment on this particular
subject in the letter, but I strongly suspect that this fellow
is exactly the same type who bitches and moans endlessly about
the horrors of letterboxing on DVD's, and 'when are the damn studios
gonna give me back my whole TV screen?'
Well, at the risk of being rude, you witless nit, it's because
it's art, it's not a bar of soap. You are free to choose what
movies you go out to see, you are free to like or dislike them.
You are equally free to see the same films re-edited and cropped
to fit your TV if you want them, I will even stand up for you
and suggest that the marketplace try to meet your needs in that
regard, because frankly it isn't that hard to do. What I will
not do, is encourage the entertainment industry to pander to the
lowest common denominator, and turn one of our century's greatest
contributions to the world's culture into nothing more than money-grubbing,
pedestrian hack-work.
Returning to The Lord of the Rings, I fully believe that director
Peter Jackson both started out intending to, and will eventually
complete his work as, a labor of love for a classic story he feels
immense reverence for. On the whole, I enjoyed his vision, and
look forward to experiencing it again. That being said, what is
so dangerous in the attitude that I was elaborating on in the
last few paragraphs is that it can not only infect the average
movie-going public, it can infect the creative staff of a film
as well. There is clear evidence of that infection here, perhaps
just a mild swelling at this point in time, but if the antibiotics
don't get applied before the next two chapters in this trilogy
make it to the theaters later this year and in 2003, a tremendous
opportunity for cinematic grandeur and greatness will have been
squandered.
The film follows the book reasonably closely, althought admittedly
it has been several decades since I read the Rings trilogy. I
do recall that it was not a tome for a reader in a hurry, the
story kind of meanders, which is fine with me since I recognize
that the journey is the story, not the eventual resolution. It
is also necessary that viewers recognize the necessity for filmmakers
to work in their own language, not just copy word-for-word from
the text of a book. In this regard, I feel that Jackson has succeeded.
While I felt some small degreee of impatience as I waited for
things to 'get going' in the first 20 minutes or so, the film
did beome more involving after that time, and nicely held my attention.
Unlike comments I've heard from some other patrons, I did not
have a sense that the movie was running on overly long, in fact
I was surprised to leave the theater and find it a much later
hour than I subjectively guessed.
I also didn't find the ending to be disconcerting, knowing in
advance that the film was just the first of three parts. Again,
I puzzle at the expectations of the almost willfully uninformed
who appeared to expect that everything would be 'all tidied up'
at the conclusion of the film. Trilogy, people? Three parts? Over
three years? When didn't the marketing machine not make this clear
over the last 6 to 8 months? Sheesh...
The photography, as the trailer had strongly implied, is quite
wonderful, and even if the results do not happen to match your
own personal vision of Middle Earth, the vision rendered is a
valid and beautifully realized one. My only minor caveats here
were that there were occasions when the CGI work seemed just a
little obvious, but perhaps this is a factor of it becoming both
so common and so normally seamless that we now notice small glitches
where we would not have before. These errors are more than amply
compensated for by some truly glorious scenes, the most dynamic
and startling one of which is the scene depicting the battle between
Gandalf and the evil Balrog-- there is no other word for this
but Whoa! The costumes, set design, art direction are all equally
excellent, although I have to admit the Hobbits feet often looked
fake to me. Along that same line, I realize that in the original
story the Hobbits normally went without shoes, but did they in
fact never wear them? This was, strangely enough, one of those
moments that would jar me out of my otherwise fairly effortless
suspension of disbelief, wondering how come his feet aren't freezing
in the snow? or getting cut to ribbons on the rocks?
The other main problem I had that also was a repeat offense was
the soundtrack, which was 1) excessively utilized and 2) mixed
in way too loudly compared to other sound elements. Whether this
was a misguided attempt to make up for the perception of lack
of visual action (and if so, was unnecessary, see 'journey-not-resolution'
above) or an attempt to 'goose' the audiophile participation in
the eventual video/home-theater release, I don't know, but it
was a very bad choice either way. I found it distracting, and
at times even moving past that perception into being actively
annoying. It's a faint hope, but this could be corrected in time
for the video release-- if not fully remixed, at least having
the overall levels properly rebalanced would bring about a big
improvement.
The remaining complaint that I've heard from several professional
film critics has been that in the original story, the Hobbits
were clearly the soul and the center of the tale, and the elven
and human characters took less of the spotlight. In this film
version, they protest, the elves and especially the humans appear
to be grabbing most of the attention, with the Hobbits kind of
accessories to the journey, ringbearers in name only, not in deed,
thus diminishing the central point of Tolkien's theme, that fame
or stature does not dictate nobility of purpose, or provide inherent
claim to becoming a champion.
While I can see the point being made, I intend to wait for the
next two films to be issued and viewed before finally deciding
on the merits of this assumption. I did not personally perceive
the Hobbits as 'sidekicks', the fact is that this early on in
the entire, very lengthy journey, the Hobbits have had insufficient
time to fully assert their worth. It has been clearly stated both
in the book and in this film that Hobbits are not 'action-oriented'
individuals, and in fact typically exhibit quite the opposite
characteristics. To expect Frodo or Sam to suddenly get all Schwarzeneggar-ian
is ludicrous, so I see nothing wrong with their behavior to date.
So, does LOTR/tFotR qualify for 'classic movie' status? Yes, it
certainly does. If by some chance you have not seen it yet, or
have been holding back due to some of the negative comments of
a few major reviewers, please don't miss an opportunity to see
it while it's still available theatrically. The visuals alone
are worth the price of admission ( a comment I made about Final
Fantasy: The Spirits Within a few months ago, and FF/tSW is a
vastly inferior film in all other regards compared to this one),
and despite the minor weaknesses I detailed, you should thoroughly
enjoy yourselves. There is also the possibilty that with the substantial
box-office success of the film, that the director and creative
staff will have to tolerate less external influence by the studios
or other sources, and so raise the chances that the next two films
could be even better. Some sequels are better than the original
creation, and this one is off to a decent start already.
Hey, it worked for George Lucas and Star Wars!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically, one to bind them all, or at least mostly:
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is still in current
release at a whole big bunch o' theaters all over the damn place,
and so is obviously not available on DVD, laserdisc or even VHS,
at least not legally, and we won't go there. Run time is just
shy of three hours, at 178 minutes, with no intermission, so for
heaven's sakes don't load up on beverages just before heading
out to the theater. The film is rated PG-13, mostly for the violence
of the combat scenes and some fairly scary-looking evil creatures.
(Really loved the way you couldn't initially see the faces on
the 'dark riders', all black pools of vacuous emptiness, nicely
fear-inducing).
The aspect ratio of the film is 2.35:1. Cinematography was by
Andrew Lesnie, with film editing by John Gilbert and production
design by Grant Major. Art direction was by Joe Bleakley, Dan
Hennah, Philip Ivey, Rob Outterside & Mark Robins. Set decoration
was by Tanea Chapman, Dan Hennah, Alan Lee and Victoria McKenzie.
Costume design was by Ngila Dickson & Richard Taylor.
The theatrical sound mix was provided in all standard cinema formats,
namely DTS, Dolby Digital, Dolby EX 6.1 and SDDS. Original music
was by Enya, who provided the songs, with orchestral and other
music by Howard Shore. The Internet Movie Database amusingly notes
that the language of the film is 'English / Elvish'. Uh, yep,
that it is.
Cast overview, primary characters:
Elijah Wood .... Frodo Baggins Ian McKellen .... Gandalf Billy
Boyd .... Peregrin 'Pippin' Took Dominic Monaghan .... Meriadoc
'Merry' Brandybuck Viggo Mortensen .... Lord Aragorn 'Strider'
Elessar Sean Astin .... Samwise 'Sam' Gamgee Liv Tyler .... Arwen
Undómiel Ian Holm .... Bilbo Baggins Orlando Bloom ....
Legolas Christopher Lee .... Saruman the White Cate Blanchett
.... Queen Galadriel Sean Bean .... Boromir John Rhys-Davies ....
Gimli Andy Serkis .... Gollum/Smeagol Hugo Weaving .... Lord Elrond
of Rivendell
*******
Miscellaneous and the Question of the Week
Wellsir, the conversation between me and my clone at the column
start-up pretty much spelled out what's in store for this month.
I'll now detail some of the details, though, for those Hobbits,
Elves or Humans out there in Atpoboardland who bravely wish to
take me up on my offer to guest-host a 'Classic Movie of the Week'
column.
C'mon, you know you want to! It isn't that hard, you just need
1) a reasonably functional brain, 2) a love for movies, 3) an
opinion thereon and 4) the ability to type. If you hang at this
board, and read this column regularly, you obviously have already
qualified, so git them fingers a-clickin', OK?
The procedure:
Write up your column. Length should be at least one normal 8 1/2
x 11 inch page if printed out, you may make it longer if desired,
of course. You do not need to emulate my style, in fact I hope
you do not-- please do your own thing in your own way. You do
not need to include the 'Technical yada yada...' or 'Miscellaneous'
or 'Question of the Week' if you do not wish to. The movie should
not be one in current release.
I prefer a 'positive' review. By this, I do not mean to exclude
negative aspects of the film in your review, but there will only
be so much room to fit these into the schedule as the BtVS season
progresses, so I don't want to see a film chosen just to bash
it. What's the point? Pick something you like, and tell us why.
That's really what this is all about.
Send your completed review to me in either .txt or .rtf format.
I will select my favorites from among all submissions, and publish
them during the weeks that Buffy is on hiatus up until the end
of the current season. After that, if there are still submissions
left over, I will publish one a month through the summer until
the new Buffy season starts up again in the fall. The guest columns
will be posted at the usual Friday night, 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM
time slot each week. You should include your return e-mail address
so that I may contact you regarding any revisions needed, which
would be primarily for spelling or grammar issues. (I will correct
any trivial errors I find).
You will have the final say as to the publishing of your submission,
and I will inform you by e-mail of the projected date of posting.
You are a guest in my normal column space, I make absolutely no
claims of any kind over, or assert any rights to subsequent 'ownership'
of anything you write. It remains your work. My CMotW column,
in fact, exists in Masquerade's 'space', and I continue here by
her permission, for which I am extremely grateful.
*******
The Question of the Week:
So, do you wanna be a star?
Send your 'Classic Movie' reviews to:
objectsinmirror@mindspring.com
*******
Thanks to one and all of my 'Classic Movie' readers for your many
kind and encouraging words over the last year. It has been my
sincere pleasure to write for you.
Peace!
******* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooooh... now we just need a list so we don't... --
Solitude1056, 22:30:13 02/01/02 Fri
...inadvertantly "redo" any of the movies you might've
reviewed before some of us stumbled on this haven of the 'net.
Or you could just tell me, here, with a yes or no, and then I'll
volunteer to do a review of one (or more) of them, if you're interested.
- Performance
- The Devils
- The Last Wave
- The Lover
- Walkabout
- Angelheart
- If
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ooooh... you really *are* The Second Evil, aren't
'cha?? -- OnM, 22:58:44 02/01/02 Fri
You mean someone else besides me has actually seen The Devils?
(I'm presuming you are speaking of the Ken Russell film from '71
with Vanessa Redgrave, that was banned in like, several countries?)
To date, I have not reviewed any of these films, so have at it.
Walkabout is a magnificent film, and would be an excellent choice,
plus it's also available on DVD, which is a bonus. (Likewise for
The Last Wave.)
I will arrange for a list that can be e-mailed to anyone interested
in doing a guest review. Give me until tomorrow night to update
my index on what I've done over the last year, it's already about
90% up-to-date. (amazingly!)
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I've seen The Devils, too. Not exactly
a jolly romp. ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:50:43 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Devils--Wota Movie--Oliver Reed--Oh
My! Yes, Please Review the Devils! -- Duquessa des Essientes,
15:21:11 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Walkabout and The Last Wave-two of my
top 20 favorites. -- A8, 17:09:12 02/02/02 Sat
By the way, is The Devils out on DVD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> According to the IMDb, it is not
- VHS only. -- OnM, 20:35:57 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Drat. Oh well. I'm sure they'll
get around to it eventually. Thanks for the info. -- A8, 16:58:36
02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> and someone needs to get off her butt & get
the CMotW Archive up on the ES site...Email me OnM! -- Liq, 01:01:04
02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> We have OnM's posts and discussions in
the regular archives -- Masquerade, 11:45:01 02/04/02 Mon
And November and December are now on the cyber-presses.
Or were you just going to link to ours to get the archives of
the discussions of OnM's posts??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Some LOTR Comments -- matching mole, 15:29:38
02/02/02 Sat
Congratulations on one year of reviews, although I've only seen
the last few months.
As I hadn't seen the film at the time of the great LOTR discussion
in December I thought I would weigh in on a couple of points that
your review triggered in my memory.
Exactly how I evaluate LOTR:FOTR depends on the perspective I
choose to take. If I compare it to other action/adventure films
I would have to say that it is probably the best I have ever seen.
I don't know what you or anyone else would make of my statement
as I am generally not a big fan of the modern action/adventure
film. Action (explosions, gun battles, light saber battles, etc.)
as spectacle generally bores me when it is prolonged beyond what's
necessary to establish the plot point.
So then, fairly predictably, when I look at the film from the
perspective of the book I am somewhat disappointed. While I certainly
appreciate that film and the written word are different media
with different requirements I also find the film lacking in many
of the qualities that made the book so appealing to me particularly
the way that the everyday was mixed in so skillfully with the
wonderful.
So to me the film was both a classic and a disappointment which
was no more and no less than I expected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LotR and the difference between movies and books (Warning:
SPOILERS and LONG) -- vandalia, 10:14:35 02/04/02 Mon
Oh, you've finally picked a movie I've seen that has a background
with which I am wholly familiar! I can actually participate!
DISCLAIMER: There will be spoilers for the current movie and possibly
the sequels in this posting. I feel slightly silly making a spoiler
disclaimer for a book that's been out for roughly twice as long
as I've been alive, but there you go.
I was very lucky (or unlucky, as the case may be, see below) to
have been allowed to read The Hobbit as part of schoolwork in
the sixth grade. I had already made my way through all the K-12
books (remember those, with the clever names like _Dreams and
Decisions_, all color-coded with accompanying workbooks and tailored
to grade?) and there was nothing else left for me to do in English
class (this at a magnet school, natch -- otherwise I'm sure I'd
have been told to pace myself with the class and turned into some
kind of troublemaking juvenile deliquent). So my sixth grade teacher,
Mrs. Gates, turned to some classic children's literature, the
first being _The Hobbit_. I devoured this book as I am wont to
do with books then and now, and absolutely, utterly and completely
fell under Tolkien's spell. I asked her if there were any more
books like this one and she told me about LOTR. Turns out a friend
of mine was reading _Fellowship_ at about this time, and I borrowed
it from her. I have been hooked on Tolkien ever since, and every
other fantasy author has had to live up to the standards set in
my twelve-year-old brain by Tolkien. (Robert Jordan? Bah! Man
is in desperate need of an editor. Don't even get me started on
Terry Brooks...) I reread the books at least yearly, wearing out
two copies in the process (my friends' and my own) and even went
so far as to read _The Silmarillion_ (and that was hard, let me
tell you. Like diving for pearls: immerse yourself down, down,
down, holding your breath, pushing through dense forests of disjointed
threads of stories and verbiage, sometimes coming up with an oyster,
sometimes not, but always gasping for breath) and _Leaf by Niggle_
(which is, I think, Tolkien's best work and the most autobiographical).
I've even delved into learning Elvish on occasion, and it was
Tolkien who inspired me to take a linguistics course in college
(but the less said about that particular endeavor, the better.
Suffice to say I escaped with my GPA intact).
Given this background, you can imagine with how much anticipation
and dread I awaited this movie. Some reporter said this was a
movie that fans had been waiting fifty years for, and I would
not disagree. The shameful animated feature that cut off right
at the battle of Helm's Deep and seemingly consisted of a bunch
of the animator's friends dressed in rubber masks, filmed, then
painted over did not engender paroxyms of delight. The rather
silly animated version of the Hobbit (which was actually quite
good and faithful to the book, though the elves looked rather...
icky) and The Return of the King didn't help much, either. People
were panning the movie before a foot of celluloid had gone into
its production. But such is the nature of fans; these people had
been burned once before and Peter Jackson was more well-known
for his scare-filled gorefests like Dead Again and The Frighteners
(both wonderful movies which I absolutely love for totally different
reasons) than his more critically-acclaimed _Beautiful Creatures_.
Speculation ran rampant. Not less than three fan sites were set
up to speculate, spy and report on the progress of the movies
up to two years before its scheduled release. Hopes would be raised
(the stills look great!) and dashed (Liv Tyler as Arwen?) from
day to day.
And then it was released. And it was Good.
My main beef before seeing the movie was the absense of Tom Bombabil.
Now for the vast majority of Tolkien fans, old Tom was a welcome
deletion, a holdover from the children-skewed and more than a
little patronizing tone of _The Hobbit_. But Bombadil held a very
important role in the quest of the hobbits, one that many people
outright overlook in their hurry to condemn the man for his silly
songs and caperings. You see, Tom Bombabil was responsible for
getting the Hobbits their blades of Westernesse. This is very
important later in the books. They go around this in the movie
well enough (though I thought it a bit of a cop out, it made sense,
though they didn't explain a thing about their significance in
the movie) by having Aragorn give the Hobbits their blades on
Weathertop. Just why Aragorn was carrying around a bunch of Hobbit-sized
knives rolled up in a blanket is not explained. But that's just
a pet peeve of mine, would've made a three-hour movie already
longer than it was, and wouldn't have added very much to the narrative
(though I can't wait for the DVD and all those deleted scenes).
My other two beefs after the movie was released related to the
two main female characters: Arwen and Galadriel. Arwen's role
in the movies is much, much greater than her role in the books.
In the books, Arwen was Elrond's daughter and greatly desired
by Aragorn. She was his impetus to reclaim his long-lost family
throne of Gondor and Arnor, reunite the two kingdoms, and otherwise
prove himself worthy of her hand to her father. A true princess
even among the elves, she speaks almost no words directly in the
books, and mostly sits at home and looks pretty, though she also
makes the standard Aragorn bears into battle the first time he
reveals himself at large as who he truly is. Her role in the movie
was that of Glorfindel in the books, an elf lord of the House
of Elrond, and it was he who finds the hobbits and Aragorn and
rescues Frodo, having him ride his horse over the river and into
Imladris. It was Elrond (and Gandalf, to a lesser extent) who
called upon the fury of the river to wash the Nazgul away, as
he was the lord of his lands and had great power over them and
that within them, including the river that marked its boundaries.
Some laud the expanded role of Arwen, arguing that there was no
reason for Aragorn to be attracted to her and that she would otherwise
be a rather two-dimensional character, an object, a prize to be
won rather than a mate equal to his abilities. I personally hated
it with a fiery passion, and I'm a feminist of the first water.
You see, Tolkien didn't just write an epic fantasy novel. He wrote
in many ways a history of a place he created, Middle-Earth, a
mythology to explain it. Peter Jackson did, of course, have to
edit, combine and exclude small roles in order to make his movie
fit some modern idea of running time. But to take Arwen's role
and expand it as he has done (and rumor has it that she has an
even bigger part to play in later sequels) is treading on PC revisionist
history on an gross scale. The example I use most is Betsy Ross.
Who was Betsy Ross in the mythology of the United States? She
was the woman who made the flag which came to represent our country.
How would you feel about seeing a 'faithful reproduction' of the
American Revolutionary War that included Betsy Ross in the role
of Paul Revere? There goes mighty Ms. Ross, riding her horse through
the night, crying about how the British are coming. It was her
idea for the lanterns in the window of the Old North Church, and
of course she battled those British trying to stop her quite admirably
as well, without once breaking a nail or a hair out of place.
The only problem is, anyone with any passing remembrance of grade-school
history knows that Betsy Ross made a freakin' _flag_, and any
revisionist history of that fact would be met with deserved derision
(keep in mind I talk about the mythology of the United States,
not necessarily the history. I know Paul Revere didn't make his
ride any more than Betsy Ross did). Many people argue that Tolkien's
view of the world was male-dominated and needed more powerful
female figures. My response is Tolkien wrote these stories over
a period of many years from at least the early twenties to the
mid to late fifties. This was not the most enlightened time for
women. Yet even in an atmosphere of male dominance there are not
one but two powerful women in Tolkien's stories: Galadriel and
Eowyn. Eowyn is a 'shieldmaiden' and goes to fight disguised as
a man. Galadriel is a ruler of her own kingdom and has a male
consort. There are also a few minor characters (such as Ioreth
the healer) that are women and in roles of importance. Yet we
still feel the need to expand Arwen's role? This makes no sense.
If Aragorn wanted the kind of woman who liked to ride into battle,
he'd have picked Eowyn. He didn't, (to his credit, because Eowyn
saw in him a glorious leader and royalty, an escape from her dreary
existence rather than for the man he was, which Arwen knew) and
his spurning of her is a factor in her decision to go to war (and
seek an honorable death).
Then you have Galadriel, one of the Wise, a ruler of a hidden
kingdom of what once was, a paradise, a heaven on earth for elves,
an island of light in a sea of darkness, beset on all sides and
largely kept in check by her power. 'On the land of Lorien there
was no stain.' Quite the compliment in a time when the Dark Lord
was ascending. And how does Jackson choose to portray her? As
a screeching half-mad seer. _This_ is the ruler of a besieged
nation? They actually did this part much better in the cartoon
than they did in the movie. The Temptation of Galadriel could
have been on a level of Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog.
They missed the swan-boat on this one.
That said, I liked the rest of the movie immensely. Hobbiton was,
to my mind, absolutely perfect down to the tools hanging on the
walls. I loved the beginning, didn't feel it dragged at all, and
felt it was necessary to establish just how placid and tranquil
and bucolic the setting from which came Sam and Frodo, Merry and
Pippin, and show just how far they had to go to become formidable
warriors on a life-and-death journey of salvation for the whole
world, and just what it was they were willing to risk all for.
The flight from the Shire was good (though I missed old Farmer
Maggot and his dogs) and the perspective in the town of Bree was
amazingly well done. (I think they could've done well with Frodo
'having as much ale as was good for him' and jumping up on a table
to sing to distract from Pippin's blathering about their story
and revealing the Ring that way, as they did in the books, but
lots of people hated the songs in the books, so that was that).
The flight with Strider was good, Frodo looked quite ill (and
creepy with the bloodshot eyes) and the Nazgul were well done
indeed (thought Bilbo's 'gimme the ring!' face in Imladris scared
me more than either Nazgul or Balrog). The less said about Arwen's
role the better, and I justified and enjoyed the flight to the
Ford in my mind by translating Arwen's murmurings before the river
rose to crush the Nazgul as 'Help me Daddy, I'm in deep sh*t here,
help help help me Daddy.' (I say this because having Arwen able
to call up the waters of the Ford takes away from the acceptance
of magic as a natural and normal, though limited, aspect of the
elves, whose magics were subtle and not flashy (think Legolas'
walking on top of the snow while everyone else plowed through
it). Elrond could control the ford because he was master of the
land, not because he was an elf. Having Arwen do it there made
it look like elves had control over nature, which raises the question
later of why didn't Legolas just tell the storm to get lost or
raise some kind of protective snow-barrier in the attempt to cross
Caradhras). Also, it takes away from the book scene where Frodo
is sent on alone over the river on the horse while Glorfindel
builds a fire to try to keep them at bay while he makes it to
Imladris. It was Frodo who raised his sword and said 'you will
have neither the Ring, nor me!' in a show of defiance to the Nazgul,
even sorely wounded as he was. This showed that he had some reserves
of strength of will that had not yet been tapped. In the movie
he's just made to look like baggage and many people complain about
why anyone would choose this guy to go to the supermarket, much
less take a Ring of Power to the Enemy to cast it into the Fire.
It would have been better to leave this scene in, though I have
a feeling Jackson left it out in order to make Frodo's strength
of will even more impressive and surprising later, though I think
he runs the risk of making it too surprising.
The journey through Moria was my favorite part of the book, inspired
games like Dungeons & Dragons, and held one of my favorite passages
in the trilogy; that between Gandalf and Frodo on why Bilbo hadn't
killed Gollum. That was one of my earliest lessons in the death
penalty, couched as it was in fantasy, and my earliest lesson
in the role fantasy could play in teaching values. 'Deserved death?
I daresay he does. And many of those that die deserve life. Can
you give it to them? Then be not so quick to deal out death in
punishment. Even the Wise cannot see all ends.' In the book, this
conversation was held back in the Shire, before Gandalf left the
second time, but it fits here quite well, and I don't mind the
change. Of course, the flight of the party, the finding of Balin's
tomb, the fight on the bridge between Gandalf and the Balrog,
were enough to make me wish I hadn't read the books before I saw
the movie, as it would have been so much more exciting and shocking
had I not known what was coming. I had a small problem with Aragorn's
'get them up, Boromir' and showing no grief over Gandalf's death
while even Boromir was saddened, and he hadn't known Gandalf near
as long as Aragorn. I thought they could have had Aragorn crying
when he turned his back and started running instead of looking
forward to getting to Lorien like a Griswold on a Lampoon vacation.
Lorien was very pretty, but not what I had envisioned in my mind's
eye. Still, it fit the description of the book, but I missed the
whole interaction of Gimli, the hobbits, and the elves (which
in the books didn't speak a word of English and Aragorn and Legolas
had to translate, and even Legolas had problems because they spoke
an accented dialect of Elvish to which he was unused. It established
the dwarves and elves as hostile to each other, the Lorien elves
as insulated and distrustful of outsiders, even their own kin,
and showed how Lorien was beseiged by orcs from Moria). I also
thought they could have showed Gimli's adoration of Galadriel
and the request for a strand of her hair (very romantic gesture
for a dour dwarf!) as the gift she gave him and an example of
his 180 in attitude towards elves. The river ride was nice, and
the battle with the orcs at the end was very climatic (as well
as Boromir's betrayal and subsequent redemption and death). I
too had to listen to ignorant moviegoers complain about the 'trick'
ending (and also who made fun of any and all drug references,
intentional or no, and anything they interpreted as homosexual
subtext, even to the extent of snickering when one man took another's
hand).
I do look forward to the rest of the movies, as any fan of Tolkien
would, but I am glad that they escaped the gross overexpectation
and hype that plagued the first Star Wars movie in over twenty
years (and that richly deserved the panning it got, in my mind).
Oh and also, I think I'm going to have to go to New Zealand at
some point. The scenery in this movie was absolutely breathtaking
(literally) and should have made the Kiwi Tourist Board proud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Great post! Your comments on Arwen and Galadriel
are dead on. -- Sophist, 13:00:30 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Evil Clone! Welcome back! OnM - Happy Anniversary! -- Marie,
02:28:52 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave, 23:58:23 02/01/02 Fri
I have read the opinion on this board that JW seems to have skimmed
over the idea of "positive" forces in the world. God,
Heaven, true Angels, all seem to be conspicuously missing throughout
the Buffyverse. While I will admit that the demonic, Evil, and
negative forces seem to have sway, I think that while not explicitly
named, God is very evident, as is Heaven. But it is not the theistic
vision of God you might expect in a show where demons and even
Satan (aka "The First Evil") are manifested in such
a tangible way.
Paul Tillich (1886-1965), Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976), and more
recently John Shelby Spong (1939-) have all stated as theologians
that a theistic vision of God actually robs God of any power in
our lives. God exists in all things and is omnipresent as well
as omnipotent. We cannot meet God in person nor can we pray to
a deity expecting a personal response. Such idolatry is a sure-fire
way to set oneself up for disappointment, disillusionment, and
eventually a loss of faith and atheism (literally "without
God"). Rather it is the presence of God that we can experience
through living that connects us with the reality of God.
Paul Tillich writes:
"The being of God is being-itself. The being of God cannot
be understood as the existence of a being alongside others or
above others....Many confusions in the doctrine of God could be
avoided if God were understood first of all as being-itself, or
as the ground of being. Ever since the time of Plato it has been
understood that being as being, or being-itself, points to the
power inherent in everything, the power of resisting nonbeing.
"
(Systematic Theology Vol. 1, 1964)
In this statement Tillich asserts that even in the experiences
of pain, death, guilt, fear, and brokenness we can experience
God in the power of renewal. The demonic forces can threaten but
never overwhelm the reality of healing, no matter how tenuous,
that keeps us clinging to life. The very fact that Buffy, Willow,
Tara, Dawn, Xander, Anya, Giles, and all of the other "positive"
characters in BtVS do not succumb to despair and death is a witness
of the power of the divine being at work. God shows through the
"show".
There are also symbols at work. Symbols representing God are not
empowering themselves, but are in fact transparent to us and show
God through themselves.* Crosses, holy water, even the Slayer
herself are symbols for the power of God. Even little touches
like Faith wearing the "Buffy-suit" and staring into
a mirror saying, "Because it's wrong" become symbols
showing us God in the act itself.
So the assertion that God isn't represented in BtVS is actually
a lack of perception on our part. The demons, and the "big
bads" distract us from the true focus of the show, which
is the power of God in our (and Buffy's) life. Our struggle to
overcome the evil that clutters our lives as we "grow up"
is the divine of the universe at work.
* OT NOTE: Paul Tillich described Jesus as the "ultimate
self-removing symbol". He removed himself from our perception
by his death allowing us direct access to God...affirming he was
the Christ. The Messiah).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- yez, 06:16:12 02/02/02 Sat
Mr. Dave wrote: "... God shows through the "show".
"There are also symbols at work. Symbols representing God
are not empowering themselves, but are in fact transparent to
us and show God through themselves.* Crosses, holy water, even
the Slayer herself are symbols for the power of God. Even little
touches like Faith wearing the "Buffy-suit" and staring
into a mirror saying, "Because it's wrong" become symbols
showing us God in the act itself.
"So the assertion that God isn't represented in BtVS is actually
a lack of perception on our part. The demons, and the "big
bads" distract us from the true focus of the show, which
is the power of God in our (and Buffy's) life. Our struggle to
overcome the evil that clutters our lives as we "grow up"
is the divine of the universe at work."
Interesting, and well put, BUT.
This sounds like the argument for the prime mover, or however
that goes -- we know there has to be one god because something
had to set in motion the first cause that we are all effects of.
And also the argument for god as the orderer of chaos, so all
the proof you need for god is to look around you and see that
there is order. By order, the meaning is just "existence."
It seems that, following your logic, vampires and other demons
are as much proof of god as the slayer and everyone else. They
exist. They are "ordered." They are part of the "being."
Besides, god is referred to on the show as The Powers That Be,
right? I always thought that was clever. We use TPTB for the writers,
creators, producers, and those above them who remain more or less
invisible to us. Yet we see the effects of their decisions on
the show each week -- and sometimes, on shows not airing that
week, as the case may be. And the characters use TPTB, too. It
ocurrs to me how clever it is to not have the show characters
able to talk directly to TPTB.
********SOMEWHAT SPOILERY FOR THE LAST ANGEL EP.*********
The last Angel ep. where he can't talk directly to TPTB, but hears
their crazed whispering was a great example.
***********END SOMEWHAT SPOILER****************
The characters may want something and try desperately to make
that wish known. Yet they can't talk to TPTB because TPTB are
the writers, etc., who exist in a different plane, yet who guide
the characters' actions.
Sorry... got carried away with that idea for a second.
I think the concern over the lack of angels and angel-type creatures
is legitimate. Why should there be so much diversity in the forms
evil takes (i.e., all different kinds of demons), and so little
in the forms good takes (i.e., humans with perhaps a few demon
allies)?
Personally, I think the plight of humans vs. demons is too piddly
a thing for TPTB to get involved with. It matters to us because
we're us.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave, 11:17:51 02/02/02
Sat
I am beginning to appreciate that there is a different theology
on Angel than the theology of Buffy. AtS has a "named"
God in the TPTB. It is identified as a being (or beings) that
can be reached, and who respond (albeit in obscure and not always
aparent ways).
On BtVS the charcters make no mention of the TPTB. They do not
make vain appeals to the collective hoping for a response. They
just live. They struggle and they usually succeed.
This whole train of thought came from OMWF. When Buffy was singing
"I live in Hell/'Cause I've been expelled/From Heaven/I think
I was in Heaven/So give me something to sing about./Please Give
me something..." and the only (and best response) she got
from Spike was "The pain that you feel/ You only can heal/By
living". This is the essence of what I was trying to capture.
Here we see that there is no appeal, no being to answer her "prayer".
Only the divine power that comes from fighting the "chaos"
(as you put it) and moving on.
The appeal Angel makes to TPTB is answered. His is a theistic
world. Where the divine has agents and power, and manifests in
miricles. Life is the miriacle in Buffy. Her struggle to avoid
nonbeing (and the nonbeing of the world) is the manifestation
of the divine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS and Angel -- OnM, 15:44:36
02/03/02 Sun
*** I am beginning to appreciate that there is a different theology
on Angel than the theology of Buffy ***
Good point, and I think you are absolutely right. Wonderful posts,
BTW. I do find it intriguing that your description of Christianity
sounds so similar to more Eastern-leaning theosophies, or for
that matter to Wicca, which also postulates the 'God is in everything'
concept.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Also ... -- Dedalus, 11:33:16 02/03/02 Sun
I would like to point out that Tillich's argument for the Ground
of Being is not in any way linked to the "Prime Mover"
argument. It is actually the antithesis of it, as he lays that
same line of thinking to rest in the book MrDave was quoting from.
Being-Itself would NOT be the Prime Mover for the simple reason
that Being-Itself IS the Moving motion rather than the thing being
moved. There is a strong degree of differentiation there.
Tillich does a fabulous job of taking down the which came first,
the chicken or the universe, reasoning. He is not spouting a theology
of causality, rather one of correlatives, which is quite different.
Correlatives arise mutually, whereas causality dictates there
must be a separate cause and then a separate effect. Tillich shows
in Systematic Theology that labeling God as First Cause does you
no good, because every cause was an effect once itself. Cause
and effect are rather interchangeable. They are not a straight
line going in one direction, but extend in both directions back
and back and back. Causality is distinctly non-linear though on
the surface it appears that it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Eric, 11:13:41 02/02/02 Sat
I thought JW skimmed over the idea of "positive" forces
in the show because they might provide unnecessary controversy
and they might limit plot development options. The last is the
most important, since once you put the show on a theistic biased
path it can get predictable. I might add that slayer powers have
yet to be proven divine. In fact, they seem a powerful, even primal
force that may even have links to the demon dimensions. In that
sense they are no more divine than the gun in Anya's dresser drawer.
(I do hope she got rid of that-its so irrelevant based on potential
threats).
Idolatrous prayer doesn't automatically lead to dissillusionment
or atheism. Millions have, do, and will live believing in prayer.
Even if God doesn't exist or doesn't answer them most will never
become atheists. Oddly, many will even feel more religious in
hard times where God's phone is busy. And if God is in everything
- such as a well brewed cup of hot cocoa, isn't some sort of preconceived
notion of God necessary to appreciate Him - at least as something
other than a hot beverage? Sounds too complicated. The Zen Buddhist
would just sip the cocoa, ditto the wise theist after a short
prayer of thanks. Which leads to another thing. If everything
is a divine manifestation, then everything is sacred. And if everything
is sacred, then really nothing is sacred. The Chartre Cathedral
in Paris is certainly more sacred than a gas station bathroom
off Highway 101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Slight tangent: slayer powers and demonic force? --
yez, 11:48:09 02/02/02 Sat
Eric, you wrote: "... slayer powers ... seem a powerful,
even primal force that may even have links to the demon dimensions."
This suddenly made me wonder about the current "Buffy came
back wrong" situation. Is it possible that Spike has been
capable of hurting Buffy *all along* for this reason, but hadn't
actually tried it till just now because he just assumed that it
would hurt to strike her? In other words, could it be that Buffy
has *always* been superhuman and so not covered by the chip, not
just since she was resurrected?
I can't remember if Spike has done the wince thing with Buffy,
or just with others. Does anyone know?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Slight tangent: slayer powers and demonic
force? -- robert, 13:17:51 02/02/02 Sat
"Is it possible that Spike has been capable of hurting Buffy
*all along* for this reason, but hadn't actually tried it till
just now because he just assumed that it would hurt to strike
her? In other words, could it be that Buffy has *always* been
superhuman and so not covered by the chip, not just since she
was resurrected?"
Good question! The answer is no. In "Fool for Love",
Spike winced in pain when he hit Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spike can't hurt pre-dead Buffy -- Liz, 14:13:09
02/02/02 Sat
The one in "Fool for Love" was a bit complicated because
he was also able to try to hit her when he knew he couldn't, and
he was also playing around a bit.
A better example is "Out of my Mind" when he thought
the chip was out and tried to bite her. Spike definitly couldn't
hurt Buffy before she died.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't hurt pre-dead Buffy --
yez, 20:56:12 02/02/02 Sat
Well, I took my best shot. :)
Thanks to both of you.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't hurt pre-dead Buffy --
JM, 20:56:19 02/02/02 Sat
Hope I'm not requoting anyone, not finished the thread, but the
answer is no.
He was absolutely convinced he was fixed in "Out of My Mind"
but one lunge at Buffy nearly incapacitated him. He was absolutely
convinced on punishment in "Smashed" but it never came.
Something is different. I'd wager a cosmic factor. We don't know
if God exists, but there are more than just the forces of evil,
else there wouldn't be the Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- yez, 12:02:43 02/02/02 Sat
Since both shows not only share the same creator but the characters
in Angel originated on BtVS, doesn't it follow that TPTB also
exist in the Buffyverse -- even if the characters don't subscribe
to them, have direct dealings with them, etc.?
As far as theism leading to predictability on Buffy, I guess I
disagree. As far as I've been able to tell, TPTB aren't quite
based on traditional religions (thank god!) and so allow for a
lot of maneuverability. Also, I think dealing with the big questions,
the why questions, would be a good challenge for Whedon et al,
and would be interesting for the rest of us.
As far as religion on Buffy goes, the use of Catholic paraphenalia,
which Mr.Dave referred to earlier, makes a statement, doesn't
it? Not that I know what the statement is... Perhaps the power
of the cross and holy water rests solely in the power that's imbued
through belief, not in an divine power channelled through the
Catholic Church. In other words, it's a spell. Maybe a Star of
David would work the same way?
Of course, if the Star of David or similar wouldn't work, then
it would seem that the power was related to the Catholic religion,
and therefore, to the Catholic god. And so wouldn't every use
of a cross or holy water on Buffy be an invocation of that god?
Buffy does wear a cross on her neck.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- robert, 13:27:40 02/02/02
Sat
"Since both shows not only share the same creator but the
characters in Angel originated on BtVS, doesn't it follow that
TPTB also exist in the Buffyverse ..."
No. As a logical argument, it does not follow. You may assume
that the BtVS and Angel universes are the same, and many people
do. They may be correct. However, unless Mr. Whedon has stated
that the universes are the same, I don't think we can logically
conclude that they are.
I personally believe that they aren't. The nature of the powers,
magic, demons, and evil are subtly different. It might be interesting
if someone more literate than I were to analyze the differences
in an essay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well traditionally (mild exageration) the Catholic
and Jewish god is the same -- Charlemagne20, 14:29:59 02/02/02
Sat
However there's also the fact the cross is a Solar Symbol and
it represents Life and ressurection while the Star of David isn't
really a religious symbol at all but a reflection of the Nationhood
of Israel as far as I can tell.
Though the spiritual covenant aspects with the Chosen people might
be included I suppose.
Reminds me of a Doctor Who episode where a man's faith in communism
drives off an evil vampire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: another possibility - slightly ot
-- Valhalla, 16:29:18 02/02/02 Sat
I hope bringing up other vampire shows isn't sacrilegious (hee
hee), but on Forever Knight, vampires are only affected by religious
symbols that already existed and that they had some relationship
to when they were made vampires. So the older vampire (LaCroix?
can't remember his name, quite), who was an early Roman general
or something when he was turned, was entirely unaffected by symbols
of Christianity, but Nick, who became a vampire during one of
the crusades (I think -- it's been a long time), was burnt by
crosses, holy water, etc.
I always thought that made a lot of sense, although it could get
kind of complicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: another possibility - slightly ot
-- Valhalla, 16:41:21 02/02/02 Sat
I hope bringing up other vampire shows isn't sacrilegious (hee
hee), but on Forever Knight, vampires are only affected by religious
symbols that already existed and that they had some relationship
to when they were made vampires. So the older vampire (LaCroix?
can't remember his name, quite), who was an early Roman general
or something when he was turned, was entirely unaffected by symbols
of Christianity, but Nick, who became a vampire during one of
the crusades (I think -- it's been a long time), was burnt by
crosses, holy water, etc.
I always thought that made a lot of sense, although it could get
kind of complicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave2176, 15:30:32
02/04/02 Mon
Yez stated:
And if God is in everything - such as a well brewed cup of hot
cocoa, isn't some sort of preconceived notion of God necessary
to appreciate Him - at least as something other than a hot beverage?
Sounds too complicated. The Zen Buddhist would just sip the cocoa,
ditto the wise theist after a short prayer of thanks. Which leads
to another thing. If everything is a divine manifestation, then
everything is sacred. And if everything is sacred, then really
nothing is sacred. The Chartre Cathedral in Paris is certainly
more sacred than a gas station bathroom off Highway 101
If God is in the being...the "Ground of all Being":
then the cup of cocoa isn't being, it just is. Being is an act.
God is in the brewing, God is in the enjoyment, God is in the
prayer of thanks. The act of brewing, enjoying and being thankful
is the reflection of the divine showing throught the process.
If the brewing was arduous, painful, and hard. If the cocoa was
nasty or rancid, and the monk spilled it all over his orange robes,
then his reflection "God as being-itself" is clouded
by the experience. This is why the struggle is part of the experience.
The Cathedral is a celebration. It was hard, it was expensive,
it was largely superfluous, but the labor and time and effort
lavished on it inspires others...the divine effort placed into
it shines through and brings others closer to God. I doubt that
the same effort was lavished on that Gas station. But who hasn't
been inspired at one time or another while pumping gas or uninating
into a roadside lavatory. Yeah, God is there too, it is the symbols
that are not equal.
The Cathedral is a symbol that is designed to be transparent to
the being-itself. The gas station may be transparent under the
right circumstances, but it wasn't designed for that.
Since both shows not only share the same creator but the characters
in Angel originated on BtVS, doesn't it follow that TPTB also
exist in the Buffyverse -- even if the characters don't subscribe
to them, have direct dealings with them, etc.?
I respectfully disagree. Angel and Buffy have different messages.
Why wouldn't they have different cosmologies, internal logic,
metaphysics, and theologies? These elements serve to futher the
show's message, not the other way around. So they can be emphasized,
altered, or eliminated as needed to convey this message. Not to
say that their two separate environs are incompatable...they aren't.
From the storytellers POV they are more like the comicbook continuity
that Marvel and DC have perpetrated. They cross over only as much
as needed to tell the tale, the rest of the time they are self-contained
and separate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- manwitch, 15:30:09 02/02/02 Sat
"The appeal Angel makes to TPTB is answered. His is a theistic
world. Where the divine has agents and power, and manifests in
miricles.
Life is the miriacle in Buffy. Her struggle to avoid nonbeing
(and the nonbeing of the world) is the manifestation of the divine."
This I like.
"So the assertion that God isn't represented in BtVS is actually
a lack of perception on our part. The
demons, and the "big bads" distract us from the true
focus of the show, which is the power of God in
our (and Buffy's) life. Our struggle to overcome the evil that
clutters our lives as we "grow up" is the
divine of the universe at work."
This not so much.
The problem with talking about God is that no two people are ever
talking about the same thing. It sounds like we are, cuz we're
using the same word, but...
I think your distinction between Buffy and Angel is exactly right.
In Buffy, the divine is the eternal divine power of life itself,
transcendant of time and place. That is the essence of Buffy's
realization and sacrifice in The Gift. She recognizes the one-ness
beyond forms.
Angel's is a theistic world as you say. For my way of thinking,
a lot of people put the cart before the horse with Angel. They
see the Powers That Be as calling Angel to some sort of performance
or purpose. But really its the other way around. Angel's quest
is what calls the Powers That Be into existence.
Boring Philosophical Explanation as to why this is so: Angel is
from the 18th century, the time of the enlightenment and the moral
thought of Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that the purpose of moral
behavior was not happiness, which could never be achieved, but
virtue, or what Kant called the "worthiness to be happy."
In order for such a quest to be possible and meaningful, Kant
argued that it presupposed a power capable of distributing happiness
in accordance to worthiness. Or in Kant's words, it "must
lead to the supposition of the existence of a cause adequate to
this effect; in other words it must postulate the existence of
God." Kant also argued, that since this worthiness could
not be achieved in a human life time, this quest was "only
possible on the supposition of the immortality of the soul."
The parallels to Angel should be obvious. End Boring Philosophical
Explanation.
So the Powers That Be are part of Angel's quest, not Buffy's.
I would argue that they follow Angel whether he is on his own
show or in Buffy. The Buffy episode "Pangs" comes to
mind.
But I don't think the divine in Buffy is a Christian or even personal
divinity. The christian symbols seem to have no more efficacy
than the pagan ones. And the show quickly articulated that Buffy
was not in "the" heaven, but any one of a million heavenly
dimensions. That they are regularly drawing on divine powers from
any number of traditions is clear, from sacred circles to incense,
to latin or sumerian chants, to Mayan symbols etc. etc. So in
your first post I hear a suggestion that Buffy is transparent
to the Christian God, which seems to me limiting. In your second
post I hear Buffyas transparent to the divine nature of life in
any of its costumes, including Christian. Which I like.
I am not even sure that our task is to overcome evil, but perhaps
to overcome the dualistic good/evil thinking of our childhood.
Perhaps that is reflected in Buffy's relationship with Spike.
Who knows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave, 19:35:50 02/03/02
Sun
I can see why the appeal to a Christian philosophy as opposed
to a more universal philosophy might be assumed from the first
post, becasue the Theologians I am quoting and deriving the essay
from are Christian theologians.
I (because I am Christian) see a Christian entity. I am also open
minded enough to see that there is a universal God implied in
Buffy. Many philosophies are represented and the being-itself
of God need not be limited to Christian theology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Darby, 20:12:31 02/02/02 Sat
Point by point:
The positive forces of Buffy's world are people willing to fight
the negative forces. It isn't that they don't exist, it's that
some sort of higher powers sometime get invoked to explain the
motivations of the "bad guys," while the cast of "good
guys" remains the same and require no added backstory.
The three theologians you mention remind me of the folks who speak
of the "honesty and purity of children" - you wonder
if they've ever known children. Christianity exists on paper much
like they describe it - in practice, for 2 millenia, it continues
to be a relationship with a Big Guy, with no real sign of the
backlash they would like to see portents for.
And once you use the logic that "God is in everything,"
then any application of that logic works wonderfully but means
nothing - wherever you look for evidence, there it is. The actual
concept of Right and Wrong are used as evidence! We can't work
against evil except that we're really working against Evil.
Joss Whedon has said on many occasions that the symbols used on
the show were primarily selected on things like recognizability
(vampires, werewolves, demons as a concept, things cribbed from
old movies), budgetary constraints (crosses, stakes and holy water
but not bat metamorphosis), and how well they fit the metaphoric
intent of a story (vampires had to look demonic to justify doing
away with them but not so much as to run up huge makeup costs).
I think that is why crosses but not Stars of David do the trick
- the latter should work if you think about it, but the former
is classic.
It's strange, and this is a meant as a comment on the image and
not the person presenting it, but the last description of Christ
just seems an insinuation of God as Human Persona that you were
saying earlier was a bad thing. Just because he's dead, the representation
is still very concrete.
It is my opinion that the show has a very distinct religious slant,
but it reflects Joss Whedon's decidedly non-theistic view of the
world. It's not that there aren't forces at work, but he avoids
labelling them. As someone says elsewhere, the "Powers That
Be" seem a transparent wink at the whole idea that there
are any, beyond the writing staff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Dedalus, 11:56:55 02/03/02
Sun
Well, I agree that saying "God is everything," or "Everything
is energy," or "Everything is divine" is about
as useless as saying "Everything is everything." The
words, terms, lexicon becomes worthless because they are known
only in contrast to non-God, non-energy, and non-divine things.
But that's not what Tillich or Spong were saying anyway.
And I think the "portents" for the collapse of traditional
theistic religion have been there since the beginning of the twelfth
century. And they've been accelerating ever since. Isn't it obvious?
If the church still had as much power as it once did, JK Rowling
would have been burned at the stake a long, long time ago. Not
just her HP books, but HER. Look around, and it is rather easy
to see, in obvious and not so obvious ways.
This next thing took me so long to figure out it's sad, but after
reading Creative Mythology, it fits rather well. There is a difference,
and a profound one, between Professed Belief, and Actual Belief.
Yes, to millions of people, it's life much like it was in the
first millenium BC. But the fact remains that it's not the first
millenium BC. And they subconsciously know this. That's what accounts
for all the anger, frustration, and paranoia surrounding fundamentalist
circles today. They scream their beliefs from the rooftops for
the simple reason that They Don't Believe Them.
I mean, who can literally believe in a biblical heaven anymore?
No one. We don't need the Tower of Babel. There's nothing up there.
This is the space age, for god's sake. But since - according to
Freud anyway - all this got started over the trauma of self-consciousness
accompanied by the knowledge that everyone is going to die, no
one knows what to do about it. So they just profess and profess
and profess but it has nothing to do with reality. That's the
only explanation that makes any sense. This is an important point,
and the world makes a heckuva lot more sense from that vantage
point.
It's the Matrix, basically. Just a copy of a copy of a copy that
has eroded to the point that it doesn't exist anymore, and everyone's
afraid to admit it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Darby, 14:21:59 02/03/02
Sun
I think that it's a mistake to confuse the power of the Church,
which has evolved from a seat of political force into something
both more innocuous and more insidious, with What People Believe,
which is often the simplest representation of the "official"
line. And it's a HUGE mistake to assume that people don't really
know what they believe because you've got a better idea. It's
another way to say "this is actually the world, all evidence
to the contrary," which was my primary point.
But the biggest mistake is to confuse modern technology with any
advance in the human psyche - human needs are what they've been
for millenia, that's why they tend to be universal, and there
is no real evidence that anything has changed much, nor any reason
to expect it. It seems like the professing in the face of a different
reality isn't being done by the public...and what makes sense
to one person makes absolutely none to another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, it made sense to me anyway ...
-- Dedalus, 18:32:46 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- JM, 21:11:47 02/02/02 Sat
Sorry, can't remember what I'm not responding to or what others
beat me too. Although I suspect that the background of the exec-producers
of the two shows will lead to some thematic differences, I can't
accept that they exist in different philosophic universes. The
deific powers that manifest on one show exist on the other, they
just do not choose to exhibit themsleves. (And mythically, I think,
good is always less likely to exhibit itself. Its stakes are different,
less immeidately affected.)
I know Joss is an atheist but what I've taken from the show is
reflective of my own views, despite the fact that I'm a mostly
devout religiounist. Since crosses and holy water have power,
and the crucifixion has been references, but also ancient gods,
I suspect that in this universe many religions have glimpsed and
harnessed a tiny aspect of the ultmate God but none have total
claim to the one truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Dedalus, 08:24:56 02/03/02 Sun
Very interesting, MrDave. Glad to see you're still around. Strangely
enough, I was once going to write something about Tillich's Ground
of Being as manifesting ratherly strongly in the Scooby Gang,
as opposed to the other isolated, far too self-conscious Glory.
I think the Slayer who was full of love got to beat the crap out
of her with a Platonic hammer because Whedon was deconstructing
that form of divinity. Cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Theology, Creativity, The Powers That Be, and Doll-making
-- Wisewoman, 14:14:16 02/03/02 Sun
Having recently experienced an epiphany of synchronicity, I find
this discussion fascinating and would have responded earlier had
I not been so @#$%ing busy at work...
Those of you who've been around for a while may remember my theory
of life as a Game that Unity Consciousness (or Tillich's Ultimate
Ground of Being) is playing with itself, in which one of the rules
is that we arrive in human form amidst this quantum soup of energy
and information with no recollection of what we really are. One
of the somewhat flippant assumptions of this theory is that the
Game was initiated as an antidote to the boredom of nothingness.
I recently tried to explain the basis of computing in binary theory
to my SO, without much success. Then, quite by accident, I came
across the web site of philosopher Rick Garlikov, which contains
a fascinating account of his successful attempt to teach binary
mathematics to a grade three class using the Socratic method,
i.e. telling the children nothing, merely asking them questions
that drew out what they already knew. At the same time, I began
reading Alan Watts' The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who
You Are, (highly recommended by Dedalus) and Watts discusses binary
theory in Chapter Two, "The Game of Black and White."
Simply put, everything that exists is a function of pulses; on/off,
black/white, light/dark/ wave/trough--because two perceived states
are all that is necessary to transform the original, undifferentiated
ground of being into the myriad forms of energy and information
that we perceive as the known universe. In the same way, you can
count to infinity using only the binary numbers 0 and 1.
It occurs to me that the first, most basic differentiation that
gave rise to the binary universe is that of creator/created. This
is an arbitrary, artificial division of unitary reality into two
states, and it is an absolutely essential condition for the Game.
I think it must be that even in the midst of the Game there is
an underlying recognition of unitary reality and an inherent desire
to return to the undifferentiated state.
We, as players in the Game, recognize our status as "created"
and strive to overcome this state by manifesting it's opposite
half--we become "creators."
In fact, we all fluctuate, or pulse, between creator and created,
as evidenced by the occasions when our being is "acted upon"
and when we use our being to act upon something else.
This brings me to doll-making, in which I've only recently developed
an interest. There is a substantial sub-culture of doll-makers
who are artists, as opposed to artisans, or crafters. Absolutely
the best, IMO, is Lisa Lichtenfels, whose creations are mind-boggling.
Check out her web site, if you're interested. She begins by creating
a complete, anatomically accurate "skeleton" of metal
armature, upon which she then builds a "body" consisting
of stuffing material applied in the form of musculature (the "flesh"),
and then covers this with several layers of nylon fabric skin.
In photographs it is virtually impossible to distinguish her "dolls"
from human beings, despite the fact that they are simply fabric
sculptures.
And what does this have to do with Theology in the Buffyverse?
Well, Lichtenfels is a good example of the lengths to which we
can go to experience ourselves as creators. And so is Joss Whedon,
and the other members of the ME writing team. "The Powers
That Be" are not metaphors for the gods (or God), or even
metaphors for Joss and the writers...they actually are Joss and
the writers. In this instance, Joss is the creator, and the Buffyverse,
all of it, is the created.
In the same way that Lichtenfels' dolls are fascinating because
they seem so real, so does the Buffyverse fascinate us--it's another
example of the ability some humans have to mimic the initial dichotomy
between creator and created that gave rise to our reality.
Okay, I gotta get back to work...did that make any sense?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Boom! (sound of my head exploding) -- Vickie, 14:37:38
02/03/02 Sun
This is what you write when you're too busy to write?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually, I should have eaten lunch instead...
-- dubdub, 14:57:14 02/03/02 Sun
'cause now I'm starving!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually, I should have eaten lunch
instead... -- Dedalus, 18:40:09 02/03/02 Sun
Wow, dub dub. Nifty. Anyway, I sense some of the earlier Tillich
conversations may have lost some people. He's just amazing in
that he avoids pitfall after theological pitfall. To me anyway.
But I for one am very happy with that follow-up by you. Made me
smile.
Incidentally, I just got done reading The Wisdom of Insecurity,
another book by Watts, and damn, I have never known anyone that
is able to translate such profound and paradoxical philosophy
with such remarkable lucidity. That is another must-read, imo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for the reading recommendation...
-- dubdub, 07:54:37 02/04/02 Mon
...when I finish The Book I've got a biography of Watts to look
at called "Genuine Fake." I'll let you know how that
one is, as well.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great posting, all around. More! More! -- yez, 07:47:12
02/04/02 Mon
Just a note that I think this is a fascinating thread which I'm
enjoying reading (time isn't permitting replies right now).
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? Spoilers Both Series to Last Week.
-- Age, 17:33:44 02/04/02 Mon
I don't think there are positive or negative forces in the universe;
positive and negative are made by thinking, and thinking is simply
an abstraction from reality that creates things where in reality
there are none. The demons of Sunnydale are those natural aspects
of ourselves which we have demonized as bad due to our mistaken
reliance on the structure of oppositional thinking.
The heaven that you refer to may be part of the basic theme of
the series whose motif has been repeated throughout the seasons:
if you try to make something into a heaven, then you make a hell
out of what you think is its opposite, and then you actually create
that hell by trying to repress the opposite of what you want.
Liam's father wanted a good son who would avoid the folly of youth,
but made Liam pick Angelus instead by giving him only a choice
based on opposition: either be dad and good or be Liam and bad.
The God of your definition seems to me to prove that he doesn't
exist: I'm not sure but, there doesn't seem to be any way of proving
his existence except through the world; but we know the world
exists, so then how do we prove God does? Secondly, it seems that
if he's in us all, then he's not separate from us. If he's not
separate from us, he is us; therefore how can he be a separate
entity at all?
Tillich seems to understand this by saying that he isn't a separate
being. He then says that God is being itself, or the ground of
being. I'm not sure which he means. And I'm not sure what that
means? How can you have a ground of being when being is existence,
the ground of being would have to be wouldn't it, and then be
its own ground? And if we did have a ground of being, wouldn't
it for us be the things we eat and the universe itself?
I really don't think that being and non being exist because you
can't have being without an essence. Being is not a property of
something such that it can or cannot have it. This is just a way
of thinking about things. A thing cannot resist non being because
it can never non be: as soon as the thing becomes something else,
there's nothing there to non be. Non being is simply an idea created
by thinking in terms of a thing that no longer exists. How can
a thing exist to non be? Things can only exist.
Not only this, but no thing exists. There is no being. All is
change and co-dependence; therefore no thing exists or has essence
in itself. There are no separate real things being what they are
under which we can put God the ground of being. The 'I' that I
call myself is simply a global idea, not a reality depicting the
world. Every name we use cuts the world up into things that don't
really exist separate from other things.
In regards to this, we can turn to the 'death' of Aprilbot and
Joyce. These two 'deaths' were deliberately paired in 'I Was Made
to Love You.' Through Aprilbot's death we were witnessing Joyce
dying. This is why the next ep was called 'The Body.' Now, as
Aprilbot is a robot no one thinks that a life came into existence
and then went out of existence. It's just that a process of changing
forms kept changing, and one of those constantly changing forms
was the batteries running down. There was no 'I' called April
separate from the robot itself. It's the same with Joyce. A real
separate entity called Joyce Summers never came into existence
and never went out of existence: there was just a confluence of
changing forms.
You said:
and all of the other "positive" characters in BtVS do
not succumb to
despair and death is a witness of the power of the divine being
at work.
God shows through the "show".
I don't think I can agree with this. This seems to be the same
argument as above: we have the evidence of the show, and then
we posit a divine being when the only evidence we have is the
show itself. All we can say is that the characters did not succumb
to despair(although I would dispute that) and death(although Buffy's
died twice and Joyce is gone). That's all we can say. And we could
balance that out by asking ourselves where God's work was in the
massacre on the train by Drusilla or on the bus by Darla?
You wrote:
There are also symbols at work. Symbols representing God are not
empowering themselves, but are in fact transparent to us and show
God
through themselves.* Crosses, holy water, even the Slayer herself
are
symbols for the power of God. Even little touches like Faith wearing
the
"Buffy-suit" and staring into a mirror saying, "Because
it's wrong"
become symbols showing us God in the act itself.
The cross is a symbol of wholeness and a deconstruction of the
opposition which demonizes our animal nature and renders us as
helpless human victims before those people who through oppositional
thinking have given in as fully as they can to the animal aspect
of our nature. The cross is two in one: the human and the animal,
equally valued, with the opposition between the two done away
with through the structure of the cross.
The slayer in my opinion is a demon. It represents the repressed
aggression and sexuality of women within an oppositionally based
male dominated culture. The slayer, like vampires, is a killer
of human beings, albeit human beings who just won't stay dead.
She is the natural world which is a killer; but she's also a lover:
from death comes life. She doesn't murder so much as put human
beings out of their unnatural misery.
As for the holy water, it represents wholeness(holiness) again:
regular water is only a feminine symbol, half of the male/female
opposition. But once blessed, usually by a male priest, it contains
both male anmd female: it is therefore the deconstruction of the
opposition on which vampires are made.
Whedon has attempted to give back to these symbols their original
metaphorical meaning: wholeness.
It's the same with sunlight: the vamps vaporize because as night
time creatures, the exposure to day deconstructs the opposition.
Faith in Buffy's body was trying to deny her own nature as she
had become ashamed of it; she tried to take on the role of the
good girl in order to deny what she'd done: she was playing a
role when she mouthed the words that it was wrong. In the vampires
she went back to dust she tried to destroy in them the shame she
felt inside.
You said:Our struggle to overcome the evil that clutters our lives
as we "grow
up" is the divine of the universe at work.
* OT NOTE: Paul Tillich described Jesus as the "ultimate
self-removing
symbol". He removed himself from our perception by his death
allowing us
direct access to God...affirming he was the Christ. The Messiah).
Why is there evil in the first place? If God is simply the ground
of being, then there's nothing wrong with evil because evil can
exist, and God is simply its ground too.
Not only this, but Whedon is deliberately moving us away from
the opposition between evil and good as witnessed by Darla's death
as both vampire and human; Cordy's accepting of being a demon;
Angel's accepting that his demon is okay and Buffy's accepting
her repressed fertility as okay in season five. Not only this,
but Whedon is pointing to the idea that we aren't just one being
if we can divide ourselves in two: we are a bunch of tendencies
that we put together under the banner me. But Angel is both a
demon and a human: he's two creatures in one. How can one person
be represented by two ceatures if we truly are just one thing?
We cannot even say that I exist as a separate entity in order
for god to be my ground of being.
If Christ did remove himself, then why is Christianity, Christianity?
Not only this, but if God isn't a separate being then how is Christ's
getting out the way going to help? God must be in Christ too.
One last thing: nothing has the power to resist not being as everything
is in constant change. Every moment something ceases to be and
another thing appears to the extent that no thing really exists.
No thing exists in the first place such that it can resist non
being. The very act of living, this so called being is the very
act of constant non being: if I didn't constantly change, then
I wouldn't be. But because I constantly change I am constantly
not being because the thing I was doesn't exist anymore. It has
gone out of existence. Therefore being and non being are the same;
the very act of being is non being itself. I cannot be, nor can
anything else unless it is becoming something else. The very act
of being can only happen as a function of non being. Because this
is just all thinking.
What you are really pointing to is the big change that happens
at the end of our life. Who knows what happens then?
I certainly don't. Does our consciousness simply cease to be?
Our consciousness, which is us, seems to cease to be every night
when we sleep; although this may be an illusion created by a lack
of memory of the consciousness. Are we just Aprilbots, or is there
actually another mechanism that survives physical death that simply
changes into another form, because all is change. Is death the
change into non being that we project, or is it simply just another
change, like the constant change we experience now. Do we fear
the big change at the end of our lives because we don't realize
that we are dying and resurrecting each moment? Or is this all
just thinking and the reality is something else.
I don't know.
I'm sorry to be so negative, but it only occurred to me over the
weekend that Whedon may be deconstructing the very thought structures
that seem to underpin Tillich's ideas, and I thought I should
at least post this possibility.
Again I apologize for being so negative. I'm not trying to prove
or disprove the existence of God or an afterlife, but simply show
that thinking is an abstraction and ask whether it does accurately
reflect reality.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: GOOD GOD! -- Dedalus, 19:35:22 02/04/02 Mon
Pardon the pun, but where the hell else can you get this kind
of dialogue going? ROTFLMAO. And again, shaking my head, ROTLMAO.
First off, the "whole" holy water thing - awesome idea.
Second off, Tillich is actually much closer to what you are saying
than you think. Or at least, as I understand the two books of
his that I have read. The being and non-being discussion that
runs throughout them is rather difficult for me to follow at times,
but he does use terms in sometimes untraditional ways. I think
Tillich would say that being is non-being and non-being is being
in the same way you might say emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
Now I'm afraid you're going to jump all over that, but I am just
generalizing.
Tillich never argued that being was a "thing." I believe
that's what you mainly took issue with. He did get awfully close
at times to declaring that being was in fact non-being. I need
to go read Systematic Theology again. But Tillich was not arguing
that there are seperate things under which God is lurking. I know
all about constant change and impermanence and the transitory
nature of being, but Tillich once defined the Ground of Being
as "eternal process," not something that is seperate
or is organizing it or somehow playing it from the inside out.
Oppositional thinking is not Paul Tillich's bag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good God Spoilers for both Series to Last
Week. -- Age, 20:36:23 02/04/02 Mon
Thanks for the heads up on this. I must admit that my knowledge
of Tillich is lacking, and I was simply commenting on the implications
of the quoted piece. The thing that I found intriguing is the
need to separate a God out from us at all. If everything is connected,
then it should be sufficient to talk about us. But, I see your
point: Tillich had to use language to describe the process he
saw of life. He then took the theistic God and said, no, he's
the very process. It is this process of change in itself which
is the eternal. The rest is just change. I see your point. Form
then is empty of form.
I never saw it in that sense because it seems to me that Whedon
wouldn't see it in that sense either. At this point I still think
that Whedon's taken a more naturalistic approach to living in
which we as human beings are animals and have to die to make way
for the next generation. The process itself may be eternal but
the immediate evidence is that we are not.
Where does the individual consciousness fit into the grand scheme
of things for Tillich? Are we eternally changing as this would
fit more into buddhism the religion?
One of the implications of deconstruction is that there is no
good or bad. We've simply made out certain things to be good or
bad based on what we want. It is good for Buffy to slay vampires
because then they won't kill us. It is bad for vampires to kill
us because we don't want to die. It seems to me that Whedon is
saying that life just is. You can be ashamed of it, think about
it, be in love with it, but if the human race doesn't procreate
and rise to its potential as humans, then it's as good as finished.
What is 'good' in Whedon's works is the whole human: animal and
all. It's not really good, it just is. The idea of a movement
away from evil implies a hierarchy of value from the animal to
the human. But quite clearly the implications of the two Xanders
ep, Cordy's decision to become part demon, Angel's acceptance
of his demon side and Buffy's acceptance of her 'key' role in
keeping the human race going, points to a balance of value between
what we call human and animal.
Moving on...
In actual fact, I was stumped about the holy water and had to
think that one out for a few minutes. I knew it had to do with
wholeness. How could it be whole? Why does regular water not affect
vamps? What is the difference between regular water and holy water?
It is the blessing. Who does the blessing? Men. Regular water
is a feminine symbol. Holy water is a feminine symbol that has
had a man do something to it: holy water is thus a symbol of wholeness:
male and female.
The implication of this is yet again nothing in this series is
without metaphorical meaning. Whedon is rigorous and meticulous
in this.
Thanks for the heads up about Tillich. This week has been very
fruitful in thinking, and I may just have let my enthusiasm run
away with me. If I was too negative or misunderstood the implications
of what I was criticizing then I apologize once again. The last
thing that I want to do is stifle good debate between people with
different points of view.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Good God Spoilers for both Series
to Last Week. -- Dedalus, 08:27:37 02/05/02 Tue
Hey, I still love your posts. They blow me away every time. I
was merely pointing out that what was kinda bugging you didn't
really need to bug you.
I agree that most things - laws, language, the whole bit, are
just value judgments in a sense that we impose rather than that
are already there. Life is wiggly, but Buffy does certainly give
it room to do so in its expression of it. It does come down to
what Spike said in OMWF - "Life isn't bliss, life is just
this." More the mystery to be lived rather than solved.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? Spoilers Both Series to Last
Week. -- MrDave, 19:52:17 02/04/02 Mon
I'm Tempted to break this down line by line...but I see two trends
of thought here, and its easier (and less lengthy) to address
them as categories of thought.
Thought #1: Being and Non-being have no meaning because they are
patterns of thought that describe changes of state. Therefore
it is the thought-pattern of "being" that is the illusion,
not the state of being.
God (and forgive me for thinking of this as a Christain God, but
thats my comfort zone...) as the Ground of Being is a Human construction.
It has grown from our need to overcome the realization of our
own mortality and our disconnectedness as the self-aware part
of creation. If we are self-aware and separate from our world,
then we feel the need to identify with something else in our same
situation. But while we may feel empathy for our fellow humans,
our fellow human do not always feel empathy for us. The need to
be connected...identified with...something that is larger than
ourselves.
Now, God may be an outgrowth of our insecurities, but it does
not invalidate our needs. Hope must well up from somewhere. The
desire to continue despite our terminal illness named mortality
must draw from some deep assurance that the struggle has some
worth. That desire to push on is God.
A rock cannot be. It does not question its existance. It isn't
afraid of erosion. Being is an act of self-awareness. The rock
exists (well, as much as sub-atomic theory says it does), but
we "are". Descates hit on something. Thinking makes
me "be", when I stop being then I cease to be...I am
non-being. Then I go back to matter and simply exist.
So, Yes. If we are disussing the universe (Buffy's or ours) in
terms of the space my matter occupies has the same value as the
equivalent volume of any other matter, then being and non-being
are meaningless. But I think. The other matter doesn't (unless
that other matter is you, then I am CLEARLY in error). Therefore,
from the human perspective (which is where I am viewing God...he
being the exclusive realm of Humanity) being and non-being are
relevant terms.
Thought #2: Evil, Good, Holiness, Demons, and other symbols have
no intrinsic character that makes them either desireable or unneccesary.
All things are connected and interdependant. Only by DE-constructing
these artifical roles can we transcend the symbols and see the
truth in them...that everything (or nothing...not sure on your
stance here) has value.
We are not God. We can only depend on Revelation (literally "the
revealing") of God. Tillich writes:
"The mystery which is revealed is of ultimate concern to
us becasue it is the ground of our being. In the history of religion,
revelatory events have always been described as shaking, transforming,
demanding, significant in an ultimate way. They derive from divine
sources, from the power of that which is holy, and which therefore
has an unconditional claim on us"
(Systematic Theology, Vol I)
When a symbol "speaks" to us, it is serving its purpose.
It is the metaphor. Just as a flag points to the nation...represents
the nation which has adopted it. It represents its ideals, it
represents its people, culture, commerce, crime, morals (or lack
thereof), and on and on.
You cannot deconstruct a symbol, because it IS a deconstruction
of a larger ideal. All you can do is look for the broader meaning
in a symbol. Perhaps there are unseen meaning of the symbol. Maybe
there arent. Maybe that cigar is just a cigar. If for you the
holy water is a yin-yang brew that dissolves the anima of vampires...then
Great! I totally missed that one. For me, it is a purifying element
that cleanses the body of evil forces, releasing it to non-being.
Neither one of us is right...or wrong.
Thought #3: Almost an afterthought. What happens when we (or me,
if I piss you off enough ) cease to exist?
To quote Buffy: "I have a theory: It doesn't matter".
What matters is was my being a blessing...or a curse. If it was
a blessing, then my life was worth the being...a monument to the
"Ground of all Being". That is how Grace (a WHOLE 'nuther
discussion enters) works (for me at least). If my life was a curse,
then my non-being becomes the blessing (in such a limited, almost
insignificant way), and sets me up for whatever comes next.
Its not what we do, its how we do it...why we do it...whether
we finish it. We can do nothing...suck up oxygen...and feed off
the world, and take it all back into the ground with us...or we
can take that little (illusionary, human, neccessary) spark of
the divine that we can percieve and spread it around!
and wow...my head is beginning to hurt. Thanks for the brain-itch
Age! Make me justify my existance anyday!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? Spoilers Both Series to
Last Week. -- Age, 00:15:51 02/05/02 Tue
Firstly, thanks for replying. I thought I'd been too negative.
I see your point about estrangement. We as human beings are estranged
from one another because we never experience each other's consciousness,
the self awareness. At the human level there is this separation
because as self aware beings we do tend to think in terms of estrangement.
This then gets amplified as we see other human beings acting in
a manner that's not connected with us.
The point that I was making is that despite thinking and self
awareness there is no real self there. There is no real us that
has to do anything in the world or who does anything. I may think
that I exist, but the reality is otherwise.
I see your point about the value of being a human being. This
particular confluence of forms which I call me has particular
value. But the point I was making is that if we actually believe
there really is a separate entity in there called me or that my
body is separate from the world, then this is creating a separation
that doesn't exist.
I see that the opposition between being and non-being is not what
I thought it was. It's not simply between existence and non existence.
I'm sorry that I did not understand your concepts before criticizing
them. But whether we are self aware and being, the original condition
of existence has not changed. As much as we are self aware and
thinking, it doesn't change our being confluences of forces. Thinking
may create the idea of a separate enduring me, but it's not the
case. There is no 'I' that does the thinking; there's just the
thinking that creates the idea of 'I.'
Being is grounded in existence. Is it a type of existence with
different conditions. You have given these conditions, thinking
and self awareness, a special value more than the existence of
the rock, but that's just thinking. What I'm trying to say is
like the rock, there's no separate entity. There's the thinking
and the awareness and these are conditions, but no entity that
does the being.
What I'm getting at is the idea of a fundamental disconnectedness
comes from thinking itself, and is an error. We only think we
are disconnected because we are attached to the falsehood of an
enduring separate 'I.' The very faculty that distinguishes us
as beings is the one that is creating the illusion of disconnectedness
in the first place. 'I' don't exist. 'I' can't ever be. This is
just an idea. If we let go of that idea, then the revelatory experience
you are talking about will happen. We see things through the filter
of ideas. What happens if we let go of our most fundamental one
because while it seems to describe our condition somewhat, it
also creates the illusion of disconnection.
You wrote:
You cannot deconstruct a symbol, because it IS a deconstruction
of a
larger ideal. All you can do is look for the broader meaning in
a
symbol. Perhaps there are unseen meaning of the symbol. Maybe
there
arent. Maybe that cigar is just a cigar. If for you the holy water
is a
yin-yang brew that dissolves the anima of vampires...then Great!
I
totally missed that one. For me, it is a purifying element that
cleanses
the body of evil forces, releasing it to non-being. Neither one
of us is
right...or wrong.
I agree there is no right or wrong, and I must admit that I was
leaning towards believing that my interpretation was right. I
was thinking that this is one man's vision of the world, and was
trying to tie it all together through the imagery. I was thinking
about exploring the intention of the writer through his imagery.
I was analyzing what I thought had been intended in the work,
rather than taking the symbol and overlaying my own ideas on it.
But can we ever stop ourselves from doing that?
I think that you and I aren't really saying different things.
We are different from rocks; but do we have any more value than
a rock? If I think I do, then I do. But it's just thinking. Does
our life have worth or not? Worth is just an idea. I can attach
myself to it or not. I don't need life to have worth or not worth.
That's just thinking.
Thanks for your reply. It has been a great learning experience
for me in more ways than one. I'm not sure whether I really answered
your reply. Hopefully.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? Spoilers Both Series
to Last Week. -- manwitch, 06:19:03 02/05/02 Tue
You folks have all been just fantastic in this discussion. Especially
given the personal nature of what's being discussed, both one's
view of Buffy and one's view of God, I'm really impressed at how
thoughtful, level-headed and open-minded you've all been. I echo
that it has been a great learning experience to read this.
On the value question, I'm a hardcore relativist, and people are
always telling me that that means I think nothing has anymore
value or meaning or significance than anything else. Nothing could
be further from the truth. I always tell them to read the Little
Prince if they want to know where value comes from. Its expressed,
not possessed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More on Rocks ... -- Dedalus,
08:37:12 02/05/02 Tue
I would just like to say I like rocks. Most of the matter - aside
from the "dark matter" if there is such a thing - in
this universe is geologic. But obviously, if one believes in evolution,
rocks contain the potential for organic life. So a rock is not
"just" a rock.
I like what Alan Watts said. Imagine if two billion years ago
or so, aliens from another galaxy were buzzing around the Earth.
They saw it was nothing but mostly a crude geologic mess, and
wrote it off as being just a bunch of rocks. But suppose the descendents
of those aliens were to come back today? They would have to apologize.
Those were "peopling" rocks after all!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two interpretations of BtVS -- matching mole, 15:06:29 02/02/02
Sat
This post is a description of two contrasting interpretations
of BtVS. Through discussions both on this board and off it I have
become much clearer about what the qualities of this exceptional
show are that I value most highly. I will first briefly outline
what I believe is a fairly standard interpretation of the show
as a whole. Then I will place that interpretation within a conceptual
framework for television fiction. Buffy the Vampire Slayer will
be compared to another exceptional show, 'The Simpsons' using
this conceptual framework leading to a second interpretation of
BtVS.
Spoiler and Criticism Warning. There are general but fairly mild
spoilers to events throughout the series most specifically to
the ends of S2 and S5 further down in this post. I am also somewhat
critical of BtVS S5 and S6.
First some acknowledgements. Postings on this board have certainly
influenced my views particularly those by Age and Rahael (although
I doubt they will concur with all of my conclusions). Also there
was a posting a month or so ago suggesting that the show has become
more conventional as it has adopted a more complex moral stance.
Unfortunately I forget who the poster was but that post also had
a big impact on my thinking. I have also discussed this issue
at length with two people off this board: my wife and a friend
who I will simply refer to as Dr. M. Dr. M should really be a
co-author of this post as he is responsible for several of the
ideas and is a much more eloquent and entertaining essayist than
I am. As this is already a fairly long post I have tried to keep
the level of detail fairly low. If you feel I am unclear at any
point feel free to ask or to attack.
My first post a few months was an attempt to articulate what I
thought was currently lacking in a show that I had so admired
in earlier years. Don't get me wrong, I still think that BtVS
is an excellent show. Just not what it once was. My earlier analyses
of changes in the show focused on more superficial characteristics
such as setting and on the relative importance of episode level,
season level, and long term plot. I will now argue that the show's
nature has changed on a much more fundamental level.
First the 'conventional' view of BtVS. This is a distillation
of what appears to be the consensus opinion of many people on
the board and also fits in with statements made by Josh Whedon
and others at Mutant Enemy. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show
about being a teenager and then growing up. Demons and vampires
are (in part at least) metaphors for the traumas of adolescent
life. The apocalyptic events represent crises that seem world-ending
at the time but then are forgotten quickly. The early years of
the show feature a relatively black and white view of morality
with demons clearly portrayed as evil (except for the special
case of Angel) reflecting the rather absolute moral perspective
of the young. Over time the show takes on a more complex moral
character: some humans are evil and some demons appear to be good
(or at least not all that bad), actions taken with good intentions
can be just as damaging as actions taken with the intent of doing
harm. Adults tend to perceive the world as more morally complicated
than children. The characters have tended to become less sure
of their place in the scheme of things. By season 6 demons have
ceased to become world-threatening crises but are now annoying
problems on the level of leaky basements. The main struggle the
characters now face is to define themselves and to seek out meaningful
existence as adults.
Now lets define three broad categories into which we can classify
most TV fiction with the proviso that many shows will have characteristics
of more than one category and some other shows, particularly older
ones may fall outside of these categories altogether. These categories
could easily be applied to films and written fiction as well but
because part of my aim in this post is to consider the special
problems faced by TV fiction I will limit my discussion to that
realm. A large part of my distinction between these categories
is their treatment of character flaws. The term flaw refers not
only to large scale obvious shortcomings like addictions, criminal
behavior, immorality, and abuse but also to anything that a character
does that stands in the way of personal growth including unwise
choice in relationships, insensitivity, avoidance of responsibility,
poor judgment, shyness, voting Republican, and so on.
The first of these categories are what I will call (although this
is Dr. M's term) Cynical shows. A Cynical show is one that celebrates/exploits
character 'flaws' for the purpose of entertainment and/or commentary.
Shows that would fall into this category would include 'Married
with Children' and 'Seinfeld' (shows which otherwise might appear
very different). Characters are generally defined by their flaws,
there is little else to them. George Costanza is in many ways
a brilliant creation but he remains an amalgam of human failings
rather than a fully realized human being. I can imagine meeting
someone for an hour and thinking that they were just like a character
on 'Seinfeld' but I can't imagine knowing someone for ten years
and still thinking the same thing.
The second category is what we will call Progressive shows. The
term is slightly misleading by I think still apt. Progressive
does not strictly refer to a liberal/PC point of view although
this is the case more often than not. Instead it refers to the
focus on the progression of the characters. Progressive shows
again emphasize character flaws but in a different way. Flaws
are obstacles to be overcome. Attempting to overcome these flaws
is the text, a major long term plot device of the program. Most
television programs that would be considered high quality (both
dramas and comedies) have strong Progressive elements. Almost
any TV show or movie that is likely to win an Oscar or an Emmy
or some other award, almost any book likely to land its author
on Oprah is going to have a strong Progressive aspect. The 'conventional'
view of BtVS that I outlined above is clearly Progressive.
So what's wrong with that? Well nothing really. A fundamental
element of fiction is that characters are changed by the events
described in the narrative. Classic types of literature and myth:
the coming of age story, the hero's journey, the love story are
all inherently Progressive in the sense I'm using. A Shakespearean
tragedy is Progressive in the sense that the failure of characters
to overcome their flaws leads to a dire outcome. However, the
change of a character need not be the central element of a piece
of fiction. A change in character X because of event Y can be
used to say something about the event. Or the event Y can largely
be a plot device to drive the development of character X. The
latter is characteristic of a Progressive show the former is not.
In my opinion an underused alternative to the Progressive style
is the Tolerant show which has a number of sterling features.
Dr. M referred to Tolerant shows as Exceptional shows but I prefer
a less value-laden name. In Tolerant shows characters have a range
of characteristics some of which may be considered flaws. Characters
interact with one another in compelling ways that are consistent
with but clearly subordinate to the overall narrative. Flaws are
tolerated; they may entertain, they may cause friction but they
are allowed to persist as parts of the character, adding to the
richness of the story. Relationships may be ambiguous, this ambiguity
may be resolved or it may not be. Characters may be loyal to one
another despite their imperfections or the absence of conventional
relationships.
'The Simpsons' is in many ways the archetypal Tolerant show. The
main characters are all flawed (Homer is lazy, selfish, often
intolerant, Marge is controlling and uptight, etc.) yet the members
of the family remain deeply attached to one another and capable
of genuine affection. The ambiguities surrounding each character
and the relationships among the family members persist through
time without necessarily reaching a resolution. The flaws of the
characters are neither just devices on which to hang a joke or
make a point nor a set of obstacles to be overcome. They are first
and foremost aspects of the characters along with other characteristics
that we consider to be more positive. The richness of 'The Simpsons'
is derived in large part by the creation of well-developed characters
that are not under editorial directive to move beyond their flaws
or die trying.
In one important way, 'The Simpsons' stands apart from most modern
TV fiction. It is relentlessly static. The individual episodes
could be observed in almost any order with perfect comprehension.
Its degree of stasis is only possible because it is a cartoon
(otherwise the characters would age). The stasis helps maintain
its Tolerant nature, a task that is apparently very difficult
to do over the long run. Older shows tend to be more static than
recent ones and the two other examples of Tolerant shows that
spring to my mind are from the 1970s: 'Barney Miller' and 'The
Rockford Files'. Two more recent shows maintained a Tolerant approach
to their characters for part of their run but ultimately failed
to maintain it: 'Roseanne' and 'The X-Files'. Both of these shows
were/are far more dynamic than my other examples featuring strong
long term plots. I'll briefly consider 'The X-Files' in a bit
more detail as it is the most recent and it shares a common genre
with BtVS. The early 'X-Files' is the most direct ancestor of
BtVS that I know of. Its appeal lay in interesting, quirky writing
and in the unique personalities and interactions of its two main
characters. Scully is a committed rationalist and a non-nerdly
scientist but also has deeply held (if subtly expressed) religious
beliefs (any one of these alone would be unusual in a television
character). Mulder is genuinely (as opposed to superficially)
eccentric. Their world views are limited, their interactions inconclusive.
'The X-Files' ultimately came to be limited by two factors. One,
not really germane to this discussion, was the development of
a long term plot (the UFO conspiracy) that could not remain static
or move forward without damaging the nature of the show. The solution
seems to have been to make it so incomprehensible that viewers
couldn't follow it. The other factor was the increasing importance
and centrality of the Mulder/Scully relationship. More and more
the show came to be about the changes in their characters with
Mulder changing from interesting crank to troubled messiah and
Scully changing from deadpan skeptic to distraught martyr. The
show lost its Tolerant quality and became Progressive. And much
less interesting as result.
Now I am finally going to return to BtVS. My argument is that
in its first two seasons BtVS was an excellent example of a Tolerant
show. Item of evidence number one: Cordelia Chase. In my opinion
Cordelia is the character in whose creation Mr. Whedon and Mutant
Enemy should be most proud. In her initial incarnation she contained
all the qualities of a one note comic character or a foil but
she was so much more. A deeply flawed but well rounded and compulsively
interesting character. And after her move to AtS her evolution
seemed a natural outcome of her circumstances, unforced and subtle
(I'll discuss how all this relates to AtS at some other time).
The other main characters in the early BtVS were also flawed,
although generally less obviously. Xander's jealousy and his neglect
of Willow, Willow's neediness and insecurity, and so on. In general
these flaws were not held up to judgment, the characters interacted
in compelling ways, and ambiguities were often left unresolved
(such as Xander's failure to tell Buffy of Willow's re-souling
attempt at the end of season 2). Crises came and went among the
group but were handed deftly and lightly. Consider the handling
of the Angel/Angelus story in the second half of season 2. A story
made for soap opera but I think that it was handled with admirable
restraint.
Now look ahead to season 3 and the Willow-Xander tryst. Objectively
this is pretty small potatoes. Being attracted to other people
while in a romantic relationship is probably an almost universal
human characteristic. And the amount of 'illicit smoochies' was
portrayed as being very small. And the discovery occurred in a
highly unusual (for non-Scoobies) situation in which death was
thought to be imminent. Yet the reaction by almost everyone seemed
out of proportion to the actual transgression. This is among the
first glimmers of the Progressive tendency - the whole storyline
seems to me to have been written with the idea of moving character
development along rather than arising naturally out of past events.
I would characterize seasons 3 and 4 as a mixture of the Progressive
and the Tolerant. The light touch of the writers that characterized
seasons 1 and 2 was gradually becoming heavier. The treatment
of Faith is another example of this. Yet the core of the show,
the relationships among the central characters was generally still
Tolerant.
The change from season 4 to season 5 has always struck me as the
most dramatic in the show's history and I can now verbalize what
that change was. The show became almost wholly Progressive in
tone. 'The Body' (not incidentally my favourite episode of S5)
was almost the only exception. Its 'real time' style focused our
attention wholly on the present. Otherwise the focus of most of
the season seemed to be getting Buffy to the top of that tower
in 'The Gift'. I'm speaking from the perspective of hindsight
of course. And of course the Progressive tendency continues to
this day.
I am writing this from a biased perspective as you might have
detected. I generally prefer the Tolerant to the Progressive.
Partly this is because I am interested in setting, in the created
world. Vampires and demons may be metaphors but I'm also really
interested in what it might be like to live in Sunnydale rather
than just see Sunnydale as mechanism to speed Buffy on her way
to adulthood or whatever. Also I'm not generally all that interested
in heroes and more into sidekicks. The Tolerant approach allows
much more scope for unconventional relationships among a diverse
array of characters. Spike illustrates this point nicely. In S2
Spike is an interesting villain but he becomes absolutely fascinating
in the final episode when he allies himself with Buffy. In the
space of a few minutes of screen time they manage to work past
their status as mortal enemies and establish a relationship despite
the yawning divide between their world views. In S4 Spike returns
a helpless comic figure. He despises the Scoobies yet he needs
them for companionship. The mutual uncertainty makes things interesting.
In S6 Spike is romantically involved with Buffy. An unconventional
romance to be sure but a much more conventional relationship than
what we have seen earlier.
Also there is a dangerous tendency for the Progressive to lurch
into soap opera. Relationships and obsessions may be given more
weight than is plausible in order to drive the story forward.
Certainly taking the Xander/Anya relationship to the point of
marriage doesn't seem very plausible to me for example.
In case you are appalled that I am attacking your favourite Buffy
era I would like to make a few final comments from another perspective.
Certainly the transition from Tolerant to Progressive has been
handled vastly more successfully than in the X-Files. And it is
a not unnatural transition given the thematic content of the show.
A common element in literature aimed at young people is the idea
of secrets, hidden truths known only to the main characters who
would not be believed if they revealed them because they are children.
The shared knowledge often binds characters into unconventional
relationships with strong mutual loyalty as we see expressed in
the early and middle BtVS. This seems to fit in nicely with a
Tolerant interpretation of S1 and S2, continuing to a lesser degree
through S4. Vampires and demons may be metaphors for teen problems
but I believe they can also be metaphors for hidden levels of
reality ignored by the wider world, hence the pathological denial
of Sunnydale citizens. This idea seems similar to those expressed
in Age's and Rahael's discussion of demon/magic properties representing
unconventional potential in the main female characters. The Scoobies
aren't just living in the simple black and white world of adolescence,
paradoxically they are more in touch with the core of reality
than anyone else. As they grow up that reality fades just as adults
in many children's stories lose the ability to do magic. The uncharitable
might characterize this parallel theme to 'Oh grow up' to be Oh
sell out and join the bourgeois. I don't think that I'll go that
far myself. I will say that as they approach one truth they appear
to be getting farther away from the other.
Two hours until I see DMP. Maybe it will change my view of everything?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Let me be the first to say.... Ka-BOOM! -- Tanker, 15:52:29
02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You beat me to it Tanker, and let me add WOW! -- Liq,
16:16:38 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS -- manwitch, 16:18:33 02/02/02
Sat
Also some S5 and S1 spoilers.
Well, obviously there is a lot here and its a bit of a handful
to respond to.
I love the Simpsons and think its a great show. But its a critique
of contemporary American society. Its funny, and sure the characters
have lovable flaws that they have no intention of overcoming,
but that is still part of the critique. No matter how you slice
it, its critique.
What sets Buffy apart from all other shows in the history of television
is that it is mythic. To quote Joseph Campbell, "All of these
symbols refer to you." You are Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
You do live in Sunnydale. You do fight demons and vampires. You
have been chosen to act morally in a helacious world, whether
or not anyone else knows or appreciates the sacrifices you make.
While other shows, regardless of how they fall into your categories,
may offer us situations that we recognize or allegories to events
or emotions we have known, they are always ultimately about what
they appear to be. The beauty of Buffy is that it is actually
about your life. It is the ultimate reality television. (I am
aware of its strong postmodern political, social and economic
criticism, but I think that is supportive of its mythic function,
not the shows primary purpose).
So I think, personally, that it transcends your schema. I would
offer a different schema.
1) Shows that are about what you see.
2) Shows that offer some sort of critique or allegory.
3) Shows that are metaphorical of your life and experience.
Very few shows make even the attempt to do this last one, let
alone achieve it successfully.
But even in your categories, I would suggest--and I'm sure you
have an answer to this--that the character's in Buffy are remarkably
flawed and many of their flaws continue over time. The fact that
some flaws are overcome, or worthy of overcoming, doesn't seem
to me to make the show intolerant (or Non-Tolerant). We all have
many flaws that we live with, and yet try every day to overcome.
In the case of Buffy, many people demand from it the same rationalist
precision that ultimately killed the X-Files. The contortions
it had to go through to maintain the integrity of its plot was
staggering. Buffy, by being purely metaphorical, is not constrained
by rationalist requirements. Obviously JW attempts to maintain
consistency within the Buffyverse, but that is secondary to maintaining
consistency in the referent to which the Buffyverse is a pointer.
This is why Buffy doesn't need a blood test, nor would she ever
accept one, to tell her that she and Dawn were identical sacrifices.
Nor does the show need to send Buffy to the Hospital after Xander
saves her through CPR, even though Xander himself reminds us that
anyone who has drowned and been resuscitated needs some recuperation.
No, Buffy simply stands up, says, "I feel different,"
and goes and kicks the Master's behind. Its because the show knows
perfectly well that her death wasn't literal. Sure they will always
refer to the time she died. But the death was to the child-like
personality who was resisting slayerhood throughout season 1.
Not a death of the body. Had it been a death of the body, she
would've needed days to recover. But the death and resurrection
of season 1 were the acceptance of the Calling, the acceptance
of life, so of course she felt different and stronger. And by
extension, that is the death and resurrection we all must go through.
Because we are Buffy.
I'm sorry to get carried away.
My point is that while it can appear soap opera-ish, or that the
relationships or obsessions are being given more weight than they
should, you need to remember to look past the image and to what
the image is referring to.
I personally find Buffy to be the transcendent experience on television.
I can think of many shows that are well-done and extremely entertaining,
funny, or dramatic. But I can think of none that resonate like
Buffy does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The best "metaphorical" show period was
Twilight Zone, Serling was the original "God" :-) --
blaylock, 03:13:51 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Posts like this are why I love this Board -- Sophist, 18:46:26
02/02/02 Sat
MM has given us a provocative and very well reasoned thesis. Manwitch
disagrees, with points equally cogent.
I probably should wait 24 hours before responding, and I doubt
I can match these 2, but I did want to add 2 observations.
First, Rahael posted something a couple of weeks ago that really
struck me and that seems missing here. There was a long thread
about the "graying" of the Buffyverse from a previously
black/white outlook. Those of us who contributed to that thread
(including me) forgot something important that Rahael pointed
out: that the _emotional_ content of the show is what adds color,
and color adds depth. The emotional depth gives a third dimension
to what would otherwise be a flat canvas.
To me, the important question is whether the show retains its
ability to move our emotions. I think it does. In fact, I think
S5 had extraordinary emotional tone (although I would still vote
S2 as the high point). And I think it achieved that tone precisely
because of the "progressivism" that MM regrets: Buffy's
sacrifice had meaning because we had followed her along a developmental
track.
Has the show lost that capacity in S6? I won't comment in full
here because I don't want to add spoilers and limit the readership
of this thread. I will say that it's very hard to judge at this
point in the season. Who among us, at this point of S2, would
have guessed that episodes like Surprise, Innocence, Passion,
and Becoming I & II were to come?
Second, I'm not sure I agree that the characters have progressed
as much as is assumed by MM. Is Willow any less insecure than
she was in S1? Is Xander any less judgmental? Buffy any more secure
in her relationship choices?
I think the characters continue to make mistakes similar to those
they made in the past (no details to avoid spoilers, but I have
specifics in mind). I see them dealing with those mistakes in
ways which, perhaps naively, I believe will eventually strengthen
their relationships.
Growing up doesn't necessarily mean overcoming your weaknesses
-- we can rarely do so well -- it means adjusting to them in some
way that leaves you comfortable with yourself and your friends
comfortable with you.
If the show can move in this direction, I will be content. If
it can continue to make me laugh weekly and cry on occasion, I
will be thrilled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS -- Gwyn, 19:31:10 02/02/02
Sat
"I am writing this from a biased perspective as you might
have detected. I generally prefer the Tolerant to the Progressive.
Partly this is because I am interested in setting, in the created
world. Vampires and demons may be metaphors but I'm also really
interested in what it might be like to live in Sunnydale rather
than just see Sunnydale as mechanism to speed Buffy on her way
to adulthood or whatever. Also I'm not generally all that interested
in heroes and more into sidekicks. The Tolerant approach allows
much more scope for unconventional relationships among a diverse
array of characters. Spike illustrates this point nicely. In S2
Spike is an interesting villain but he becomes absolutely fascinating
in the final episode when he allies himself with Buffy. In the
space of a few minutes of screen time they manage to work past
their status as mortal enemies and establish a relationship despite
the yawning divide between their world views. In S4 Spike returns
a helpless comic figure. He despises the Scoobies yet he needs
them for companionship. The mutual uncertainty makes things interesting.
In S6 Spike is romantically involved with Buffy. An unconventional
romance to be sure but a much more conventional relationship than
what we have seen earlier."
I find your Cynical, Tolerant, Progressive triad very interesting.
Mostly because it does seem to fit the shows you use to illustrate
your categories. Where I part company from you is in the statement
above that links character change or development with the Progressive
view and, by seeming definition, to a deterioration in storytelling
or loss of the Tolerant persective. Part of this problem for me
is the limits of categorization when placed like a kind of analytical
template over any drama or storyline. They are useful guidelines
to interpretation but when they are used we start trying to fit
the story to the definitions. Using them assumes that the story
will always fit, and the interesting thing about good stories
is that they have a dynamic, an organic development of their own,
that defies analytical straitjacketing, even if it is, oftentimes,
only in the detail. What I like about your use of such categories
is that it stimulates insight into new ways of looking at the
story, but I cannot go from there to thinking of BtVS as only
a story of that kind.
One of the aspects of the show that seems to me to defy your category
is its representation of violence. Progressive views would say
violence is bad and it has no place in healthy relationships.
So much of the use of violence as a metaphor in the show challenges
that view. Both Spike and Buffy are killers of each others kind
who, despite coming from opposite ends of the moral spectrum,
are shown to both embrace violent solutions to moral problems.
And the use of violence to destroy, fight for a right cause, or
in the context of relationships where the characters are emotionally
hurting one another, is as much illustrative of moral and character
flaws as it is of moral progression and character growth. Violence
in the show is the symbolici representation of a moral, psychological,
and social debate about the world in which these young people
have to find their way and the story is tolerant, in the sense
that you define it, of the way humanity finds its way, fights
its battles, and makes its errors through destructive, even catyclasmic
means.
Buffy's current struggle with her attraction to Spike, and Spike's
struggle with the slow erosion of his identity as a vampire because
of his love for Buffy is far from Progressive in the way the characters
are drawn with all their flaws exposed,not just as something they
must overcome, but as inherent parts of who they are. There is
no question that season five is about character change in the
case of Spike and Buffy. But, for all the Progressive platitudes
that might be conjoured up by the "Spike is evil" refrain,
neither Spike nor Buffy are morally typecast. Buffy as the hero
is deeply flawed since her resurrection. Still the hero but fighting
self-awareness to the point where the broad strokes of mythic
heroism shade into the suspect areas of moral and human frailty
in her treatment of Spike, and her lack of interest in those she
has always been responsible for. For all Spike's desire to turn
his back on the "whole evil thing" we are only given
him doing it in a very small sphere. He is "good" in
a limited area of action, and the chip covers the rest. He has
no regret for his past, something that the Progressive category
would seem to require in their morally suspect heroes. If anything,
Buffy's use of Spike as a channel back to feeling alive, with
little thought for the emotional exploitation this might involve,
shifts her as a character and heroine back into the Tolerant category
as you see it. She is no lilywhite heroine, and , infinitely more
interesting because of it.Far from having that forward movement
you speak of, where Progressive themes seem to drive characterisation
to defined moments of epiphany, the story is more content to have
an infinitely more dissonant and erratic rythym that allows characters
time to circle around their own inner demons with only partial
resolution to the fears that drive or distract them from their
"growing up".
The real danger of Progressive stories is not that they degenerate
into soap operas but that they become morality plays and this
is far from the case in this show. Buffy is not West Wing on the
Hellmouth! The complexity of the Buffy and Spike characters would
preclude this happening. There is a lot of unresolved, ongoing
moral dilemma, grey areas of moral action, and not much peace
and contentment for the characters in a Buffyverse of endless
personal and moral angst. The characters live their flaws and,
even in the forward movement of character change, are not shown
exorcising their personal demons so much as struggling to accommodate
them into some form of meaningful life. Buffy's struggle with
what it means to be the Slayer and simply Buffy is the major case
in point. The show is not holding out any hope that she will ever
resolve that torturous dilemma, only that she may understand it
well enough to live with that unresolvability. If I were to use
your categories I would put the Progressive and Tolerant on top
of one another and then put BtVS in the middle. Even then I would
say the show is so much more than that. But that would be another
post!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Gwyn's post is brilliant. I eagerly await the next
one. -- manwitch, 04:46:01 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS -- Juliette, 08:39:57
02/03/02 Sun
I think Progressive shows are in danger of both becoming soap
opera like and becoming morality plays. I can't stand soap operas
but I love morality plays like West Wing and Star Trek. I think
that Buffy is presenting us with more and more morality plays,
but rather than situations arising from events and/or characters'
behaviour as they would in West Wing or Star Trek, the characters
are being manipulated by the writers to create situations to use
to moralise. Eg, Willow is given a drug-like addiction to magic
in order to show that Drugs Are Bad, not because Willow's character
was going that way. (The original suggestion that she was abusing
magical power came from the character's development and felt like
a natural progression - the sudden switch to drug metaphors felt
false. In West Wing, on the other hand, we have always been told
Leo was an alcoholic, so stories about his alcoholism ring true
- though, being in the UK, I haven't seen the episode in question
yet.) In this way, the show becomes soap opera like, as situations
are created in order to force conflict and a learning process,
rather than conflict arising from natural progression of characters.
Oh dear, that was clear as mud wasn't it??!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS: Spoilers B/A to Present.
-- Age, 10:58:50 02/04/02 Mon
I believe that the basis of this series is to show the inherent
error in oppositional thinking. As you say, these are not flaws
to be overcome, demons to be rid of, but aspects of their character
that have been demonized and then repressed rather than managed
in order to keep the illusion of opposition between the good that
we want to see ourselves as and the bad which we want not to be.
Buffy is flip flopping between the two: either the ice cold(non
sexual) of the diamond(static form) in the sky, the heavenly star
of death or the fires(hot, sexual) of hell and movement(flame
moves no form: invisibilty of the diamond without its form) life
itself. She can't put these oppositions together because they
don't really exist; they are just made by thinking and are illusory.
This is in my opinion basic buddhism or taoism but without the
religious aspect of an afterlife in reincarnation. In fact the
stake as phallic symbol and the importance of the heart for vampires
creates the taoist yin yang symbol based on male and female symbolizing
that women are not without male characteristics(phallic stake
symbol) and men are not without female qualities(the heart as
feminine symbol and womb.) Oppositional thinking is inherently
flawed because it creates the deconstruction of the structure
through the structure itself. In making two things out to be opposites,
the devalued opposite has to be repressed, vilified etc, labeled
as having no value in order to stop it from automatically deconstructing
the opposition. The vampires and the slayer are both killers.
They aren't opposites at all. It's just that as a woman Buffy
represents the natural world finishing off those human beings
who refuse to lie down when dead. She represents the killer that
nature is. She also represents the lover, the bringer of life,
that nature is. But then so does Angel through his demonized and
human soul metaphor dichotomy. Angel will never achieve shanshu
because shanshu is realizing that the oppositional thinking which
Angelus was created from is the error in the first place, and
once you let it go, shanshu was never needed from the very beginning
because nothing is wrong with us, or right with us, we just are.
We just have to learn to manage ourselves. How can we take responsibility
for ourselves if we don't even want to admit that 'bad' parts
exist. This kind of repression, this wanting to get a heaven,
simply creates its opposite, the hell. Liam's father in wanting
to create a good son, simply created Angelus by giving Liam the
only option of being different from his father: opposite to the
good he wanted.
What Whedon is saying through this season's metaphors is that
form is empty of form because it is only thinking that makes opposition.
The world isn't based on our thinking at all; our thinking is
just an abstraction that creates separate forms of things and
real opposites where in the real world they don't exist. In other
words there is no real good and bad. They are just made by thinking.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: thanks age Spoilers B/A to Present. -- tost,
16:45:36 02/04/02 Mon
For monthes i've been troubled by the seeming differance between
Angelus and Spike.Given the differance of Liam and William. Where
Liam is absorbed by the duality of the human and animal side without
any reconcilation. William has found a way to allow both sides
of his nature to find expression in his poetry. I find it easy
to imagine that when William's father was presented with evidence
of his son's animal nature (as children exhibit from time to time)
he found a healthier way to warn of the dangers therein then Liam's
father did. Perhaps even suggesting the sublimation of it toward
his poetry.
As William allowed his animal to inform his human side so does
Spike allow his human side to inform his animal.
Giving Spike access to human traits such as love and humor while
Angelus, trapped in a prison of duality, has none.
Forgive me if i've expressed this poorly but please belive that
my gratitude is real.
OT "there is no good or bad but thinking makes it so"
Was a line my seventh grade teacher gave us to write an essey
on some forty years ago. Ive often wondered how he would fair
in todays climate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A small point about the first interpretation (well, not
so small) -- manwitch, 06:01:51 02/03/02 Sun
While I think your summation of the "conventional" interpretation
is accurate (I agree that it is the conventional interpretation)
I think it, too, is off base. This show may depict teen life,
but it is not about teen life. The show's popularity with 30s
and 40s-somethings is not by way of nostalgia.
The gray areas in Buffy are apparent from the outset. While the
actual evil of the demons may appear in black and white, motivations
are still shaded gray or at least extremely complex. The most
obvious examples being Buffy's relationship to Giles and Buffy's
relationship to her calling. Every time Giles attempts to hold
Watcher authority over Buffy, he fails miserably. She undermines
him, undercuts him, beats him up, ignores him. But she readily
defers to him (on appropriate matters) when he is working with
her rather than over her. Buffy is resistant to being the slayer
in season 1. What she wants is to have friends, to fit in, to
do well, to be a cheerleader, to have a boy friend, to go out,
to have a normal life. She is consistently conflicted about her
slayer identity.
In Prophecy, she quits the council and quits being a slayer. She
is rejecting the Watcher Council's mission, she is rejecting her
place in the line of slayers. She is rejecting her role in the
grand prophecy of whoever it is that does the prophesizing. These
rejections are incredibly significant, I think, because Buffy
is rejecting what are called, in Postmodernism, the meta-narratives.
They are the grand historical arcs of the enobling of Mankind,
whether through reason, law, science or morality. Buffy refuses
an assigned role in someone else's pageant. Even when she does
accept herself as slayer, she does not accept the role in the
grand narrative. She goes after the master not because of prophecies,
not because its her duty as slayer, not because she is the instrument
of the Watcher's Council, and not because it will elevate humanity.
She goes because Willow is suffering. And to make the point that
she is not doing it as part of the Watcher mission, she decks
out her watcher before she goes and is too flippant to even offer
an explanation or justification. She lets Ms. Calendar come up
with it.
The point in that episode, and reinforced many times, is subtle.
Buffy operates in a sphere of extremely local interpersonal interactions.
If someone enters that sphere as a willing participant, she will
accept them and fight for them. But authority figures will not
fare much better than demons. It might look like Buffy is part
of the Great Battle Against Evil, but she couldn't give a crap
about it. (My opinion). Her mission is to do what she can to make
the world safe for Willow, for Dawn, for her mother, for the people
she knows and loves. It is incidental to Buffy that the Watcher
Council's mission is fulfilled as a result. They are an authoritarian
institution, and consequently outmoded and to be rejected. Whether
or not their intention is good. (As an aside, I think she would
have the same response to the Powers that Be. "If you wanna
work with me, fine. If not, go back where you came from.")
That kind of subtle distinction in purpose and motivation is both
Black and White and gray. Its not just a matter of fighting the
evil demons. Its about doing it in a way that creates a positive
(and viable) alternative to the demon dimensions. Buffy's processes
and motivation and her stance on insititutions, heirarchy, authority
and the knowledge they produce and possess are critical to the
battles she fights.
So in that sense, the show is not really about teen life, nor
a reminder to fight for the good against the evil, its about how
you maintain your humanity in the midst of the claims and environments
we exist in today. Its not that she fights evil, its how she does
it. And that only gets more and more relevant as you get older.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Small comment re: the Gift and S6 -- fresne, 12:11:30
02/03/02 Sun
A perspective that makes perfect sense when examining Buffy's
choices in the Gift.
She isn't fighting for the Big Blue Marble, she's fighting to
save Dawn, as she's always fought to save the individual. People
before abstract principles.
And if she seems lost in S6, it is perhaps in part because she
doesn't know how to maintain her humanity in the face of the latest
set of challenges.
Once again, Buffy needs to discover what she already knows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not how *I* saw Prophecy Girl -- Vickie, 22:12:10
02/03/02 Sun
You make some very good points. However, I think I saw a different
Prophecy Girl episode.
In mine, Buffy decked Giles not because she is rejecting the Council's
authority, but because he is determined to put himself in danger
trying to do her job. And she leaves Jenny Calendar to come up
"with something witty, tell him I said it" (rough quote),
not because she's too flippant to explain herself but because
she's stretched beyond being witty.
I like what you say about *how* Buffy fights evil. A large part
of the show, IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS -- Rattletrap, 06:05:45
02/04/02 Mon
Hmmmm . . . your analysis is interesting and thought provoking.
Your distinction between Tolerant and Progressive shows is valid
on some level, but it is ultimately artificial. The ME writers
did not sit around their conference table and say "Oh, I
think we'll make BtVS a Progressive show" next season, this
was part of a larger evolution. Even in its earliest days, Buffy
depended heavily on long-term story arcs and seasonal villains.
In a classic Tolerant show like The Simpsons the writers show
virtually no interest in continuity, past episodes exist only
to be occasionally referenced and mocked. Even S1 BtVS had its
major villain and its running, continuous story. By S2 and S3
the show focused primarily on the season plot, but with frequent
reversions to episode form. The change in BtVS S5 was comparatively
subtle, the season focused more on the season plot than had most
previous seasons, but the deviation was relatively minor, and
there were certainly a handful of MotW-type episodes.
One other minor point worth discussing: you mention X-files as
a direct ancestor of BtVS, a point I would not seriously dispute.
More important, however, is their common ancestry. Both shows
are fairly direct descendants of Twin Peaks, although they have
each appropriated some different elements of it. Though I am not
a huge TP fan (nor do I dislike it), the influence is undeniable.
The show was one of the first to heavily blend in supernatural
elements (notably Zen-Buddhism and dream interpretation) in a
world of modern rationalism, much like Buffy and X-files do with
vampires and aliens. TP and X-f share the common denominator of
a quirky FBI agent with some unorthodox views. The similarities
w/ BtVS are more basic: Twin Peaks was a small town in Washington
state (I think) largely cut off from the outside world and stuck
in this permanent loop of white-bread working-class America c.
1958, and also the center of some unnamed evil presence. Sunnydale
is not nearly so extreme, but retains some of the elements: small
town, largely cut off from the outside world, center of mystical
convergence.
More important, still, are styles of storytelling. David Lynch
brought a strange, non-linear style of storytelling to TP (I would,
BTW, be curious to hear if you consider it a Tolerant or a Progressive
show). Plots, if they resolved at all, never did so at the expected
time. Episodes began and ended at seemingly random points, the
first season ended with a huge cliffhanger. Lynch and his writers
set out systematically to break all of the rules of TV convention,
and did so with some success. The reason most often cited for
the failure of the show, however, is that they broke too many
rules, too often and simply alienated most of their viewing audience
who became frustrated with the increasingly non-linear story.
ME has demonstrated a similar tendency to break rules, w/ routine
character deaths, occasional resurrections, semi-cliffhanger season
endings, and new characters created out of the blue and not explained
for a month or so. This style of storytelling remains innovative
even today--the risks and the rewards are both greater than with
a comparatively safe show like West Wing or Boston Public. There
is a honeymoon effect with creativity, the viewing public will
tolerate 3 or 4 "Bad Eggs" for one "Innocence,"
but a show that takes risks will invariably alienate some of its
audience in doing so. I think S6 has been just this sort of risk:
I find it very resonant with my own life experience; but, clearly,
many other posters on this board do not. As other posters have
suggested, the experiences of adulthood are far less universal
than those of adolescence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS -- verdantheart, 07:46:53
02/04/02 Mon
May I assume from this post that you--if you follow Star Trek--greatly
prefer Next Generation to Deep Space Nine?
Interesting post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two interpretations of BtVS: S5,6/2,3 B/A Spoilers --
Age, 09:18:36 02/04/02 Mon
Wow! You certainly have a way of summing things up in terms of
character. Thank goodness you do.
You mentioned:
Vampires and demons may be metaphors for teen problems but I believe
they can also be metaphors for hidden levels of reality ignored
by the
wider world, hence the pathological denial of Sunnydale citizens.
The denial is inherent in oppositional thinking. In oppositional
thinking character flaws are taken as being the things that damn
people, and therefore have to be repressed. In the series you
mentioned I think this kind of oppositional thinking is being
deconstructed. I believe that the very idea that Whedon based
his series on is the deconstruction of opposites that's inherent
in oppositional thinking. The vampire/human dichotomy is simply
a way of showing the split we create in ourselves through thinking.
But, it's only thinking.
I think we may be seeing something similar about the series in
two different ways: from the point of view of character in your
case; from metaphor in mine.
The movement from tolerant to progressive may have had to come
because Whedon saw the symbolism of the Scoobies turning 21, ie
adults. In season five he needed to get the two title characters
to see that their demonized aspects, the slayer(speculation, we
don't know if it's a demon or not) and Angel's demon were needed
before they could procreate as human and animal so to speak, though
not with each other. Their 'demons' aren't demons at all, but
simply necessary aspects of themselves that have been shamed in
them as bad.
Whedon seems to have begun the series on the heaven leads to hell
idea(based on oppositional thinking), ie trying to make a heaven,
but this just results in making a hell. In this way the characters
will still make the same mistakes until they learn that oppositional
thinking itself is the error: Xander does it in 'Once More With
Feeling' when he tries to make everything, his engagement, heavenly
and it turns into a hell, with a devil character to boot. If he
still is into oppositional thinking, then who knows what hell
he'll make of his upcoming nuptials if they even happen(speculation,
no spoilers.) Buffy's coming to Sunnydale was her attempt to make
things heavenly and repress the other stuff, creating symbolically
the hellmouth.
Tolerance may be the recognition that everything is just the way
it is, instead of seeing that we have to make things opposed to
one another as good and bad.
Age.
Willow question -- Emcee003, 06:24:03 02/03/02 Sun
Its quite simple I just wanted to know if Willows mother knows
about Tara. Has there been any off screen refrances to it that
I've missed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't believe so. -- VampRiley, 06:37:10 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow question -- Malandanza, 09:04:08 02/03/02 Sun
"I just wanted to know if Willows mother knows about Tara.
I don't think it's ever been mentioned, but I don't think that
Willow's mother would have a problem with Tara. We haven't seen
much of Sheila Rosenberg, but we do know she's very PC -- especially
after Pangs, when Buffy mentions that Willow is "channeling"
her mother by defending the vengeance demon so assiduously. Add
to that Willow's obvious dismay when Tara didn't introduce Willow
to her Father as her girlfriend and there's no reason Willow wouldn't
have mentioned Tara -- perhaps even had her over for dinner a
few times. Far from being uncomfortable, I think that Willow's
mother would be proud to have a lesbian daughter -- it would give
her something to brag about to her liberal friends and allow her
to show the world just how progressive and open-minded she really
is.
Then again, Willow may have decided to keep Tara a secret to spite
her mother -- she'd be happier with her mother's disapproval than
her blessing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow question -- Emcee003, 10:02:37 02/03/02
Sun
I personally don't think Willow has told her. As much as she complains
about her mothers lack of interest in her life, I just can't see
her telling her mother.
I think she doesn't want her mother to know, she wants to keep
Tara as part of her life and not her mothers. She would justify
it to herself by wanting Tara to be part of her independence and
growing up, which means she can conveniently get around not telling
her mother.
Which as we've seen in S6 the way Willows logic works when it
come to negotiating grey dilemmas.
Although I agree with your view of her mother using Willow as
a way to braging her open mind, how stupid can some people be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Was Sheila liberal? -- vampire hunter D, 12:29:55
02/03/02 Sun
The only time I remember seeing Sheila was in the ep where amy
ratted herself (I forget teh name). ANd in it , Sheila seemed
to disapprove of alternative belief systems (ie, wicca religeon).
She even helped Joyce lead the witch hunt and set the fire to
burn their daughters at the stake. That doesn't seem very tolerant
to me
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Sheila liberal? -- Lilac, 12:42:33 02/03/02
Sun
You have to remember that in that episode (was it Hansel & Gretel?),
the demon was usurping the value systems of the adults in the
town to create the witch hunt scenario -- in this case a literal
witch hunt. So I think it is safe to assume that Willow's mother,
like Joyce, was not presenting her own true opinions in that episode.
My impression, which I can't really cite any support for, is that
Willow's mother would normally have been considered a liberal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes, it's hard to tell...The only time
we really saw Sheila, she wasn't "herself." -- Rob,
13:08:22 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The ep was Gingerbread, I believe -- Vickie,
22:04:54 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Sheila liberal? -- Malandanza, 22:14:47
02/03/02 Sun
"The only time I remember seeing Sheila was in the ep where
amy ratted herself (I forget the name). And in it, Sheila seemed
to disapprove of alternative belief systems (ie, wicca religion).
She even helped Joyce lead the witch hunt and set the fire to
burn their daughters at the stake. That doesn't seem very tolerant
to me"
I was thinking more of Pangs than Gingerbread. In the Thanksgiving
episode, Willow's viewpoint on the destruction of the indigenous
people was the liberal viewpoint, while Giles and Spike espoused
the conservative views. Giles' position was essentially one of
sympathy while refusing to take responsibility for acts he took
no part in, while Spike was a bit more extreme. By contrast, the
liberal view accepts blame for what happened (as sort of political
original sin -- guilty for the misdeeds of one's ancestors) yet
does not make any real attempt at restitution. On this issue (as
well as similar issues -- slavery, Japanese internment camps,
etc.) the liberals remind me of the Walrus and the conservatives
of the Carpenter.
What was made abundantly clear in Pangs was that Willow's viewpoint
was her mother's as well.
Oh, and one more thing -- conservatives don't have a monopoly
on intolerance :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Sheila liberal? -- JM, 07:44:46
02/04/02 Mon
Another thing to keep in mind is that although her mother may
be a liberal-minded academic, she is probably also Jewish. We
know Willow was raised Jewish and that her father is fairly devout.
While witchcraft may be an interesting social phenonmenon, having
her daughter suscribe to a belief system that Sheila believes
is a myth, probably didn't sit well even after "Gingerbread."
She probably has no problems with Tara, it's a blow to the patriarchy.
Improved relations with her mother may also be why Willow was
stopping by to see her mother often after "The Body."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doublemeat Palace Made Me SICK!!! -- Dedalus, 08:37:37 02/03/02
Sun
No, literally. This post may be fairly graphic, so bear with me.
I just had to post this, especially after seeing the more or less
negative reaction to it on the board. And I do agree, up to a
point. I have come to grips with the fact that the magic-is-drug
metaphor not only dealt with me in a heavy-handed way, but actually
beat me up, kicked me out of a moving car, and left me unconscious
on the side of the road. Still, three mediocre episodes does not
a bad season make. And who am I kidding? Basically, I just stopped
by here to get my d'Herblay/Rahael shipper fix, like everyone
else.
Anyway, so I watch DMP. And I go about my day Wednesday. Then
I start feeling nasuated as the day progresses. Then getting even
more nasuated toward evening. Come eleven o'clock, head in the
toilet, you know the drill. I was reminded of that Seinfeld episode
where they were talking about how much time had elapsed since
they had last thrown up. For me, it had been about ten years,
easy. But that streak was soon broken for me during an on-and-off
fourteen hour vomit marathon. The kind that ends with dry heaves
and puking out water.
And I'm still not feeling too good. Must be a stomach flu. This
is my first time on the net since DMP, and I just had to come
and share. It was just too ironic to pass up. Oh well. Here's
hoping I can eat something more than applesauce today. And what
makes this suck even more is the fact that my birthday was tomorrow,
and there's usually like a weekend-long celebration. Not this
time, kids. And what's worse, unlike that root canal last year,
I don't even have any heavy medication to inspire posts like "Oil
is the lifeblood of your car."
Sigh. Still enjoying reading what you guys have to say though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Helpful suggestions (still somewhat graphic) ;o) -- dubdub,
09:53:38 02/03/02 Sun
AAAwwwwww, poor you! Hey, from my vast knowledge of witchy-type
potions I recommend...ginger ale! Not very exotic, I know, and
actually ginger tea would be better to settle your stomach, but
that's not always easy to come by, so flat ginger ale will do
in a pinch. To make it go flat fast, just pour it into a glass
and stir vigorously with a fork until it ceases to bubble.
If the low-key, homeopathic type remedies don't do the trick there's
always Gravol, which works really quickly, especially if you use
the suppositories (eeeeeeewwwwww).
One thing, though...did you have a fever as well? In that case,
be wary of this year's superflu, A-Panama.
(Caution: I am not a doctor or medical practicioner of any kind,
and my advice should be taken with a grain of salt or ignored
completely!)
Get well, Ded. And just what has happened to Rah and d'Herb? Those
crazy kids...they don't call, they don't write...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Helpful suggestions (still somewhat graphic) ;o)
-- Dedalus, 10:43:12 02/03/02 Sun
Hey, I got a damn flu shot, though I'm beginning to suspect that
they're more or less useless. Yeah, I did have a fever, so it
might be A-Panamawhatever. I'm just glad the eeky throwing up
is hopefully over. Thanks for the advice with the "potions,"
lol. Actually, Sprite works for me. As does sniffing rubbing alcohol,
and then hanging your head upside down. Guaranteed to make you
burp.
But enough about me. How is dH and R anyway? We must chat again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> more helpful suggestions -- anom, 13:08:49 02/03/02
Sun
Even better than ginger ale is ginger beer. It's stronger (but
not in the alcoholic sense). It's not as easy to find as ginger
ale, of course; try bodega/West Indian-type places & health food
stores. My favorite is Reed's Extra Ginger Brew--even when I'm
not sick to my stomach.
Of course, if ginger ale's not strong enough & you're in some
god-forsaken, isolated, uncivilized part of the country where
you can't find ginger beer, you could always resort to actual,
y'know, ginger, either fresh or candied. (I wouldn't recommend
the pickled kind to settle the stomach!) You could chew a chunk
or mash it & water it down. Mint is also supposed to help, but
I don't know as much about that.
Speaking of water, drink a lot if you can keep it down. Throwing
up that much can dehydrate you. If you have other symptoms or
it doesn't go away soon, call a doctor.
Feel better soon, Ded!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: more helpful suggestions -- Dedalus, 18:44:36
02/03/02 Sun
Thanks! Nah, the vomiting is long since over. And I did drink
some water when it got to the point I could have started to dehydrate.
At your suggestion about West Indian ginger beer - I live in Georgia,
for god's sake!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ok, ok... -- anom, 20:15:58 02/03/02 Sun
...I forgot where you live. But ginger beer is usually more widely
available these days. (No health food stores either?)
Anyway, feel better & happy birthday!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "Oil is the lifeblood"...classic post -- mundusmundi,
12:06:36 02/03/02 Sun
Seriously, I recommend it to everyone as part of our required
reading list around here. (Somewhere in the summer archives --
June?)
And, as I recall, Ded, you wrote that post following a root canal.
Which just shows to go ya, some of the best stuff around here
derives from deep, dark places. In any case, hope to see you out
of the commode soon and back on the board. Happy belated b-day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "Oil is the lifeblood"...classic post
-- Dedalus, 12:17:15 02/03/02 Sun
Thanks! It's not actually my bday till tomorrow, so you're still
on time. Yes, root canal, stomach flu ... all I do is come on
here and whine about illness ... on the flip side, they got me
majorly wound up on the theology posts down below!
BTW, did you recommend Philip Pullman and His Dark Materials to
me or was it someone else? I'm just getting into Book Three. As
Keanu Reeves might say, "Whoa." Lyra still rocks the
house.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The Pullman meme's been around here long before
I recco'd him. Glad you're enjoying HDM. -- mm, 12:29:49 02/03/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Another Aquarian...I knew we had something in
common! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 12:55:23 02/03/02 Sun
Happy, happy day tomorrow. Mine was last Tuesday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Another Aquarian...I knew we had something
in common! ;o) -- JBone, 14:06:00 02/03/02 Sun
Birthday wishes everyone, mine is on Wednesday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Another Aquarian...I knew we
had something in common! ;o) -- Dedalus, 18:46:16 02/03/02 Sun
Wow. Happy happy happy birthday to me, you, the whole friggin'
forum then.
We need to get Masq to post a pic of a cake up there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> February 14, here . . . not
that anyone should read anything into that . . . -- d'Herblay,
19:41:01 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: February 17, here
. . . not that anyone should read anything into that either. .
. -- mrdave, 19:54:15 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, okay...no romantic
Valentine references... -- WW, 08:05:11 02/04/02 Mon
...but how the heck are ya?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ;) -- d'Herblay,
15:02:59 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> so... about that d'H/Rah shippiness... what IS the news?
;-) -- The Second Evil, an inquiring mind..., 14:17:44 02/03/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, I've been waiting over a week to get the Rah/d'H
scoopage -- The First Evil, 16:40:26 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> What's this all about? Enquiring minds want
to know. -- nosy as hell & i knows it, 23:40:37 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just a disturbing point of information... -- Darby, 15:21:32
02/03/02 Sun
There is no such thing as the stomach flu. And there are virtually
no intestinal viruses - it's not that they don't exist, but no
one you know has probably really had one, especially if they're
older than 5.
There are a few general viruses with intestinal symptoms, but
you wouldn't just have the tummy troubles.
So what IS "stomach flu?" Apropos of Doublemeat Palace,
it's almost always some sort of food poisoning. A long time ago,
it just became accepted medical practice to blame viruses (some
doctors don't even realize - or at least remember - that it's
a bit of a hoax), because a) viruses can't be treated, and it's
equally pointless to treat the vast majority of food poisoning
and b) it gets you quickly out of the office without putting you
on a fruitless quest to find where it originated (there are easily
50 types of food poisoning, which can affect you from 5 minutes
to 2 weeks after eating). And that's not counting the 50 types
of nasty non-viral critters that could be living in your guts,
which are pretty much only an issue if you've been travelling
through some non-Western countries (ah, the stories I could tell...).
Didn't make you feel any better, did it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just a disturbing point of information... -- Dedalus,
18:48:30 02/03/02 Sun
That was relatively disturbing, but incredibly informative ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Which sounds kinda like the Buffyverse.... and
Happy Birthday to You, sayeth me! :-) -- OnM, 18:52:20 02/03/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> so will a heartfelt Happy Birthday from a friend help? --
Liq, 16:06:23 02/03/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Only if she chats with me once in awhile L ...
-- Dedalus, 19:12:29 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just one more post-vomit tip. Oh, and Happy Birthday! --
Dichotomy, 11:23:47 02/04/02 Mon
I know you're done with the pukies, but should it happen again
(and I hope that it doesn't, my non-barfing record was 7 years
until last summer) don't take anything by mouth for one hour,
or you'll just see it again. If you must have fluid, take only
one teaspoon every 15 minutes or so, so as not to shock your very
traumatized stomach. (This advice comes from a doctor.)
Okay, enough of the unpleasantries. Have a great birthday! I'll
make a snow angel in your honor!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glad they'll be a Snow Angel in my Honor! -- Dedalus,
19:10:46 02/04/02 Mon
BTW, I tried to eat a light birthday meal today at guess where?
That's right. Red Lobby.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> a snow "angel"? will it have fangs?
@>[ -- anom, 19:40:41 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> a snow "angel"? will it have fangs?
@>[ -- anom, 19:42:52 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willow's problem with magic, drug metaphor? -- LoriAnn, 15:17:49
02/03/02 Sun
Granted Willow's magic problem--notice I'm not calling it an addiction--is
most obviously a drug addiction metaphor. However, when we take
Buffy's craving for Spike's naked body and look at these two "addictions"
together, the metaphor only partially holds up.
JW has been quite candid in telling viewers what he has been doing.
Willow's magic and Buffy's sex problems are metaphors for the
magical thinking adolescents participate in, the abandonment of
which is a sign of maturity. Willow thinks she can face the world
by participating in that world in an unrealistic way; the same
can be said about Buffy. There attitude is if I wish, cast a spell,
or immerse myself in mindless, if mind boggling, sex everything
else will work out, and I won't have to face the reality of adulthood;
I can ignore reality and live in magic or sex, and everything
will be fine. We all know that, as attractive as these ideas are,
they won't work to solve the real problems of life.
Giles left Buffy because he was standing in the way of her seizing
her maturity and handling problems by solving them instead of
hoping someone else, he, would do the solving or the bank would
give her a loan because she had good grades in high school. Tara
left Willow because she would not face the reality of having an
adult relationship with another person: no need to resolve the
problem, no need to talk it out, no need to understand the other's
position, just cast a spell.
Both Willow's and Buffy's obsessions have been with things that
allowed them to avoid the reality of no longer being taken care
of with regard to the basics of life. These obsessions could be
drugs, alcohol, chat rooms, sex, TV programs, future rock stardom,
anything that can keep attention from the fact that "the
hardest thing about life is living." Instead of experiencing
the difficulty of living, Willow and Buffy have hidden.
To end on a positive note, in "DMP" both characters
made progress in moving away from magical thinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's problem with magic, drug metaphor? -- leslie,
11:50:18 02/04/02 Mon
The problem with this metaphor is the difference between magical
thinking and magical doing. Willow gets into trouble when she
uses magic to assuage her emotional pain and to make things easy
for herself, but she has also been able to do some really important
things through her magical powers. Is it worth it to simply go
cold turkey on the magic and forswear all the contributions she
can make? Perhaps it's more that she has to decide, in the classic
phrase, whether she is a good witch or a bad witch.
Likewise, Buffy may be indulging in sex with Spike to make herself
feel something--anything--to allow her to gloss over the problems
that face her, but is she supposed to forswear sex entirely? Or
is she only allowed to have sex with nice boys with pulses? You
know, maybe she has "come back wrong," but she hasn't
been "normal" since she became a Slayer.
Part of maturity might be giving up magical thinking,* but another
part of it is learning how to accept your impulses and imperfections
and make them work for the better as often as possible. You can't
"just say no," unless you really are dead. (And sometimes
not even then, as the show has shown repeatedly.)
*Great example of magical thinking--a friend of mine who both
prides herself on her rationality and is a very well-trained folklorist
who knows all about magical thinking went to an exhibit up at
the Getty this weekend which included a 17th-century German alchemical
manuscript. Her father, who is German, began reading the text
out loud, and she found herself getting really nervous and finally
begged him NOT to read the whole page out loud because "you
just never know what might happen." You really can't get
away from magical thinking--you just have to recognize it when
it bites you on the ass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's problem with magic, drug metaphor? --
LoriAnn, 14:39:42 02/04/02 Mon
Magical thinking has nothing to do with doing magic. It is the
assumption that things will work out no matter what: if I lose
myself in whatever and neglect my life, or if instead of doing
anything to help myself, I just hope for the best, everything
will be okay, someone or something will "magically"
take care of everything.
Your friend isn't indulging in magical thinking, but in superstitious
fear. My husband is the same way. He says he doesn't believe in
superstitions or magic, but I've noticed that he doesn't want
to get crosswise of them either.
Big Bad is Us-Spoilery for WITW -- Arethusa, 20:19:18 02/04/02
Mon
You've gotta love a guy who gives you what you want, then skewers
you for wanting it. The Bad Guy in this episode is a man with
an obsessive attachment to a certain performance. Sure, he doesn't
know much about it, doesn't notice its flaws, but he knows he's
just in love with the performance and performers, and proves it
by watching it over and over and over again, like a mystical rewinding
of a videotape.
Add two pointed digs: at website fans and how "everyone wants
to talk about" Angel and Cordy.
The theme of this show is: Get a life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmph! That's gloomy! (Sounds right, too.) -- Darby, 08:25:04
02/05/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Big Bad is Us-Spoilery for WITW -- Sarah, 08:32:06 02/05/02
Tue
I couldn't agree more. I definately took this as a jab at the
B/A shippers. They just want Season 2 to play on an endless loop.
But now I think it's a slam on critical fans in general. The talk
after Deadmeat Palace on the web was absolutely vicious in condemning
how far this show has sunk, but those same attackers didn't seem
to realize that DMP actually fits in those early seasons even
better than it does in Season 6. Seasons 2 and 3 are so lauded,
that it seems people forget episodes like Go Fish, Killed by Death,
Reptile Boy, and Anne. Those seasons were not perfect. And yup,
that "start a website" comment seemed very directed
at the delusional "eternal lovers" crowd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Ersatz Brothers Coffee - It's the Real Thing!!* - Thoughts on
*Doublemeat Palace* ( *Spoilers* ) -- OnM, 15:00:33 02/03/02 Sun
*******
When I first met you baby you fed me on chicken and wine
It was steak and potatoes and lobster and babe I sure felt fine
But now all you ever give me is seaweed and alfalfa sprouts
And sunflower seeds and I got my doubts
You left me here with the Chicken Cordon Bleus
My stomach is empty and all I got is food for thought
I been up all night thinkin' 'bout the twenty pounds of groceries
we bought
We bought ten pounds of brown rice and five more of beans
And five pounds of granola and you know what that means
I'm just a regular fella with the Chicken Cordon Bleus
I'm starved for affection and I don't think I can stand no more
This stuff is so wierd that the cockroaches moved next door
Can you see that old dog out in the street
He's got a big smile on his face 'cause they let him meat
Babe I got the lemon and the Chicken Cordon Bleus
............ Steve Goodman
*******
One of the perennial questions that creative people get asked
is, of course, where do you get your ideas
from?
To the extent that your humble scribe here has the right to make
any such claims, I will answer as follows:
One, I haven't the faintest idea. Sometimes they just appear,
like poof in your cranial recesses and
then the job is to merely transcribe them. (Merely?-- Hah! It
should be so easy!) Two, when item #1 isn't
making with the mojo, I try looking at some of the ordinary things
around me, or to current happenings in
the realverse and just extemporize from that point onward. Sometimes
this works, sometimes you wind up
in a blind alley off a one way street and end up chucking the
whole schmiel.
The age-old question of 'muse or peruse' becomes of increasing
importance when an artist presents a
newly-wrought piece of work to his or her normally adoring public,
and the reaction to same suddenly
becomes a very mixed one. Some folks love it and think it's brilliant,
others loathe it with a passion, and
still a third group just attempts a decent semi-grok and then
goes 'Huh...'. ( Not good 'huh', not
bad 'huh', just middle of the road, intensely uninflected 'huh',
dot dot dot). I'm raising this subtext
to the surface right up front here because for the second time
now-- the last being the recent airing of
Gone-- I found myself in the third of the above categories regarding
Doublemeat Palace.
While I liked the episode far better upon the second viewing than
on the first, there is unquestionably some
sense of disappointment that I'm hesitant to try and place any
blame for. I am left asking myself if this is a
case of the letter being mailed and I just didn't receive it,
or was it shipped out intentionally knowing that
there was postage due?
Writer Jane Espenson, whose previous contribution to season 6
was After Life, if my sources serve
me correctly, has been a worthy contributor to the long-term Buffy
oeuvre, so perhaps I set my
expectations excessively high with Doublemeat Palace, her most
recent effort. This is, after all, the
midseason of the show, and often a time to allow the audience
to 'rest' with a couple of 'stand-alones' that
don't particualrly advance the plot in any immediately significant
way. Supporting this contention is a
comment I came across by executive producer Marti Noxon, in an
interview with Dreamwatch:
Dreamwatch: *** Ten episodes have aired so far. What can you say
about the second half of the year? ***
Marti Noxon: *** There will probably only be two more episodes
before the end of January. They're both not going to move
the storyline forward a whole lot. They're stand-alones. Nick
Mark directs the twelfth one. We won't get
to Buffy's birthday until episode 14. We're doing it late this
year. Steven DeKnight just wrote an episode
that will air in early February which is really dark. ***
OK, I'm not by nature the restless, easily wound-up sorta guy,
so if that's the band's plan then I can go
with it, accept that the slower pacing was intentional. Slower
pacing, however, demands significant
cleverness in other ways to make up for the laid-back-uousness.
Dialog needs to be witty or inspired,
deeper insights into the character's character need to swell to
the forefront, or even the taking of an
opportunity for some decent satire or political commentary that
a more action-driven plotline would leave
trailing in the dust.
There was certainly the implication of satirical intent in Doublemeat
Palace, even down to the
initials for same, which the more perverse of those in the viewing
audience may have heard applied in the
context of porno movie slang for a particular type of sexual act.
Considering the multiple uses of thematic
duality throughout the entire episode, it isn't much of a stretch
to infer that 'grease' is something more
than a grill-enabled burger byproduct. Virtually every character
currently on screen is caught in the middle
of a 'sandwich' of some kind.
Buffy, in the most obvious case, is trapped between her need for
rapidly aquiring some monetary stability
and the fact that her calling as Slayer severely limits her choices
in employment. Now displaying a rather
less confrontative mood than she recently was in Gone, Dawn has
gained the extremely unsettling
awareness that her older sister's life could quite possibly be
doomed to nothing better than an endless
series of near-minimum-wage jobs, and that saving the world doesn't
add much to one's line of credit.
Dawn likewise isn't amused at Xander's joke about how she 'could
grow up to be a lawyer or a doctor'
and so be able to 'support your deadbeat sister'. Her consternation
is understandable-- one of the very first
curses of adulthood to be visited upon the young and the innocent
is when they achieve the sudden, and
usually total emotional cognition of the emotionless cruelty of
laissez-faire economics.
This already bleak theme gets hammered home during Spike and Buffy's
sexual tryst outside the 'Palace'
when she goes on her break. The whole affair appears to have been
reduced to a matter of 'getting the job
done', echoing the words of Manny the manager who declares 'levity
is a time-thief that picks the
pocket of the company'. No one is smiling during what should be
a a joyous moment, and George
Orwell would be nodding his head in recognition at the image of
a person standing back to a brick wall,
facing a dumpster, while a poster hanging on the nearby wall states
simply 'TEAMWORK'.
Speaking of acerbic political/economic satire, several months
back I did a 'Classic Movie of the Week'
review on director Michael Moore's film The Big One, and as I
watched a number of scenes unfold
in DP, I couldn't help flashing back to several similar scenes
in that movie and in his first film,
Roger & Me. In The Big One, Moore finally locates a company CEO
who is willing to
speak on-camera with him, Phil Knight, the head honcho for the
Nike corporation. Nike's very expensive
athletic shoes are widely sold in the United States, but are manufactured
almost entirely in third world
countries where readily available cheap labor brings the production
cost-per-pair averages to the vicinity of
$5.00 or so. Moore pleads with Knight to bring some shoe production
back to the U.S., and to Flint
Michigan in particular, Moore's home town and the ongoing site
of severe unemployment due to past
automotive industry plant closings by General Motors.
Knight attempts to suggest to Moore that no matter how well intentioned
he may be, the simple fact is that
'most Americans really don't want to make shoes'. Moore attempts
to disprove the argument
offered by rounding up a cluster of ex-GM workers who plaintively
plead on-camera for Nike to open up a
plant in Flint, that they are more than ready and willing to work.
Knight, who frankly looks more sad than
'evil' during this sequence, is not persuaded, and the fact of
the matter is that the group Moore was able to
assemble was not exactly grand in numbers, and did little to disguise
the aspect of desperation that clung to
them.
Now, I could spend some time arguing either for or against either
Moore or Knight, but what there
remains little question about is that some jobs certainly aren't
glamorous, but they are necessary, and
someone has to do them, or society will suffer. Fast food establishments
now represent a significant
part of our current economy, and obviously stay in business and
florish because they garner substantial
patronage. Isn't a large part of the problem workers in this industry
(and similar ones) face is the fact that
other, more 'fortunate' laborers look down on them, treat them
as second (or worse)-class citizens? We
need look no further than our resident blond vampster to see this
attitude confirmed.
Spike's reaction to Buffy becoming employed in what he sees as
a 'menial' job offends him deeply because
to him, it offers a diminishment of her worth as a person, makes
her a 'lesser being'. His close relationship
to Buffy also means that he sees the purported lessening of her
worth reflect back upon him, and he in turn
feels diminished, which is hardly in tune with his conventional
image of himself as a powerful, dangerous
creature.
Spike: Damn flourescent lights - they make me look dead.
He encourages her to quit, even states that 'he can get her money'.
Buffy refuses, although it is clear that
she agrees with him in principle, and longs to do so. Although
the episode as a whole may not be
advancing the seasonal story arc in any significant way, one thing
it does do is is continue to illustrate a
point made time and again as relates to Buffy's core character
strengths: She is always willing to personally
suffer if the cause is a greater good, and that cause is basic
and clearly defined. Buffy understands
that taking care of her 'family' has precedence over all else
that may appealingly tempt her, whether that
'family' is the entirety of humankind, or just Dawn and the Scoobies.
While Spike has grown substantially
in terms of 'maturity' over the last two years, his encouragement
of Buffy to leave her job provides a good
example of how he remains arrested in a sort of adolescent stage
of social development. Buffy has chosen
to do what she is doing out of necessity. She may not like it,
but she understands that if she doesn't accept
this 'menial' work, the alternative is going to be worse.
Moving on to Willow, one of the high points of the episode for
me was once again seeing Willow take
control of herself, and utilizing her human strengths and intellectual
abilities to assist the Scoobies in
solving the case at hand. I also liked that she was the one who
came to Buffy's aid in the battle against the
wig lady/lamprey-demon, just as she did previously in Gone in
the battle against the geek chorus.
Further, I'm even more impressed that Willow is showing a great
deal of personal integrity in successfully
resisting the urge to magic-out, and whether or not she slips
up in the future, I am now far less afraid that it
will set her back into the type of irresponsibility she previously
illustrated in Tabula Rasa, Smashed, and
Wrecked. This portrayal is a pleasant surprise, it would be far
more typical from a conventional
writing standpoint to have her 'helplessly' give in to her 'addiction'
and fall off the wagon. Her confession
to Buffy over the intercom at the 'Palace' indicates to me that
Willow truly has come to terms with her
past abuses, and is no longer making excuses for them. Even though
she was correct in understanding that
it was not her fault that Amy inflicted the feelgood spell upon
her, she also understood that it was not an
incident she should just casually brush off. Secondly, there is
also the fact that now Willow has personally
experienced what it is like to have a 'friend' 'do you a favor'
against your will, much as she did with the
'forgetting' spell cast on Tara.
Willow is afraid, but faces the fear, and does not fall back.
I loved her declaration to Amy at show's end
that 'if you're my friend, or if you're not" stay away from
me either way. While Buffy is still pinned
between two or more contradictory pressures, Willow is starting
to throw off her unwanted attentions.
Amy is a puzzle. I have learned to take note of the clips chosen
for the 'previously on Buffy' show opening
sequences, since they often seem to drop cogent references that
may only be clear in retrospect. While it
could have been just a reminder to the audience who the character
of Amy is, why choose the specific clip
where Buffy asks Amy How have you been?
Amy succinctly replies, Rat. You?, to which Buffy responds just
as simply, Dead. Amy then
gives that sort of nonchalant 'humm...' look to Buffy's one word
answer. The scene is funny, but as is
typically the case, even single word answers get loaded with extra
layers of meaning in the Buffyverse. We
all know that 'dead' for Buffy doesn't only refer to physical
death, from which she has returned, but
emotional and spiritual death. Buffy, however haphazardly, is
trying to regain the sense of human worth,
dignity and purpose that at one time filled her soul so completely.
Amy, on the other hand, may have
decided that being a rat wasn't all that bad after all, and so
is on the way to embracing the simplicity of
animal-brain-limited thinking/emoting in her newly-reasserted
human form. At least, this was the meaning I
gleaned from her affection for, and desire to retrieve the cage/habitat
she lived in while still a wiccas
rodentus. I have noticed from skimming the commentary of several
other Buffyphiles over the last
week that many are now wondering if Amy could be on the way to
become the season's traditional
'surprise big bad'. Amy always seems to be 'borrowing' something
or other from the others around her;
this week it was some 'detergent and stuff' from Willow at the
end of the show. Does Amy also now desire
to have an easy, hedonistic life, being fed and taken care of
by someone who dotes on her, with nothing to
do but 'spin in her wheel' and have a good time? If I'm not mistaken,
wasn't it Amy who was 'spinning' in
Rack's spell at the magic drug house while Willow was on her Garden
of Eden trip?
What if Amy were to team up with the geek chorus, who were noticably
absent from this ep, spoken about
only once at the very beginning of the show? While at this point
she doesn't seem anywhere near as amoral
as Warren is, the potential may be there to evolve in that direction.
Amy is a fairly powerful witch, and if
human/Amy is now rat/human/Amy, the trio could become far more
genuinely dangerous with her
assistance. I could see her using them as lackeys, much as Warren
uses Jonathan and Andrew as his. This
would also continue the series' feminist slant-- what the geeks
need to triumph is having a woman for a
leader.
Speculation aside, another related geek theme is that once again,
when Buffy is depressed she becomes
careless. A woman so powerful at the top of her form that she
could kill a god nearly gets herself killed for
the third time by, of all things, a penis with teeth and a bad
wig. Buffy, focussing on the idea that the evil is
the fast food industry, instead misses the fact that the danger
could come from the customers instead.
(Which pretty much anyone who has ever worked in retailing for
more than a few months could have
figured out). (Just kidding...;) (No, I'm not... ;)
[ Sidebar here: Truthfully, while many fans have remarked on the
penis-like qualities of the lamprey
demon, it never really occurred to me that it looked all that
penis-ish, but since one person's snake is
another person's casting-out-from-paradise, I'll let it go with
a hardy 'yeah, why not'. ]
As to Xander and Anya, the pre-wedding jitters continue with the
appearance of Anya's old friend and
former vengeance demon cohort, Halfrek. I liked how Halfrek manages
to unnerve Anya by planting the
seeds of doubt as to Xander's intentions towards her friend, who
doesn't glom onto the fact that Halfrek
knows absolutely nothing of depth about Xander and is naturally
predispositioned by her 'job' to assume
the worst about all men. Following the duality/pressure theme,
Anya should know better and be more
confident, but still doesn't stand up and more solidly defend
her beau-- what makes her increasingly human
is also what makes her uncertain. Halfrek displays no such sense
of ambiguity. Her feelings toward Xander
are perfectly clear, she just doesn't want to come right out and
hurt 'her friend' by saying so, so she does it
surreptitiously. That Anya doesn't see this, despite her normal
directness and clarity of thought, nicely
points out just how human she's become since her ongoing association
with the Scoobies and of course
Xander in particular. She treats Halfrek courteously and as an
equal, but Halfrek is a twit. Half the time
I can't remember if I'm maiming the right guy, or something to
that effect? Anya claims very
self-righteously at the beginning of the show that 'she took her
job seriously, and was paid accordingly' for
her labors. Actually, based on what we've seen of both Anya and
her demon incarnation, Anyanka, she is
probably correct-- Anyanka took pride in her work, horrific as
it is/was to human perceptions.
Xander once again sort of filled in space this episode, although
his concerns about the marriage mirror
Anya's, just from the other side of the divide. I thought that
his statement about Anyanka's demonic
appearance was a plothole, but after pondering carefully, it does
occur to me that he possibly never has
seen Anya in her demon form, at least not in the 'normal' Buffyverse.
One wonders what will start to go
through his mind the next time the two are initimate, now that
Halfrek has presented him with a visual
image he'd just as soon forget.
[ Sidebar II: I wonder if Anyanka ever had any nude photos taken,
or paintings made of herself during her
past 1100 years? OK, honey, since you seem so curious, these were
made back when I was dating Olaf
the Troll God. The painter offered to do them free of charge if
I would just behead him instead of cutting
out his liver and making him eat it. Olaf had them hung over the
fireplace in the Great Hall of his castle,
and bragged constantly to anyone who saw them about how powerful
and virile a man he must be to be the
willing consort to such a great and dangerous beauty! ]
Well, it's wrap-up time. I've noticed as I've detailed some of
the details of this episode that despite my
earlier comments about being slightly 'disappointed', Doublemeat
has turned out to be somewhat
meatier and juicier than I expected, so perhaps I being too hasty.
During the several days over which I've
put this review together, I've also had a chance to viddy the
ep for a third time, and indeed it does get
better with repeated viewings, not less so. Maybe Espenson really
did use the muse when creating this
script, and I just wasn't paying close enough attention the first
time out.
Is this one of the very best Buffy episodes? No, but it's very
respectable when you adjust yourself to the
slower pace it offers and take it on it's own terms, just like
a good deluxe hamburger with a nice toasted
bun. It is also true that sometimes as a creative person you will
take chances, do something truly different,
and understand right up front that not everyone watching and listening
will 'get it'. I'd far rather have that
attitude than to take the easy way out and get the approval of
lots of fans but not provide any satifying
food for thought.
And the secret ingredient is... anyone? Anyone?
Holy crap...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "Ersatz Brothers"? (spoilers for DMP) -- anom,
19:12:36 02/03/02 Sun
"He encourages her to quit, even states that 'he can get
her money'. Buffy refuses, although it is clear that she agrees
with him in principle, and longs to do so."
I think Spike's offer to support Buffy is remarkable, but of course
she has to turn him down. It's bad enough to have the confusing
emotions & desire for him, she definitely doesn't want to be financially
dependent on him. (Not to mention that she wouldn't approve of
how he'd get the money....)
BTW, I'm not really buying the idea that Buffy couldn't find anything
better than a fast food job. She does have experience waiting
tables in LA, & she got that job w/out prior experience. And I'm
not so sure "menial" jobs are all she can hope for--most
of her slaying is done at night, so couldn't she still work a
9-5 (OK, maybe 8-4 would be better) job? Or freelance & set her
own hours? There are still jobs that don't require much more than
smarts & literacy, & she's got those. It might not be all that
fulfilling, but it would pay the bills & be more stimulating than
DMP.
"Secondly, there is also the fact that now Willow has personally
experienced what it is like to have a 'friend' 'do you a favor'
against your will, much as she did with the 'forgetting' spell
cast on Tara."
Really good point, OnM. I've had the impression Willow considered
magic itself--& her addiction to it--the problem & still didn't
understand why it was wrong to use it the way she did on Tara.
Maybe this really will open her eyes to that other aspect. Willow
has also used magic to feel in control, & Amy's spell took her
use of magic beyond her control. It may have felt good, but it
must have been scary. But I still think Willow's not out of the
rough yet. She's got a long way to go.
"Buffy, focussing on the idea that the evil is the fast food
industry, instead misses the fact that the danger could come from
the customers instead.
(Which pretty much anyone who has ever worked in retailing for
more than a few months could have figured out). (Just kidding...;)
(No, I'm not... ;)"
@>) ...well, Buffy hadn't been there that long yet. And I didn't
see the lamprey-thing as a penis either (partly because I missed
seeing it spray Buffy w/the paralyzer), until it got chopped off
& was writhing btwn. Buffy & the wig lady's body!
"...Halfrek is a twit. Half the time I can't remember if
I'm maiming the right guy, or something to that effect? Anya claims
very self-righteously at the beginning of the show that 'she took
her job seriously, and was paid accordingly' for her labors."
This was one of about 3 times I found my reaction to what OnM
said a little farther down in his post. And Halfrek's showing
up w/out a clue as to what was going on was in total contrast
to Anya's appearance as a high school student to coax a wish out
of Cordelia. I didn't know there were >1 vengeance demon, let
alone that they had different MOs!
"...it does occur to me that he [Xander] possibly never has
seen Anya in her demon form, at least not in the 'normal' Buffyverse."
He wouldn't have--only Cordelia did, just after she made her wish
& Anya said, "Done!" Hmmm...Did Caulfield's quote about
the vengeance demon makeup being used again say specifically that
she'd be the one wearing it? Maybe she was talking about Halfrek.
(Their "old-girlfiends-get-together" riff was great!)
"And the secret ingredient is... anyone? Anyone?"
Answer #1: That's right, it could be just about anyone. @>)
Answer #2: Why, it's right there in the script: "It's a formed
and texturized vegetable-based meat-like product, suitable for
grinding." Love that empty corporate-speak. Well, except
when I have to edit it. @>(
My wrap-up is that there's still more wrong at DMP. After all,
employees are still staring off into space, & if it were a corporation-wide
thing, Lorraine the new manager would be affected too, but she
didn't seem to be. But the biggest clue is: Buffy is still working
there! So obviously more has to happen there....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "Ersatz Brothers"? (spoilers for DMP)
-- OnM, 06:29:43 02/04/02 Mon
*** BTW, I'm not really buying the idea that Buffy couldn't find
anything better than a fast food job. ***
Me too, very much so, although I understand that for the sake
of the story they emphasize the 'desperate for money' part, i.e.
that she needed some money, and needed it NOW.
The other thought along this line relates to what I mentioned
in that when Buffy gets depressed, she gets careless and also
seems to lose a lot of her natural smarts. Did you notice the
sudden change of demeanor when she found the severed finger and
immediately went into search and destroy mode? Notice the wardrobe
change into a shirt with a heart and a star on it, as I recall?
She's suddenly confident again, stops being mopey and now can
think quickly and clearly, at least until she gets tripped up
by the wig lady.
*** But I still think Willow's not out of the rough yet. She's
got a long way to go. ***
Agreed, entirely, but I would be surprised at this point if Willow
could become the 'big bad', as many of us were predicting earlier
in the season. She just seems to have so much better control over
herself now, and is allowing her intellect to reassert itself--
a really positive sign. One of the things I liked re: her handling
of Amy was to recognize that the situation is analogous to when
one of your supposed 'friends' whom you used to drink with keeps
on pushing liquor at you even when they know damn well you want
to cut back or stop. It can take a while to realize, or stop rationalizing,
that this person is your 'friend'. They very much aren't-- to
quote the classic Bob Dylan line, Bent out of shape by society's
pliers / Who cares not to rise any higher / But instead drag to
down to the place that he's in
Willow seems to have gotten this message pretty quickly, considering,
and I say good for her.
*** It's bad enough to have the confusing emotions & desire for
him [Spike], she definitely doesn't want to be financially dependent
on him. ***
Interesting how Spike accepts, and even admires Buffy for her
power and independence, but there is still that throwback tendency
ingrained in most of us menfolk to be 'the breadwinner' of the
family, eh?
S'OK, honey, you don't have to work! I can take care of us both!
That was another nice subtlety, I thought.
Thanks for your thoughts! I was wondering if you were wondering
about the 'Ersatz Bros.', judging by your subject line. Were you?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> yes i was! -- anom, 11:50:33 02/04/02 Mon
OK, I'm gonna take things in reverse order (since I answered your
last q. in the subject line):
"I was wondering if you were wondering about the 'Ersatz
Bros.', judging by your subject line. Were you?"
Yup. Lemme guess--Firesign Theater? I never even heard of them
growing up, & there's a lot of their material I still haven't
heard. But from what I have heard, it sounds like them.
"...but there is still that throwback tendency ingrained
in most of us menfolk to be 'the breadwinner' of the family, eh?"
Hmm...is it really a throwback for someone who's actually from
120 years ago? @>)
"She just seems to have so much better control over herself
now, and is allowing her intellect to reassert itself-- a really
positive sign."
True, but for some people it's "easier" to control themselves
in the face of a clear challenge--or otherwise rise to a crisis--than
to just deal w/the cravings--or life--on a day-to-day basis. We'll
have to see if this is the case for Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Correctamundo! ( *Bing!* ) -- OnM, 05:07:11
02/05/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "Ersatz Brothers"? (spoilers for DMP)
-- persefoni, 01:17:57 02/05/02 Tue
About the whole "surely Buffy could get a better job"
thing: this would seem to be missing the point. Yes, Buffy could
get a better job, but could she keep it? Her real calling is very
demanding; when she needs to go fight evil, she needs to go right
then. Of course, this could cause her to lose a job in the fast
food industry as quickly as a job in, say, a bank, but there are
always other jobs to be had at the bottom (barring a major depression).
The employers are much less picky and less likely to be in touch
with one another.
One of the few advantages to be had at that level (I should know)
is an odd sort of freedom; you might be a wage slave, but you
can always become a different breed of wage slave without really
losing much (of course, you don't have much to begin with, so
this is a mixed blessing, to say the least). It's odd, but the
great advantage of fast food is that you don't really lose anything
by losing it.
What did bother me about this episode was the exchange between
Dawn and Xander. On the one hand, Dawn is a teenager and rather
self-involved, so perhaps her expressed reluctance to accept a
future financial burden on behalf of her sister is understandable.
However, not only is the old mother/child truism of "you
wouldn't even exist without me" extremely pertinent, but
the idea of not using a social advantage to promote a truly beneficent
goal (i.e. a lawyer supporting an active champion of good) is
truly repugnant. By the way, I know Willow has been going through
a personal crisis, but surely she could at least get a part time
job to help out; I mean, she is living there.
To go back to Buffy's job prospects, there is also the matter
of self employment, but what could she possibly do that would
be sufficient to support her and Dawn, and yet not interfere with
being the Slayer? Could she become a private investigator like
Angel? Surely, he's already demonstrating the limitations of that,
and he doesn't have social workers looking down his throat (at
least, not that I've noticed). Being an entrepreneur is fine if
someone who is truly dependent on you won't have to pay the price
of failure.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that, yes, Buffy has possibilities,
but she doesn't have probabilities. Of course, her main truism
of being the Slayer is worth a thousand resume credits, and it's
important to remember that our current preoccupation with profit
doesn't preclude the finer things (as indeed, has always been
the case).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: *Ersatz Brothers Coffee - It's the Real Thing!!* - Thoughts
on *Doublemeat Palace* -- Dedalus, 19:21:23 02/03/02 Sun
Awesome read, OnM, still. I really enjoyed sitting back and diving
into that. I had a few of the same thoughts, though they were
mostly ill-formed if not altogether vague.
Incidentally, to the gentleman no doubt so tired of listening
to me talk about TPM, I find the same rules apply with that one
too. Perhaps not completely satisfying on the first viewing, but
once you get in their dig, there's actually some stuff you can
... well, sink your teeth into.
*Dedalus runs out of the forum, being hit time and time again
with rotten fruit for his painstakingly thought-out pun*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: *Ersatz Brothers Coffee - It's the Real Thing!!* ( *Spoilers*
) -- Raven_NightDragon, 19:22:45 02/03/02 Sun
Very nice post. One comment you made in particular got my attention,
simply because the thought crossed my mind as I was watching the
show: If Amy started working with the Trio they would become less
of a joke and a hell of a lot scarier. Amy would give the geeks
a some-what powerful supernatural backer, and I agree, she would
probably end up twisting them all around her little finger. None
of them really know how to handle an attractive, intelligent woman...
or any woman at all, really. Worth watching out for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I liked this episode ....... -- Rufus, 21:34:42 02/03/02
Sun
Who can't remember the shitty entry level jobs at least most of
us have had to suffer? Buffy is just doing what she would have
had she not died x amount of months ago....
Psyche transcripts Doublemeat Palace:
BUFFY
Uh, yeah. The cow and chicken coming
together even though they never met...
It was like Sleepless in Seattle if
Tom and Meg were, like, minced.
If Buffy were Bruce Wayne/Batman, she would have been impossibly
rich and wouldn't have to interact with real people unless the
Bat Light or phone went off, but Buffy is living in a world we
can relate to at least in the job market for fresh young meat,
I mean people. Even Spike could see a bad thing when he came under
the unforgiving florescent lighting.
SPIKE
Yeah, and you chose to be in a
consumer service profession. I'm a
consumer.
(beat)
Service me.
I have no trouble seeing many a jerk that has said the same thing
to many of our young ladies in the service profession...and they
don't even look dead. At leas Spike offered to get her money so
she didn't have to work such a degrading (to him) job. It looked
tempting til Buffy's brain kicked in to remember what "smash
and grab" means. Spike may have the best intentions but how
is someone like him going to get money in a legal way?
Now to poor Xander, Willow had him on the ropes with just one
eensy comment....
ANYA
When I was a vengeance demon, I
caused pain and Mayhem, certainly,
but I put in a very full day's work
doing it! And I got compensated
appropriately!
XANDER
(to Willow)
Welcome to today's episode of "Go
Money Go." I hear it every day.
WILLOW
Right. For the rest of your life.
Never accuse Willow of not wanting to share in her suffering.
Instead of being honest about how she feels she takes the opportunity
to make Xander jump to his own ominous conclusions about being
a lifer. Add in Halfrek and we have both Anya and Xander contemplating
a prison escape before the cell door even closes.
And OnM just cause you can't see the phallic nature of the monster
in the show doesn't mean it isn't there...I'll go half way and
say it's a penis like lamprey thing.:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I liked this episode ....... -- OnM, 06:42:59
02/04/02 Mon
*** And OnM just cause you can't see the phallic nature of the
monster in the show doesn't mean it isn't there. ***
No, I could see it, just not anywhere near to the extent that
some others did, esp. over at the BC&S! Perhaps it was Espenson's
response to the old, supposedly primal male fear that the vagina
has teeth!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I liked this episode ....... -- Rufus, 16:18:52
02/04/02 Mon
The talk I was involved with at the Cross and Stake was more tongue
in cheek, but then some take their toothy subjects more seriously
than I do.:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I want the hat. -- Deeva, 23:37:56 02/03/02 Sun
Amy would be the one to watch. Wonder when she'll stumble across
Jonathan? She could be the catalyst to the geeksters, making them
more ambitious in their plans. Well, maybe ambitious is not quite
the right word but something along that line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I want the hat. -- ponygirl, 10:50:15 02/04/02
Mon
I seem to recall an episode last season where Willow mentioned
an attempted de-ratting spell that she had cast that seemed to
make Amy really smart. She said something about how it looked
like the rat was plotting something.
Oh yes, lovely review OnM. DMP seems to be one of those episodes
that gets better (and more depressing) after a couple viewings
and a few good thinks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: *Ersatz Brothers Coffee - It's the Real Thing!!* --
LadyStarlight, 07:34:26 02/04/02 Mon
Great post, OnM. I have to say that, even after 2 viewings, I'm
not a huge fan of DMP. Maybe the 3rd time's the charm.
On a related subject, I read a book titled Fast Food Nation by
Eric Schlosser this weekend. It's a socio-economic study of the
rise of the fast food conglomerates. Fascinating reading, and
it's making me think twice about visiting any fast food chain.
Trivia question for you: I was watching Sugar and Spice last night.
(sue me, I was waiting for a painkiller to kick in) And I could
have sworn that the actor who plays Warren was playing yet another
geek. A/V this time, rather than computers, but still geeky. Was
I right? Or was it the painkiller? Inquiring minds want to know.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yep. -- Deeva, 09:26:17 02/04/02 Mon
That was indeed Adam Busch as te Geeky Guy. Pain killers? The
movie was tat bad that you needed pain killers? I'll remeber that
should I be faced with watching this movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Yep. -- LadyStarlight, 09:53:06 02/04/02
Mon
Didn't need painkillers to watch the movie. Was just waiting for
my killer headache to be knocked out before going beddy-bye.
For a high-school movie, it wasn't that bad. Glad I didn't pay
actual money to see it, tho. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> FFN-good read! who'da thought half the flavors we
taste are manufactured right off the NJ turnpike? -- yuri, 15:13:22
02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Amy's and Spike's intentions -- leslie, 12:06:29 02/04/02
Mon
" Amy always seems to be 'borrowing' something or other from
the others around her;
this week it was some 'detergent and stuff' from Willow at the
end of the show. "
Another point for the good witch/bad witch dichotomy. In contrast
to Wiccans, whose witchcraft is a religion, in folk belief, what
witches do is they screw up the fertility and prosperity of others.
(Mostly, they make men impotent and prevent cows from producing
milk.) How do they do this? By borrowing things from the person
they want to curse, so that they have something of theirs to work
the magic on. (Which was precisely what Amy's mom was doing when
they first reared their witchy heads oh so long ago.) So, is it
a coincidence that Buffy's propserity has been plummeting since
Amy's return to the Land of the Two-Legged and Furless?
As for Spike's offer to get money for Buffy--how? I had always
assumed that vampires acquired cash by simply lifting the wallets
of those upon whom they had fed--certainly Spike seems to experience
a cash flow problem as soon as he gets the chip in his head. And
the advantage of stealing from the dead is that they can't pick
you out of a police line-up. Does Spike have some cunning new
plan for knocking over banks without causing any kind of violence
or harm to human beings that he intends to implement? Or is he
planning to support the Summers girls on royalties from his poetry?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Hauptman, 15:33:19
02/05/02 Tue
Just a quick question that may help me understand why I can't
seem to turn people on to these shows (see B/A Snob posting below).
Did you discover Buffy on your own or did someone turn you on
to it? What did you first think? Were you instantly hooked? What
was the first ep you saw and what was the first ep you HAD to
see (i.e. the next one or several eps later)?
Oh, and just to confess something, I didn't get on board until
Faith had become a baddy. Prior to that I didn't want to watch
the show because the movie had disapointed me so badly and I thought
the WB was all Dawson Creek all the time, no matter what the title.
It was the language that caught me. I heard Buffy say something
as I was flipping channels and I had to go back. "What did
she just say?" I thought. I went back to see Giles plunging
a foil into Mayor Wilkins' chest, which he promptly removed and
wiped off and I thought, "What the hell is going on here?"
Yes, I was a Buffy-basher. What can I say? But that still doesn't
explain the resistance I still run into about the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: BUFFY BEAT ALLY --
Rachel, 15:43:54 02/05/02 Tue
FX advertised that it was going to show BtVS and Ally McBeal,
from the first episodes, in syndication. I had never seen either
show. My VCR cranked them out faithfully but after two weeks I
de-programmed Ally from the VCR...I was an exclusive BtVS fan.
Then I found this board and now my life is complete!
I don't know how I missed out on Buffy prior to FX syndication,
but I suspect it was the title of the show. Watching it from the
beginning, though, has changed my life...Not to get all drama
queen here, but I even took up kickboxing because I was so impressed
with Buffy's moves. True confession!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Robert,
15:49:47 02/05/02 Tue
Hauptman, I knew this was a show to watch the moment I heard advertisements
before "Welcome to the Hellmouth" first aired. The title
was so bent, I had to check it out. I was immediately astounded
by it.
I spent the next two or three years trying to hide my weird tastes
from the wife, before deciding to coopt her into watching the
series. As I've written here before, I've always admired tough
women, and they don't come much tougher than my wife.
I tried to turn by youngest brother (BA degree in English Literature)
onto the show. I figured he would get a kick out of it from all
the cultural and literary references. He would have none of it.
He prefers shows such as "Thieves" or "Enterprise".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- neaux, 15:58:49
02/05/02 Tue
I'm a dork who sees any vampire movies in the theater.. so I saw
BTVS way back in the day with Luke Perry and Kristy Swanson..
I made sure to watch the first episode on tv too.. c'mon who doesnt
like vampires??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- sl,
16:04:36 02/05/02 Tue
I saw the movie and it sucked. I just happened to be turing chanels
when I caught buffy being killed by the master. Before then I
had not known about the show. I've been watching reliously ever
since. I've been lurking on this board for a long time as well-
still do- post everyy once in a whiele, when it seems less intimidating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll
-- LeeAnn, 16:50:31 02/05/02 Tue
Tried to watch Buffy over the years but could never get into it
then one day I was flipping through the channels and stopped at...Spike.
The end of Fool for Love. The shotgun. The look. The pat. I couldn't
tell what was going on but I was intrigued. I started taping it.
Wrecked. The morning after. Hooked. Terribly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Anne, 16:05:50
02/05/02 Tue
I watched my first Buffy episode some time about a year ago after
reading a really rave review in the New York Times. I was utterly
disappointed at that time. I have not the least memory of which
episode I saw, but it seemed to me to be a pretty middle-of-the-road
teeny coming-of-age show with vampire makeup substituting for
imagination.
I didn't get into Buffy until last fall, kind of by accident.
This is a bit embarassing to admit but I generally like to have
the TV on between 6 and 8, rerun time, and for a couple of years
I have happily caught up on years of ER, Mash, Law and Order,
and NYPD Blue that way. There came a point at which they took
ER off, and I had seen every episode of the other ones so many
times that even I couldn't stand it any more. So I tried turning
Buffy on, paid very little attention for weeks, but looked up
at the screen from whatever else I was doing every once in a while.
I slowly started to notice some things interesting me. Probably
the first and principal one was Spike, whom I thought to be an
interesting type and certainly not fitting in with my preconceptions
of standard teeny show. But I can also remember the first comic
line that caught my attention -- by no means the best in the show,
but enough to stop me in my tracks and make me decide I should
start paying attention. It was probably third season and is the
time that Xander, desperate to find some gimmick to get attention
from girls, is talking to Oz, and asks him if it's difficult to
play guitar. "Not the way I play it," says Oz with typical
deadpan delivery.
Unfortunately I didn't get it that I was hooked until early December,
by which time I'd managed to miss all of the 6th Season first
run programs and an awful lot of the reruns. But I've been catching
up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Dichotomy,
16:28:41 02/05/02 Tue
About two years ago, I was having lunch with a friend I don't
see very often. She suggested that I watch BtVS. I had never watched
it up to that point because although I saw the movie and was mildly
amused, I thought the TV version would be more of the same or
maybe "90210" with fangs. But since this friend is really
smart and cool, we share similar taste in some things, and she
had turned me on to some great music, movies and books in the
past, I gave it a shot. (BTW, this friend also tried to get me
to read Joseph Campbell years ago, but it took this board to get
me to do that!)
I watched "Earshot" during summer reruns and watched
every episode I could after that, even acquiring and squinting
through badly taped eps so I could catch up on everything. And
I am happy to report I have now seen every episode, including
the 20-minute pilot with Wrong Willow and vamps that turn into
a pile of flour! Love this show!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Masquerade,
16:48:39 02/05/02 Tue
From the beginning, WTTH/The Harvest. I saw an add in a sci-fi/fantasy
mag for it a week or two before, otherwise I wouldn't have known
to tune in. But I did and I was eager for "The Harvest"
right after seeing "WTTH". I remember I flew out of
town after those eps for a job interview and was so glad they
were rerunning the eps on the out-of-town WB station so I could
watch them in my hotel room! I was already hooked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Apophis,
18:20:14 02/05/02 Tue
I, too, was once a non-believer, an infidel. I mocked the show
for having a stupid name and for being a "teen" show,
despite my never having watched it. Then, one summer evening,
I was flipping through the channels and, as I found nothing to
my satisfaction, settled on the WB for white noise while I read
comics. I occasionally looked up at the TV and eventually found
myself paying rapt attention. I was enthralled by the story of
a demonic robot trying to corrupt a young red-headed girl over
the internet and her friends' attempt to save her. I was forever
after hooked, though I didn't become a "regular" (obsessive)
viewer until season 5 due to poor reception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Liz, 18:27:52
02/05/02 Tue
I saw the movie about four years ago and I liked it. I'm one of
the few people I know who likes both the movie and the show--possibly
because I was hooked on its core premise, the girl who normally
would be toast gets to be powerful. But my friends who turned
me on to the movie said that the show was bad. So I never saw
it.
Then I saw _Cruel Intentions_ and I was hooked on Sarah Michelle
Gellar. I just thought she was extraordinary. I started watching
in the beginning of 4th season and I was quickly hooked on the
humor (I think the deciding moment was the halloween episode where
Willow show up as Joan d'Arc, who had that close relationship
with God, and Oz reveals that his costume: a sticker nametag "Hello
my name is GOD"). I'm not sure when I got completely hooked
on the plot, but it was before Maggie died. I was hooked by "Hush",
I know that.
What I'm trying to figure out is how to reel in other people.
I've told some people how much I like the show but I hesitate
to recommend that they leap right in and watch current episodes.
I'm not sure they would make sense. I'm trying to think of selections
I can show them to get them hooked and make them want to watch
it all from the beginning. But this is somewhat difficult. I'm
honestly not sure why I like the show so much. I haven't quite
figured it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- agent156,
19:05:14 02/05/02 Tue
I came across Buffy a couple years ago just flipping through the
channels. It was in the third season, and I believe the ep was
Revelations. I don't know what got me to stay on the channel,
but for some reason I did and it was interesting. I watched a
few more eps and liked them all too. But then I went off to college
and stopped watching (along with a lot of other tv).
It wasn't until I happened to notice an episode of it on FX playing
sometime last year and recognized it that I started watching again.
And this time nothing's gonna get me to stop watching it.
From reading the previous posts, it seems most people who didn't
just start watching it from the beginning have gotten into Buffy
by stopping on it while channel surfing. Perhaps that is the reason
it is so hard to convince people to watch. With Buffy seeing truly
is believing. You can try to explain to someone as much as you
want about the greatness of the show, but only watching can really
make them understand.
And then there are just those strange people that don't like a
well written thought provoking show. *cough*freaks*cough* Excuse
me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Valhalla,
21:02:24 02/05/02 Tue
I also didn't watch at first bc of the movie. Then I happened
to catch 2d season repeats, and got hooked on the clever writing
and the monsters as high school metaphors. It took two whole episodes
to catch me completely.
I've been telling people to start watching the reruns on Fox on
the weekends (are those shown all over, or are they local). It's
hard to catch up on all the drama at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Marie, 02:41:49
02/06/02 Wed
My son had been watching a video. When I stopped it to rewind,
the TV channel happened to be on BBC2, which was showing BtVS
at 6:45 p.m., and which I'd always ignored in the TV listings
("Buffy the Vampire Slayer"? Come on!). So, anyway,
the Nasty Man was clubbing the girl in the basement, in "Nightmares",
and I was sooo taken aback! What's this? I thought... Isn't this
a kids' show? Anyway, carried on tidying up, and not paying much
attention. Looked up, saw the Master taunting Buffy in the graveyard,
and the rest is history. Bought the box-sets, wearing the tee!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- bienbizare,
06:02:05 02/06/02 Wed
Jan 2001 I got a new roomie and she watched the show. I didn't
watch it for a while (b/c I already watch too much tv and I thought
the show sounded odd). I had heard the raves from the faithful,
but I didn't really believe it. I had one night on a whim turned
it on a couple years ago (the ep where Angel drinks Buffy). Obviously,
I didn't get it, cause you can't just start watching Buffy from
the middle and enjoy it totally right away. Anyway, as the whole
Glory thing was coming to a head I started watching Buffy and
Angel, and over the next few episodes liked it. I didn't become
totally hooked and obsessed however, until FX started showing
the reruns. I definitely think you have to know the whole backstory
to really enjoy/love the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- verdantheart,
06:20:36 02/06/02 Wed
I've mentioned this before, but for the record:
I tried single episodes in the first 3 seasons, probably 2 or
3, but it didn't hook me (probably because they included Killed
by Death and Band Candy). Sometime during season 4, I decided
to give it a few episodes on the strength of the strong reviews
it was getting in Entertainment Weekly--since I generally agreed
with the reviewers there.
After watching for several weeks, I was hooked (in spite of the
fact that it was entering rerun season and it seemed like they
wanted to run Living Conditions repeatedly). I'm not sure exactly
what hooked me. I guess it was Adam's apocalypse and that I was
intrigued by Spike's ambiguity during the end of that season.
Of course there are things I would have enjoyed more if I had
the history (such as Willow/Oz or pre-chip Spike, for example),
but there was plenty to keep me entertained.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Nevermore,
06:38:15 02/06/02 Wed
I thought it was for kids because of the title (And shock horror
- I guessed it was something like Friends or Frasier or even Bewitched!)
- so so I steered clear of it. Then we had to do a language study
on a TV program in Dec 2001 so my friends gave me the series 1
Boxset to watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- OnM, 07:16:13
02/06/02 Wed
This is in my poster profile, but to recap:
I saw the movie, and liked it. I understand why Joss dislikes
it, but my perspective is different.
I love movies because of the many possible levels they can employ
in telling a story, and their apt use of visual/sonic metaphors
on occasion. To me, saying that something is 'cinematic' is a
high compliment, and BtVS is unquestionably 'cinematic', even
thought it uses the medium of TV for it's message. I also love
good writing, I've been reading SF and fantasy works since I was
7 or 8 years old (I'm 48 currently).
When the debut of the TV show was announced, my suspicions were
that it would be worse than the movie, that the concept would
not translate well, or that it would become boring after a few
eps and peter out.
I tuned in anyway, willing to give it a chance.
At the end of the show, I absolutely, unequivocally had to see
the next one. And so on, and so on, and so on.
Since that first season, I have commented to a number of people
that BtVS was/is 'the best show on television'. Nearly all of
them have ignored me and do not watch it. This does not bother
me, I figure it's their loss.
About a year and a half ago, I finally got a computer with internet
access, and one of the first things I got search engines to do
was to look for Buffy websites. After a day or two of general
meandering I found ATPo, and was stunned to find that I wasn't
this 'freak' who was somehow seeing all these different levels
of meaning and use of metaphor in the show.
Thus endeth/beginneth the journey.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- yabyumpan,
07:20:21 02/06/02 Wed
I've always liked anything sci/fi or fantasy and the BBC in UK
has a spot between 6pm-7:30pm where they show "cult tv"
stuff so I was already pre-programed to watch at that time anyway,
I missed the first ep for some reason but became totally hooked
the next week. I like anything that questions our perceptions
of "reality" or takes "reality" and turns
it on it's head. Also loved the characters, dialogue, language
etc. The whole monster/fighting thing doesn't really do anything
for me except where it makes the characters/us ask questions about
themselves/ourselves. I love to be challenged and BtVS and AtS
does this for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Shaglio,
07:50:13 02/06/02 Wed
Sadly enough, I started watching felicity when it first aired
back in 1998 because I was drawn to the beauty of Keri Russell.
Felicity was on in the 9:00 slot and Buffy was before it in the
8:00 slot. I had nothing else to watch at 8:00 on a wednesday,
so I popped on WB an hour early figuring, "how bad could
this Buffy show be anyway?" It was then that saw the most
beautiful girl in the world and it sparked a memory from 2 years
before of my cousin telling me I should watch Buffy because there
was a redhead on it and he knew how obsessed I was with pelirojas
(would that be tete rouge in French?). Needless to say I got hooked
on Buffy and haven't watched Felicity since. I was saved!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Sophist,
10:18:01 02/06/02 Wed
My daughter saw the previews for WTTH and wanted to watch it.
I wasn't sure about the show being appropriate for her (she was
8) and watched with her.
While I've loved the show from the beginning, and never missed
an ep, I get so much more out of it from reading the posts here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Darby, 10:53:20
02/06/02 Wed
Well, this is embarrassing...
I don't remember! I know that it was during the first season,
in reruns I'm pretty sure, and it was The Witch, but I can't for
the life of me remember the circumstances. I do know that it's
the type of show that I will try (still trying to decide what
I think of Glory Days).
But you're getting such nice widespread response, I figured I'd
chime in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- VampRiley,
12:03:55 02/06/02 Wed
I was alone one night. Bored. Flipping through the channels looking
for something to help past the time. I couldn't even find anything
on the premium channels. So as I'm flipping, I see the scene where
Oz is talking to Debbie out side of the school in Beauty and the
Beast. And after seeing Pete, I flipped again, thinking the guy's
jealous. Later, I saw bits and pieces of Band Candy flipping through
the channels again when it first aired. The night Revelations
aired, I sat through the whole thing. I saw the scene where Gwendolyn
Post put the glove on and the fight that ensued and was like "Wo."
I actually moved forward on my bed, smiling, much like Gunn did
when he saw the ballet. I was hooked right then and there.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- leslie,
12:21:17 02/06/02 Wed
I started watching the series at the very beginning, the first
season and at least part of the second (I know I saw the entrance
of Spike and Drusilla but had wandered off before the climax of
that arc), and I think I drifted away when the day/time was changed
for some reason. Saw a couple of episodes sporadically. Then,
was it two years ago? I was flipping channels and stopped on the
scene where Spike tries to bite Willow and discovers the Power
of the Chip. The whole inability-to-bite-as-impotence metaphor
had me rolling on the floor, and I thought "I really must
watch this thing more regularly." Now completely addicted.
I have a PhD in Folklore and Mythology and there are several of
my colleagues (both grad students and professors) who are also
addicted. I think it is that, as Claude Levi-Strauss said in another
context, Buffy is "good to think with." Or as I like
to say: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer--tastes just like folklore,
but with only half the motif numbers!" (This is very funny
if you are a folklorist--otherwise, feel free to go "huh?")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- matching
mole, 12:38:56 02/06/02 Wed
Unlike a lot of the other respondents I was initially attracted
to it solely by the title which sounded like a promising possibility
for satire. I remember seeing an ad on the side of a bus in Chicago
for the movie and thinking 'I should go see that'. The film was
OK but not quite what I'd hoped for.
I had no intentions of watching the series but I was home by myself
and bored the night of the premiere and so I ended up watching
the first half and a bit (i.e. WTTM and part of the Harvest) before
my wife and house guest came home. Was intrigued enough to watch
sporadically after that and got my wife hooked. We saw about half
of the first season when the episodes were first shown and all
the rest (except Never Kill a Boy...) in summer reruns. Have seen
every episode since on its original broadcast (or shortly thereafter
on tape).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Mystery,
12:56:55 02/06/02 Wed
I had seen the movie and was very sceptical of the TV show. I
didn't really follow it, turning it on every so often when there
was commercials on the other TV shows I would watch.
Then I saw "Becoming II." I watched that spectacular
fight against Angel (by then I had seen enough to know that she
loved him but he was a vampire. I didn't catch him turn evil but
*shrug*). I watched the acting when he was restored and she killed
him anyways, and started crying. Then I watched her leave town
to that achingly sad song, while everyone worried about her, and
cried more.
Then I decided to watch the 3rd season when I could. I caught
a few but not much since I was in college and hardly watched TV
then. I heard the big hub-bub over "Graduation" and
was intrigued. Watched the fourth season, again when I remembered
too (college, the most powerful time-distortion demon ever. My
brother missed the breakup of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin
wall when he was in college). Then came home became a 9 to 5-er
and have been full hooked since. It and Farscape are constantly
battling it out for my favorite show. Never really got into Angel.
Don't know why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Scroll,
14:37:15 02/06/02 Wed
My younger sister wanted to watch this new teen show called Buffy
the Vampire Slayer, and I was like, "A show about vampires?
That's dumb." But I watched WttH/Harvest with her and kinda
liked them, watched S1 off and on, saw Bad Girls when S2 began,
and have been hooked ever since. I loved the Buffy/Angel arc,
loved Faith as the bad girl, love her now as a good girl, love
the Angel spin-off, and worship Tara as the sweetest girl ever.
It's frustrating that none of my friends appreciate the wit and
insight of Buffy, and pretty much mock me for liking it. I've
tried converting one of my less judgmental friends but she's still
wary of it. Thank God for AtPoBtVS!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Sebastian,
14:46:56 02/06/02 Wed
i was in the airport for a flight to san francisco, when i realized
i needed a magazine for the trip. i picked up that 'entertainment
weekly' (you know the one - the one *devoted* to the entire show.).
the entire plane ride i was entranced by the character summaries,
plot synopsis and the overwhelming feeling i was missing out on
a *really* good show.
because i was still in college at the time, i only watched S4
sporidically, but was able to catch the some of the 'classic'
S4 eps ('something blue', 'hush', 'this year's girl', 'who are
you?', 'the yoko factor', 'primeval', and 'restless'). by summer
i had bought the box sets.
by the start of S5 i was taping the shows religiously and, to
my friends' utter dismay, bringing up the show as often as possible
in conversation.
and then last year this time, i found this deeply intelligent
board that helps deepen my understanding of the show.
so that's my story.... ;-P
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Wisewoman,
19:59:46 02/06/02 Wed
I was one of the few human being in existence who actually enjoyed
BtVS the Movie. That's why I wanted to see what they'd do with
it as a weekly show. I was hooked from the beginning because of
Giles (eye candy in my age range, I admit it) but quickly became
enamoured of the excellent writing, and the talent of all the
regular cast members.
I've managed to turn at least two of my friends on to Buffy, and
I have two other women at work who are addicted as well, so I'm
not alone in my obsession. Can't seem to get the SO to watch regularly,
though...he still thinks it's just for kids. AAaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> LIKED the Movie -- Eric, 20:48:09 02/06/02 Wed
I saw the movie and liked it a lot. Kristy Swanson was/is a babe.
Yeah it was campy and hasn't aged well. But I wasn't far out of
high school myself, and something clicked. When the show came
out I was actually turned off. It was nothing but beautiful people.
To me it seemed kind of artificial, like Dawson's Creek. But SMG
is a babe, so I occasionally watched it. I was impressed early
on with the photography and lighting quality, which is and remains
outstanding. Of course I found out most of the beautiful people
could ACT - some of them really well. And it got better and better,
with the stories hitting every note I knew about adolescence.
When Buffy went berserk in the season 2 opener, it was over. I
am not exaggerating when I say I was awed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Millan,
06:12:23 02/07/02 Thu
I saw the movie long time ago.
I found it funny and worth watching but slightly unfulfilling.
Light fluff with a hint of silly and dorky.
I heard about there being series (this was way before it came
to Sweden) and just wrinkled my nose. A series based on a GOOD
movie is a hazardous bet at best - a series based on a half-way
silly movie can't be anything to see, right?
But I kept seing references to the series that were almost uniformly
positive and slowly became a little bit curious.
Then one day my SO came home with the first box-set and said that
we at least had to see what the deal was.
We were hooked from the very first moment.
After the credits in WTTH we just looked at each other, big smiles
on our faces and we kept on looking - haven't stopped since. :)
/Millan
"Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead."
- Buffy, 'Welcome to the Hellmouth'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Kimberly,
15:51:24 02/07/02 Thu
Didn't see the movie; thought it looked and sounded dumb. I had
no intention of watching the show; I thought it looked and sounded
dumb. However, there was nothing else at all interesting on TV
that night and Edward flipped. Our channel rebroadcast that Saturday,
so I have been able to tape all the episodes, but we were hooked
from the word "Go".
And dub-dub, I agree, MMMMMM. Giles. MMMMM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How did you discover Buffy/Angel: a poll -- Isabel,
16:15:46 02/07/02 Thu
I had seen and liked the movie, but didn't think it would translate
well to TV. (I thought Paul Ruebens stole the show.) When the
show came out it was also only available on a cable channel that
I couldn't get. I wasn't going to be able to watch it anyway,
so I didn't sweat about it.
Then I started dating a guy who had a dish and a 'thang' for Faith.
He had missed the 'Wish' episode and kept screwing up the VCR
everytime it reran so he was frantically going through all of
his back tapes of unwatched episodes hoping he had gotten it.
He hadn't. But he got me to sit and watch 'Killed by Death.' I
was unimpressed. Eyes rolling, 'The Slayer's dating a VAMPIRE?
How cliche. Who's trying to kill her? The boyfriend's gone evil,
has he? Imagine.' :) I did not make it easy for him. I couldn't
tell Angel from Xander so I was real confused. Then he made me
watch 'Lover's Walk' and Spike had me rolling on the floor. I
was hooked.
(My ex-boyfriend had to wait for the FX reruns to finally get
to see 'The Wish.' And he screwed up the VCR again trying to tape
it so I let him get a copy off of mine. No, I handled the operation
myself and only laughed at him a little.) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- Wisewoman, 18:59:42
02/05/02 Tue
Anyone who knows me from this forum knows I am a HUGE B/S shipper...always
have been. I'd love nothing better than to see them together permanently,
but I can't continue to blind myself to what the storyline is
telling me. I don't think I'm over-reacting to the darkness in
Dead Things. I think I've known this was coming for quite a while,
and it doesn't mean that things between Buffy and Spike might
not resurface later in another form, but for now...
Think about the point where Buffy really broke down in tonight's
ep...it wasn't when Tara asked if she loved Spike, it was when
Tara implied that she might be using him (at least, that was Buffy's
interpretation), and that that would be okay. Well, obviously
it wouldn't be okay, not for Buffy. She didn't want Tara to forgive
her for that, and she's not going to be able to forgive herself
for it.
Buffy's been pretty out-of-it since she was resurrected, and with
good reason. Just not the reason she was hoping for. If she'd
come back "wrong," in some way, it might be okay for
her to go on using Spike. She might be able to justify it by her
wrongness allowing her a different moral code or standard than
she held to before she died. Now she knows there's no different
standard for her to fall back on, that she's the same person she
always was. That person might have hated Spike, staked him, depended
on him, trusted him, abused him, but she would never have used
him as a sex toy. Not because she didn't love him, but because
she knew he loved her.
I think I got all caught up in the "sex is healthy, it's
fun, Buffy deserves to have a passionate sex life" aspect
of her relationship with Spike, and just ignored the whole emotional
aspect of it. Buffy Summers is not the kind of woman who would
use someone who loved her for sex. She's tried two ways to justify
her affair with Spike. She's tried to deny that he loves her,
that he's even capable of love, so that she could feel that they
were just using each other. And she's tried to convince herself
that the reason she's behaving this way is because she came back
wrong.
Both of those justifications have just been yanked away. The scene
of Buffy beating Spike in the alley outside the police station
is every bit as illuminating as Buffy learning from Tara that
there's nothing wrong with her.
That fight wasn't about Buffy turning herself in...it was about
Spike saying he'd tried not to love her, and her insisting that
he should have tried harder. She was beating him to warn him away,
to save him from himself and from her, to convince him that there
was no point in loving her, that she'd never be "his girl."
Because if she can't convince him to stop loving her, then she
has to accept that his love is real, and then accept that she's
taking advantage of that every time they have sex. And she failed.
Even lying there beaten to a bleeding pulp, Spike still tried
to make it all about love. Justification number one went down
in flames, followed closely thereafter by Tara's revelation and
the loss of justification number two.
It's really difficult for me to accept this, but at this point
I no longer think that Buffy is denying her feelings for Spike.
I really believe that she doesn't love him, and that's what's
tearing her apart, and drowning her in guilt.
Having said that, I still hold out hope that this is just a particular
phase in what will eventually prove to be a much more complicated
relationship (if that's possible, lol!). Part of growing up is
learning that you're capable of behaving shabbily, of taking advantage
of and hurting others, and deliberately deciding not to. Buffy
may have hurt people emotionally before (Xander, Giles, Joyce?)
but it was never deliberate. If she doesn't stop the affair with
Spike now, then she is guilty of deliberately taking advantage
of his emotions. I just don't think she can do that.
Of course, everything changes if and when she ever does come to
really love Spike...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- Tillow,
21:09:45 02/05/02 Tue
WW,
I'm wavering in my faith in the B/S relationship right now too
but what do you think about the fact that when Buffy is back with
the Scooby's, Willow prompts her about Warren, How do you know?
and she brings Spikes line back in... You always hurt the one
you love.
My thinking was that not only did her tone imply she had learned
that 'lesson' from Spike, but she felt regret for hurting him,
whether it be by taking advantage of his feelings for her or the
beating. Either way, it seemed like reason for hope. What did
you think?
Tillow
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: There's *always* hope! ;o) -- WW, 21:25:07 02/05/02
Tue
Hi Tillow--
As I said, I do still have hope for Buffy and Spike in the long-run,
but for right now I don't believe she loves him, and I think her
guilt over the way she's been behaving means that the only right
thing for her to do is stop "seeing" Spike (and stop
using him).
I think she did regret beating Spike, and hurting him emotionally.
I guess I'm hung up on my impression of Buffy as basically a "good"
person who, when she realizes she's hurting someone, stops doing
it. That would mean that she both stops beating on Spike, and
stops sleeping with him.
But, hey, there's the whole rest of this season, and all of Season
7 for the girl to come to her senses and fall in love...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> yeah, that line threw me back over after feeling more
like WW does -- yuri, 23:36:39 02/05/02 Tue
and wouldn't Buffy rather choose to be guilty for using Spike
than come out and love him already? (To clarify, I'm not any sort
of devoted S/B shipper, though the possiblity intrigues me. I
will find it equally intriguing, and heart-wrenching, actually,
to go down the guilt, no-love path, if that is ME has in store.
SMG's performance at the end ensured that to me.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- Grace,
21:17:48 02/05/02 Tue
I think Buffy's remorse over "using" Spike is first
time she actually showed him some genuine affection. She knows
he deserves better. I predict that they will back off the sex
and start working on being friends. Maybe this time next season--there
will be love in the air. (Hey, a girl is entitled to her dreams
you know!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hah! Grace, we have the same dreams... ;o) --
WW, 21:27:59 02/05/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things***
-- LeeAnn, 22:13:06 02/06/02 Wed
You mean....
NO MORE SPUFFY SEX THIS SEASON?
Hey, they're not the only ones addicted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- Dariel,
22:27:17 02/05/02 Tue
Your points are good, but I don't think it's all one way or the
other. After all, this is Buffy. It would be just like her to
convince herself that all she's doing is using Spike. Better to
feel guilty about that than admit to feeling something for him.
Only thing worse than boinking the evil undead is falling for
the evil undead!
And she does show signs of feeling something--she's almost sweet
to him in their rug scene. In the scene at his crypt, with each
of them on one side of the door, she seems to be longing for much
more than sex. When she walks away, she chants "Don't think
about the evil bloodsucking fiend" like a mantra. Here, she
has to remind herself not to think of him as a person, or who
knows what could happen.
Is she using him? Sure. But why Spike, and why, as she tells Tara,
does she keep "letting him in?" Why can't she stay away,
if it's only sex?
(Sorry, this is not very clear. Neither is my brain. I watched
this week's Angel right before Buffy--definite overload!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "You always hurt the ones you love." -- Traveler,
22:29:18 02/05/02 Tue
Spike had some really important one-liners in this episode. I'll
talk about some of the others after I've seen the episode again,
but I wanted to go ahead and touch on his brief scene with Buffy
near the end.
First of all, I'm amazed that people haven't commented more about
this scene. In a strange way, Spike was a kind of Matyr. It wasn't
just Buffy beating on Spike as a symbol of her own "inner
demon." He was actively inviting her to take out all her
hurt and anger out on him, as shown when he said "put it
all on me." He assumed that once she got it out of her system,
she wouldn't want to go to the police anymore. In other words,
if he became the "bad guy" again, maybe she would forgive
herself. He's even able to joke ironically, "you always hurt
the ones you love." I say ironically, because she had as
much as told him that she didn't love him, and barely even liked
him. But his ploy failed, with him feebly reaching out to her
as she strode toward the police station.
However, taken out of context, it is really interesting that he
was the one who spoke these words. Despite the fact that he seems
to get off on the pain Buffy inflicts on him, I still don't believe
that Spike truly likes pain. I would argue that it is really the
only way he knows how to express his love. As has been mentioned
in previous posts, Drusilla was probably his first and most influential
tutor in love and sex, and she was incredibly sado-masochistic.
Rather than counterbalance the lessons Spike learned from Drusilla,
Buffy reinforces them at every opportunity. In fact, she hurts
Spike even more than Drusilla did. So from Spike's prespective,
the quote might be, "we let the ones we love hurt us, to
show them that we love them."
Oh, one small ray of light that I saw for S/B shippers in this
episode: the scene were Buffy and Spike both put their hands on
opposite sides of the door was incredibly romantic. It suggest
that if they could just find a way to open that door (whatever
it represents), things could work out for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "You always hurt the ones you love."
-- MrDave, 22:47:10 02/05/02 Tue
...the scene were Buffy and Spike both put their hands on opposite
sides of the door was incredibly romantic. It suggest that if
they could just find a way to open that door (whatever it represents),
things could work out for them.
It WAS romantic. And tragic at the same time. The door is a barrier
to any true relationship they could have. Either one of them could
remove the barrier. It is just a door after all. But what happens
when Buffy opens it?
Inside she finds Spike. He is rattling around in his grave. He
is in the darkness (where she is in the night...illuminated by
the moon). She would have to not only confront him...deal with
him (or her feelings for him) but she would have to enter his
darkness.
If Spike opens the door (and he does) he finds she is running
away from him. He enters the Night (light), and seeks her out,
only to find her duty has absorbed her. He cannot stay out in
the night...because the sun is always coming...he must retreat
back into the darkness each morning.
The door does not block what they feel for each other. It is transparent
to their emotions...her doubts, and his obsession. It doesn't
hide them. They both know the other is just on the other side.
What it does is offer a place for them to reflect...alone...on
why they don't want to remove the barrier.
Just my observations. Thought I'd share.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> His & her darkness -- Dyna, 09:46:30 02/06/02
Wed
"It WAS romantic. And tragic at the same time. The door is
a barrier to any true relationship they could have. Either one
of them could remove the barrier. It is just a door after all.
But what happens when Buffy opens it? Inside she finds Spike.
He is rattling around in his grave. He is in the darkness (where
she is in the night...illuminated by the moon). She would have
to not only confront him...deal with him (or her feelings for
him) but she would have to enter his darkness."
I was very struck by the darkness in this scene, but in the opposite
way that you were, Mr Dave. Buffy is outside, in the blue darkness
of the cemetary. She's bundled up, implying that it's cold out
there--she's even wearing gloves. Inside Spike's crypt, it's dark
too, but the quality of the darkness is entirely different. All
those candles cast a warm reddish light, suggesting comfort, light
in the darkness. And he's in there with his shirt open, not bundled
up against the environment but exposed, comfortable. Buffy doesn't
have to "enter his darkness"--she's in the dark already,
and she never even crosses his threshold! And I think the case
can be made that at the moment her darkness--symbolized by the
cold blue light of the cemetary--is colder and more lonely than
his.
For me this scene was rich in both romance and symbolism--the
closed door, the striking contrast between the warm and cool lights,
her black hand and his white hand against the door. When he steps
out into the blue gloom of the cemetary, under-dressed for the
cold, it seems he's the one entering her darkness, he's the one
who's exposed and vulnerable. It's a startling reversal of our
expectations, where we've been conditioned to think of Buffy as
representing good and light, and Spike representing cold, impassive
darkness. I wouldn't go so far as to say Spike is representing
"good and light" here, but he's also not representing
"the darkness within Buffy" here, either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> another contrast -- anom, 22:59:00 02/06/02
Wed
"For me this scene was rich in both romance and symbolism--the
closed door, the striking contrast between the warm and cool lights,
her black hand and his white hand against the door."
The contrast that struck me most was between their expressions.
They felt completely different things about being at that door
& the other one's being on the other side of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You just saved me a lot of typing (well maybe not that much)
-- Liq, 23:00:23 02/05/02 Tue
Okay, forgive me ahead of time because I feel some serious rambling,
incohesive thoughts and bad spelling coming on. Continuity of
thought is obviously an issue for me too, but it's really Aquitaine,
Wisewoman, dHerblay, Rufus, et. al's fault because they weren't
around for me to rant on, and Anom, Malan and Charlie were being
all logical.
I was actually considering coming out of "retirement"
to write about Dead Things anyway, because there are so many ideas
crashing around in my head after that ep. I've never really been
a S/B shipper, but I love Spike's character probably more than
just about anyone for this reason and that - but I really did
not care much for him tonight.
The post-coital scene was cute, but all the crashing around that
proceeded it? Well, okay, I'm not naive, but how is it that they
were lying head-to-head afterward the final crash separately covered
by different sections of the rug?
And more importantly... what make-up does Buffy use? Not a single
mascara smear and the lip gloss was perfect. I need some of that.
It would save so much time in the morning.
In all seriousness... why were we treated to this scene? Ok, Willow
has been "straight" for what, 32 days so I guess we're
to understand that Crypt!Sex is a normal occurence now. Fine.
But then where did Bronze!Sex come from? Did Spike forget his
medication? We went from playful, friendly bantering to darkness
and shadows? Huh?
I made a comment earlier that I appreciate metaphor as much as
the next person, but I am pretty tired of getting slammed between
the eyes with two by fours.
Alright, I get it. He's evil.
Of course, I'm not sure that he is still "evil" but
I do believe that he is still true to his inherent nature. The
Bronze scene disturbed me greatly and not because of the sex.
I don't care how many people want to convince me that Buffy enjoyed
that moment, I'll never buy it. Her body reacted, but she was
devestated by the moment and I despised Spike for it. (and most
of you know where my feelings for Buffy usually run...)
I interpreted alot of the ep much differently than posts I have
read. I agree with the connection during the "door"
scene, but I also believe that Spike's smile when he realized
she was outside had more than a touch of knowing that she cannot
resist him in her present condition. That idea was sealed with
his line about her trying to sneak away.
Dead Things was an excellent episode. Wonderfully acted and so
full of continuity issues, I don't want to even get into it. The
S/B scenes were all over the board and I need to think about what
that really meant. I haven't decided whether I want to kiss Steve
DeKnight or teach him storyboarding.
Anyone notice Katrina's comment to Warren as she rejected him?
"What did you think was going to happen, that we would just....
" echoes of Wrecked.
The dream sequence - again, where to start? It seemed fairly clear
except for Spike's line "It'll be our little secret"
combined with Buffy's comment as she started whaling on him "It's
just another body to you." The fact is, yes, that is all
it was to him. Another body and someTHING to shove aside to take
care of Buffy.
I've always spouted that Spike's redemption (if indeed it is even
possible) will be contingent on a single human being that has
nothing to do with Buffy, the Scoobs or Dawn. Even his actions
of the summer were based on his promise to her and his affection
for Dawn. The alley scene in Smashed with the girl would have
only been important if he had been able to bite her and what his
action would have lead to AFTERwards. Killing her or not. Feeling
remorse. Or Not.
After Dead Things, I can only believe that Buffy does not love
Spike. I see their relationship, especially on her end as being
a clear case of obsession. Buffy is obsessed with the need to
"feel" and the need for a connection which he provides
her. I believe she cares for him in the rawest sense, but she
still beat him senseless and left him. Consider this. If it had
been closer to morning with a rising sun, Spike may have well
been done for. He was seriously injured and Buffy walked over
him and didn't look back.
Damn those wily ME writers. A good portion of the BtVS fandom
is completely obsessed with the character who is Spike. Check
out any message board, even the boards who abhor the S/B pairing.
There is still an inordinate number of Spike postings. BC&S has
even discussed a "Spike-free" day. Even our humble home-away-from-home
ATPoBtVS have our very own Spike acronym: ATLtS
My position, of course *ahem* is the same as always. Just give
me good story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You just saved me a lot of typing (well maybe
not that much) -- Rufus, 01:09:53 02/06/02 Wed
After Dead Things, I can only believe that Buffy does not love
Spike. I see their relationship, especially on her end as being
a clear case of obsession. Buffy is obsessed with the need to
"feel" and the need for a connection which he provides
her. I believe she cares for him in the rawest sense, but she
still beat him senseless and left him. Consider this. If it had
been closer to morning with a rising sun, Spike may have well
been done for. He was seriously injured and Buffy walked over
him and didn't look back.
Amazing sex a relationship does not make. It gets tired after
awhile if the people involved aren't being honest with themselves
or each other. Spike is Buffy's little secret, one that just may
go away once it's in the open. She doesn't love him but has a
connection that may only be sexual in nature. He did use her own
fears to his advantage to hold onto her. Buffy fears the animal
that is inside the one that rips and kills and does amazing things.
She fears that part of herself that sets her apart from others.
She's afraid she isn't human. She is but with an extra boost,
a form of the stuff that made Riley so strong, his stength chemical
in nature, Buffy's probably magical in nature. It's part of who
she is and she can't take it off like a coat. Spike was right
about needing a monster in her man, only a monster like he could
take the punishment that she is capable of. She never let go with
Riley, aware she could hurt him, withdrawn because her power is
immense enough to trouble a real live boy. Part of Buffy's growing
up is accepting every part of what and who she is, slayer, woman,
human, animal. The truth she told to Tara has let the secret out
of the bag, alieviated some of the fear, now she has to deal with
the fact that she didn't come back wrong and whatever her feelings
for Spike are, they came from the person Buffy was and is. Will
she ever love him...don't know that love was the point of this
storyline. Growing up is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "You always hurt the one you love"
(spoilery speculation) -- Marie, 02:24:22 02/06/02 Wed
This is so interesting to read, folks! Can't wait to actually
see this episode.
I just wanted to point out that ME throws in lines like this one
for a purpose. They might seem throw-away at the time, but waaaaay
down the line - KABOSH!
Think. Who said "You always hurt the one you love"?
Spike. That's who. And who does he love? It's my opinion that
ME wants us to think that it's Buffy who is going to hurt Spike,
when really they're going to turn it around on us.
Oh, I see misery coming to Buffy. Maybe not right now. Maybe not
this season. But come S7, and it's my guess that Spike's love
will have turned to something else.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You just saved me a lot of typing (well maybe
not that much) -- Cactus Watcher, 04:04:43 02/06/02 Wed
I hate to break the train of thought of Wisewoman's excellent
post, but Liq's comment about Buffy's makeup made me do it. Did
anyone else notice that Willow seems to have used her recovery
period from 'magic abuse' to dramatically upgrade her wardrobe?
Wow, she looked great in this ep and not just in one outfit! Buffy
had some fine new duds, too. Double Meat Palace must really pay
big bucks! ;o) The other thing I noticed was that Spike's eye
was swollen shut in seconds. Pretty amazing, especially for someone
with no pulse.(And believe me those were long seconds in this
part of the country. Somebody threw the wrong switch and, at least
we in Phoenix missed a good piece of the fight)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- Cactus
Watcher, 04:47:49 02/06/02 Wed
WW, I wanted to respond to your great post last night, but about
half-way through a long rambling discourse my brain frozen up,
so I dumped it.
It seems to me that there are still issues to be settled as far
as how 'right' Buffy is, at least mentally. She's clearly doing
things with Spike she wouldn't have dreamed of doing before she
died. Physically she may be her old self, but she certainly isn't
emotionally.
Still there is a common thread with happened before in Buffy's
life. She really has had nothing like a healthy relationship with
anyone. She idolized Angel, but he really treated her like a child
most of the time. He 'ran' the relationship, whether he was Angel
or Angelus. For a long period Buffy never even saw him unless
he was in the mood to see her. It didn't help matters that when
she seemed dearest to him, she hurt him the most. Although, Joyce
asked him to do it, it was Angel's decision and his alone to break
it off.
Her relationship with Riley seemed fine, until it was revealed
that she had no emotional commitment to him. He was, to put it
bluntly, 'some guy' she slept with and nothing more. As soon as,
she was distracted by her mother's illness, it was obvious Buffy
thought of Riley as someone temporary, not someone to share her
pain with. It was telling that when she discovered that Riley
was as good as cheating on her, she was far more mad than she
was hurt.
Now with Spike, it was difficult to see the exact problem, because
it was always right in front of our faces. It became all too obvious
in Dead Things. It is a relationship though Buffy didn't want
to admit it. It's an abusive relationship. And Buffy is the chief
abuser. It wasn't a coincidence that Buffy was punching Spike
at the drop of a hat, even season. She enjoyed it. There is, of
course, more than a hint of mutual masochism. Both of them seem
to enjoy being hurt. The problem is that each of them is enjoying
hurting the other. I think it's guilt over this sadism that finally
making Buffy crack. Spike will never feel guilty the way Buffy
did over Katrina's death. At the moment it's hard to see how anything
good can come of Buffy's personal relationship with him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things***
-- Rattletrap, 05:44:40 02/06/02 Wed
I see kind of another level in the B/S relationship too. The scene
in the alley behind the police station where she's sitting on
him and beating on his face, I kept thinking that everything Buffy
said directed at Spike was about equally directed at herself.
She sees in Spike the very things she hates the most in herself;
and the fact that she finds herself attracted to him makes it
even more bitter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wish I hadn't been unwillingly watching some
stupid comedy at that moment! ;o) -- CW, 06:00:28 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things***
-- Scroll, 11:39:10 02/08/02 Fri
Just wanted to say that, although S1 Angel and really early S2
Angel often dropped by whenever he felt like it, I think Buffy
really ran their relationship in S3. How many times did she break
up with him? "I need space," "I'm with this ordinary
guy, Scott Hope," "Tell me you don't love me."
But then again, I'm an B/A shipper, still hanging on despite different
networks.
But you're certainly right about Buffy not really having any healthy
relationships to back her up. Her thing with Spike is the most
obviously unhealthy of her relationships, and now that she knows
there's nothing wrong with her, she can't accept the fact that
she's the one "rolling in the dirt" of her own free
will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- verdantheart,
06:11:49 02/06/02 Wed
Ok, I haven't read above yet, but here goes.
I don't think that Buffy knows yet whether she loves Spike or
not. In (finally!) talking it over with Tara, she reasons that
either she loves Spike--therefore, bad Buffy, loving an evil thing--or
she's using him--therefore, bad Buffy, she's taking advantage
of the feelings of someone who loves her. Either way, it's bad
Buffy. So she begs Tara not to forgive her.
Notable in this conversation is the fact that Buffy does not contradict
Tara when she says "[Spike] loves you." I think that
Buffy's finally admitting that Spike does, in fact, love her--that's
what the alley fight was about. If he didn't love her, then they
might be using each other. That wouldn't be as bad. But since
Spike loves Buffy, using him for release, gratification, to feel
something, whatever, is very wrong. (And another example of the
subversive quality of this series...)
Now to the fight. Yes, Spike stops defending himself and lets
her beat him to a pulp. What I see is the demise of Buffy's denial.
She pounds away at him, telling him that he is evil, has no soul,
can't feel anything real, can't love, etc. Then she realizes what
she is doing and that she doesn't want to do it (is it all remorse,
or is there a glimmer of love there?). There is horror in her
face, but is it that she is beating him up badly, or is there
also a realization there? Spike allows her to demonstrate outwardly
what she has been doing to him inwardly--hurt him, and badly at
that. Buffy's conversation with Tara indicates that she may realize
that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Spike ***SPOILERS for Dead Things*** -- Anne,
06:33:01 02/06/02 Wed
I also am a huge B/S 'shipper, and my first reaction to last night's
episode was virtually identical to yours. But I went back and
rewatched it and I now think that it left things, if anything,
more ambiguous than ever with regard to how the relationship will
ultimately turn out. In fact, what was brilliant to me about the
episode was that it intensified the poles of love/revulsion that
are creating the dramatic tension in the relationship, without,
to me, coming down clearly on either side. On the one hand the
beginnings of a conversation on the rug; the scene with the door;
the image, mixed in with the dark images in the dream sequence,
of Spike coming into bed with her in her own home and starting
to make love to her in a much more tender way than we have seen
in real life (contrast it with their "missing the bed again"
in his crypt); her repetition of his phrase to her "you always
hurt the one you love." On the other his attempt to pull
her into the shadows away from her friends; her vicious beating
of him; her response to Tara suggesting that her fear is that
she is using him, not that she loves him.
Some of these events can be interpreted in more than one way,
and I suspect deliberately so. Your interpretation of Buffy's
beating of Spike outside the police station actually makes a lot
of sense within your basic "Buffy really doesn't love Spike"
theory. But I don't think it's the only possible interpretation.
It's hard to believe that she would have been led to that degree
of violence against him if all she was worried about was that
she was using him. She has to see him as a threat, and I don't
see why she would do that unless she was at least afraid that
she might be in love with him. And all that "and I could
never be your girl" stuff smacks a little of "methinks-she-doth-protest-too-much".
Also, though it is completely true that Buffy responds to Tara
only when the latter mentions the possibility that she doesn't
love Spike, I think her total emotional devastation at this point
suggests something more than just horror that she is violating
her principles. Ironically, the quality and magnitude of her fear
and horror that she is using and hurting Spike because she is
having sex with him without loving him, actually imply that at
least in some way she does emotionally care about him.
As for the question "is it love?" -- I'm not sure the
answer is likely to be any more black and white than the answer
at this point to the question "is Spike evil?" (Clearly,
both. But he's been on a journey for a while that has been moving
him slowly from the dark towards the light. The question is where
he's going, not where he is now). Whatever their relationship
eventually proves to be, it seems still to be in that chaotic
formative stage at which labels don't help very much.
But you're quite right that the next step in the dance is likely
to be away, not towards. I don't think there's any way to go directly
from here to a point at which Buffy is willing to openly feel
or express love for Spike, even if (and it is an "if"
at this point) she does so at some level. And as you note, that
means she has to break it off because
she could never go on hurting someone that way once she had clearly
admitted to herself what she is doing.
If they eventually come together, two things are going to have
to happen first: they're going to have to go through a separation
period that allows them to actually become friends; and Spike
is going to have to become more integrated into the community
of friends that surrounds Buffy. The most clearly evil and unacceptable
thing Spike did in DM was not anything to do with sex per se,
but the attempt to separate Buffy from her friends, bringing her
into the shadows.
PS: For some reason I actually think the door sequence was promising
with regard to portents for the future of the B/S relationship,
but durned if I can explain why. One thing I will say, though:
remember that post from a couple of weeks ago complaining that
there are some people who would be interested in a Spike interaction
even if it was just with a blender? Well, uh, sorry, but I think
he did a pretty incredible job yesterday with that door . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I would say your evaluation is 100% correct. The age-old
musical question is... -- OnM, 07:31:29 02/06/02 Wed
... what will Spike accept in the form of a relationship?
From The Gift-- 'I know I'm a monster, I know you'll never love
me.'
Does he still believe this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I would say your evaluation is 100% correct. The
age-old musical question is... -- dubdub, 08:43:16 02/06/02 Wed
I think he's made it pretty clear he's willing to accept whatever
Buffy's willing to offer in the way of a relationship, even to
the point of recognizing that she has no feelings for him whatsoever
(which I don't think is the case, I just think he'd still settle
for whatever he could get).
What it comes down to, I guess, is will he be able to settle for
a non-sexual friendship and still maintain his loyalty to Buffy,
still attempt to do good for her sake? If he can, then I think
there's a good possibility she could come to love him, eventually.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I would say your evaluation is 100% correct.
The age-old musical question is... -- Lick, 09:32:02 02/06/02
Wed
What it comes down to, I guess, is will he be able to settle for
a non-sexual friendship and still maintain his loyalty to Buffy,
still attempt to do good for her sake? If he can, then I think
there's a good possibility she could come to love him, eventually.
I think I'll answer my own question in my above post about why
we were treated to the rug scene. From a purely simplistic point
of view, we see them as great friends. The rapport between them
was beyond comfortable.
The only time Buffy came close to her bristly little self was
after the "animal" comment and I was so proud of Spike
for not backing down and calling her on the reason for his comment.
"You wanna see the bite mark?"
The handcuffs didn't magically appear next to him. I suspect the
handcuffed Spike of her dream was a memory.
A breakup is inevitable. The trailer for next week showed us that
Spike is still going to fight for the relationship; it also showed
his swollen eye. Hopefully, eventually he'll decide that he truly
doesn't want to be her whipping boy any longer.
Assuming that Spike is able to stay on the straight and narrow
in the future, this scene shows the potential for future friendship,
respect, trust and partnership. If there is still a romantic/physical
relationship - bonus, although I believe they could move beyond
it and develop a stronger lasting bond.
But, is this what I believe will happen? Not likely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> WW and all other B/S shippers out there can you explain
to me... -- A8, 12:48:20 02/06/02 Wed
...once and for all what exactly is the appeal to you of this
relationship? I'm curious if your desire for this pairing would
be any different if Joss & Co. had shown Spike's past nasty deeds
in more graphic detail. After all, he still is an evil serial
killer. There hasn't been any evidence yet that he has tried to
redeem himself for the sake of his own redemption. In fact, his
killing of the bad guys has repeatedly been shown to be either
a recreational outlet for his inability to kill the good guys
or as an attempt to gain Buffy's approval (including his pledge
to protect Dawn).
There have been references to his delight in the stalking and
killing of children (remember his storytelling to Dawn in his
crypt?). If more attention had been paid on the show to the portrayal
of such horrible past deeds, would you still feel that this is
a desirable relationship? Why? Or do you feel that he has redeemed
himself merely by falling obsessively for Buffy? After all, unlike
Angel, spike has not been punished or made amends of any kind
for any of the bad things he has done.
Finally, I noticed that the focus of your analysis, above, was
on Buffy's feeling bad for using and abusing someone who loves
her. Was I the only one who noticed in her last exchange with
Tara that the biggest part of her self-revulsion with respect
to her relationship with Spike was the possiblity that she could
actually be in love with a thing (not a person) that promotes
and represents the polar opposite of her life's mission statement.
The fact that she feels bad that she might be using him just makes
her feel worse, but was not IMHO the main point of her plea for
Tara not to forgive her. She is a person with a soul and a conscience
so the fact that the thing she is using is just a thing without
a soul would not excuse her behavior. Just because a dog is vicious
and rabid does not give a moral person the green light then to
treat it any less humanely than is necessary to keep it from hurting
anybody.
Anyhow, just a few thoughts. But I really am curious why there
is such passionate support for this relationship. My comments
are not intended to criticize any of you (least of all you, WW)
for your interest in this plotline. Obviously, I just don't get
it. At the risk of being chauvinistic, is it because I'm a dude
(and a jaded one at that) and I just don't see romance, even fantasy
romance, with such an open mind? Please enlighten me as to why
this relationship is so important to you in the context of the
mission statement of the show and your personal preferences as
a viewer.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I should add... -- A8, 13:29:01 02/06/02 Wed
... I am not at all averse to the B/S ship from a dramatic point
of view. IMO it allows us to see how far the Hero can be drawn
into the abyss before getting back on track. This especially fits
into the theme of this year ('Grow up'). One has to make big mistakes,
acknowledge them, and strive not to repeat them in order to grow
up.
I see Spike as Buffy's siren call, pulling her off course with
the promise of instant gratification. But at what cost? And I
think that's what Joss & Co. have in mind. She has love all around
her already (Dawn, her friends), but her own self-absorption prevents
her from truly appreciating what she has (even without a romantic
relationship). And the fact the she knows what she is doing is
wrong makes it that much more enticing to her. In a way, she has
always felt deprived of a normal life (first with respect to her
slayer's duties, then with respect to her sudden parental responsibilities
as foster mom for Dawn), so Spike is also a rebellion against
responsibility. She also can use her resentment towards the others
for pulling her back as an excuse to misbehave. Even easier, however,
until Tara informed her otherwise, she could use the fact that
she was brought back "wrong" as an excuse to do all
sorts of nasty things she always really wanted to do, but would
not allow herself to do for fear of compromising her self-image
(as well as her heroic image to others).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: WW and all other B/S shippers out there can you
explain to me... -- Doriander, 13:29:55 02/06/02 Wed
I am not a shipper. In fact I didn't really buy into romances
in BtVS, so I don't know if that would discount my opinion. The
relationships in the show only ever appealed to me when they become
angsty. For instance, B/A was sappy, until Angelus' comeback.
The B/S relationship is dysfunctional, disturbing, divisive, which
is precisely why its compelling. It's drama, it's television.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> As I said above, the B/S ship is great from
a dramatic tension point of view, but... -- A8, 13:47:52 02/06/02
Wed
...what I don't understand is the sentiment from some of the posters
that this should be a "they lived happily ever after"
type of romance. So far, what we have been shown is that it is
a selfish and destructive relationship. It can't be a healthy
relationship especially when you consider its effect on innocent
bystanders. Buffy's neglect of Dawn in order to pursue this relationship
is especially unforgiveable given the fact that Buffy knows what
it is like to be abandoned by a parent (and also understands how
important it is to have parental love and support). Buffy had
Joyce and Giles in her formative years. She leaves Dawn by herself
or in the care of friends who have their own problems and growing
up to contend with. In this context, especially, once again, I
don't see the romantic appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: As I said above, the B/S ship is great
from a dramatic tension point of view, but... -- Rendyl, 14:25:07
02/06/02 Wed
Is your dislike of it because of Spike or because of Buffy? I
do not see it as she is neglecting Dawn, but more as she just
does not have enough hours in the day. Buffy is essentially holding
down two full-time jobs while trying to take care of a house and
a teenager. Like many single parents she just does not have enough
time or money to do it all. And like many single parents there
seems to be the perception that if she does -anything- for herself
she is neglecting Dawn. I understand not liking it for many of
the reasons you stated but I think it is unfair to say the relationship
is wrong because Buffy is 'neglecting' Dawn in favor of Spike.
As to the other, I do not see it as a 'happily ever after' thing.
Not so much because of Spike but because Buffy is the Slayer.
She is not going to grow old, she is never going to have a so-called
normal life. If she could accept the dark little things running
around in her soul and psyche then at least she could make a honest
choice about being or not being with him, but so far she is still
trapped in the 'I have to be perfect' illusion she has carried
with her for years.
On Spike (cough..no visual pun intended) it is not that we all
do not get it. Spike was a killing machine for a very long time.
But, Spike is a vampire. He was -supposed- to kill and eat people.
It was normal for his kind, his society. It is impossible to make
amends for that. The appeal of Spike, both as a character and
as 'love' interest is his uniqueness among vamps and the changes
he has and is still experiencing since he and Buff made a bargain
wayyy back in season two. For some of us I think it is less about
the 'ship and more that we just feel compelled to watch Spike.
Where is he going? How is getting there? How far can he go (either
way) before he can't get back? Is this 'love' thing as bad for
him as it seems to be for Buffy? Can the writers explore this
and still keep Spike true to himself?
Ren - who never once mentioned naked Spike -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thank for the input. Actually, I
don't dislike the relationship at all. -- A8, 15:01:01 02/06/02
Wed
I just don't see the romantic appeal given the context of what
has happened so far. It seems very much a diseased relationship.
The fact that Buffy has to hide it shows it to be an unhealthy
one
I do disagree with you about the neglect of Dawn though. Not being
a parent, I can't speak from experience from that perspective.
Having been a latchkey kid, however, I do understand the concept
of priorities and choices. One chooses to be a parent and to accept
parental responsibility. That doesn't mean that one kills oneself
sacrificing everything for the child because in the long-run that
would defeat the whole purpose of being a parent in the first
place. It also doesn't mean that one must totally disavow a personal
life. What we know from what we have been shown on BTVS this season,
however, is that Buffy spends virtually no time with her sister
(a girl who has undergone a tremendous amount of trauma in her
short time on Earth) while she spends an inordinate amount of
time having her sexual needs being serviced by Spike (their encounters
are portrayed as numerous and lengthy--no pun intended) at the
expense of any quality time with Dawn. Granted, Dawn is not an
infant. But all indications are that her perception that Buffy
can't stand to be around her could be justified by Buffy's actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: WW and all other B/S shippers out there can you
explain to me... -- Sophist, 14:10:43 02/06/02 Wed
Others can add their own comments (and will!!), but let me take
a stab at it. I'll take your points in order and then add some
thoughts at the end.
1. Spike's only motivation for doing good is to make time with
Buffy.
I have 2 problems with this. Factually, I don't think it's true.
It doesn't explain Spike's behavior over the summer and through
Bargaining. He protected Dawn and helped the SG even though he
believed Buffy was dead and even though they never told him of
the plan to resurrect her. It also doesn't explain the lack of
a card with the flowers in The Body.
The second problem is that I'm uncomfortable with judging people
by their supposed motives. In truth, we rarely *know* what motivates
another person. All we can do is judge the quality of an action.
From that, we can _infer_ a motive, but we can never have a divine
certainty about motive. TV contributes to a certain arrogance
about motives, because it gives a God's-eye perspective that,
IRL, we lack.
To me, it's more important to reward good behavior in the hope
of encouraging more of it. I don't really care why he protects
Dawn, I just want him to continue to do so. Spike's motives are
part of his own journey, not mine.
2. Spike hasn't been punished for his past misdeeds.
True. Neither was Mary Magdalene. The interesting issue with Spike
(and I do NOT know where ME is taking this storyline) is whether
he can redeem himself. That may involve punishment. It may involve
atonement. It may involve sacrifice. But I see no reason to write
off Spike until his story is over. There's a great post (now archived,
I think) about LOTR and Gandalf's retort to Frodo about whether
Gollum deserves to die. That expresses this point better than
I can.
3. Buffy's dilemma.
Others have pointed this out in other posts on this Board, and
I agree completely. Buffy's scene with Tara was tragic because
she saw herself as trapped: If she did love Spike, that was "wrong"
because he is a soulless demon. If she did not love Spike, she
was using him in a way that violated her own moral standards (similar
to, but not quite as bad as, what Parker did). She was hoping
to have come back "wrong" because that gave her an excuse
either way. She fell apart when Tara took the excuse away, and
refused to condemn her if she did love Spike. Tara (paraphrasing):
"He does love you, and he has done good things for you and
Dawn." So, no, I can't agree with your comments on that scene.
Here are things I like about the relationship: Spike has insight
into Buffy that no one else has; the redemption angle is fascinating,
especially given the parallel track on AtS; the chemistry between
SMG and JM rocks (a very subjective point, I know); the complexity
of Spike's character, which IMHO exceeds that of every other character
except maybe Willow, creates wonderful dramatic opportunities.
Eveyone else puts in .02, but my thoughts are only .01.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Your points 1 and 3 especially are well-taken.
-- A8, 14:18:33 02/06/02 Wed
I'm not so sure about giving prostitution and serial murder equal
billing though. Although, in terms of forgiveness and redemption,
Jesus would, I suppose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually, disagree with you about character
motivation being unimportant. -- A8, 14:35:54 02/06/02 Wed
A character without motivation for its actions isn't much of a
character at all IMO. I think a character's motivation rather
than being exclusive to its own journey can be useful in reflecting
on our own lives. Hypothetically, suppose Spike's (secret) motivation
for protecting Dawn was to preserve the key in the service of
a future Glory hellgod-type with the promise of making him a supreme
chipless big bad? [Actually that would be an interesting twist
that I wouldn't put past any of the Jossverse writers]. How would
that affect your opinion regarding the insignificance of character
motivation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually, disagree with you about
character motivation being unimportant. -- Sophist, 17:53:53 02/06/02
Wed
You make a very fair point -- from a dramatic perspective, motivation
is extremely important. Among other things, it allows the writer
to explore the psychology of actions which we, the viewers, can
then relate to our own lives.
I don't want to leave the impression that characters are without
motivations. They clearly have them. The issue is how we know
what they are.
It's easy when the author hands you the motivation -- MacBeth
wants to be king. In real life, we can't have certain knowledge
about motivations. Part of the brilliance of ME is that Spike's
motivations have not been given to us. We, like Buffy, are in
the position of having to infer them. We have to evaluate Spike
with the tools available in real life, because those are all we
have. That ambiguity has created the dramatic space for all the
controversy about Spike that seems so important to the show.
Although it's a bit of an easy out, let me turn your question
around: If Spike were staked today, how would we evaluate his
life since the beginning of S5? Has he been a force for good or
evil? In the Great Balance In The Sky, is his positive or negative
over that time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And I'm gonna do that A8...just as soon as I get home
from work... -- ;o) dubdub, 15:40:18 02/06/02 Wed
I'm all geared up to discuss this and I'm just so @#$%ing busy
I can't take the time until later tonight, but I did want to touch
base...
TTYL
WW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Looking forward to your post. -- A8, 17:49:06
02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: WW and all other B/S shippers out there can you
explain to me... -- Goji3, 16:37:13 02/06/02 Wed
Well, I mainly assumed that it was projection from many female
fans out there. They like Spike, and the feel closely assisiated/represented
in the show by Buffy, so, Pairing them together/seeing them together
is the next best thing. Well, That's my little opinion, and it
seem's to make sense since most B/S shipperes are female. It's
a subconscious thing, so it doesn't come through to the surface
much, but it's there....Not to sound sexist or anything, I should
admit something. I was/er...still kinda am an F/X-shipper. I identify
with Xander, and I like Faith, Bada bing, Bada boom.
Of course, I could be projecting that projection onto B/S-ers,
but, that's for you to decide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cheekbones, Redux -- WW, 19:27:18 02/06/02 Wed
...once and for all what exactly is the appeal to you of this
relationship?
I'm going to try to answer this question honestly below, given
that I sometimes suspect the appeal is really all in the cheekbones!
I'm curious if your desire for this pairing would be any different
if Joss & Co. had shown Spike's past nasty deeds in more graphic
detail.
In a word, no.
After all, he still is an evil serial killer. There hasn't been
any evidence yet that he has tried to redeem himself for the sake
of his own redemption. In fact, his killing of the bad guys has
repeatedly been shown to be either a recreational outlet for his
inability to kill the good guys or as an attempt to gain Buffy's
approval (including his pledge to protect Dawn).
There have been references to his delight in the stalking and
killing of children (remember his storytelling to Dawn in his
crypt?). If more attention had been paid on the show to the portrayal
of such horrible past deeds, would you still feel that this is
a desirable relationship? Why? Or do you feel that he has redeemed
himself merely by falling obsessively for Buffy? After all, unlike
Angel, spike has not been punished or made amends of any kind
for any of the bad things he has done.
Okay, kind of a multi-part question: first, I cannot regard Spike,
or any vampire, as a serial killer or a murderer. There was a
thread that addressed this issue several months back, and it turned
out to be surprisingly difficult for me to explain why. What it
comes down to is the definition of "murder." I think
it has to involve the unlawful taking of a human life by another
human being (or beings). Spike isn't human, so he is not capable
of murder, by definition, no matter how many humans (including
women and children) he's eaten in the past. To me, it's the same
situation as a grizzly bear or a shark killing and eating a human,
or a human being slaughtering a pig--not the same species, therefore
not murder. Obviously Spike can survive by getting blood from
other sources than humans, so he doesn't have to kill them. We
can survive by getting protein from other sources than meat, but
many of us (me included) don't.
Spike will never display remorse for the human lives he's taken
in the past. There is no reason for him to do so while he remains
a vampire. If he wants to redeem himself on a human level he can
only do so by the actions he takes from the point when, if ever,
he loses the chip or it ceases to function. There is no point
to him looking backward for redemption--he's not guilty of anything
but killing and feeding to survive.
Falling in love with Buffy has done nothing, in and of itself,
to redeem Spike. As Tara told Willow and Buffy when they discussed
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it can't have a happy ending if the
character's motivation is essentially a selfish one. The actions
that count toward redemption are only those that Spike might undertake
freely, with no hope of impressing Buffy by them, or gaining her
affection. In a perverse way it's as if he has to accept that
there is no possibility of Buffy ever loving him, of them ever
being a couple in the true sense of the word, in order for him
to begin to behave in a way that might eventually make that possible.
Finally, I noticed that the focus of your analysis, above, was
on Buffy's feeling bad for using and abusing someone who loves
her. Was I the only one who noticed in her last exchange with
Tara that the biggest part of her self-revulsion with respect
to her relationship with Spike was the possiblity that she could
actually be in love with a thing (not a person) that promotes
and represents the polar opposite of her life's mission statement.
The fact that she feels bad that she might be using him just makes
her feel worse, but was not IMHO the main point of her plea for
Tara not to forgive her.
On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree ;o). I really got
the impression that it was the perceived accusation of "using"
Spike that horrified her, rather than the suggestion that she
might be in love with Spike.
She is a person with a soul and a conscience so the fact that
the thing she is using is just a thing without a soul would not
excuse her behavior. Just because a dog is vicious and rabid does
not give a moral person the green light then to treat it any less
humanely than is necessary to keep it from hurting anybody.
This is my point, and the reason Buffy has to stop abusing Spike,
and stop having sex with him--we are in agreement there. But that
still doesn't fully answer your initial question.
It's too easy and glib to just accept that many women are attracted
to "bad boys." Sure, that does happen, but that's not
all that's going on here. Spike as a character is a bad boy who
has shown that he is capable of doing good and for reasons other
than impressing Buffy. As examples, he almost let Glory torture
him to death rather than betray Dawn. If he did that out of love
for Buffy, her gratitude wouldn't have done him much good after
Glory killed him. And he continued to protect Dawn and help the
SG after Buffy died--again, no hanky-panky type reward possible.
What is irresistable about Spike, IMO, is the William that still
manages to peak out from behind the demon.
In contrast, we have Riley, a "good boy," driven to
acts of evil in hope of somehow impressing Buffy or coming closer
to being the kind of man he imagines he wants. If I had to choose
which was the more endearing character, which has more hope of
winning the love of a woman like Buffy Summers, there's no contest.
Anyhow, just a few thoughts. But I really am curious why there
is such passionate support for this relationship. My comments
are not intended to criticize any of you (least of all you, WW)
for your interest in this plotline. Obviously, I just don't get
it. At the risk of being chauvinistic, is it because I'm a dude
(and a jaded one at that) and I just don't see romance, even fantasy
romance, with such an open mind? Please enlighten me as to why
this relationship is so important to you in the context of the
mission statement of the show and your personal preferences as
a viewer.
It may be because you're a "jaded dude," I don't know.
(I've never thought of you that way, LOL!) What I do know is that
it has a lot to do with cheekbones, and I can't deny that. But
the importance of the relationship has changed a lot for me after
last night's ep. I've accepted that Spike has not changed in any
way sufficient to allow Buffy to love him, and he never will as
long as he has a hope of convincing her to accept him as he is,
of lowering her to his level. Now she has to show him that that
is not possible, she can never allow herself to descend to his
level. The only option that ME has left to him, if he refuses
to give up on his love for her, is for him to raise himself, somehow,
to her level. I have no idea if that will ever happen, but I'll
be happy to watch in any event. It's a testament to the writers'
talent that they allowed me to reach this point as a result of
their ability to create multidimensional, realistic characters
and put them in situations that forced me to accept that shippiness
just isn't gonna cut it--I can't think of any other show that
could have destroyed a relationship of this kind, after such a
well-planned, painful, and extended build up, and left me wanted
to do anything other than refuse to watch it ever again!
Okay, that was pretty rambly...did it clarify the situation at
all?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Much clarification received here. Thanks humbly
for the enlightenment oh Woman of the Wise.;-) -- A8, 16:44:40
02/07/02 Thu
There is one more option you forgot to mention (or shudder to
contemplate). What would you think if Joss and his buds pull the
big shocker and finally stake Spike before he has a chance to
make any change? On how many levels would that be disappointing
to you, or would you take it all in the stride of unpredictability
on which ME prides itself.
Thanks again for the illumination. You may now resume cheekbone
contemplation.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey, I can take it...I think... --
WW, 18:55:31 02/07/02 Thu
The dramatic potential would be far greater if Spike were to be
staked while performing a truly selfless and redemptory (is that
a word?) act...such as throwing himself in front of a Scooby (other
than Buffy) in order to save them from being killed.
They could really wring the pathos out of that scenario, Buffy
realizing she'd misjudged him, grieving for her lost love, etc.,
etc.
I'd feel cheated if Spike were staked in his current state of
ambiguity...talk about an anti-climax! I would be disappointed
at that on so many different levels, I might begin to think Joss
had been lobotomized.
On the other hand, I could also accept an arc with a de-chipped
Spike turning Big Bad in a rage at Buffy's rejection, making him
a worthy opponent once again, and even leading to Buffy being
the one to stake him. Gimme the angst! Bring it on!! Just don't
make it, "Oops...*poof*...damn, Spike, I told you never to
sneak up on me like that! Oh, well..."
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thank You, Thank You -- Dochawk, 22:09:44 02/07/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You're welcome. You're welcome. ;o) --
dubdub, 06:45:48 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
apology needed -- Grace, 21:13:46 02/05/02 Tue
All I have to say is Buffy better give Spike one hell of an apology
for her behavior tonight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I've got your apology right here *plunge* *poof* -- Charlemagne20,
21:20:14 02/05/02 Tue
Buffy has to knick this habit in the bud of hers whether by getting
Spike a soul or staking him where she stands. Yeah I'm sorry she's
suffering because she's using a demon which can pass as a man
for sex but really aside from apologies being to heal herself...
Spike needs a staking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I've got your apology right here *plunge* *poof*
-- MrDave, 22:06:59 02/05/02 Tue
I have to agree. Dust him. Was I the ONLY person who found the
whole "you belong in the darkness" speech just a little
too sinister and malevolent? Spike may have deep feelings ...
even love for Buffy, but it is always on his terms, never hers.
I think if she had pummled his head RIGHT OFF I'dve been happer
than if she keeps punishing herself for being different. She may
get off with Spike, but there is no way they could ever have anything
that didn't have a barrier (like the door of the crypt) between
them.
He's EVIL folks. He just plays nice on TV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Play time..... -- Rufus, 22:15:07 02/05/02 Tue
Are you sure that Spike is totally evil. You said that he only
plays nice on TV, but we see plenty of times when he is in his
crypt doing supposedly evil things like 20 questions. I don't
think it's as clear as he's a vampire, therefore evil. I thought
of his words on the balcony as something to convince Buffy to
stay with him, but in no way did I ever get the idea that he'd
even like an evil Buffy.
In the alley Spike put on the game face so Buffy could put it
all on him....see a demon hit the demon it doesn't count. The
Buffyverse has many monsters but they are defined by what they
do, not what they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Play time..... -- MrDave, 22:28:44
02/05/02 Tue
The Buffyverse has many monsters but they are defined by what
they do, not what they are.
And whispering in a depressed and emotionally shell-shocked person's
ear that its okay to turn your back on all your friends and sneak
back to the crypt with the big-bad for some emotionally deficient
and physically abusive sex isn't evil?
I'd ask Warren to help you with that definition, but he's got
his own issues.
;) (all in fun right?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Play time..... -- Rufus, 22:41:03
02/05/02 Tue
The difference between the sex that Buffy had and what Warren
was out for is consent. Buffy clearly enjoys and is troubled by
the sex she is having with Spike. He was wrong to attempt to manipulate
her to stay with him but he isn't anywhere near the abusive type
that Warren is. I don't see the sex as abusive because Buffy and
Spike can only hurt each other emotionally. It may not be a relationship
that is the most healthy but it doesn't make Spike a totally evil
thing either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Play time..... -- Kathy,
15:08:18 02/06/02 Wed
New here...first time post. I was intrigued by what you wrote:
'The difference between the sex that Buffy had and what Warren
was out for is consent. Buffy clearly enjoys and is troubled by
the sex she is having with Spike. He was wrong to attempt to manipulate
her to stay with him but he isn't anywhere near the abusive type
that Warren is.'
I think thats the point though. I believe that the contrast the
writers are making between Spike (ambiguously controlling Buffy)
and Warren (obviously controlling Trina)
is similar to Buffy's battle with her own moral values. What is
write and wrong?? Spike and Warren are both abusing their respective
'slaves' but Spike is doing it in a less obvious way. Hence making
it all the more difficult for Buffy and a good deal of the viewers
to see that regardless of the tactics...Spike is still controlling
Buffy. And Buffy at this point is a basket case...unable to say
a definitive no...even though she is still saying no.
If Spike weren't a souless vampire I'd HATE his character. But
he is what he is.
Thats how I see it...I apologize if I offended anyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have to disagree with
you on who the "slave" is here... -- Dyna, 15:40:48
02/06/02 Wed
"Spike and Warren are both abusing their respective 'slaves'
but Spike is doing it in a less obvious way."
I strongly disagree that Buffy is acting as Spike's "slave."
I think her dream, the fight in the alley, and their conversation
in the crypt at the beginning made it pretty clear that Buffy
is the one commanding this situation, and Spike is acting the
role of her "willing slave." (See also his lyrics in
OMWF, where he describes himself that way.)
I think it's very typical of ME to subvert the obvious parallel--in
this case, the obvious reading is that Spike=Warren, because they're
both male and Spike appears in the Bronze scene to be "seducing"
Buffy. But the overall effect is the opposite--it's all about
Buffy controlling Spike, not the other way around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have to
disagree with you on who the "slave" is here... -- dochawk,
13:50:26 02/07/02 Thu
Since the first time Buffy kissed him Spike has been in control.
"You came back wrong" was all about Spike manipulating
Buffy. Buffy takes her rage out on Spike physically and emotionally,
but Spike controls it, pushes it. Spike is not pure evil (I am
not sure we have seen pure evil on the show yet, the mayor had
his human weakness (his love for faith) Glory had her Ben)), but
he is evil at his core, as are all vampires. The chip may be able
to control his ability to physically harm humans, but not the
silver tongue that slices and dices Buffy again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Just like real life... -- Dariel,
22:41:30 02/05/02 Tue
And whispering in a depressed and emotionally shell-shocked person's
ear that its okay to turn your back on all your friends and sneak
back to the crypt with the big-bad for some emotionally deficient
and physically abusive sex isn't evil?
No, it's not. Unhealthy, immature, dumb, but not evil. This is
how some people (yes, people) behave when they're in love with
someone who's toying with them. The healthy thing is to pull away.
But alas, life is not always so simple!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> In the early days of the show -- Vickie,
22:42:45 02/05/02 Tue
it was said that vampires were a metaphor for sexual activity
and feelings. If so, Spike is a great metaphor for maturing, but
not compromising or settling, sexual behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I agree (Minor spoiler for DT) -- Isabel,
16:44:59 02/07/02 Thu
I think Spike likes Buffy just the way she is. Good and fighting
evil. If he wanted an evil Buffy all he'd need do is turn her.
You can't say he hasn't been close enough. She even let him use
handcuffs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ok, strong disagreement here (spoilers for Dead
Things) -- Traveler, 22:56:28 02/05/02 Tue
"Spike may have deep feelings ... even love for Buffy, but
it is always on his terms, never hers."
I could write an essay about how Spike and Buffy's relationship
has always been on her terms, never Spike's. Certainly, Spike
often pushes her, but Buffy made all the decisions. She initiated
the kiss in OMWF. She started taking his clothes off in Smashed.
She comes to him again when she is invisible. She is even the
one who initiates every slugfest they've had in quite some time.
In this relationship, who is really the evil one? Oh, I agree
that Spike's "you belong to the darkness" speech was
a little sinister. But I think that really he just wants her to
stop looking down on him as an "evil thing." That's
why he tries to convince her that she is a part of his world.
But when she thinks that she has killed a human woman, he tells
her that she is a good person who just made a mistake.
Some posters keep repeating over and over "Spike is evil
and deserves whatever he gets," like it is some sort of mantra.
I firmly believe that evil is as evil does. Spike is definitely
no saint, and he has his issues, but he seems to be treading much
more on the good side of greyness this season. I can give you
many examples of good things that Spike has done since he fell
in love with Buffy, but I dare you to find more than two really
bad things that he's done during that time. Also, consider this:
if Buffy had staked Spike way back in season 4, then she, Giles,
and probably Dawn would all be dead, since he saved their lives
at various points. Thus, her act of mercy has already been repayed
three times over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The Spike issue will not be resolved for some
time yet, methinks. -- OnM, 06:46:27 02/06/02 Wed
Spike is an evolving character, and ME obviously does not intend
a quick evolution.
If Spike would 1) willingly have the chip removed, 2) avoid killing
or harming people and 3) work to atone for his past evil actions,
then I see him as being no different than Angel, soul or no.
It's very clear to me that Warren is evil, he's just very young
yet, so we tend to give his degree of evilness less weight in
the total scheme of things. Should Buffy kill him? I suspect she
will not, even given the chance to do so and get away with it.
Does anyone think it is possible that Spike is 'testing' Buffy
by using the 'sinister' routine he plays at on occasion? That
his goal is to get her to understand her own nature better, not
to change it? Secondly, success in getting Buffy to understand
her own darker tendencies (which she very clearly has) might help
her to better understand the true enemies she has to fight in
doing her job?
( Consider that professional profilers do exactly this-- they
'get into the heads' of the criminals they seek to capture and
bring to justice. This is a risky procedure, much like going undercover
and pretending to be a criminal. A good example of this would
be in a film I reviewed some months ago, Rush. )
My observation is that the writers have made, and are continuing
to make this point deliberatly ambiguous-- we don't know 100%
for sure what is going on in Spike's head, so we end up with just
this exact argument going on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Spike issue will not be resolved
for some time yet, methinks. -- Rufus, 08:18:18 02/06/02 Wed
I was looking at what Tensai had to say about Spike on his Spoiler
Slayer site and I kinda have to agree with him. Every boyfriend
that Buffy has had goes through a form of redemption story. Angel,
that's obvious and Riley was able to detangle himself from The
Initiative. So if a redemption angle is explored with Spike what
form will his take or will he even be successful? Spike would
be the most complicated redemption yet. He will have gotten to
that point without a soul, and what new questions does that fact
raise about demons?
As for what Spike is doing with Buffy, the scene in the alley
was the most telling one of the episode, he said to put it all
on him, accommodating Buffy by putting on the face she would react
most to. She unburdened herself on his face and realized that
what she had done was savage, that she is an animal, but one willing
to take the consequences for her actions. The next comes from
the CC I took notes from last night and would like your comments
on them.
Spike: That's it. Put it on me. Put it all on me. That's my girl.
Buffy: I am not your girl! You don't have a soul! There is nothing
good or clean in you! You are dead inside! You can't feel anything
real. I could never be your girl!
When she said "you are dead inside" I found that a bit
odd as Spike is undead inside and out, so who is Buffy really
talking about? Then she had her chat with Tara.
Tara: You're the same Buffy, with a deep, tropical cellular tan.
Buffy: You must've missed something. Will you check again?
Tara: Buffy, I promise. There's nothing wrong with you.
Buffy: There has to be. This just can't be me. It isn't me. Why
do I feel like this? Why do I let Spike do those things to me?
Tara: You mean hit you? Tara gets the idea of what Buffy is saying
about those things.
Buffy: He's everything I hate. He's everything that I'm supposed
to be against. But the only time that I feel anything....is when......Don't
tell anyone, please!
Tara: I won't.
Buffy: Oh, the way they would look at me. I--I just couldn't...
Tara: I won't tell anyone. I wouldn't do that.
Buffy: Why can't I stop? Why do I keep letting him in?
Tara: Do you love him? It's okay if you do. He's done a lot of
good, and he does love you. And, Buffy, it's okay if you don't.
You're going through a really hard time, and you're
Buffy: What? Using him? What's okay about that?
Tara: It's not that simple.
Buffy: It is, it's wrong. I'm wrong. Tell me that I'm wrong, please.
Don't forgive me...please don't forgive me...please don't forgive
me.........
Tara doesn't see anything Buffy has done as wrong, of course she
only has sketchy details, but she is non judgemental about the
sexual aspect of the relationship. She also backs up the idea
that Spike does in fact love Buffy. So why doesn't Buffy want
to be forgiven? For what, using Spike, possibly loving Spike,
doing things that now are obviously not because she came back
wrong? The writers have left this up in the air. Buffy denies
any feelings for Spike but repeated to the gang what Spike said
in the alley..."you only hurt the one you love". Add
in the Troika and their treatment of Katrina and you really see
monsters in action. The only way Warren wanted Katrina was on
her knee's, and his ability to consider how to dispose of it by
a demon devouring the remains was chilling. The boys switched
right away from she to it and then proceeded to attempt to frame
Buffy for what they did. People can be monsters and I think that
fact has to be a troubling one for a Vampire Slayer.
Is Spike using the same sinister routine he plays at to get her
to understand herself better....I'm not quite sure at this time
but it may be so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> OK, some quick comments and then
(sigh) back to the real world... ;) -- OnM, 09:07:30 02/06/02
Wed
I must confess I'm a sucker for these really intense episodes.
I've watched it twice now, and each time I cry when Buffy breaks
down and begs Tara to 'not forgive her'. The entire scene is so
raw and emotionally revealing about what the real Buffy is like,
and yet how she seems so unaware of it. This dichotomy is one
of the many aspects of the Buffy Anne Summers character that make
her so intrinsically compelling to me.
Usually I avoid the board for anything other than moderate skimming
after the ep airs, so it doesn't influence my thoughts excessively
in the eventual writing of my review. (Not that I don't value
input, but that I need to keep my personal thoughts relatively
contained and focussed). This ep was just too intense not to see
what others were thinking, however, and as I suspected, there
are a burgeoning series of discussions springing up.
I generally agree with the line of thinking that says the true
reason for Buffy's guilt is that she feels that she has used Spike
for sexual gratification, without loving him. She can only accept
this if she feels that she returned 'wrong', which she now knows
is not the case. (And I so love the writers' choice in going this
route, I'm perfectly happy to give up my 'immortality' theme and
it's possible consequences!)
There are numerous subtextural references to previous BtVS characters
and episodes in this ep, and I'll save dealing with them at length
until I post my review later in the week, but the one where Buffy
is pummeling Spike in the alley brings up her relationship to
Faith (and Faith's relationship to Buffy) so perfectly that it's
scary.
Gotta go now, but rest assured (or run away screaming!) that I'll
have lots more to say later on in the week. This was one of the
best eps so far this year, right up there with Bargaining and
Once More with Feeling, and as you already know, I think S6 is
one of the best seasons to date-- depending on how things turn
out by June, it may even exceed S2!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Spike issue will not be
resolved for some time yet, methinks. -- Elizabeth, 11:34:17 02/06/02
Wed
This is my first post to this site. I was just struck by the fact
that maybe Buffy was so upset when Tara said that she didn't come
back wrong was because of what Spike said..."You only hurt
the ones you love.." I think she finally realized that he
does love her, and that is why he can hurt her without the chip
giving him pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Spike issue will not
be resolved for some time yet, methinks. -- Rufus, 18:29:00 02/06/02
Wed
Thank you for posting and keep posting. Yes, I agree that Buffy
at least accepts that Spike loves her. I don't think she is quite
sure about her feelings for him. It could be a relationship that
is a "sex thing" that will fizzle out when she becomes
tired of a go nowhere relationship. Or, it will move on to an
actual love relationship. All bets are off if he does something
that proves that he isn't safe to exist along side humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Spike issue will not be resolved
for some time yet, methinks. -- Liq, 10:11:18 02/06/02 Wed
Does anyone think it is possible that Spike is 'testing' Buffy
by using the 'sinister' routine he plays at on occasion? That
his goal is to get her to understand her own nature better, not
to change it? Secondly, success in getting Buffy to understand
her own darker tendencies (which she very clearly has) might help
her to better understand the true enemies she has to fight in
doing her job?
I would like to believe this from the standpoint of appreciating
the growth of Spike's character. The problem we face is that it
becomes increasingly difficult to remember that Spike is a vampire.
I think he has been a bit too "humanized". It is very
easy to be sympathetic to his pain because we have seen his side
of the story whereas Buffy has not. When the writers decide it's
time to remind us of his vampirism, it is usually very jarring.
He's not good, but he's okay.
From Crush:
DAWN
I'm not a child.
(then)
I'm not even human. Not originally.
SPIKE
Well, originally, I was. I got over
it. Doesn't seem to me it matters
very much how you start out.
Spike will never truly be accepted until "how he started
out" (as Spike, not William)is acknowledged as being the
past. We will never see remorese from Spike for the past. His
salvation can only exist in his future. Ditto for Buffy. She is
no longer the "school girl". She is a child being reborn
into adulthood in the most painful way imaginable. Age's exception
post has clearly explained better than I would even attempt.
Another thing that has been bothering me is that Spike's behavior
during the Bronze scene and earlier this season in Life Serial
is in direct contrast to his message to Buffy in FFL:
SPIKE
The only reason you've lasted as
long as you have is, you've got
ties to the world. Your Mum.
Brat kid sister. Scoobies. They
tie you here but you're just putting
off the inevitable. Sooner or later,
you're gonna want it and the second,
the second that happens, I pray to God I'm
there. I'll slip in - have myself
a real good day.
The fact is that she no longer has her mother, the brat kid sister
is moving farther away emotionally and she has been oblivious
to her friends. She invited Spike to slip in and have his one
good day.
The problem with one good day? It always comes to an end and the
next day, real life returns with a vengence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: apology needed -- WW, 21:26:44 02/05/02 Tue
I completely agree with you, Grace, and I think we're going to
see that apology sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, I think
it's going to come hand-in-hand with a break-up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: apology needed** definate Spoiler for next week**
-- Rufus, 22:07:18 02/05/02 Tue
WW did you notice that Spike's encounter with Buffy is clearly
visible at next weeks party? Buffy can't hide from her actions
they will be as clear as the shiner on Spikes face.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> But... -- Darby, 07:20:45 02/06/02 Wed
Does it require any more explanation than "I wanted to confess,
Spike tried to hide the body and stop me, and I beat the bejesus
out of him"? They would figure that they know Spike's motivations,
and Buffy beating on Spike is nothing new.
Or Spike could say he fell on a doorknob...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Or he could say he choked on a pretzel.
-- LeeAnn, 21:21:22 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Or he could say he choked on a pretzel.
-- LeeAnn, 21:23:36 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Exactly... -- dubdub, 08:19:41 02/06/02 Wed
Is all gotta come to a head pretty soon, no doubt!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: apology needed -- Sophist, 08:57:28 02/06/02 Wed
I'm usually pretty challenged when it comes to spotting metaphors,
but I think there may be another one here.
Before we settle into a long-term relationship, we tend to have
a wide circle of friends. The emotional and time needs of a marriage
(or similar relationship) prevent us from devoting as much time
and effort to our friends. I think, in general, we tend to narrow
our friendship circle as we make room for a spousal equivalent.
Was the scene in the Bronze a metaphor for this transition? Is
Buffy looking for a way to keep Spike and keep her friends?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question based upon *Dead Things*...... -- Rufus, 22:11:21 02/05/02
Tue
We got to see the Troika turn a page and go from ineffectual nerds
to bad people. It took awhile but what seems to keep them going
is that there hasn't been any real consequences for them. My question
is "What happens to a person, what would they or we do or
be capable of, if we/they thought they wouldn't be caught?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question based upon *Dead Things*...... -- Deeva, 23:01:35
02/05/02 Tue
"What happens to a person, what would they or we do or be
capable of, if we/they thought they wouldn't be caught?"
Lots! I think that the fear of being caught has a lot to do with
not actually attempting a crime. Well, and maybe a conscience
or a sense of responsibility. But that doesn't always actually
work in most cases. Take, for instance, Dawn's klepto tendencies.
I did that at that age, big time. Not too proud of it. I had a
best friend who had been stealing for a year or so before I fell
into it. She was the cool girl in school and I wanted to fit in.
So I did it. It started with dime-store lipstick and then moved
onto department store clothing. The fear was huge but I still
did it. Then one day I woke up and thought what if my parents
had to bail me out? That did it, I stopped. My friend didn't and
she got caught a short while later.
The thing with stealing was really the rush of pulling it off
and not getting caught. You feel invincible, somehow you are out
smarting the system. You don't see yourself as a criminal. It
gives you a very weird sense of confidence. Like you're proving
something to someone but no one at all except maybe yourself.
You can't really go around bragging about it to others because
you've committed a crime but then again you don't really think
that there's anything wrong with it because no one's getting hurt.
And about my best friend/partner in crime, I'm not going to say
that there is a moral to this story or anything because there
is no end yet. I haven't seen her for many, many years. So I don't
know if our stealing has lead to her downfall or not. All I know
is that I'm not bad but I'm not good, either and that's ok.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting question, but it still boils down to ... --
Liq, 23:03:23 02/05/02 Tue
... your personal moral compass.
I would like to believe that my actions would remain consistent
regardless of fear of being "caught".
In space, no one can hear you scream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> True but consequence is a nice knowledge of where
one is -- Charlemagne20, 23:25:20 02/05/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I've used this quote before, but it's still one of
my all time favorites, so... -- OnM, 06:15:10 02/06/02 Wed
...I'll state it once again since it applies to what Liq just
stated:
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
...... Bob Dylan
One of the aspects of growing up, for me, is that you try to choose
your actions more because of what you feel is the morally or ethically
correct action, and not out of fear of punishment or retribution
from society.
As a simple example, if I see something I like in a store, I buy
it and not steal it. If I cannot afford to buy it, I leave it
behind. I do this because I view stealing as unethical, not because
I fear being arrested (which may or may not happen depending on
how clever I might be in perpetrating the theft).
I think that the ongoing arc with the geek chorus is illustrating
what happens when consequences do not occur for those who do not
inhabit the inherent 'moral compass' Liq speaks of-- the behavior
is reinforced, the persons involved become more arrogant. (Although
in the specific case under question, I think Jonathan is operating
purely out of fear of eventual punishment, he is clearly aware
that a critical line has finally been crossed, and it isn't one
he personally would have ever crossed on his own).
As to the other two members of the troika, ethically, Andrew is
far too self-absorbed and weak-minded, and Warren was already
obviously seriously amoral before his involvement with Andrew
and Jonathan.
So, none of these characters, to differing degrees, is 'honest'
enough to live 'outside the law'. Buffy, of course, very much
is, and always has been, even though she may think otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I agree with OnM -- Vickie, 07:51:03 02/06/02
Wed
(ooh, that's a safe stance!)
I think we saw what Buffy would do, if there were no consequences
to her actions, in Gone. And it was pretty mild stuff.
True, her treatment of the social worker was borderline (at best).
But otherwise her wild fling involved teasing a fashion victim,
"borrowing" a meter cops vehicle, and taking advantage
of Spike (which she does anyway).
I'm recalling what Faith had to practice when she inhabited Buffy's
body. "Because it's wrong! It's wrong."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Now wouldn't that just beat all... -- MrDave,
20:09:16 02/06/02 Wed
What if...
Jonathan provides the key to defeating the other two...gets sent
to jail and meets Faith (Who has been where he has been). The
two grow together and become a terrible twosome.
Faith has someone whe can trust. Jonathan meets a girl sho can
like him for being who he is (a powerful wizard, and appreciative
of her as a person...not a sex object).
Could be cool
Okay! dream over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question based upon *Dead Things*...... -- yuri, 00:36:07
02/06/02 Wed
I concur with Liq below, there's no one answer, it's all about
individual moral compasses and all...
And okay, after writing this I think it's rather odd and not well
thought out, so if anyone reads this, my actual answer to the
question is the last little paragraph at the bottom. It's funny
that this is one of my longest posts and really, I think, the
most unintelligible.
but I had to respond briefly to the moral qualms of stealing.
I used to steal, very heavily, in fact, thousands of dollars worth
of stuff if you count it up, and for a very long time. I did not
steal from small businesses or places I respected, and I didn't
steal for the thrill, I stole because I didn't have money for
the things that I wanted. (Society's demand that we appreciate
and love and want and have "things," is a whole different
story.) And I got caught. And I still don't really regret it or
somehow think it was "bad." (I was caught underage so
it's sealed -- always knew it had to stop at 18, regardless.)
I bring this up because I think that certain kinds of theft and
many other "criminal" acts are looked at as "morally
wrong" just because of law, and what adults absent-mindedly
pound in to your head as you grow up, and not because of true
beliefs. This has happened consistently with many things, the
first that come to mind are mind-altering substances and promiscuity.
I recently learned about Lawrence Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral
Development (and I really don't have much background in the intellectual
framework that has been layed for this subject, so if the guy's
a hack, excuse me) The sixth stage of moral development - "the
moral 'promised land,'" - is when your idea of justice is
based on your personally established set of principles, but most
people like it at stage four, where you exhibit respect for law
and order. Anyhow, I think that these two stages are very often
confused on BtVS. Purposefully I mean, by the writers, but not
by the characters. I think Buffy, in times of distress, often
reverts to four, because it's easy, because it's black and white
(ideally) like she likes it, as someone (I really have no short
term memory) recently pointed out. Usually, the six overpowers
the four, and we have seen that many times, but tonight four won,
pushing Buffy into that police station, a decision we all know
was ridiculous. (Actually, maybe not, sorry! That's my opinion.)
I think it won because Buffy wasn't in a place where she could
trust her own sense of morality, so she needed to use someone
else's.
So after getting all that out, I realize I wouldn't be the same
if there were no consequences for my actions, because the moral
compass of the society that I live in is not in tune with mine.
"What happens to a person, what would they or we do or be
capable of, if we/they thought they wouldn't be caught?"
I think the automatic reaction to this question is that you're
a better person if you wouldn't do anything differently, but that
supposes that in getting caught, the people who are catching you
are ultimately right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> oops, that was supposed to go under Deeva's response.
sorry! -- yuri, 00:38:39 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who's the law? (SPOILERS for Dead Things) -- Robert, 08:40:32
02/06/02 Wed
What I find interesting with the geek troika is that they never
express fear or concern regarding the police. When Warren kills
Katrina, Jonathon is immediately afraid of Buffy. He knows that
Buffy will trace the murder back to them and he knows Buffy will
not let them off this time.
I guess that, once again, Principal Snider is proven correct.
The police in Sunnydale really are deeply stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Suicide?! Right. -- yez, 14:16:13 02/06/02 Wed
They really, really are. How else do you explain them labeling
Katrina's murder as a suicide? I mean, people jump off of bridges,
they jump off of cliffs... Who jumps "off" a steep slope
to tumble themselves to death?!
I found this a little less than plausible, shall we say.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Suicide?! Right. -- MrDave, 20:32:55 02/06/02
Wed
Cop 1: Hey Tom! The body is over here
Cop 2: Has the coroner looked at it yet? {Muches into a raspberry
jelly donut...powder drips down his uniform}
Cop 1: Nah...But I checked it over. No neck ruptures. No strange
colored splotches. No drugs.
Cop 2: Hm...Murder? Any suspicious wounds? Is her neck bruised?
{Reaches up with a jelly-covered finger and indicates a place
on the side of his neck where bruises might be if she were strangled}
Cop 1: Nope. There is this head trauma...see? Her brain is caved
in here...see? She must have fallen and hit her head.
Cop 2: Nah, that looks more like blunt trauma from a weapon...see
the fracture pattern? Looks like a big pipe or a bottle. And look
at the abrasions on her legs. This body was dragged. Look over
here...{Takes a few steps...trips on the body and rolls down the
hill picking up leaves and sticks} (muttering) Nuts. (looks up
the hill and shouts) Hey!
Cop 1: {Hears the shout, whips out his gun and fires into the
dark at the bottom of the hill. There is a thud. Then silence.
The coroner strolls up in a casual way and startles Cop 1 staring
into the darkness.}
Coroner: Is this the body (indicating Katrina)?
Cop 1: (jumpy...gun still out) Uh...yeah. I think it got Tom too...look
down there...
{Coroner walks slowly down the hill...find the COP2's body...examines
it and walks back up the hill}
Coroner: Yep. Its drug-related neck ruptures all right. He has
powder all over his face and red marks on his neck. Looks like
she fought him off and stabbed him with a branch...there is a
hole in his chest and he is covered with sticks and leaves.
Cop 1: (looking nervous) Uh, what do we tell the Chief about Tom?
Coroner: I'll tell him she committed suicide in remorse for killing
Tom by accident and that Tom was hiding his PCP habit but it finally
caught up with him.
Cop 1: {holsters weapon} Great. That'll work. Didn't like Tom
anyway. He was way too smart...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current board
| More February 2002