February 2002 posts
Links Between 'Dead Things' and 'Waiting in the Wings' Major spoilers.
Adult Content. Part One. -- Age, 01:36:42 02/06/02 Wed
There are spoilers in this posting for season five, six of 'Buffy'
and season three of 'Angel' as well as major spoilers for this
week's eps of 'Buffy' and 'Angel' as I compare the two. There's
also adult content.
I'm not going to analyze these eps much. I just want to point
out some of the similarities between them, similarities which
cannot be simply coincidence, in my opinion.
Before I do that I just want to say something about Buffy's going
to the police. I think that this is the intersection, so to speak,
of her adolescent attitude(black and white thinking, wanting a
heaven, but making a hell, and running away from responsibilities)
and the adult attitude of taking responsibility for herself and
her actions.
The three nerds/children attempt to create their version of heaven,
a heaven of childhood fantasy, but it leads to the opposite, an
adult hell of reality when they kill Katrina(as always the deconstructor
of the oppositional myth, the adult, Katrina, in this case, has
to be repressed, ie killed ).
Buffy is doing the same thing: because she wants to see herself
only as good, she is ashamed of herself for what she's doing with
Spike. No Buffy isn't an animal...only(it seems intriguing that
Fred on 'Angel' states that her first sexual fantasy was with
an animal.) In her shame Buffy uses the consequences of Katrina's
death(indictment and jail) as a punishment, but this is really
to keep her oppositional thinking intact(good opposed to bad).
She is attempting to preserve her good image of herself by being
punished for the shame that that image has created; and, this
is also Buffy running away from her familial responsibilities(by
being in jail, a kind of living suicide), by owning up to another.
The irony between our knowing she didn't kill Katrina and Buffy's
ignorance of this fact underscores this. Whedon is saying that
Buffy isn't guilty of a crime, not guilty therefore of any bad
in her relationship with Spike. She didn't come back wrong. There's
nothing wrong with her.
On the other hand, Spike is doing the opposite of what Buffy is
doing. She's trying to preserve the 'good' pole of the opposition
in herself; while Spike the vampire is trying to preserve the
'bad' in himself by attempting to pull her to the shadow world,
the world of dark. Both are still thinking in oppositions. In
this way, Buffy will try to get herself punished for something
that isn't wrong(don't forgive me); and Spike won't open to anything
more than the immediate consequences of his love for Buffy. Buffy
will own up to something she hasn't done and Spike will simply
throw away the body.
Both need to do the same thing: deconstruct oppositional thinking
in themselves: for Buffy there's nothing wrong with her aggression
and sexuality, ie nothing wrong with being an animal; for Spike
there's nothing emasculating about not feeding off of others,
ie nothing wrong with being human.
Okay let me explain more: Buffy in going to the police does take
responsibility for what she thinks she's done. This is the adult
way of dealing with things. Buffy believes that she is responsible
for the death of Katrina and wants to turn herself in. Unlike
the three nerds/children who really are responsible and don't
want to take the consequences of their actions. It is Buffy's
taking responsibility, her doing an adult thing that leads to
her discovery that she isn't responsible for the killing: she
has gone there not only to take responsibility for Katrina's death,
but also to punish herself for her shame and to run away, or at
least this is a symbolic representation of what she had wanted
to do on the tower back at the end of season five, run away from
life, but when she gets to the police station she begins to understand
that she's done nothing wrong and there's nothing to run away
from, ie the change from adolescent attitude to adult attitude
automatically changes the perspective: you can cope, you don't
need to run away and there's nothing wrong with your 'bad' side:
it's just part of your natural self. In acting like an adult she
begins to take charge of herself and see who she is, instead of
trying to blame the resurrection spell for her actions.
What I'm getting at is there are two reasons, one based on child-like
running away and oppositional thinking creating shame and the
other based on an adult-like way of taking responsibility which
are operating in Buffy as symbolized by the three nerds/children.
It is when Buffy does what the three nerds cannot do, take adult
responsibility, and not run away, does she start to face the problem
of Dawn and her own identity, because with the change of attitude
they won't be problems. Had she not, then she was as good as dead
anyway because the three nerds had her on tape. In metaphorical
terms if Buffy had been as childish as the three nerds, and not
wanted to own up, then symbolically their act would be her act:
she would have been defeated by her own pull to stay adolescent
as symbolized by the three nerds.
Katrina's death is ruled a suicide because this is what Buffy
had been doing in her adolescent way of dealing with the world:
running away by jumping off the tower. The three nerds represent
the adolescent way of doing things, the running away, the all
or nothing, the big leaps off of towers. The act of killing Katrina
by the three nerds as an adolescent act of trying to run away
from responsibility is likened in Buffy to her trying to run away
using death as a means. We are reminded of this when Buffy repeats
the words that she used on the tower. Whedon allowed Buffy that
one last act of suicide at the end of season five because she
was still an adolescent; this is why he allowed that act to be
both a suicide and an act to save the world: he was making allowances
for his adolescent character. Now that Whedon believes she's supposed
to be an adult such a way of running from life is not an option,
and is called suicide, the act of an adolescent trying to run
away from responsibilities in the same way that the three nerds
run away from theirs by killing Katrina. This is why Katrina's
death is ruled a suicide: it is the adolescent act of running
away.
Okay, as you know, I believe that right from ep one season one
of 'Angel' the 'Buffy' and 'Angel' eps were linked for content
each week, and the arcs were similar, and almost the same in theme
and content. Last week's two eps(aired on different weeks) had
the central motif of making money. The eps before that were about
deciding to live again, with invisibility/ghost, uncovering hidden
worlds, and Christmas stories common to both.
This week's two eps had many images and themes in common, and
were, as always, deliberately in my opinion made to be this way
for the several reasons I pointed out in an earlier posting.
Here are some of the possible common images and motifs, the links
between the eps:
Firstly, dance was common to both with Dawn learning to ballroom
dance and then jitterbug, dances from the past in 'Buffy'; and
with Angel's taking the Fang gang to a ballet which really was
from Angel's past, literally. In this way the motif of being in
the same choreographed steps was common to both episodes, with
the movement to start afresh coming at the end of both: the ballerina
stops the same performance and Angel begins to open to Cordy by
saying he wants a new pattern; while Buffy begins to open up to
Tara, a first step in beginning a new pattern.
The idea of being caught in time is also common to both as Buffy
is attacked by demons who create a time bubble distortion; and
the ballet is caught in the time control of the owner/wizard,
the Count... Dracula figure with the jewellery to match wanting
the ballerina all to himself, feeding off of his love for her,
perhaps like Spike may be doing, wanting all of Buffy to himself
because of his love for her.(And because perhaps like the ballerina,
Buffy doesn't love Spike or want to love Spike, Spike feels he
has to draw Buffy into his world in order to keep their relationship
going, ie draw her away from the 'good' she's attached to in order
to stop her from being ashamed of their relationship.)
(Incidentally it does seem that Tara's being a guide in Buffy's
dream and then being the light/guide helping to get Xander and
Willow out of the woods in 'Bargaining' seems to have significance.
The writers seem to be giving her some role in Buffy's movement.
We see this in Tara's deconstruction of opposites: it's okay to
love Spike; it's okay not to. She's presenting a more adult perspective.
Also if you noticed, there was a star/sun broach on Anya; and
stars on Dawn's blanket. These images, symbolic of childhood heaven
indicate that they still have issues arising from adolescence
or from wanting to make everything a heaven or from when Buffy
died.. It seems pretty obvious from Dawn's actions.)
End of Part One.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Links Between 'Dead Things' and 'Waiting in the Wings'
Major spoilers. Adult Content. Part Two. -- Age, 01:41:11 02/06/02
Wed
Again major spoiles for this week's eps. Adult content.
Getting back to the two ep links: the motifs of being enslaved
and taken over by another are common to both. The three nerd/children(I
don't even want to call them nerds because of what happened in
this ep; by trying to remain as children they had to stop the
adult world from seeking them out literally by killing an adult,
a young woman, and creating consequences that will bring their
childhood heaven into an adult hell sooner or later(speculation,
not spoiler.))
The three nerd/children use an orb, as the count uses his round
gem, both of which are very easily broken, to enslave the people
that they have feelings for. Both the Count and Warren cannot
let go of their objects of love: the Count creates of his a ballerina
doll to repeat the same steps over and over again, his heaven
thus creates her hell; Warren creates a French maid doll to use
over and over again, his heaven is her hell, with another word
for it being rape. The ballerina is equally being raped, but it's
dressed up(the tutu is simply another version of the French maid's
short skirt) in classical ballet: the Count cares not a fig for
the performance, for the ballet, for the music, for the expression,
for her art as the ballerina says to Angel. She is being made
to adulterate her art for the Count. Just as Warren is using Katrina
for 'love', the Count is using the Ballerina's body also. Both
are very much children as they are trying to create a fantasy
world, stop the natural progression of time.
I might suggest that this applies to Spike in the sense that he
is trying to have Buffy all to himself. It isn't rape, but there's
a movement on his part to separate Buffy from her human aspect.
Buffy also is wondering what is wrong with herself: why does she
allow Spike to do the things to her. Is she under his thrall?
I think the question being explored in both eps is whether love
and sexuality can be part of a mutual relationship or are they
still being used as ways of masturbating, as the three nerds/children
in 'Buffy' are really doing, or as the discussion about masturbation
at the beginning of 'Angel' indicates. Are the genuine feelings
of love still attached to trying to get something only for oneself
or is the love for the other person selfless as well. Obviously
Buffy's having died and Spike's not being able to save her is
part of the reason he dumps Katrina's body. Here is the opportunity
to save Buffy, to make amends to her. He fails again it seems
as the body is discovered. But there is a sense of his doing this
also only for himself, doing something that would endear her to
him only, to have their own murderous secret together away from
the human world. He would then have her all to himself for eternity:
I think the word for that is vampire, like the Count Dracula image
of the count in the 'Angel' ep.
In the 'Angel' ep, it is Fred and Gunn who represent this mutual
love as they may represent the deconstruction of oppositional
thinking through being a black male and a white female, and loving
each other with a respect for each other's point of view. In fact
the scene where Fred thinks she's lost Gunn because of the wound
is the antithesis of Spike and Buffy's when Spike thinks he's
lost Buffy to jail. Spike tells Buffy that her point of view is
wrong; while Gunn tells Fred that if she cares that much her point
of view must be right.
Not only this, but Wes's selfless act reinforces the idea of the
selflessness aspect of love in contrast to the selfish. He deconstructs
the myth both in the 'Angel' ep and repeated out loud in the 'Buffy'
ep of hurting the one you love by instead accepting the pain himself.
Of course the idea of secrecy is common to both episodes as Spike
dumps the body making it his and Buffy's secret; while the secret
lovers of the 'Angel' ep become the secret sexual encounter of
Cordelia and Angel.
There's also the motif of trust that is common to both. This may
be nothing, perhaps just played for humour but a couple of times
in 'Angel' Gunn mentions that he has trust issues; while on 'Buffy'
the issue of trust comes up between Spike and Buffy.
Also there is a connection between Buffy and Angel in the sense
of them feeling wrong about themselves. Angel doesn't feel like
he has anything to offer Cordelia, and even tells Lorne that he's
reading him wrong(ie giving him a false readout as Buffy suggests
Tara is doing when she tells her there's nothing wrong with her)
and Buffy feels there's something wrong with herself. I would
suggest that Angel's fear of a relationship is founded also in
the idea that he's going to repeat the same pattern over again;
I'm not sure, but Buffy may fear the same thing with Spike. He
is a vampire like Angel. But this may not be so, as Buffy just
can't accept that she can love a creature who doesn't have a human
soul. I'll have to think about that. I certainly would like someone
else to put forward a comment about this.
One other link may be in the idea of seeing the real me. Buffy
doesn't want to admit that it's been she and she alone who has
been allowing Spike to be sexual with her. She wants the resurrection
spell to have created a false self, a role she's been playing,
like a ballerina on the stage, but she finds out that this isn't
the case; she can't just dismiss what she's been doing as a script
written by the spell, and one in which she can simply remove her
costume so to speak to reveal her true self. Of course Angel and
the Fang gang step out of their normal selves and go into costume.
But do they uncover their true selves in doing so? Are Cordy and
Angel simply playing a role when possessed by the lovers, or can
the lovers only possess them because they are acting out their
true feelings for one another as Angel starts to suggest? The
motif of real self and playing a role is common to both eps. In
fact the motif is probably the same: by dressing herself up in
the costume of the resurrection spell, Buffy has revealed to herself
an aspect of her true nature; by Angel and Cordy getting into
costume also, they have revealed aspects of themselves that otherwise
would have remained hidden.
Okay, I think that's it.
Here are just a few observations that have nothing to do with
links:
One particular movie came to mind when watching both eps, but
in particular the 'Buffy' one: the film called 'The Collector'
starring Terrence Stamp and Samantha Eggar. It too is a story
about a guy who has feelings for a woman, but imprisons her.
Also the scene in the Bronze(?) when Buffy is above the others
with Spike reminded me of the scene with Willow and Amy; and of
the scene with Dru and Spike when he fed off of the human being
she killed. I got the sense that Spike was trying to pull her
into yet another opposition, that of predator and prey where he
and she are superior on the food chain, above the herd of devalued
potential human victims down below.
There was a repetition of the woods imagery when Katrina was killed
as if with the time demons we were going back in time as a kind
of retrospect from last year. Buffy discovers Katrina's body,
'The Body'; then she tells Dawn that she has to do this, repeating
the words she said on the tower. It's as if there's a small recap
of events to show where we've come from, the influences on Buffy
as she starts to take responsibility for her life. This would
coincide with the appearance of Tara as guide, as Kimberley, I
believe, suggested, to adulthood.
Finally, I can't tell you how awful seeing Katrina die was. This
vibrant intelligent self possessed young woman was simply snuffed
out in one blow by a child who couldn't see further than the consequences
to himself. And how could they not see that what they were doing
to her was rape? If this isn't a message about the importance
of growing up, I don't know what is? Playing at being a villain
when you are six is fine; it's called cops and robbers, and if
it's played by real kids and real adults then the kids get a real
charge out of having power over the grownups for a while. But
when young men who should be growing up attempt instead to play
at having children's fun with real adults, adult things happen,
with adult consequences, and a young woman has to suffer a terrible
price for her involuntary participation. You can't have real sex
with a real person and pretend to yourself that it's just a child's
game, a bit of fun.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Links Between 'Dead Things' and 'Waiting in the
Wings' Major spoilers. Adult Content. Part Two. -- Rufus, 02:18:47
02/06/02 Wed
If you liked the episode here's the lyrics to the Bush song that
played while Buffy and Spike were at the door before the demons
arrived to distort reality.
Out of this World
When we die we go into the arms of those that remember us.
We are home now out of our heads, out of our minds, out of this
world, out of this time.
Are you drowning or waving.
I just want you to save me.
Should we try to get along.
Just try to get along.
So we move we change by the speed of the choices that we make
and the barriers are all self-made.
That's so retrograde.
Are you drowning or waving.
I just need you to save me.
Should we try to get along.
Try to get along.
I am alive I am awake to the trials and confusion we create.
There are times when I feel we're about to break.
When there's too much to say.
We are home now out of our heads, out of our minds.
Out of this world, out of this time.
I believe that Tara just threw Buffy a lifeline at the end of
the show. Buffy may be able to feel with Spike, but she was still
drowning, waiting to be saved. It's time for her to move on, grow
up, which started when the dream made her go to the police.
Not only this, but Wes's selfless act reinforces the idea of the
selflessness aspect of love in contrast to the selfish. He deconstructs
the myth both in the 'Angel' ep and repeated out loud in the 'Buffy'
ep of hurting the one you love by instead accepting the pain himself.
Spike may not have fully grasped why the concealment of Katrina's
death was killing Buffy. The secret of an innocent death would
only have been a prison of guilt for Buffy, she understood that
what she thought she did was wrong.....something the Trio tried
to unload on her instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
As long as the death was a guilty secret Buffy would never have
been able to sleep again. It's when Spike had Buffy act out her
fear on him that he finally seemed to grasp the fact that she
needed to do what was right, even if it made her a literal prisoner
of the state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spoilers for 'Dead Things' Season Six. --
Age, 18:41:12 02/06/02 Wed
The dream may be Buffy's struggling with her animal instinct for
self preservation. She has been trying to deny that she's an animal,
but she can't. But to give into the instincts of the animal at
the expense of the human is like doing what Spike did.
In the exchange between Buffy and Spike outside the police station
it is the human talking to the animal. The animal is telling the
human that he's not going to let her waste her life; while the
human is telling the animal that there are human values. The two
characters, opposite in their thinking, are working against one
another. She can never be his girl; and he can't understand why
this is killing her. But both have value because we are physical
thinking feeling creatures.
When Spike says to Buffy that we hurt the ones we love, this is
not true; Buffy may love Spike, but that's not why she hurts him.
She hurts him, and he hurts her(by dumping the body) because of
their oppositional thinking, because the very thing that they
fear in themselves as demon(yes the human is the demon to the
vampire, the thing, the deconstructor of its opposition that must
be repressed by controlling it, killing it, showing that it has
no value other than as food) is what the other is attached to.
They hurt the one they love because the other is the aspect of
themselves they don't want to admit they have, or must have.
At what point do the two 'halves' influence each other enough
for them to open to what they fear in themselves?
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: nerds/children -- leslie, 09:29:49 02/06/02 Wed
I think of them as the Band of Evil Weenies. I think that sums
them up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy - fears and tensions. -- Caroline,
14:00:39 02/06/02 Wed
"I'm not sure, but Buffy may fear the same thing with Spike.
He is a vampire like Angel. But this may not be so, as Buffy just
can't accept that she can love a creature who doesn't have a human
soul."
I think that Buffy's problem is that, with the chip in his brain,
Spike is, in her view, like a criminal in prison. Without the
chip, she thinks that he would most likely revert to his instinctive,
people-eating ways. Her repugnance at feeling anything remotely
tender for such a creature is undertandable.
But Tara has helped to point out a few things here for Buffy.
Buffy doesn't realize that just as she is on a journey to self-knowledge
and maturity, so is Spike. He has basically been an adolescent,
taking what he wants etc, until he got chipped. With the chip,
he is starting to learn some scruples and, as a result, has become
less purely evil and more morally ambiguous. (Someone quoted Joss
in another thread talking about a lot of room inbetween the polar
opposites of good and evil, and that someone with a soul essentially
is someone who follows the 'evil star' not the 'good star').
Just as Buffy's continual denial of any redeeming feature in Spike,
Spike also wants her to deny her 'goodness' so they can be together.
He is also denying the dilution of his own evil, thus what he
said to her in the Bronze scene. Neither is seeing that they aren't
purely 'good' or 'bad' but perhaps existing inbetween the polar
opposites, as adults usually do. And that it can be a daily struggle
to find out what right and wrong are and to behave accordingly.
And here is the problem for Buffy: Spike began following the evil
star as a vampire - what star will he choose to follow if he becomes
de-chipped? Because along with acquiring his new scruples comes
an element of choice (free will?). Will he choose to follow the
good star? Or is it only his feelings for Buffy that have led
to these new scruples and he'll revert to his instinctive behaviour
once de-chipped? I think basically what I'm saying is that will
Spike choose adolesence or maturity and self-responsibility once
he has a choice?
I hope that I made some sense. Many thanks Age for a brilliant
piece.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike and Buffy - fears and tensions. Spoilers
to Present. -- Age, 18:48:37 02/08/02 Fri
A thought occurred to me as I was reading your posting: Whedon
has shown the transition from childhood thinking to a more adult
perspective to be one that is difficult and fraught with pain
and fear.
In one of the threads above(and I've forgotten which; please will
someone give me a memory) there was a mention of Angel and Spike
and a pattern continuing. This got me thinking(or perhaps I'm
simply repeating what the thread said above): firstly, Whedon
has already set up deconstruction of opposites by having the good
slayer attracted to the bad vampire. But, just as last season's
jump off the tower was Whedon's allowing Buffy an out due to her
adolescence, Angel's having a human, as well as a demon soul,
was another concession to adolescent Buffy: she had an excuse
for being attracted to him. But, with Spike there is no excuse
because he has no human soul. Whedon is making Buffy the adult
face a truth about herself because it's time to grow up. No more
excuses. No more outs.
But, as you point out in your posting it is difficult because
Buffy is afraid and is attached to certain ideas, even attached
to oppositional thinking. It's as if Whedon is describing the
process we all go through: as kids we have a certain set of instincts
and behaviuors set up by genetics which get reinforced or punished,
shaped by parenting and culture. We develop a sense of self divided
as good or bad: don't hit your brother; or boys don't play with
dolls, that's sissy stuff; or don't play with yourself down there,
it's dirty and evil. Our natural characteristics get shaped to
fit in the culture of the family and community in a way that is
necessarily simplistic, although not necessarily negative as my
examples imply. But, the process of conditioning of the child
is to prepare him or her to live in that society as a self among
other selves. It is a process of limiting the self; although it
can also be a process of harnessing the potential of the individual
such that unmanaged energy gets directed into a purpose that the
individual may use for his and society's benefit later in life.
It is the process of undoing the simplistic dichotomy whose inculcation
is a necessary step and which furnishes a stable and comfortable
structure that the child can understand which Whedon is pointing
at. Just as the structure provides a zone of stability and comfort
in which the child can learn and establish an identity, the process
of deconstructing the strict opposition of that structure is fraught
with pain and fear. But, it is necessary for the young adult to
do this, not become amoral and do whatever he or she wants by
short circuiting the process and becoming the equivalent of a
vampire like Warren, but develop his or her own identity by taking
responsibility for himself and based on his own values.
The three nerds don't want to go through the process, but want
to stay perpetual Peter Pans, living off society, ie types of
vampires.
That Whedon has made it so hard for Buffy by making the objects
of her desires so repugnant may show why there are so many vampires
in Sunnydale, why the process breaks down, especially if parents
never went through the process properly themselves. One of the
continuing motifs of these series is the parent who would rather
eat his or her young than bring them up, especially fathers.
What you said about evil star is interesting. Buffy has been trying
to get the star of childhood back, following its path in the night(death/vampire)
sky. This has been the parallel to the three nerds who equally
haven't wanted to assume responsibility for their lives but cheat
their way through it like children. But, the state of being an
adult comes in a physical sense despite what we want or think
should happen, and reality will pierce illusion(this is probably
why we haven't seen Buffy so much on patrol, as slayer she usually
represents the piercing of illusion, the slayer of myth, but recently
she's not been that at all.)
Then whether we like it or not, our actions will have consequences.
If we choose not to take responsibility, then we make someone
else pay the price as the three nerds make Katrina/Buffy. If we
choose to take responsibility then we pay the price, the price
of magic, the price of knowledge, the price of being a human animal,
the price of growing up. This then is what becoming an adult requires.
It is difficult and frightening, but, the consequences of remaining
a child are worse still.
To constantly run away from life and death is to become a vampire,
feeding off of others, making them pay the price.
Buffy seems to have chosen a different star, Tara's.
That's all I have for this posting.
As always the exchange of ideas has borne much fruit.
Thanks_Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Robots, Vampires and Growing Up. Spoilers
to Present -- Age, 19:29:11 02/08/02 Fri
I guess that wasn't it for the posting!
I guess this is the connection or equation between the robot and
the vampire: both are dead. On the one hand, following the morality
of others like a child is likened to being a human robot, not
taking charge of oneself, not being an adult; it is a form of
human death. On the other hand, following ones animal instincts
like a child is likened to being an animal robot, a vampire, it
is equally a form of death.
If we simply follow either the morality, the programming of other
human beings or the instincts, the programming of our genetic
make up, then we are equally dead. Two different types of machines.
This is why Whedon equated Buffy's coming to life(from having
been dead in the summer) with taking responsibility for her life
and becoming an adult.
'I'm just going through the motions, walking through the part,
I can't really see if this is really me and I just want to be....
alive.'(OMWF)
How do 'Dead Things' come to life? They take responsibility for
themselves.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike, Buffy, and oppositional thinking -- Dariel, 11:43:20
02/06/02 Wed
Both are still thinking in oppositions. In this way, Buffy will
try to get herself punished for something that isn't wrong(don't
forgive me); and Spike won't open to anything more than the immediate
consequences of his love for Buffy....
Both need to do the same thing: deconstruct oppositional thinking
in themselves: for Buffy there's nothing wrong with her aggression
and sexuality, ie nothing wrong with being an animal; for Spike
there's nothing emasculating about not feeding off of others,
ie nothing wrong with being human.
This is the best explanation of Spike's trajectory that I've seen.
At the end of the door scene, when Spike finally opens it to look
for Buffy, the song lyric (from your later post) it just at the
point about "barriers that are all self-imposed." Spike
wants Buffy, but he's afraid to take a real step in her direction,
into her world. Being the Big Bad made him feel strong, while
his humanity only made him feel weak, vulnerable.
Can Spike make that step out of his own childish world, into the
real pain of life? All we know is that ME will torture us for
awhile before we find out! (Talk about bloodsucking fiends!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome -- Grace, 15:58:43 02/06/02 Wed
Glad to have you! Once you come here (and have a brain!) you never
go back! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike, Buffy; More Analysis. Spoilers S4,5.6 to/
Including This Week's Eps Both Series. -- Age, 16:02:40 02/06/02
Wed
I think what Whedon has realized is that it is the oppositional
thought structure itself that is the problem. I tend to see things
in theme and metaphor, and I'm always glad when others post replies
giving a more character based account.
As you say there is that wall, that division between them in that
scene. It's a great gulf that didn't exist for a moment at the
beginning of the ep: when they had that conversation under the
rug, together, they had stepped out of character, out of opposition(perhaps
another link to stepping out of character on the 'Angel' ep. )
They just were having a conversation. They just were. Then the
oppositional thought process kicked back in and that was that.
In the crypt division scene, Spike waits until Buffy has gone
before he comes out, and Buffy doesn't wait for Spike. As you
point out, this is exactly the symbolic representation of their
being attached to opposite poles, afraid to let go and embrace
the other, and let go of oppositional thinking. As I keep saying
in my replies(because my postings are always long and verbose)
it doesn't take a long posting to be a significant one. Thanks
for the observation. It is much appreciated.(The scene also shows
Spike going out to hunt her down and bring her to his side.)
Here are some things I missed.
I didn't properly show the identification of Katrina with Buffy.
Not only was Katrina strong and a fighter, but she was killed
as she attempted to flee to call the police. She was running when
she was killed. There is thus a symbolic reinforcement of the
idea of running away, with perhaps even the suggestion of symbolizing
the death of the running away girl in Buffy herself: Katrina is
running away(the running away girl in Buffy), but she's also an
adult going to tell the police: this is the same condition as
Buffy: the running away girl in Buffy is then dead(Katrina), but
the adult aspect of Katrina(the going to the police) is still
there, alive in Buffy. The writers have made everything symbolic.
This is why Katrina's death is ruled a suicide. The running away
aspect of Katrina was that which got her killed: had she not been
running, Warren wouldn't have killed her. Hence the running away
aspect is tied in with death: running away and death equals suicide.
(Again this is purely metaphorical, and not excusing Warren in
the least for what he did. I can't get over it; Katrina's death
has affected me more than any other death on this show.)
Also I missed Gunn's being a figure of deconstruction of opposites
from the beginning of the ep: it is he who is opposed to going
to the ballet because he's a hip Black guy who is into a hot band;
not only this, but he thinks he'll look dorky in a suit, but doesn't
allow that to stop him. Once at the ballet, Gunn is the Fang gang
member most appreciative of the performance. Unlike the Count
who cares nothing for the individual effort and art of his object
of love, Gunn is moved. He sees and appreciates what the dancers
are putting into their steps; rather than like the Count just
using the same steps to have his own 'love.' This appreciation
then extends to Fred.
The deconstruction of opposites and stereotyping demanded that
Gunn and Fred get together because of their being black and white.
I also missed Tara playing a role similar to Wes in that she walks
away from her lover, accepting the pain of separation in order
to allow her beloved what she needs, just as Wes walks away(well,
literally stands in front to protect Fred and Gunn.)
In an earlier posting I suggested that Joss Whedon in season five
was absolving us of any responsibility at all for ourselves: Adam
is dead, along with the idea of original sin; Dawn is not born
of woman, but made by man. Dawn is innocent. In Dawn's diaries
we see the mistaken idea that anything of what we are is actually
because of us. Dawn thinks she is writing down her own life when
in fact the entries have been created by the monks. What I'm getting
at is Whedon is using this to show that we had no hand in choosing
our body, character or upbringing, and that we bear no responsibility
for who we are at all. Once Dawn finds out she's the key she burns(flame/hell
image) the diaries in a symbolic gesture(another heaven of childhood
naivety leading to an adolescent hell of discovering we are born
to die) showing that her life isn't her own, but part of a chain
of reproduction. Who she is has nothing to do with her at all.
In this way, we are absolved of all responsibility: we can never
make a decision that is not based on something about our determined
character or the world etc, ie there's no free will. There's will,
but not free will. So we are not responsible. But, this season
Whedon is clearly showing what happens if, despite our not being
responsible, we don't take responsibility for who we are. At some
point we have to become adults, have to take responsibility for
our lives and accept who we are or drastic consequences will happen,
like Katrina's death.
The question of whether we are responsible or not is then irrelevant.
This is just something that needs to be done given that we are
agents in this world and will wield power that affects others.
And part of taking responsibility for ourselves is examining our
thought processes, our beliefs etc. But, of course, this is easier
said than done because of the fact of being determined by genetics
and upbringing.
Whedon is also suggesting that if we don't take responsibility
for ourselves as adults do, then someone else will, and we are
back to a patriarchal society in which the citizens stay as children
looked after and ruled over by an elite. This is why now we have
Buffy having to deal with Warren's act. He won't take responsibility
for it because he's a child; Buffy will now have to be the adult
and do something about it.
One last thing, it seems that the series 'Enterprise' at least
last week is using metaphor in its plots also. The ep last week
used the pressure on a ship to symbolize the psychological presure
of the members of an away mission. But what I really found fascinating(and
related, though not linked to 'Buffy') was the main focus of the
ep was on deconstructing the opposition of us versus them by cleansing
the mind of oppositional thinking through infecting each species
with a bit of the culture of the other. The infection of oppositional
thinking was cleansed by some of the culture getting under the
skin of the other. It was very clever. A good metaphor and related
to our discussion.
Thanks for your observation.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike, Buffy, and oppositional thinking -- leslie,
11:15:49 02/07/02 Thu
Something that has occurred to me on further reflection--which
may have been already commented upon--in the scene in the alleyway,
Buffy literally beats Spike back into humanity. Thinking back
to the times before Spike was in love with her, the more they
fought, the more vampiric he became. Now he has to put on his
vampire "mask" in order to allow her to regard him as
less than human, but he can't hold on to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike, Buffy, and oppositional thinking
Spoiler for DT -- Age, 11:18:55 02/08/02 Fri
This observation would relate also to Buffy in this ep unable
to hold on to her idea of being simply human: her mask, her resurrection
spell costume is lifted.
Thanks Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Links Between 'Dead Things' and 'Waiting in the Wings'
Major spoilers. Adult Content. Part One. -- Caroline - newbie
delurking, 13:22:29 02/06/02 Wed
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Completely agree. I'm going to
have to read this board more often - great stuff, not just drooling
over characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Links Between 'Dead Things' and 'Waiting in the
Wings' Major spoilers. Adult Content. Part One. -- Age, 16:23:54
02/06/02 Wed
You are welcome.
Actually character study is my weak point and I find much of what
I've missed in the postings of others on this board. Not only
this, but much comes out of posters replying to one another. Add
to this some fine essay writers and this board is well worth coming
back to.
'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel' are extraordinary TV series
in that they manage to combine character, plot and metaphor with
theme, and do it so seamlessly. Joss Whedon has managed to make
TV live up to its potential. That is extraordinary.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 'They also serve who only stand and wait'. Spoilers
for current season. -- Rahael, 21:52:05 02/06/02 Wed
Just a couple of postscripts.
I'm struck that no one has made more of Joss's deliberate choice
of Giselle as the ballet in 'Waiting in the Wings'.
In Giselle, the forest is haunted by the ghosts of broken hearted
women. The Queen of them condemns men to their doom by making
them dance to their death. (Sounds familiar to me.) So here we
have the themes of love and vengence. And an examination on both
shows about the nature of love, passion and sex.
In Angel, we have Gunn and Wes fighting for Fred. We have Fred's
awakening passion for Gunn. We have Cordy and Angel, Cordy and
Groo, and of course the mysterious ballerina, her lover, and her
svengali, the Count.
In Buffy, we have Tara and Willow, we have Spike and Buffy, we
have Warren and Katrina. Just as Wes chooses the noblest way to
express his love for Fred (silence), and Tara steps aside as a
sign for her care for Willow, we have others who use love to stultify,
hold back and freeze the other individual - The Count, and Warren.
They choose to make puppets of the object of their love (which
Age has already pointed out).
Angel and Cordy are also made puppets in a grander drama momentarily.
Cordy is already wearing borrowed clothes anyway, posing as someone
other than herself as she sets off to visit the ballet.
The vengence motif in Giselle ties into Anya and Xander, and the
visit of Halfrek, who is still around in Sunnydale. The question
is, what is true love? how does it express itself? Must it be
'forever'? undying, passionate? or changing, tolerant and compassionate?
I think this season, we are seeing different versions of romantic,
platonic and parental love in both episodes. All are difficult
and painful. Even attempting to 'use' other people ends in the
horror of Katrina's death. I find Buffy's platonic love for Willow
and parental love for Dawn as equally moving and interesting as
the Spike/Buffy passion.
And yet again, I must recommend Powell and Pressburger's great
film, 'The Red Shoes' (Scorsese put it in his top 5 if that's
any incentive!). Its about a ballerina who at the final moment
has to choose between her career in dance and her lover. Her svengali
forces her to choose dance, her lover gives her an ultimatum -
leave with me tonight, leave the dance or lose me forever. She
hesitates too long (as the ballerina in WitW also does, as do
Wesley and Angel) and starts her performance that night. Too late,
she realises that she should have left with her lover. She jumps
off the stage, and dances over the landscape, and her lover sees
her coming. But too late - she jumps in front of a train and dies.
And of course, it ties perfectly with Giselle because the 'Red
Shoes', the ballet performed in the film, is based on Hans Christian
Andersen, where an Angel condemns a vain girl to dance and dance,
until she begs for her legs to be chopped off. So there's a link
here again with uncontrollable passion, and OMWF, and the Spike/Buffy
drama.
(Btw - just as Anyanka is referenced in WitW, we have the Faith/Buffy
drama reanacted in Dead Things. The accidental killing of Katrina
is a link back to the killing of Finch by Faith. And then, as
Buffy beats up Spike and tells him that he is unclean, dead, and
that she could never love or respect him, she is really beating
up on herself. An echo of the Faith-as Buffy/Buffy-as Faith fight
in 'Who are you?')
Finally, another side point. Yet again Buffy gets confronted with
a dead/dying robo/girl. This is the third time, by my count.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thank you. Spoilers for S5,6 and This
Week's Eps of A/B. -- Age, 20:01:42 02/07/02 Thu
Thanks Rahael,
You are right, the ballet certainly needed to have a closer examination.
Thank you.
I am in awe of the cohesion of disparate imagery that has been
used to describe Buffy's having to grow up.
Spike says that there's always a price to using magic. That price
is knowledge. It is the Eden knowledge, the loss of childhood
innocence. Buffy has been wearing a costume herself, the costume
of a child who is running back after the far off(untouchable,
out of reach, 'Gone') twinkling of the star of childhood, the
sacrifice, the price, of being resurrected(the price of using
magic.) Believing that the spell was what was making her do the
'bad' things, Buffy now has to face herself without the costume:
she didn't come back wrong, the price is knowledge about herself,
a price that will lead her to a more adult perspective, one less
based on oppositional thinking. It all fits together: the magic
spell gave Buffy the opportunity to be more herself, by pretending
she was playing a role; it provided her with the knowledge that
would give her a more adult perspective, sacrificing her innocent
childhood thinking. The Eden allusion of the resurrection spell
didn't stop there, but the spell itself was the very mechanism
by which she gained the knowledge as Adam and Eve gained knowledge,
with the price, the sacrifice being her adolescence. Are these
writers great or what?
In regards to the star image, the star leading back to heaven
has been replaced by the other star, Tara, the one leading into
adulthood. The symbol for the longing for the mythological comfort
of childhood has been replaced by the immediacy(and real compassion)
of a human being. The fiction of the children's play acting(nerds
and Buffy), the going through the motions, has been replaced with
reality.
Everything changed in this episode. The villains did a real thing
to a real adult, changing them(as Buffy has changed into an adult)
into real villains with costs of their own to be paid in Buffy's
adult world. The costumes of these children came off, as did Buffy's(yet
another link to the 'Angel ep). It's no longer playtime for any
of them.
Buffy became an adult by taking responsibility for herself, a
responsibility that Whedon clearly showed in season five through
Dawn's diaries we don't have, but need to take or else who will?
In fact had Buffy's 'running away girl' not died(yes metaphorically
only) then Buffy as symbolized by Katrina would simply have been
the doll, the Buffybot that a male dominated society programmed
women to be. By taking charge of herself, Katrina fights back
like Buffy, then runs to tell the police: it is the running away
aspect of her that is killed(to symbolize Buffy's running away
mentality is dead); it is Katrina's taking responsibility aspect,
the adult aspect, that lives on in Buffy: the adolescent girl
is dead, but the adult lives on. The construction of this scene
and its metaphors was superb.(Again it's hard to talk about this
young woman's death in metaphorical terms only because as a character
her murder was just so awful.)
Getting back to links: just as Buffy has been wearing the resurrection
spell as a kind of costume(note both Spike and Buffy were naked
under rugs, not clothes to symbolize their having left opposition
behind for a moment) Cordy wears the borrowed clothes(as Rahael,
you pointed out.) But for both, perhaps, and this is speculation,
the borrowed clothes/costume have shown them their real selves,
or at least their real emotions/desires: the costumes have stuck:
the resurrection spell costume was really Buffy herself; and Cordy
is stuck with her borrowed clothes because they are too worn to
take back, ie they are hers.
One more thing, the scene in 'Bargaining' when the Buffybot gets
pulled apart symbolizes the pull of adolescence and adulthood,
and perhaps the shattering of the self through oppositional thinking.
One of the reasons that Buffy has not been able to pull herself
together and get on with her life, is that she hasn't wanted to.
Perhaps Whedon gave Buffy half a season to pull herself together
because he realizes how difficult the transition is to a more
adult perspective, or he's making concessions to his title character
because of Joyce's death, or he wanted to express the idea that
it was touch and go there for a while, fifty-fifty whether she'd
make it.
One last thing, some of the books I've read on dysfunction refer
to magical thinking, really overlaying a myth on a situation rather
than seeing what is. Perhaps the price of using magic(magical
thinking, as Buffy pretends that the spell is causing her behaviour
or that she can get back to the star of childhood; or Willow uses
it to justify her addiction) is disillusionment. You just keep
repeating the same pattern of thinking until it escalates, and
brings you out of your magical thinking, ie until the disparity
between your myth and reality become too great to ignore.
Thanks Rahael for adding more to the subject of the links. Thank
you for taking the idea seriously. Not that you wouldn't, but
I have met with some opposition to the links theory; although
not on any internet sites. Assuming that the eps are deliberately
connected(and I believe they are) this shows yet another level
of organization of content. I don't know how these writers do
it!
I have seen 'The Red Shoes.' Loved it.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you. Spoilers for S5,6
and This Week's Eps of A/B. -- Rahael, 20:42:34 02/07/02 Thu
Thanks for responding!
A couple of further thoughts. I started by thinking about why
there were so many flashbacks to the past in these two episodes,
why Joss in particular refers again and again to old themes and
past episodes. It connected with the ballet performed - the ballerina
was being forced to dance the same performance again and again
until she had the courage to change her performance, break free
of the choreography.
Joss is simultaneously (and playfully) highlighting the way he
reuses old metaphors/themes, but also says something more serious
about how people deal with their most pressing dilemmas.
One point about Cordy's borrowed clothes. In her possessed state,
she asks Angel/lover to undress her, because only then would he
really see her as she was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Dance of Dead Black
Cats? Spoilers for S6 and DT and WITW -- Age, 23:56:00 02/07/02
Thu
Yes, how do 'Dead Things' come to life? How do robots/puppets/dolls
who follow the same pattern(dance)deal with life that is constantly
changing? How do you change the steps and make the dance your
own? One of the main links between the eps is that the ballerina
and Katrina both break free from their programming.
If Dawn is a symbol for adolescent Buffy, then at the beginning
of the ep, she is simply following the lead of Xander as he teaches
her how to dance; this dance scene follows directly after the
one in which Katrina(kat/cat, Buffy's been wearing black cats
on her clothing)is enslaved, ie made to follow Warren's dance
steps. Katrina then rebels and is killed for coming back to life.
The scene then shifts to the jitterbug dancing which is more energetic,
less form and more impressionistic(Anya and Xander.) It is a celebration
of life and movement rather than a dance of form.
But, Buffy's not part of that. She's still tethered(as symbolized
by the black tether choker around her neck and white top.) And
she goes up to see Spike, the other dead thing(or so she believes)
in the Bronze version of heaven(that's why they are above.) Does
she become animal? Does she stay human? It's the same oppositional
pattern, going from one to the other and back again, but not being
able to put them together. She's following a pattern. But that
pattern seems to be blinding her to the situation, to her condition.
Spike has that same pattern in him too: this is why his being
dead has been emphasized this season. He is the vampire who believes
that the human is to be devalued as shameful weakness(perhaps
Spike's love gets expressed as subjugation because of this?) While
Buffy is the human who is ashamed of her animal aspect, her black
cat(Miss Kitty?).
But, as other posters I've read on this board have suggested(if
my analogy is a correct interpretation of their analysis), perhaps
she's been acting more like the black cat and he the mouse, entrapped
by his love, to be toyed with as of late? A cat will catch a mouse,
keep it alive, and use it to play with. Then let it go; catch
it again etc. It's a form of play.(I'm not sure if this analogy
is correct, but I want to make this clear that the idea it's based
on isn't mine.) When then does play become real; this ties in
with the adolescent to adult arc of this season. It also presents
a reversal of roles that leads to more deconstruction of opposites.
This gets at the heart of the change from adolescent to adult
in this episode. We are patterns, forms, set up by genetics and
upbringing and culture. Do we then say, well, we'll just follow
the steps set down for us, or which are us? Or, do we examine
our very thinking and take charge of who we are. Buffy hadn't
wanted to take charge. She had wanted to stay dead in heaven.
How does this dead thing Buffy come back to being alive?
Whedon must think that we have sufficient will and self reflection
to be able to do this. But, as you say, it takes courage to reach
a different perspective. We are attached to what gives us meaning
and stability in our lives, even if that stability is dysfunctional.
What are the implications of a new view of life? What source of
comfort will I have to abandon? What will Buffy have to give up
to change her perspective?
This episode is so packed with meaning isn't it. And the links
between the episodes only reinforce the themes.
Thanks-Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Links Between 'Dead Things' and 'Waiting
in the Wings' Major spoilers. Adult Content. Part One. -- Caroline,
07:02:33 02/07/02 Thu
Agreed - the myth that Joss has created, and the fact that he
has made us care so much about it is extraordinary and had quite
ruined me for other tv viewing. I had more of a think about your
post last night and some other things gelled for me. I've long
thought that, for many women, the road to adulthood is like the
Perserphone myth. (daughter of Demeter, goddess of fertility,
goes walkabout one day, gets abducted by Pluto and taken to the
underworld to be his queen, is 'mythically' raped, Demeter goes
mad with grief, famine ensues, and a compromise is brokered. End
result: she spends half the year in the underworld with Pluto
and the other half with her mother).
Persephone is young and innocent (a child) and yet wilfully goes
to a 'dangerous' place as if compelled to learn about the mysteries
of growing up - physical love, passion, childbirth etc. She is
compelled to explore those things that are hidden from us as children.
In the end, she manages to encompass both the innocence of childhood
and the mysteries of adulthood - symbolized by dividing her time
between the two worlds.
I think that this relates to Buffy herself and her current relationship
with Spike. He represents her Pluto, her projection of what she
needs to come to terms with in herself in order to move beyond
childhood. And in that recognition, realize that the old polarities
or oppositions that she used to construct her reality are no longer
viable. (I think Spike is going through the same thing).
Now I haven't been watching Angel much lately (schedule conflicts)
but I think that there is an element of this happening too with
Cordy - except it appears that she is experiencing this not through
projection but within herself - she becomes half-demon. And Angel
has also taken his own dips into the underworld and returned.
Buffy has never really had a good handle on the sources and depths
of her power as a slayer. She was the 'good' part of the Faith/Buffy
opposition, the Angelus/Buffy, Spike/Buffy etc. She denies her
enjoyment of her powers. Yet she does need to understand where
her power comes from and what it means for her identity and role
as a slayer before she can know herself, know her world, accept
herself and then make free choices of what it is that she wishes
to do with her gifts - and integrate the disparate parts of her
self.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for S3,4,5 and 6 to this
Week's eps. -- Age, 00:54:47 02/08/02 Fri
Thanks Caroline for the mythological analogy.
You wrote:
Perserphone myth. (daughter of Demeter, goddess of fertility,
goes
walkabout one day, gets abducted by Pluto and taken to the underworld
to
be his queen, is 'mythically' raped,
These elements are part of this season, especially 'Once More
With Feeling' where Dawn, who represented last year, Buffy's repressed
fertility(the Key, menstrual blood), is abducted by a Pluto character
and nearly made to be his underworld queen. It is Buffy, Dawn's
'mother'(Dawn was made from Buffy) who saves her, but in doing
so she nearly burns up from her own passion. Perhaps this is showing
that Buffy wasn't ready at that point to accept and manage her
sexual passions. She does however seem compelled to go back to
Spike. There is the rape element with the ballerina in WITW and
with Katrina(who represents Buffy.) But Katrina wakes up before
this happens. Unlike the ballerina who is a figure from the past,
Katrina, like Buffy, is a modern woman. Perhaps the rape element
of the myth has been altered slightly to reflect a different attitude
to sexuality?
Yes the division of Buffy and Faith was due to Buffy's shame after
having that night with Angel, and its deadly consequences. It's
part of the patriarchal shaming pattern in which sexual encounters
are punished as bad. Angel of course became the quintessential
patriarchal male, hating Buffy for getting power over him through
making him feel something for her.
Faith is the externalization and marginalization of what Buffy
became ashamed and afraid of: aggressive sexuality. She needed
a nice clean cut guy, Riley, who acted as her Christ figure, restoring
her faith/Faith in herself(her sexuality), to create the image
of safe sex within boundaries to allow her to become sexual again(she'd
thought she'd found that in Parker.)
There is an excellent posting(sorry I can't remember whose it
is) about Spike being the trickster, the character who brings
the element of chaos which is needed to break established form.
This got me thinking about the resurrection spell: Buffy was tricked
by it, tricked into expressing desires that she wouldn't have
ordinarily had if she hadn't thought that the spell was to blame.
In this way, Spike is the Pluto character as trickster, bringing
her into his world as a means of breaking down certain barriers.
You wrote:
Persephone is young and innocent (a child) and yet wilfully goes
to a
'dangerous' place as if compelled to learn about the mysteries
of
growing up - physical love, passion, childbirth etc. She is compelled
to
explore those things that are hidden from us as children. In the
end,
she manages to encompass both the innocence of childhood and the
mysteries of adulthood - symbolized by dividing her time between
the two
worlds.
This reminds me very much of Buffy and Dawn as symbols representing
the same person. In 'Once More With Feeling' Dawn is abducted
by the puppet men(hmm, more puppet imagery) and is attracted to
Sweet in a sexual manner, but then backs down because as a child
she's afraid. Dawn in season five also represented Buffy as human
being, or even human child. There is this sense then of the human
and the animal that is in the myth you have presented, or perhaps
the innocent and the knowing. How do we retain a certain innocence,
a certain openness of perspective once adult knowledge is gained?
Yes, Buffy's going to have to bring the disparate aspects of herself
together. Just as the Buffybot got pulled apart in 'Bargaining'
the live Buffy now has to pull herself together.
Thanks for the reply. If you have any more observations in regards
to this I'd love to read them.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for S3,4,5 and 6 to
this Week's eps.Spoilers and speculation for Angel.... -- Rufus,
05:41:00 02/08/02 Fri
If you also think of what happened to Persephone, you have to
think about the nature of the slayer. Spike has some of it right,
Buffy is a creature of darkness, that's how she is able to do
the job she does. Buffy is feeling not part of either world be
it dark or light. The only thing that makes her feel is a creature
of the darkness, kinda an irony.
But I'm going to switch over to Angel for a bit. As soon as Darla
had Angel's son I thought of Angel's relationship with his own
father. One that at some point went so wrong that Liam became
isolated enough to be tempted into vampirism by Darla. Connor
may be an important figure in how Angel works all of that out.
If Connor for whatever reason ages like a soap opera baby, then
we could see the same struggle between Angel and Connor, as Angel
and his father. Just as Buffy will struggle with Dawn, Angel may
struggle with Connor. I just hope it turns out less tragic for
Angel than his original journey out of childhood. No matter how
different Angel thinks he is from his Dad, it's surprising how
much stuff bubbles out when life struggles triggers an event that
mirrors a parents childhood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks Rufus Spoilers
for most seasons including 3/6 to this week's eps of A/B;speculation
-- Age, 10:20:59 02/08/02 Fri
Thanks for bringing the demon aspect into the discussion. We see
this dichotomy in Buffy herself: she has wanted to have just that
normal comfortable(Sunny) life in Sunnydale, but she's already
opened or been forced to open to what has been labeled as the
darker aspect of ourselves, the dale aspect of Sunnydale, the
aspect of the natural world which is the killer.
Nature is both our nurturer and our killer, but nature and us
are one. We were made by the forces of nature; we are the forces
of nature; we will keep the human forces of nature going. And,
if we overlay our developed capacity for differentiating aspects
of the world, namely recognizing ourselves, analysis and symbolic
representation, human values enter into the equation.
In coming to Sunnydale, if I read you correctly Rufus, Buffy wasn't
just trying to make a heaven for herself by fleeing the vamps,
she was fleeing the dark aspect she had opened to, and has been
either trying to flee it or master it ever since. At the end of
season three, after a year's struggling with the slayer, the human
identity, divorced from the slayer, is triumphant: nearly all
the slayer blood is drained, and weak Buffy the human being only(nearly)
fights the mayor by running away from him. She doesn't fight as
the slayer, but as a human being only, giving the other human
beings the opportunity to open to their animal sides and fight
back. This mastery of her dark side came in the form of putting
Faith in a coma.
Perhaps then once Faith is resurrected(you can't repress something
forever) the symbolism of Faith changing her mind and not running
away points to the beginning of what we are seeing in season six,
with season five being the necessary stage for Buffy(realizing
she can withstand the instinct for self preservation, ie not giving
up Dawn, when she needs to(and remain a human animal and not just
become an animal, ie she will go to the police and take responsibility)
to feel safe enough to open to her darker aspect. As Rahael pointed
out, this week's ep reminded us of Faith's mistake and her beating
on herself out of shame. Like Faith, Buffy would have gone to
jail, but unlike Faith, Buffy didn't make a mistake; her 'dark'
side didn't lead her to kill someone. Can she trust it, her dark
side. Trust keeps coming up. And I think because of her previous
experience she can trust the animal within. This question of trust
relates to Spike: could she trust him not to feed off others without
the chip.
This also relates to the Persephone myth that Caroline related
in that Buffy doesn't get overwhelmed by the knowledge she gains.
She doesn't just become the animal, but retains the human also.
In relation to this I keep hearing Tara's words echoing: you think
you know what you are, what's to come. It is she who brings knowledge
in the dream, and she who is the mechanism of uncovering knowledge
in this ep by telling Buffy there's nothing wrong with her. You
think you know who you are, well, here's the first inkling: what
you've been doing is you, not a result of the resurrection spell.
One more thing, another poster suggested an allusion to 'Cat People'
the films about humans who are also large black predatory cats
who can only return to human form if they kill another human,
ie kill the human in themselves. This allusion then is another
reference to oppositional thinking. These people cannot integrate
the human and the animal, and can be only one or the other. This
relates also to Angel/Angelus who reverts to animal form, Angelus,
if he has a moment of true happiness, ie when he becomes completely
human.
I think you are onto something Rufus in regards to Connor. Angel
set out to take his anger at seemingly being rejected by his father:
Angelus may have been a creation of his father, but it was also
a reaction on the part of Liam himself. While Liam set out as
Angelus to be the best his father wanted him to be, in the only
way opposite to his father, ie establishing his own identity,
the initial thrust of the turning was revenge. (Speculation only,
not based on spoilers, are there any spoilers for 'Angel'?)Holtz
will play a role in Angel working out his relationship with his
father, and as you said, Connor will play a role too. Just as
Buffy's arc is about deconstructing oppositional structures, perhaps
Angel's arc is as well in that Angel will come to realize through
Holtz how he must raise Connor differently than his father raised
him in order to break the cycle of vengeance.
Thanks Rufus.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for S3,4,5 and 6 to
this Week's eps. -- Caroline, 12:36:45 02/08/02 Fri
Age, thanks so much for your post. I was at work and couldn't
really flesh out all the parallels I found with the Demeter/Persephone/Pluto
myth, but you found stuff in there of relevance to Dawn that I
hadn't thought off. I agree that Faith is the product of Buffy's
first and disastrous sexual encounter - the first 'rape', descent
to the underworld, initiation into the mysteries. Faith is the
externalization of Buffy's shame - in season 3, Buffy gets to
say Faith bad, Buffy good, gets to hold on to her sexless relationship
to Angel - now isn't that totally about idealization! Nice and
safe again. As is Riley.
Late in season 3, Buffy is determined to kill Faith in order to
save Angel after he is poisoned (kill the externalization of the
bad) but when Faith gets away, she offer herself to Angel. And,
there appears to be some unity again when both Faith and Buffy
are in the hospital at the end of season 3 and have their mystical
communtion - with Faith in a coma and Buffy recovering from Angel
draining her blood. Buffy first tried to kill her external bad
side (Faith) and couldn't, but then her bad side actually came
to her aid - some form of symbolic unity, made in a very partial
way? Perhaps this signals some level of comfort with the darkness
of her slayer powers. But she still ends season 3 in the nice
safe place in terms of her identity as a woman. Persephone still
has more challenges.
Buffy's next challenge to the nice, safe place is Spike. I did
read some of the Spike as trickster thread. Spike is a joker or
trickster in mythological terms, and even has some of the elements
of the Shakespearean fool with his perceptiveness and truth-telling.
But what I find fascinating about Spike's development is not only
does he represent Buffy's Pluto but she represents his Pershephone!
He's going through what Buffy is going through in reverse and
I'm in complete admiration of the writers for making this symmetry
work. He originally was innocent as William the poet, made a complete
descent into the underworld literally as a vampire and now is
being challenged on his own big badness and evil by Buffy as Persephone.
Since they both feel such a compulsion towards one another, it
is clear that there are unconscious drives at work in both. In
Buffy that drive is to uncover the shadow within herself (I'm
thinking in Jungian terms here) and in Spike the drive is to uncover
the good that he has tried to bury for a century. The chip makes
it possible for him to do that. These drives will remain compulsive
until each brings them to conscious view and deals with them in
some way and then the power of the compulsion will be lost.
I've read lots of stuff about Spike being the Big Bad, eternally
evil etc, representing the bad boy that all women loved to be
with in their 20s etc. I find this view really naive. First of
all, remember what we know from oppositional thinking. Whatever
has a front has a back etc. Yin and yang, always a polarity. Anyone
who successfully projects cynicism is covering up the hope and
idealism inside, anyone who projects badness is covering up the
good inside and vice versa. We see this with Buffy, with Willow,
with Angel/Angelus and with many of the characters on BtVS (what
about Giles killing Ben in the Gift - pretty bloody morally ambiguous
if you ask me!!). As we have all observed through season 5 and
6, Spike is groping his way to a better accomodation between Spike
(his self-constructed bad persona) and William the innocent naive
poet who believed in truth, beauty and love. Both were extremes
and Spike via the chip has the opportunity to balance his internal
scales. What happens after he has been de-chipped is anyone's
guess - I guess that depends on whether he comes to a successful
accomodation with his drives and compulsions or not.
Love the observation about Dawn representing Buffy as a child
- fits very well. And I love how Dawn gets to voice much of the
pain and anguish that Buffy must have felt at her age but couldn't
really act upon because of her duty as a slayer.
As for retaining innocence once we grow and mature - that's a
hard one. Perhaps a successful accomodation of our unconscious
drives can leave us hopeful about the future but the innocence
of childhood is based on ignorance, one that we all, like Persephone,
are either consciously or unconsciously drawn to overcome and
rip aside the veil. But hope and compassion are things I hope
don't age at all.
BTW - loved the Bush song during the door scene in Dead Things.
It's so relevant to both Buffy and Spike. They've both died, they
both feel like they've come 'home' with each other but they both
feel 'out of their minds' and 'out of this time' (apart from the
world), they've both looking to each other for some sort of salvation
(witness their compulsive feelings for one another), and the final
line really made me think. Does Joss and ME want us to think that
their barriers are self-made? And then the stuff Tara says about
Spike doing good - that really got me thinking the thoughts I've
outlined above.
Would love to hear what others think. This has also made me realize
that I need to catch up with Angel too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for B/A most
seasons to this Week's eps. -- Age, 16:30:53 02/08/02 Fri
A quick reply to yin yang:
In another posting I mentioned the basic structure of the series
is like a yin yang symbol: Buffy the human female holds the masculine
phallic symbol in her hand, representing the idea that the qualities
she has are not all feminine; while the defeminized male vampire
must guard his heart(feminine symbol, emotions/womb) showing that
despite his behaviour he's not without the feminine. The deconstruction
of opposites is inherent as the male animal vampire must have
the feminine human blood.
Buffy must feel that she is the one who poisoned Angel in the
sense of bringing her sexuality to him. She is accepting the role
of women as Eves(evil.) In the transfer of blood scene between
Angel and Buffy, she then accepts the role of servant(and semen
vessel for men as the giving up of the apple/womb/fertility to
men in the Eden myth symbolizes), her body as vessel giving of
herself to the patriarchal male . This scene is played out as
sexual intercourse by a vampire, the male of patriarchy, which
is like a biting/staking of a woman in order to draw sustenance
from her and to show her she's the devalued pole of the binary
opposition. Buffy's giving of blood, her female strength, is a
way of undoing the wrong she feels she's done to him. If indeed
she has succombed to patriarchal thinking(and why not, we have
only just emerged from such a society, and her first big love
reinforces the beliefs through becoming Angelus) it is little
wonder that good Buffy is ashamed of her sexual and aggressive
side, her demonized side, her(in my opinion) slayer.
I see what you mean about William/Spike.
I'm a bit slow, but the name that Liam takes for his plunge into
the dark pole of opposition is a play on what his father wanted
him to be: his father wanted Liam to be an angel; so, Liam decided
to go one further and become Angelus. Angel as a name reminds
us of where Liam's human/demon dichotomy came from: the thought
structure set down by his father.
Getting back to Spike. I think that the extensive use of metaphor
has led people to think in terms of the oppositionally based good
and evil. This was indeed reinforced at the beginning of the series
because we were being given an adolescent's point of view: things
are either really bad or really good, oh no, it's the end of the
world(this is another reason why season five ended with yet another
apocalypse: Whedon gave his adolescent title character one last
event based on adolescent thinking before having her grow up.)
But as the structure of the metaphors suggests(Sunny/dale repression)
the aim is the deconstruction of opposites.
In childhood terms a demon did take over Spike: the world is made
up of real good and evil forces; in adolescent terms, it is portrayed
as if a demon came in and took over Spike when in fact this is
just a metaphor, the beginning of the adolescent process of deconstructing
childhood myth. In adult terms there is no demon, no angel, but
simply necessary aspects of a human animal which must be managed
and not repressed.
We as human beings may indeed think in terms of good and evil
if we wish, but these are simply value judgements, judgements
based on what we value. Do we value power as in a male dominated
society? Then killing the weak is a good thing, they deserve to
be used and killed because they are the opposite of us; do we
value human life, then killing is bad. Do we value the feelings
of others, then hurting them is wrong. If we value power and yet
value the feelings of others, then we may make heroic feats of
strength in the service of others the good.
I think your assessment of Spike is correct. He was the innocent,
the good and it marginalized him. He decided to forego that for
power. In some sense his turning, like Liam's, was based on revenge:
I'll show them. It is an act not of evil, but of immaturity. The
emphasis on the death aspect of Spike's vampire metaphor this
season reinforces your idea. If Buffy tried to kill an aspect
of herself, but failed; then what aspect of Spike did he try to
kill in himself and failed too.
One more point of comparison/parallel between Buffy(Dawn) and
Spike(William): they both used the literary arts in a naive way,
one for poetry, the other for chronicling what she, Dawn, innocently
thought was her own life, before being drawn to the underworld.
Doesn't it give you goosebumps, the degree of creative organization
in these series?
Thanks Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for B/A
most seasons to this Week's eps. -- Caroline, 10:27:44 02/09/02
Sat
Age, I'm enjoying our responses to each other so much that I don't
want to let this go! I've always know that this show is not about
what it's about (if you know what I mean) but this season has
upped the ante by a lot. I agree about the degree of creative
organization in the writing - part of the brilliance of the creation
of the character and the universe she inhabits.
A note on patriarchy - even though Buffy is in many ways an empowered
woman, she still has bought into many of the patriarchal views
of her world. Joss did create a world where the blonde doesn't
get killed by the bad guys, and one where women do have a starring
role - slayers, witches, techopagans etc. But, while gender roles
are being redefined, some elements of behaviour do harken back
to the patriarchal mould, particularly the hidden, unconsious
side - much of it relating to sexuality, menstruation, blood,
childbirth, etc. (We're in agreement about the poisoning of Angel
and the 'need' based on shame for Buffy to shed her blood for
him - lots of metaphors mixed in here - she gives birth to him
through shedding her blood, sacrifices herself as a saviour etc).
That's part of why I find the trajectory of the Buffy and Spike
relationship so fascinating - as each of them (hopefully) integrates
the respressed parts of their psyches, will they each continue
to buy into these same patriarchal values? After all, in her conscious
life, Buffy has the very unpatriarchal role of slayer but unconsiously
still feels the 'stain' of being feminine in a male world. Spike
(as William) in his conscious life had the more feminine role
of poet and has driven that into his unconscious in his Spike
persona. Could coming to an accomodation with their repressed
desires (resulting in thei integration of conscious and unconscious)
lead them out of the patriarchal perspective?
Would love to hear you views.
Caroline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for
'Nightmares'; 'Billy' B-S6, A-S3 to present. More links. -- Age,
17:00:12 02/09/02 Sat
I agree with your assessment of Spike.
Your Persephone analogy may apply to Cordelia and Angel. The events
surrounding Cordy's visions are related to her not taking responsibility
as drugging herself through painkillers rather than facing the
need for her 'demon' side(as symbolized by Billy in 'Billy' an
allusion to the boy Billy in the first season ep , Nightmares';
Skip the other demon represents Cordy's demon after she's accepted
responsibility. To get at Cordy's hidden demon, Angel had to descend
to the underworld, just as Buffy has descended this season by
coming back to hell. Also just as Buffy has covered up her demon
with the resurrection spell, Cordy covered hers with the painkillers.
I reckon that Willow too will use magic again now that she too
has taken responsibility for it, and is learning to manage, hence
integrate it into herself.
What I'm getting at is the arcs of Cordy and Angel, and Buffy
and Spike are the same. This is why taking responsibility, as
Cordy does for Billy(symbolically her demon) leads to her coming
back to life again. On 'Angel' as well as 'Buffy' Whedon is equating
deconstruction of opposites with adult perspective and letting
go of the strict following of animal instinct or another's morality
like a robot as a form of coming to life.
This is all I can say right now. I've been at work and must assemble
my thoughts more(they bubbled to the surface all day.) Either
I will add to this thread or if this goes to archive I will start
another. But it definitely seems to me that both arcs are similar
and based on the mythological story you related.
A couple of things, just as Buffy is tricked into revealing her
hidden demon side, Angel is forced into releasing Billy. Also
the puppet imagery of this week's eps is echoed in the 'Billy'
ep by the men being used as Billy's puppets, carrying out the
hatred he refuses to acknowledge he has. There does seem to be
a deconstruction of opposites happening as well because in 'Billy'
the men were made to be the physical abusers of women(who fought
back, hence the opening to the demonized side of women, the agressive/sexual
side.) But in this week's 'Buffy' ep it is Buffy, a female who
is the abuser, a woman with power taking the traditionally male
role of beater(with Spike taking the feminine.) Another poster
in another thread mentioned do we have the right to treat people
badly just because we think they are bad? There is thus a cross
series antithesis. Not only this, but the dire consequences of
not taking responsibility(Katrina's death this week) were already
shown in 'Billy' with several deaths and beatings.
The arcs are, like last year, and the year before that, the same
story.
Okay, I need to go and review some of the 'Angel's from this year
to fully flesh this out, but I think you were on to something
when you suggested the same thing was happening on 'Angel.' And
you provided the template on which they are based.
As I said I'll try to flesh this out more; if not here, then I'll
start a new thread.
A patriarchal society by definition is made up of children. Whedon
is using his theme of Oh grow up as the Scoobies become 21 to
show the deconstruction of the myths that such a society would
propagate. Whedon is chronicling the change in our society to
the post patriarchal, with the deconstruction of the absolute
opposites of men as the good, valued and women as the Eve-il,
devalued. But, we are still in a transitional period, with the
slayer being something that is deconstructing myth, but not yet
fully accepted for what it is, as Buffy doesn't know yet that
it's a demon(that's just speculation, not a spoiler)) such that
she could begin to see it in a different way.
One last thing, in 'Billy' it is suggested that men are primordially
misogynist, but this is by Lilah and then refuted by Fred in order
to expose the old lie that men are hardwired haters(and thus a
healthy relationship between men and women is a priori impossible,
that indeed men and women are opposites, men hating women naturally
because men are good and women are bad.) It is suggested that
Billy brings out a primordial misogyny in men through his infectious
touch. It is however quite different: the infection is a metaphor
for a cultural infection of ideas such that men are culturally
programmed like puppets to be misogynist, just as in this week's
'Buffy' we see that women have been influenced to be sex toy dolls
or servant robots to men, following their programming. This doesn't
excuse the men; it simply means that men and women as they become
adults have a responsibility to examine their thoughts and beliefs
and take responsibility for them, ie figure out what harm those
thoughts could produce or whether even those ideas make any sense
whatsoever. To do otherwise is to lead to a world in which Warrens,
trying to run away and not take responsibility, kill Katrinas,
and Billys run away creating the same devastating consequences.
In this way, these child-men force an authority to rise to protect
society from them, and we are back to patriarchy.
One last thing. I have to get these ideas out before they get
lost in the ether of my brain: just as Cordy doesn't want to show
to the Fang Gang her situation regarding the painkillers; Buffy
doesn't want to show her situation to the Scoobies. The two characters
in the same week 'uncover' aspects of themselves, so to speak,
with Cordy uncovering her vision side(leading to her accepting
easily becoming part demon(and anti-patriarchally, in that she
doesn't give a damn about her appearance, the female tool in a
male dominated society for getting male approval; she actually
looks for horns and a tail, signifying the devil, the d'Eve-il/of
Eve, whose pejorative value had been deconstructed by the self
sacrifice death of Darla, the demonized woman;) and Buffy uncovering
the identity of the nerds, her own pull of adolescence as she
makes the transition to the adulthood that Cordy as champion is
making.
The allusion to 'Nightmares' in 'Billy' is necessary because a
lot of the themes about not taking responsibility, the absolutes
of oppositional thinking and the consequences of these two form
the basis of this ep.
Thanks-Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bronze (SPOILER for Dead Things) -- verdantheart, 07:29:24
02/06/02 Wed
I've read over several comments about the scene above the dancefloor
in the Bronze between Buffy and Spike, and I tend to disagree
with what I've seen said so far.
I think what it said wasn't so much about Spike as about Buffy.
Spike still wants to believe he's the Big Bad, so why wouldn't
he act the bad boy--especially if he believed he could get away
with it? Besides, he's pushing her deliberately--he wants her
to sort out her feelings, too, in the hope they tip in his favor.
But the point is, although Buffy said, "don't," she
didn't do anything about it. She didn't have to do this, she could
have stopped Spike easily. "Why do I let him do those things
to me?" Buffy asks. Why, indeed? She doesn't have to. Really,
the only conclusion is that part of her wants to do it. But there's
still a part that doesn't want to. Therefore, she's conflicted
and unhappy as this takes place. Furthermore, the belief that
she came back "wrong" gives her a rationalization for
her behavior. When Tara explains that she's still the same Buffy,
she has to face up to the fact that whatever part of her wants
to do this kind of thing is really part of her, not some demonic
influence or spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Pygmalion -- Malandanza, 08:07:32 02/06/02 Wed
"I've read over several comments about the scene above the
dancefloor in the Bronze between Buffy and Spike, and I tend to
disagree with what I've seen said so far... Besides, he's pushing
her deliberately--he wants her to sort out her feelings, too,
in the hope they tip in his favor."
My feeling is that Buffy is excusable in her conduct because she
hasn't sorted out her feelings. She is still feeling the aftereffects
of being torn from heaven (twice, thanks to the amnesia spell).
Spike caught her at a the lowest point in her life and added to
the confusion. Spike doesn't want her to sort out her feelings
-- if she does, she'll stake him. He would rather that she stayed
confused -- and cutting her off from her friends is the best way
to keep her believing all the lies about herself. Even before
The Yoko Factor, we knew that Spike was an adept at manipulating
other people -- the whole thing reminds me of Pygmalion (if Professor
Higgins had been a blood-drinking, masochistic murderer):
Higgins: Oh, it's a fine life, the life of the gutter. It's real:
it's warm: it's violent: you can feel it through the thickest
skin: you can taste it and smell it without any training or any
work. Not like Science and Literature and Classical Music and
Philosophy and Art. You find me cold, unfeeling, selfish, don't
you? Very well: be off with you to the sort of people you like.
Marry some sentimental hog or other with lots of money, and a
thick pair of lips to kiss you with and a thick pair of boots
to kick you with. If you cant appreciate what you've got, you'd
better get what you can appreciate.
And Eliza's comments are also appropriate -- the focus has been
on Buffy's physical abuse of Spike (but Spike and Buffy don't
really injure each other) rather than on the emotional abuse he
inflicts upon her.
LIZA. Oh, you are a devil. You can twist the heart in a girl as
easy as some could twist her arms to hurt her
Spike knows where Buffy is most vulnerable and rarely restrains
himself from hurting her -- not just in this episode: previous
episodes are filled with his "creepy small talk" (all
from this season).
SPIKE: Don't you get all prim and proper on me. I know what kind
of girl you really are.
*
SPIKE:
Not yet. But I'm in your system now. You're going to crave me
like I crave blood. And the next time you come calling, if you
don't stop being such a bitch, maybe I will bite you.
*
SPIKE: Only a matter of time before you realize. I'm the only
one here for you, pet! You got no one else!
*
SPIKE: Don't you get it? Don't you see? (He smiles at her, cruelly)
. You came back wrong...came back a little less human than you
were.
*
SPIKE: Oh, poor little lost girl....She doesn't fit in anywhere,
she has no one to love
*
I saw the chat in the Bronze as merely a continuation of his past
behavior. He knows exactly how to hurt Buffy and ME are reminding
us yet again that he enjoys inflicting pain upon her as often
as possible -- and if there's degrading sex involved, well, that's
a bonus.
And, just in case we missed the point, they gave us Warren and
Katrina to reinforce that Spike's obsession is unhealthy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Pygmalion -- ponygirl, 08:21:54 02/06/02 Wed
"And, just in case we missed the point, they gave us Warren
and Katrina to reinforce that Spike's obsession is unhealthy."
But Spike was Katrina in Buffy's dream, the victim. And I really
do think that both the Bronze scene and the sex scene in Buffy's
bedroom took place entirely in her mind. She was using Spike to
voice her deepest fears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Pygmalion -- Wynn, 08:39:51 02/06/02 Wed
I don't agree that Spike doesn't want Buffy to sort out her feelings.
I think that he does. At the end of OMWF he says to Buffy "The
day you suss out what you do want, there'll probably be a parade."
He doesn't want Buffy to be confused about her feelings. Now what
he wants Buffy to conclude from her feelings is different. He
seems to want Buffy to accept the darkness and accept his world,
but I don't think it has so much to do with Buffy being manipulated
by the Big Bad and being deliberatley hurt by Spike. I can't remember
a time when Spike (before his dream in Out of My Mind) intentionally
tried to hurt Buffy. His cruelest comments are reactions to things
that Buffy has said to him. In OMWF, he tries to explain to Buffy
how he doesn't want her around if she is just going to use him
for information. Buffy takes this as he doesn't want her around
period. Then Spike gets angry and says he hopes she dances until
she burns (which he ignores when he goes to the Bronze and saves
Buffy). I see his comment in Smashed where Buffy came back wrong
as a result of her telling him that he is an evil disgusting thing.
Almost like an eye for an eye; you hurt me so I'm gonna hurt you.
I'm not saying that this is right, but Spike isn't trying to hurt
Buffy. He does love her. He is just confused about how to express
the love, and he is confused about what he thinks she needs from
him (he thinks she wants and needs Big Bad). Spike seems to want
Buffy to just accept him and her feelings for him, and the way
he thinks he can do that is by trying to make her equal with him.
That she has darkness in her just like he has goodness in him.
I hope this made sense. All in all, I see Buffy and Spike as two
individuals trying to sort out and understand and accept how they
feel about each other. They are just going about it in not so
good ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Pygmalion -- Mystery, 12:48:32 02/06/02
Wed
Spike is scared. He has what he wants (Buffy), and yet he is terrified
he's going to lose her, like he lost Dru. He's trying to pull
her in, give them more in common, make her believe that he's the
only one that can relate to her, understand her, live with her.
He's deliberately playing on her fears that her inability to keep
a man, no matter how in love with her he is, has to do with the
fact that she's a freak of nature. She's the Slayer, too powerful
for any guy, that she would turn him 'bad.' One night with her,
Angel turned evil. Parker was all great and sweet until he had
her and then he left/ran. Riley became obssessed with vampire
"kisses." Ben turned out to share a body with Glory.
All these men and they all turned bad. Maybe she's been trying
to turn them into bad boys, she'll reason with herself. Spike's
bad to begin with, no fear in "corrupting" him.
Spike knows this, and he'll play on it. He'll try to brainwash
her with it. He wants her helpless so she can be as dependant
on him as Physically-ill Dru once was. I don't think he's doing
THIS specifically. He's in love, and he wants her to be his forever.
Just like Warren wanted Katrina to stay with him. It's a twisted
kind of love, but Spike has never known any other kind.
I was also hit with Buffy discussion with Tara at the end. When
Tara points out that Spike loves her, and Buffy is turning to
that for comfort, Buffy reads it as "I'm using him?"
I think that's what she's hating herself for. She thinks she can
never love him, but she's using his love for her as her pick-me-upper.
Sorry lost the rest of my momentuum on this. I do that alot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Pygmalion -- leslie, 09:23:24 02/06/02 Wed
"And, just in case we missed the point, they gave us Warren
and Katrina to reinforce that Spike's obsession is unhealthy."
Hmm, I would say the opposite--seeing Warren's abuse and murder
of Katrina makes Spike look positively sunny in comparison. For
all the molecular malarky Tara comes up with to explain why Spike
can hit Buffy, it seems to me that the underlying metaphor is
that he can hurt her because she is vulnerable--i.e., on some
level she does love him--and he can hit her because he does love
her--i.e., on some level he knows that he is not going to kill
her, which overrides the chip. And god knows she gives as good
as she gets.
It also seems significant that while Buffy is overwhelmed with
conviction that all her friends would despise her if they knew
about Spike, when she finally admits to Tara, what is her response?
If you love him, it's okay, because he certainly loves you. Now,
granted Tara is the Queen of Empathy and also only knows the post-chip
Spike, but she is also damned perceptive.
There is a real line being set up here--Warren is human and thus
presumably has a soul, but he is far and away more evil than soulless
vampire Spike. Spike kills to feed, and threatening as it may
be that he feeds on humans, he's basically a carnivore writ large.
Warren is actually a murderer--he kills out of anger and fear
and to increase his sense of power. I'm really interested to see
how Jonathan develops out of this situation; Andrew has already
retreated into denial-land, but Jonathan is just starting to realize
what he's gotten into and seems to be wondering if he has the
guts to do the right thing. My suspicion is that either he is
going to try to betray Warren and Warren will kill him, or he
is going to be so conflicted that he finally does commit suicide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Jonathan -- Malandanza, 09:39:26 02/06/02
Wed
"Jonathan is just starting to realize what he's gotten into
and seems to be wondering if he has the guts to do the right thing.
My suspicion is that either he is going to try to betray Warren
and Warren will kill him, or he is going to be so conflicted that
he finally does commit suicide."
I'd say a third option is possible -- that Jonathan remains loyal
(after all, he is now an accessory to a murder and its cover-up)
but that Warren mistrusts him. Warren is reasonably observant
-- Jonathan's comments can't have gone unnoticed. If Warren allows
his imagination free reign, he may pre-emptively try to remove
the potential weak link -- either killing Jonathan or forcing
Jonathan to go to Buffy for his own safety (as Faith fled to the
Mayor to protect herself).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: And the fourth option... -- WW, 11:01:26
02/06/02 Wed
Jonathan may find the strength to break away from Warren, or even
to destroy him. He might betray him to Buffy, or kill him, himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And the fourth option... --
leslie, 12:37:26 02/06/02 Wed
Admittedly, anything is possible. Maybe it was the sychronization
between the FX reruns and the new shows, but it seemed to me that
Jonathan was getting the same look on his face that he had when
he tried to kill himself several years earlier that evening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And the fourth option... --
Dichotomy, 16:17:41 02/06/02 Wed
That's what I was thinking: That Jonathan will either directly
or indirectly help the Scoobies defeat Warren.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the fourth option...
-- DEN, 17:52:32 02/06/02 Wed
And things will be complicated because Jonathan's crime was not
metaphorical like abusing magic, or even committed in the service
of a demonic BIG BAD, like Faith's killings for Mayor Wilkins.
Jonathan is guilty of a real-world first degree murder. It doesn't
matter legally which of the three swung the bottle. Any competent
prosecutor could put him on death row, or in prison for life.
Will the scripts cut him Faith's slack?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the fourth option...
-- fresne, 10:53:02 02/07/02 Thu
Not a lawyer, I'd have to go for Jonathan 1 count of accessory
to second degree murder, 1 count of kidnapping, and 1 count of
attempted rape in terms of charges for this incident. And on a
separate issue, grand larceny - the bank job, the jewel heist.
Assault - the security guard. Hmmm...Seems we really should have
been taking them seriously.
Although, a good DA could probably bargain down to accessory to
attempted rape, since things hadn't progressed that far yet.
1st degree murder being premeditated, while 2nd is a crime of
passion, manslaughter being whoops/oh my. Accessory deliniating
between, I threw the rock. I held his coat while he threw the
rock.
Wonder what Faith was charged with? Manslaughter - Dep Mayor.
1st degree murder - the archeologist, Manslaughter - the nurse.
Couple counts of assault. Theft.
Interesting, as an aside, that Katrina saw her revenge/thier punishment
fairly typically of the average view of our criminial justice
system. "Let's see how you like being raped."
I.e. You're going to prision and you will literally be someone's
bitch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And the fourth
option...a bit off topic, but fun. -- DEN, 14:50:22 02/07/02 Thu
fresne, I'm not a lawyer either. But in most states a killing
committed in the course of a felony (kidnapping)becomes first-degree
murder. As for Jonathan being charged as an accessory, he was
a full participant in the kidnapping, and in such cases even those
only marginally involved share the legal liability of the actual
killer. I agree that the usual prosecutor's approach would involve
a guilty plea to lesser charges in return for rolling over on
Warren and Andrew. And I can't imagine any lawyer not urging Jonathan
(and his parents) to make a deal before Andrew did. Jonathan is
SO not cut out for life in Oz!
Your last observation is really interesting--it shows how readily
we viewers could get caught up in the comic-book world the geeks
lived in. Their story is like the ending to one of Kipling's poems:
"And so we was all murderers/That started out in fun."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> question on faith's
crimes? -- anom, 22:36:47 02/07/02 Thu
"Wonder what Faith was charged with?...Manslaughter - the
nurse...."
When did Faith kill a nurse?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: question
on faith's crimes? -- fresne, 07:17:18 02/08/02 Fri
When she woke up from her coma. I thought that was the crime that
she was charged with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
question on faith's crimes? -- Scroll, 09:07:56 02/08/02 Fri
Actually, it was a girl visiting the hosptial, not a nurse. And
she didn't kill her, only beat her up very badly. I think she
was mainly charged for her assaults in L.A. and for the murder
of Lester Worth from Graduation 1 (and any other murders committed
under the direction of the Mayor).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spike didn't only kill to feed, he didn't feed
off of either slayer he killed (NT) -- dochawk, 11:25:07 02/07/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike didn't only kill to feed, he
didn't feed off of either slayer he killed (NT) -- leslie, 19:04:14
02/08/02 Fri
You know, I realize that, in retrospect. And I have been trying
to figure out why I interpret Spike as essentially aggressive/threatening/dangerous,
but not, as base, evil. And I also really can't regard his killing
of Slayers as murder--it seems more like death in battle. And
I think I have realized where my attitude comes from. (Aside from
the fact that my parents' cat is named Spike, and it is therefore
a name I associate with cats, and I love all cats, even when they
are torturing mice.)
Anyway, I was editing an essay on what mythologist Georges Dumezil
calls "the three sins of the warrior" in the context
of Celtic mythology, particularly the figure of Cu Chulainn. Cu
Chulainn is the warrior hero of the Ulstermen, whose job is to
protect them from their enemies by fighting the warrior heroes
of other tribes/kingdoms. Cu Chulainn also has this rather charming
little habit of going into what is called, in the Irish, a "riastrad"
when he goes into battle. Riastrad is usually translated as "warp
spasm" or "distortion." His body turns around inside
his skin so that his feet are pointing backward; his hair stands
out from his head so that an apple would be impaled on every hair;
one eye sinks into his head so that it cannot be seen, while the
other pops out so that it lies on his cheek; his muscles swell
to an enormous size; and a "hero's light," sometimes
described as a spout of blood, emanates from his forehead. He
also becomes extremely hot and unable to distinguish between ally
and enemy; the first time he experiences the riastrad and heads
home, he has to be dunked into a series of vats of water until
he literally cools down enough to be part of society again. His
hair is also described as being of three colors, white, red, and
black, which is probably a reference to the Celtic practice of
dying their hair with lime, which would make the parts that have
been dyed frequently turn white. In other words, the Iron Age
equivalent of peroxide.
So Cu Chulainn is a fearsome warrior, but he is also a charming
young boy. Fighting causes him to put on the Celtic equivalent
of a vampire face. And although his services as a warrior and
defender of the tribe are necessary, there is an acute awareness
in his stories of the ambivalence of having to have warriors in
the first place.
To me, Buffy and Spike are both warriors of their tribes. Spike
shows up in Sunnydale offering to "protect" the vampire
tribe from the Slayer. The Slayer protects humans from vampires.
Their relationship traces a rather typical pattern in heroic epic
of "noble adversaries;" you may be on the opposite side
from another warrior, but if you are both good warriors, you respect
each other, and when faced with a third opponent who does not
play by the warrior rules, you may form a (temporary) alliance
against them, and then revert to your original opposition.
Looking at Cu Chulainn as a paradigm for Spike, it is also interesting
to look at the story of "Serglige Con Chulaind" or "The
Wasting Sickness/Love Sickness of Cu Chulainn." In this story,
Cu Chulainn falls alseep and has a dream in which two women in
fancy clothes and with enigmatic smiles on their faces approach
him and then whip him into a pulp. It turns out that one of these
women is Fand, the wife of the god Mannanan mac Lir, who is estranged
from her husband nad has fallen in love with Cu, and the other
is Li Ban, whose husband needs Cu's assistance against his Otherworldly
foes. Cu is unable to move or speak until he agrees to go fight
these foes, and his reward is an affair with Fand. Spike's love
for Buffy seems to be very much a serglige, which comes to him
in a dream, is directed towards a supernaturally endowed woman
who beats him senseless, and is accompanied by an inability to
carry out his usual task of fighting his people's traditional
enemy.
This is the thing about the Celtic otherworld: the people of the
sidh are "other" to humans, but humans are "other"
to the sidh-folk. Yet, while they are mutually "other,"
they also are mutually dependent. Somehow, I see Spike's actions
in the context of "following the traditions of his tribe"
rather than "being bad by the traditions of Buffy's tribe."
I also think that this is the source of much of Buffy's discomfort
with her role as Slayer and her feelings for Spike. It's one thing
when Angel has a soul as a special circumstance, but if Spike
can have some kind of "goodness" and an apparent capacity
to develop something approaching a soul when there is a chip in
there that overrides his riastrad, then what does that mean for
what she has been doing all these years? From the human point
of view, she is a warrior and protector, but from a vampire point
of view, *she* is a murderer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Huh? In Fool for Love, we were shown Spike
feeding off the Boxer Rebellion slayer. -- Caroline, 15:10:44
02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you. That's what I was trying to allude to earlier,
but you said and supported it better (NT) -- dochawk, 11:20:09
02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted -- Drucilla, 08:05:57
02/06/02 Wed
At some point in the Show, every character has done something
stupid, bad and selfish.
Example:
Tara:Screwing with Demon spell to protect self
Oz:Sleeps with Veruka
Dawn: Shoplifting, Halloween, skipping school
Buffy: Running away from home. How she treated Riley. 'When She
Was Bad'/ Frat Party-Cult ect. General Self absorbtion.
Xander: Not telling Buffy about Willow's attempts to re-soul Angel.
Summoning Sweet
Jenny: Not telling about Angel's curse
Giles: Ripper
Anya: joining up with Vamp Willow to destroy Sunnydale
Willow: Abusing her magic for selfish reasons
Faith: killing Mayor's lackey, killing a munch of unnamed civilians,
torturing Wesley, trying to kill Angel and Willow, joining the
mayor, Stealing, beating up the general public, ect.
Cordelia: General Selfishness and Cruelty
So my question is: does it seem to you that Willow is judged more
harshly for her wrong doing than other characters. Is she enduring
more consequences than they had too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> More than some, less than others -- Sophist, 08:18:18 02/06/02
Wed
Well, Xander has gotten off scot-free from both incidents you
mentioned; he always does. Tara got away pretty lightly for her
spell. Dawn hasn't paid any consequences yet. Faith, of course,
has suffered the most but deserves it the most. On the other hand,
Buffy _always_ has her flaws thrown in her face, usually by her
friends. I'd say Willow is in the middle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted -- CW, 08:40:24
02/06/02 Wed
I think you are close to answering your own question if you'd
follow through with what happen to some of those people.
Tara got off pretty easy.
Oz ended up losing Willow because of it. After she got over losing
him and moved on, he still had to suffer for what happened.
Dawn, the jury is still out.
Buffy, well she suffers half the time anyway it's hard to tell.
Xander got away with it.
Giles nearly lost Jenny over something he'd done in his Ripper
days.
Jenny's failure to be a true friend, eventually got her killed.
Anya figures she is suffering by not being a demon any more. She'd
know better than I do.
Faith is in prison for what she did, and isn't likely to get out
soon.
Cordelia has just begun to understand how made others feel. Not
much of a punishment, but at least she's stopped hurting others
as part of her daily routine.
Willow nearly got Dawn killed two different ways in one night.
Yes, it's the same Dawn, Buffy gave her life to protect. Buffy
didn't throw her out of the house, nor has she ended her friendship
with Willow over it. I'd say they were fairly lenient with her.
My take on Tara leaving her is that it's more for Tara's personal
integrity and safety, than for punishing Willow. (See my fan-fic
Possessed at the Fictionary Corner for my ideas about that.)
So, yes, Willow is getting worse than some have gotten. But, on
the other hand she's come off a lot better than some others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
Yellowork, 09:10:57 02/06/02 Wed
Hi! Just thought I ought to mention how much more I would have
respected Will if she had intended to kill the wee brat. Still,
there is always tomorrow, grasshopper. Bye!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
Scroll, 09:46:22 02/06/02 Wed
Hi everyone, this is my first posting so please be gentle in your
replies. I've been lurking here for about a year but never had
the courage to voice my opinion before. Well, I'm at work and
quite bored. So here it is:
I agree with CW about Tara's reasons for leaving. Tara left to
protect herself, not to punish Willow. Twice Willow erased Tara's
memories to make her own life easier (a form of abuse?) and never
once seemed to feel any remorse.
While I enjoy the way Joss portrays Willow's ongoing battle with
her addiction, I think he has yet to address Willow's past arrogance.
I don't think Willow has even apologised to Tara yet, at least
not that we've seen.
Tara's demon-hiding spell was motivated by fear and Oz sleeping
with Veruca was instinctual; this doesn't excuse them, but it
does make us more sympathetic. They eventually realise they're
wrong and stop themselves; Willow has now reached that point as
well. But she hasn't been punished by anyone except when Dawn
slapped her. She's suffering now from withdrawal, not from punishment
being meted out by Buffy or anyone else.
Just wanted to add that I love this discussion board for the thoughtfulness
of the posts and the incredibly brilliant posters here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Welcome, and keep posting! -- Cactus Watcher,
09:57:57 02/06/02 Wed
People will say you're one of those incredibly brillant posters
in no time at all. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
Malandanza, 10:01:09 02/06/02 Wed
I'm not sure Tara got off that easily -- she severed all her connections
with her family (a difficult thing to do even if your family is
dysfunctional) and I have no doubt that she punished herself (off
screen) for her blindness spell.
Which brings me to my point: in most cases, punishment comes from
within. Buffy and Oz suffered the most because they have the strongest
consciences (even punishing themselves for involuntary acts).
Guilt also consumed Giles and Jenny at various times and even
Faith first suffered from her own internal conflicts before committing
herself to the care of the California Department of Correction.
So if Willow, Xander and Anya have not suffered in proportion
to their crimes, perhaps it is because they have underdeveloped
consciences. (And, I agree, the jury is still out on Dawn -- she
hasn't been caught yet plus she is very young).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Shafting Willow -- manwitch, 10:23:36 02/06/02
Wed
I think Willow's punishment is more severe than we realize and
at the same time not enough to do her good. One of the things
about "growing up" is not just holding yourself accountable
for your actions, but having others hold you accountable for them,
to have acknowledgment that you are an adult.
At start of S6 I think it was extremely important for Willow to
express her power and to have it validated by others. She wanted
to "help Buffy." She wanted Buffy's appreciation for
her help. She wanted to be acknowledged, it seemed to me, as Buffy's
equal if not superior in this regard. Her leadership style with
the scoobies was also very Power-centric. Unlike the somewhat
chaotic commune that Buffy more or less led, Willow was "The
Leader" with votes and placards saying "Leader of Us,"
and she stood atop the crypt and gave orders, mainlined into people's
brains, no discussion, just direction. When she fell apart, and
Dawn was hostile to Buffy, Willow tried to be all psychiatrist's
daughter and take responsibility as a way of making Buffy feel
better. "I'm the one who was..." she started. Buffy
cuts her off with the word "Drowning." In that little
moment, everything Willow has been after is cut from underneath
her. She is Buffy's charge. She has always been Buffy's charge.
And even Dawn knows it. It was Buffy's responsibility to make
sure Wil was ok.
What diminishment. It must've been devastating for her. I think
that's a brutal punishment that we haven't commented on much.
But Buffy, in her attempt to be a friend and to build her own
accountability, has kept Willow in a state of dependency. Maybe
not on Magic anymore, but dependent nevertheless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Shafting Willow -- fresne, 11:36:19
02/06/02 Wed
A dependency which feeds Buffy's own need to beat herself up.
"See what a bad person I am, I didn't/don't notice that Willow
is drowning, what Dawn is doing/feeling, etc."
She feels so bad, wrong, that she's grabbing more and more guilt.
Buffy, despite her good front, is clearly drowning herself. She
doesn't feel forgivable. Doesn't want to feel forgivable.
And Dawn can sense this despair, (although not necessarily understand
it) thus the outburst that Buffy would rather be in heaven than
be with her.
And now that Buffy and Spike are having sex, and not "actually
having a conversation" she can no longer talk to him about
her problems, which is what she was doing all the way up to OMwF.
Instead, now he is one of her problems.
The final scene of the episode was wonderful in that now Buffy
has a completely unbiased outlet. No emotional investment like
Spike. No guilt like Willow. No other issues like Dawn. Just someone
not to be okay with.
Given the way that Buffy's description of Spike as she was beating
him, I was particularly intrigued by her description of him as
dead inside, which is how Buffy describes herself. As others have
noted, Buffy is punishing herself as she punishes Spike. And oddly
enough, I think, trying to drive him away before even the evil
fiend leaves her. Because everyone leaves her, she's so unworthy.
However, punishing him, (makes me think of the sacrificial goat
that is given the tribe's sins), doesn't work for Buffy
Just as Willow giving Buffy responsibility over Willow can't work.
Willow protests a bit that Buffy isn't responsible for her, but
Willow doesn't lay it down, "No, I'm responsible for me."
You're right, it is incredibly devaluing and quite frankly, if
Willow is going to get past her root problem, her sense of inferiority,
it is behavior that must stop.
Lots of guilt being pushed around this episode. Buffy feels guilty
about Spike. Buffy feels guilty for not noticing Willow. Buffy
feels guilty for not being there for Dawn. The Troika gives Buffy
their guilt (except Jonathan, who may/might embrace it). Spike
asks for Buffy's guilt, a guilt that he isn't really capable of
feeling.
Hmmm...which briefly brings us to the guilt thread down a ways.
Buffy's clinging to her guilt is, to a certain extent, also a
way of avoiding her issues. Like someone drowning in a wading
pool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Driving Spike away -- Vickie, 13:37:33
02/06/02 Wed
Wow! Your point hit a nerve. I think you are right.
This board has been full of Buffy's abandonment issues. She has
good reason to believe that men will always leave. Let's see:
Her dad: divorced her Mom, came by *some* weekends for a while,
is now completely absentee even after her Mom's death.
Her first Watcher: died.
Angel: left her "for her own good"
Parker: user
Riley: left her for "not needing him enough"
Giles: left her "for her own good"
Part of what she is doing with Spike, imho, is testing him. Being
absolutely bloody awful to him, more awful than she truly is.
Because if he says then, maybe he won't leave her.
ymmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Shafting Willow -- yez, 12:22:24 02/06/02
Wed
manwitch wrote:
"I think Willow's punishment is more severe than we realize
and at the same time not enough to do her good. ..."
At start of S6 I think it was extremely important for Willow to
express her power and to have it validated by others. ... What
diminishment. It must've been devastating for her. I think that's
a brutal punishment that we haven't commented on much. But Buffy,
in her attempt to be a friend and to build her own accountability,
has kept Willow in a state of dependency. Maybe not on Magic anymore,
but dependent nevertheless."
Interesting. I agree, with the caveat that I think Willow had
already started dealing with the fact that she needed help --
and therefore was "dependent" to a certain extent. Remember
the scene in "Wrecked" where she pleads with Buffy for
help. I think I'd be surprised if Willow interpreted the drowning
comment as a diminishment. It seems par for the course that, eventually,
her work goes a little wrong.
If Willow is being treated harshly -- whether by the gang or the
writers -- I think it's necessary. She is so intelligent and intellectually
curious and oriented to how things work and manipulating things
so that they work "better," that I think her moral self
exists much closer to the dark side than the other characters,
except for perhaps Anya. She needs to be kept in tighter reign
because her intelligence/power could make her such a threat.
Our little Willow really does have something of a god complex,
I think. How often have we heard her say and say again, "Nothing
will go wrong. I can do it." And it's not in the "put
me in, coach" kind of way -- it's the "everything can
be figured out and can be made to work the way you want them to"
kind of way.
Reminds me of Glory's "you can't hurt me, I do what I want,
I'm a god" talk.
Buffy and Willow certainly do have different leadership styles.
Buffy is more of the lead by example type because that's her strength.
Willow is more of a chess player -- that's one of her strengths.
Also, Buffy doesn't regard herself as particularly intelligent
it seems, whereas Willow is the unchallenged brain of the group.
Buffy has kept them all in a state of dependency, I think. But
isn't that nature of her slayer role? People need her -- that's
why slayers exist, right?
This got me started thinking about parallels between Willow and
Warren and Jonathan's descent into "evil." Warren was
the Buffybot's first programmer, then Willow figured it out and
"fixed her" to help the Scoobies. Jonathan's magic has
had amusing glitches, but has been getting progressively more
serious. Similarly, Willow's magic binge brought forth a nasty
demon...
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted -- Vickie,
10:15:00 02/06/02 Wed
I don't think so. Willow isn't really being punished by her friends
so much as they are stressing the danger of what she is doing.
And magic, wrongly handled, is a lot more dangerous (to all in
the area) than say, shoplifting.
It's important to notice, as Malandanza pointed out, that the
real punishment (as such) is coming from within these people.
I think Xander has gotten away with not telling Buffy about the
attempted resouling is that he still believes he was correct.
Can't explain the Sweet thing. That shoe hasn't yet dropped.
Willow is getting shafted, if so, by her own conscience and by
the strength of her addiction to power. Not by her friends.
just my twelve cents (too long for two).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
Drucilla, 14:08:05 02/06/02 Wed
Remember this in Season 3:
Larry: So she's putting out right, I mean why else would you be
going out with a sophomore. Let me guess, the sweet and innocent
thing is all an act right?
Oz: Actually she's an evil mastermind. It's fun.
It was interesting that you mentioned intelligence in terms of
Jonathan, Willow and...the other guy...the blonde one. And it's
true, the raw power that comes with their potential is both impressive
and scary.
It takes a certain combination of being abused** and intelligence
to create moral ambiguity in ones character. This creates a character
that has not been seen much in Joss' world. There is not much
earned virtue in the Buffyverse. The characters are either Good
or Bad. And being Good or Bad is their natural state of being.
Previously, a Bad person was forced to to be Good through external
forces. For example, Anya was forced to become human, Spike was
forced to obey the chip in his head. --- But a character that
may not be naturally good, but chooses to be good despite temptation,
achieving their own virtue through pure will, has been absent.
Earned virtue is different from natural virtue because it is attained
through sacrifice of emotional and physical gratification. It
is also the strongest kind of virtue because it earned in spite
of oneself, not because of oneself. To most characters the act
of being good or bad was easy, because it was there natural state
of being--they had neither the depth to see the gray areas, nor
the awareness to realize why things were gray. The question becomes,
will Willow or perhaps Jonathan step up and earn this virtue,
and how will they do it.
Did I relate what I was thinking well enough?
What do you guys think?
--Dru
**When I say abused I mean disempowered. All the characters are
in different stages of attempting to gain personal power. For
Example, The Watchers council trying to take away Buffy's Power.
Xander's drunk/abusive parents undermining his personal power.
The Entire world against Faith, ect. In fact Willow and Jonathan
and whatshisname have been consistently hurt by well everyone----consider
the reasons for Jonathan's attempt at suicide, Willow's parents,
the way Willow had been unacknowledged for her gifts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted
-- manwitch, 14:37:29 02/06/02 Wed
"But a character that may not be naturally good, but
chooses to be good despite temptation, achieving their own virtue
through pure will, has been absent."
I think this perfectly describes Spike. His obsession with Buffy
starts in School Hard. Almost none of his interaction with her
is dictated by the chip. Especially the end of Fool for Love.
The chip isn't what stops him, its seeing Buffy in pain. And he
just wants to help.
Don't get me wrong. Spike obviously still has some problems. But
I don't agree with Buffy that there is nothing good or pure in
him. His love for Buffy seems to be on the up and up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted -- Goji3,
17:20:50 02/06/02 Wed
Am I the only one who view's Xander not-telling about the restoration
of Angel's soul in Becoming part 2 as a nessesary thing?
I've even had it refered to as "The Lie". That's just
a little to much.
If he did tell Buffy abou that, well, she would not have fought
as hard as she did/had to. He did it for THE GREATER GOOD. Sure,
he didn't like Angel. Still, If he opened the portal, and Buffy
knew about the restoration...would she have sent him to hell?
It becomes doubtful that she would have.
As for Willow getting shafted...tricky topic. She was the calm/dependable
one, so she ends up being judged more harshly than the others.
But that doesn't negate the seriousness of what she has done.
So, she kind of deserves it, but it is more than most of the other
characters would reviece for transgressions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
Eric, 20:18:28 02/06/02 Wed
I agree with you. Xander previously demonstrated great immaturity
in regards to Angel. But in the end he did his best to overcome
it for the greater good. When he lied about the resouling attempt,
I'm certain it wasn't out of malice. He simply (to me) realized
that Buffy, in a life or death struggle against a mortal foe,
didn't need the distraction of waiting for Angelus' resoulling.
Certainly not with the world at stake. What's more, considering
his position and knowledge at the time, I think it it was a good
call. It may be considered high handed, but its only tragic and/or
wrong in retrospect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Xander not very Becoming -- Sophist, 20:36:45
02/06/02 Wed
I'm not sure I follow either of you here. By failing to tell Buffy
about Willow's ensouling effort, Xander did the following:
1. He put Buffy and Willow at cross purposes.
2. He allowed Willow to undertake a dangerous spell to no purpose.
3. Most important, Buffy was the one who had the right to decide
how to fight Angelus. Xander took that away from her, usurped
her right. In doing so, he also robbed her of tactical alternatives
that might have been critical not only to Buffy but to the whole
world.
Xander has had good moments, but this isn't one of them. It's
curious to me how he has escaped censure for this, while he gets
to judge every perceived flaw Buffy and Willow exhibit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very Becoming -- DEN, 00:03:03
02/07/02 Thu
Xander's motives were mixed--as is often the case in real life.
He was jealous of Angel from the beginning--partly over Buffy,
but partly because Angel was so many things Xander was not. At
the same time, he seems to have been sincere in believing Angelus
deserved to die for what he had done. He certainly makes a convincing
case in arguing the point. I don't think it is possible to determine
the exact balance of reasons why he conceals the resouling spell
from Buffy. Based on his behavior at the hospital, part of the
mix as well might be fear and anger that Willow is determined
to put herself at such risk. In that case he denies moral agency
to both Buffy and Willow, but the element of spite becomes less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very Becoming --
dochawk, 00:37:40 02/07/02 Thu
I hated Xander the first two years + of the show. You are able
to put a term on why. His spite and jealousy. I think his lie
to Buffy was a significant reason why she felt she couldn't go
to them about what happened, why she ran. By Dead Man's Party,
I thought Buffy should have snuffed him, he was so out of line.
He seemed to me so much the faux friend that we all had in high
school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very Becoming
-- Yellowork, 04:38:14 02/07/02 Thu
Do you think that Xander was the 'moral poseur' in high school,
rather than an honest friend?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very Becoming
-- Eric, 05:11:48 02/07/02 Thu
No, Xander wasn't particularly pleasant in the first two seasons.
I didn't like him either. He had an unfulfilled attraction to
Buffy that was part sexual, part emotional with both confused
(like nobody here's ever been there before). This manifested with
cutting sarcasm, low blows, and comments we'd typically skewer
Cordelia over. And it was put to good use in the "Who will
betray Buffy" season 2 teaser promos. Perhaps he's a moral
poser - but his moral judgements on Buf & Wil disturbed me less
than the lack of compassion that went with them. But I don't think
he was a fake friend. Fake friends don't jump into battles that
they can't survive over and over again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very Becoming -- Eric,
04:50:38 02/07/02 Thu
Again I maintain that in this instance he did not make this particular
decision out of malice. It was a tactical decision. The spell
was complex - though not necessarily spelled out as dangerous
- and there wasn't much indication that Willow could do it. (In
fact, its broadly hinted that she had some help from TPTB) Buffy
had proven to be hesitant about killing Angelus, but she finally
had her mind made up. If she lost that focus, then the world was
lost. The tactical alternatives were in fact very limited either
way.
You're right in that it wasn't necessarily his to make. But he
didn't exactly have time for consultation on the matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very Becoming --
Andy, 06:21:09 02/07/02 Thu
I agree that Xander didn't do it because of malice (and I could
almost swear that Whedon has even confirmed this was the case).
I often think of it like that old wisdom in sports: play to win,
don't play not to lose.
If Buffy had been soft with Angel thinking that he would be resouled
anytime, it would have caused her a lack of focus and aggression
that could have doomed the world. She would have used kid gloves
with Angel while Angel would have no such compunctions. By simply
telling Buffy to "kick his ass", Xander allowed Buffy
to go into battle with a much clearer objective and state of mind
and she could fight without compromising herself.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very becoming --
Sophist, 09:23:19 02/07/02 Thu
As a minor point, I think Giles did say the spell was dangerous.
Buffy then told Willow that she (Buffy) didn't want Willow putting
herself in danger. Willow expressed confidence she could do it,
but the danger was still present.
The far more important point is that Xander had the chance to
make his argument against re-souling Angelus to Giles and Buffy
in Becoming I. Regardless of the merit of it (and I strongly believe
he was wrong), they both rejected it. In fact, Giles and Xander
nearly came to blows. For him to deceive Buffy after that was
to deny to her and Giles both the clear right they had to make
the decision. BTW, it's always Buffy's right to make the final
decision -- she's the one putting her life on the line.
Xander's motives are mixed. Yeah, he probably did act in part,
as you say, because he thought he was right. But he also seemed
to act from jealousy, and from a persistent failure to recognize
the distinction between Angel and Angelus. None of these motives
makes him a very sympathetic actor.
I still believe that Xander's most important failure was the usurpation
of Buffy's decision. The mere fact that he thought he was right
doesn't justify his denial of her autonomy. But he was NOT right.
Forget for the moment the actual course of the fight (hardly an
argument in Xander's favor, since it led to the worst possible
outcome for Buffy) because we have to judge his decision at the
time he made it. What he did was limit her options going in. He
left her solely with the option of killing Angelus. The option
of delay, a distraction perhaps, might have involved less danger
to Buffy. Xander eliminated her tactical flexibility. He did this
because he was worried she might not actually kill Angelus if
she had to. While we can understand this concern, the fact is
that Xander could not have and did not have any moral certainty
about Buffy's resolution. Only Buffy could _know_ that.
Deciding what's right for another is problematic at best. It really
denies the right of the other to act as a moral agent. Xander
put Buffy at risk in a situation where her knowledge and right
to decide were both superior to his.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander not very becoming
-- Anne, 09:52:11 02/07/02 Thu
Yeah, but the issue here was not Buffy's happiness. It was averting
apocalypse. So Buffy was not the only one with her life on the
line. And I'm sorry, but I don't think any human is justified
in foisting the responsibility for that kind of decision off on
anybody else. The risk of delay -- or of telling Buffy something
that might make her delay or throw her off her stroke -- was the
risk that Angelus would complete the ritual and the world would
be destroyed. In the face of that, the problems of Angel and Buffy
as individuals, to borrow a phrase from a completely different
source, don't amount to a hill of beans. I really don't see that
Xander had any other choice than to do the thing that he thought
had the best chance of ensuring the survival of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy was the only one
with her life on the line -- Sophist, 10:48:24 02/07/02 Thu
with Angelus. The rest of the world was at risk only if Buffy
failed.
The issue is whether (1) Xander increased or decreased the risk
of Buffy failing; and (2) whether Xander got to decide.
I've already explained why I think he increased the chance of
Buffy failing, but consider Xander's position in more detail.
He first argued against re-ensouling Angel at all (Becoming I).
This was absurd from a saving-the-world perspective -- if Buffy
failed to kill Angelus, either because she lost or because she
just couldn't bring herself to do it, the only hope was that Angel
would catch himself in time or sacrifice himself after. Xander
then tried to thwart the re-ensouling, thereby putting both Buffy
personally and the world at large at greater risk.
Your argument that the world was at risk proves too much. By that
logic, not just Xander but everyone had the right to decide. He
took it upon himself when he had no right to do so. And if he
was wrong, as I just argued, then his conduct is even more reprehensible.
However, I think the consequences of his lie were limited to Buffy
as I said above.
BTW, there is an irony in your paraphrase from Casablanca. Rick
says those words right after Ilsa tells him that he has to do
the thinking for both of them. Xander, of course, did the thinking
for Buffy without her permission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy was
the only one with her life on the line -- Anne, 11:12:11 02/07/02
Thu
I won't disagree with you with regard to Xander's original argument
against resouling, both because it sounds right to me and because
I don't remember this part clearly enough to have any strong opinions.
However, there is a sense in which I do mean that everyone in
the world had a right to decide: not that they did in fact, because
they were not in a position to do so, but that IMO anyone who
is put in the hot seat where their action or failure to act may
in fact make the difference as to whether the world is lost or
not, really can't abdicate responsibility. Thus, even the decision
to go ahead and tell Buffy would and should have been a specific
choice on his part, not just a "this is not in my job description"
kind of thing. Whether the choice that Xander did in fact make
in that situation was unduly influenced by personal bias is not
only another issue, but one on which you are a lot better informed
than I am.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely
agree about accepting personal responsibility. -- Sophist, 12:59:18
02/07/02 Thu
Never send to know for whom the bell tolls...
Yayyyyyy! I worked in a Donne quote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
DEN, 20:18:44 02/06/02 Wed
I don't know if I'd call it shafted, but this seems like another
opportunity to air my pet theory that Willow's bad decisions are
the product of too much stress over too long a period. She's like
a pilot who's flown too many missions or a rifleman who's walked
point too many times. From season 1 we've seen that she lives
on her nerves. She has no Slayer gifts or Watcher training. She
has had no real help in learning how to use magic responsibly.
It's no real surprise that she started making mistakes, her judgment
went south, and she cracked. It's no surprise either that she
has the shakes and the thousand-yard stare of a shock trauma case.
When that starts hapening to someone in real life, you try and
take them off the line before they get themselves or someone else
killed. And you sure as hell don't judge them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted --
DEN, 20:25:26 02/06/02 Wed
I don't know if I'd call it shafted, but this seems like another
opportunity to air my pet theory that Willow's bad decisions are
the product of too much stress over too long a period. She's like
a pilot who's flown too many missions or a rifleman who's walked
point too many times. From season 1 we've seen that she lives
on her nerves. She has no Slayer gifts or Watcher training. She
has had no real help in learning how to use magic responsibly.
It's no real surprise that she started making mistakes, her judgment
went south, and she cracked. It's no surprise either that she
has the shakes and the thousand-yard stare of a shock trauma case.
When that starts hapening to someone in real life, you try and
take them off the line before they get themselves or someone else
killed. And you sure as hell don't judge them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I like that analogy alot, -- dochawk, 00:24:47
02/07/02 Thu
I have been worried that ME was changing the canon, make Willow
bad, make Spike the vampire good. But now you have me thinking
there is going to be a totally different conclusion. Tara (and
Amy, in her warped way) have had guidance in their learning magic.
Willow has had none, just a cryptic beginning from nonpractioner
Jenny (who if she had lived would have been Willow's mentor).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is there moral judgement in the Buffyverse? -- Eric, 20:30:28
02/06/02 Wed
In the Buffyverse most people get off pretty lightly punishment
wise unless Buffy & Co. catch them working evil. Even then punishment
is usually a quick dusting. The only humans I can recall going
through proper punishment are Faith (in jail) and Amy's Mom (Did
the trophy survive the schools destruction?). I suspect that punishment
in the Buffyverse, much like our own, is a pretty haphazard affair.
And I don't think the writers cast value judgements on the characters
- which would be pretty bizarre considering they're the true authors
of the characters' misdeeds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Moral Judgement: Is Willow getting Shafted -- skeeve,
07:50:56 02/07/02 Thu
Willow isn't being shafted. She isn't even being punished all
that much, if at all. After the accident, "no more magic"
were practically the first words out of her own mouth. She apparently
meant them this time. I happen to think it was a bad choice. She
twice did deliberate permanent damage to the memories of others.
She didn't do it for magic thrills.
Oz didn't get away scott free for sleeping with Veruka.
Tara tried to protect herself from rejection and possibly death
by the scoobies. 'Twould be nice to know what the demon-hiding
spell would have done, had it worked as expected.
Anya got away with attempted mass murder.
Xander didn't do anything clearly wrong when he did it.
Jenny and several of Giles' friends are dead.
Cordelia's evil consisted primarily of teasing people and general
insensitivity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soulless humans? (mild spoilers for DT) -- mmm, 08:35:23 02/06/02
Wed
My apologies in advance if I've covered anything that has been
addressed in a previous post - in addition, i apologize for the
jargon (i'm a psychologist and it comes naturally :)
Quote from Rufus in an earlier post:
"Warren crossed that line a long time ago when he equated
women with things there for him. His insecurity created
a robot that was something to desert when no longer of use....similar
to his attitude of letting the guys have their turn when he was
finished with Katrina. He never saw
her as a person as much as he wanted her so he did anything to
get what he wanted"
This statement really hit home with me. All season long, and particularly
in the last episode, I have felt that Warren really fits the description
of someone who has Antisocial Personality disorder, or a pscyhopath
(sociopath) - whatever term you want to use, it describes someone
who has no conscience and who has absolutely no concern for the
thoughts and feelings of others. They are entirely focused on
their own needs and will go to any means to get what they want.
We never saw Warren prior to the creation of the 'bot . My belief
is not that he "crossed that line a long time ago,"
but that he never toed the line in the first place. A true sociopath
will have anti-social behavior dating back to very early childhood,
and this may have been the case with Warren. If so, in the Jossian
world, is this the case of an individual born without a soul?
We have always assumed that being human neccessarily entails the
receipt of a soul, but maybe that's not always the case and psychopaths
like Warren may represent such a case. Maybe such individuals
do have a soul but it has such a weak "bond" with the
body that it is easier to ignore the dictates of conscience. I
personally feel that anti-social individuals never developed a
conscience in the first place - meaning that they may never had
possessed a soul. These individuals show physiological differences
as well - nothing as severe as demon characteristics, but they
seem to experience pain and respond to electric shocks less intensely
than others do. I'm probably carrying the anti-social, soulless
analogy too far, but it seems as if Warren is the first truly
conscience-less human that has been portrayed on the show - Faith
went down a slow descent and even the Mayor showed concern for
the feelings of others at times (his care for Faith). Amy may
be another such individual - it seems unclear at this time. I'm
simply wondering if Joss is going to address the issue of soul=conscience
and what the implications of a human with no conscience would
be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Soulless humans? (mild spoilers for DT) -- Rufus, 08:53:30
02/06/02 Wed
I think it would have been better if I clarified the fact that
Warren crossed the line into true criminality a long time ago
when he was making toy girls. His treatment of the bot was one
thing, but he left a creation that could have been more menacing
than she appeared to be. I agree about the anti-social personality,
but we simply don't have much to go on with Warren other than
his most current actions. It would be fun to see what background
would spawn such an empty person.
I'm simply wondering if Joss is going to address the issue of
soul=conscience and what the implications of a human with no conscience
would be.
I think he has started to do this with his concurrent storyline
of Spike and the Troika. How can humans claim superiority over
demons when humanity is clearly rife with people who lack any
conscience, and will do things that rival any demon?
Read this and tell me what you think Joss is trying to say about
the soulless.
Paley festival May 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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Warren obviously feels something, he has a conscience --
Charlemagne20, 14:07:47 02/06/02 Wed
He's able to divorce himself from the situation and think "rationally"
and keep himself from being overwhelmed by guilt...that's a sickness
and a wrong decision in and of itself but the point last night
was that however TWISTED it was he did Care for Katrina and what
happened was the result of manic circumstances.
He's evil but he's not insane. He can be held accountable for
his actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Soulless humans? (mild spoilers for DT) -- anom, 22:23:18
02/06/02 Wed
"A true sociopath will have anti-social behavior dating back
to very early childhood, and this may have been the case with
Warren. If so, in the Jossian world, is this the case of an individual
born without a soul?"
We've seen such a case on Angel, in "I've Got You Under My
Skin." A demon had entered a child's body & got trapped because
the boy never had a soul to start with. It was never explained
how this (being born without a soul) could happen. So yes, in
the Jossverse it's at least theoretically possible that Warren
could have been born without a soul. But I think his ambivalence
in several (OK, maybe 2) moments with Katrina show that he wasn't.
He needs to refer to her body as "it" because he can't
deal with what he's done. If he had no soul he'd have no problem
with it. It does bother him; he just suppresses it almost immediately.
That's probably the same thing he's done with his soul. (BTW,
that Angel episode also cast doubt on Angel's assumption that
the child Darla was carrying had a soul just because he had a
heartbeat. We found out later that he did, but there wasn't enough
evidence to warrant that assumption at the time--after all, the
boy w/no soul presumably had a heartbeat.)
"I personally feel that anti-social individuals never developed
a conscience in the first place - meaning that they may never
had possessed a soul."
I'm glad to see that "may" in there--I read too fast
the 1st time & was disturbed to see a psychologist apparently
saying some people in real life had no souls. It sounded like
they were born that way, not that something happened to them to
impair their development of a conscience. I'm not a pro, but I
think we all start out with a soul. Abuse of various kinds can
cause such pain that the soul is suppressed to whatever extent
is necessary to deal with (or avoid dealing with) the pain. The
fact that antisocial people feel pain less intensely may mean
they're suppressing physical feelings as well. And if they don't
feel pain, physical or emotional, they can't identify with the
pain they cause others. On BtVS, that's what allows Warren to
not recognize that what he tried to do to Katrina would in fact
have been rape. He's found a way to keep from thinking of it that
way.
I've heard psychopaths described as having no feelings. I've never
understood that--if they don't have feelings, what motivates them
to behave psychopathically?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> okay I have questions -- yuri, 00:05:16 02/07/02 Thu
Could you explain sociopaths/psychopaths (they're really the same
thing?) a little more... I mean my understanding from your post
is that there is something physically different in these people's
brains that causes them to function differently than others when
concerning the [amorphous] "concience," even if they
haven't been abused or somehow messed up.
Concerning Jossverse, I've read the quote that Rufus posted above,
and have always found it pretty lackluster, pretty ambiguous for
a guy whose show depends on that very definition... To me it implies
that its possible for a human to be just as "evil" as
a demon, and a demon just as "good" as a human, just
unlikely.
And - really quick - my two cents about Warren's soul...
I instinctively think more like anom and Charlemagne, that he's
just putting up barriers between himself and the atrocities he's
caused, but when I think about it I can't remember one twinge
of real caring, "concience" like attitude from him.
His affection (love?) for Katrina did come from her strength and
personality, but Warren just found it pleasing, prefferable over
a bot. Not particularly life affirming, or, aparrently, worth
much considering he snuffed those things out in DT, and didn't
seem too shaken up about it. His actions to her were never noble
or loving even in IWMTLY. So I buy the "he never toed the
line" thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts on Dead Things and Dreams and Sex Toys -- TapTap,
08:50:10 02/06/02 Wed
Some thoughts on Buffy and Spike and Dead Things
Spike holds up a pair of handcuff and asks, "Do you trust
me?" Buffy answers "Never," but the next day tries
to hide the cuff marks on her wrists. Say one thing and do another.
At the Bronze with her friends Buffy leaves the dancing Scoobies
and goes upstairs into the dark. Spike appears behind her, pointing
out how she tries to be with them but ends up in the dark with
him. He reminds her of what the Scoobies would think if they knew
the things she's done. He pulls her skirt up and he enters her
from behind. (Not very convincingly I admit. UPN has apparently
cautioned. No more obvious penetration. Damn.) He tells her to
look at her friends while he moves against her, tells her that's
not her world, that she belongs in the shadows with him, that
she's thrilled with getting away with this right under their noses.
She and I are both convinced. In The Yoko Factor Spike easily
broke up the SG. Now he's trying to isolate Buffy from her friends.
He's zeroed in on her shame at their relationship. If the relationship
is endangered by what her friends would think, he will try to
separate her from her friends. Having failed to convince Buffy
to bring their liaison into the light, he's now trying to pull
her into the darkness. Spike is Spike. He can be unselfish. But
not when it comes to losing Buffy. He's not the first guy to try
to separate a girl from her friends that hate him.
When Buffy freezes by the body of Katrina, in shock, Spike pulls
her away, telling her he's going to get her home so she can crawl
into her warm, comfy bed, telling her to trust him, he'll sort
it out. She does trust him.
Buffy's dream
Buffy's asleep in bed, restless, troubled, then Spike gets into
the bed behind her. This is first time we have seen him in her
bed and it's kind of sweet. He tells her that it's alright, not
to worry, that it's their little secret. He comforts her and she
turns to him and they kiss and embrace. It turns out to be a dream
but even in Buffy's dream it is Spike who comforts and protects
her. Suddenly Buffy is in Spike's crypt, on Spike's bed, on Spike
who is handcuffed as she rides him. Spike becomes a handcuffed
Katrina and Buffy asks "Do you trust me," then Spike
is on top kissing her. Then Buffy is on top of a sleeping Spike
who she stakes. Spike becomes Katrina who opens her eyes with
the stake in her chest. I think this is symbolic of both Spike
and Katrina being used as sex toys. Katrina is made helpless by
a spell but Spike is just as captive, held chained by his love,
willing to do anything for Buffy, her willing slave. It is the
spelled Katrina that says, "I love you, Master" but
the spell wears off and Katrina recovers herself and fights. Spike
does not. He tells Buffy he has "tried not to love"
her, but he is still captive, chained to her bed and her desires,
trusting her, no matter how much she hurts him.
It is dead thing Spike that rescues or attempts to rescue Buffy
repeatedly in this episode. First during the time warp struggle
he fights along with her and warns her of a attacking demon despite
her striking him during the fight. Next he gets her away from
Katrina's body and back home to her bed. He even comforts her
in her dream. Then he disposes of Katrina's body. Didn't work,
but hell, he tried. Next he delays her when she tries to turn
herself in, stopping her from ruining her life, even though he
takes a beating to do it. It is only because of the delay that
Buffy learns that she isn't guilty before she is able to confess.
Buffy wants to be punished, not just because she thinks she killed
Katrina, but because she is sleeping with an evil undead blood-sucker
who is the only thing that makes her feel alive. When Spike tries
to prevent her from punishing herself, she punishes him. And he
takes it, "That's right," he tells her, "Put it
on me, put it all on me." And she does. When he says "That's
my girl," she tells him she is not his girl, that he doesn't
have a soul, that that there is nothing good or clean inside him,
that he doesn't feel anything and she could never be his girl.
All while beating the crap out of him, beating him almost as badly
as Glory and he takes it for the same reason he took that. Because
he does feel, because he loves her.
After she finds out she is not guilty, does she go pick him up
in the alley, or go to his crypt to help him or beg forgiveness
or even tell him what happened? Not that we are shown. Cold bitch.
Katrina dies because she stops being a "thing." Buffy
beats Spike into a pulp because he refuses to act like a "thing",
instead he acts like a man who loves her and is trying to protect
her. Buffy cannot face the idea that Spike is not a thing who
can't feel. If Spike is a person who has feelings, who loves her,
then she has treated him monstrously. If Spike is a person with
feelings, some other vampires, some other demons are people too
and Buffy is a murderer. In fact when Tara tells her she didn't
come back "wrong" she is appalled. Now she has no excuse
for using Spike. She begs Tara NOT to forgive her. She begs Tara
because she knows Spike already has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent! -- Celialite, 09:01:40 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very Good! -- Deeva, 09:28:56 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love that editorial comment... -- GreatRewards, 10:18:44
02/06/02 Wed
"Cold bitch."
LOL! Nice insight!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nice work. -- yez, 10:24:51 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some thoughts on Dead Things and Dreams and Sex Toys
-- yez, 12:29:23 02/06/02 Wed
TapTap wrote: "... but the next day tries to hide the cuff
marks on her wrists. Say one thing and do another."
Thanks for that observation -- I didn't make the connection between
rubbing her wrists and the cuffs.
In Buffy's dream, was it just me, or did anyone else see a split-second
when Buffy is atop a Katrina who is moaning in a very sexual manner?
Regarding Buffy "... beating the crap out of him, beating
him almost as badly as Glory and he takes it for the same reason
he took that. Because he does feel, because he loves her.... Buffy
beats Spike into a pulp because he refuses to act like a "thing",
instead he acts like a man who loves her and is trying to protect
her. ... If Spike is a person who has feelings, who loves her,
then she has treated him monstrously.... In fact when Tara tells
her she didn't come back "wrong" she is appalled. Now
she has no excuse for using Spike. She begs Tara NOT to forgive
her. ..."
Nice observations.
I didn't start watching Buffy till season 5, so I've been taping
FX Network reruns and trying to catch up. I happened to watch
"The Beauty and the Beast" (season 3) after "Dead
Things." A weird coincidence. In "Beauty," we see
Buffy trying to intervene in a relationship where a girl is getting
beaten up (and is eventually killed) by her boyfriend. "Dead
Things" has been the most blatant example so far of Buffy's
abuse of Spike. Someone noted on another thread that Katrina clearly
naming the intended acts of the three as rape was very powerful,
and I agree. And yet, contrast that with the as yet unnamed abuse
between Buffy and Spike. Buffy goes so far as to admit that she's
"using" him (if it's true that she doesn't really care
about him). But we still don't hear the abuse named.
I wonder if she's not more worried/ashamed about her friends seeing
the way she treats Spike than seeing that she's having sex with
him.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Domestic Violence/calling into question my whole life
-- Grace, 12:51:04 02/06/02 Wed
I too saw Buffy as a boyfriend beater in the alley scene. I didn't
like her very much and her look of regret didn't clear things
up for me. She MUST make amends for this!
If Spike is a person with feelings, some other vampires, some
other demons are people too and Buffy is a murderer.
Wow! Talk about calling into question her entire purpose in life.
But, I think the show has progressed through the years to show
that not all demons are evil and we have seen Buffy refrain from
killing all demons (e.g., with Faith and the Initiative she always
wanted to know WHAT the demons were up to before she decided to
kill them).(Also reminds me of Angel when Gunn had to stand up
to his friends and tell them that all demons were not bad). Plus,
Anya is always here to let us know that demons are not all bad...
It is completely consistent with the show that Spike can be good
even though he doesn't have a soul. I just think Buffy is having
a hard time adjusting to this. With Angel it was easy because
she could just say he had a soul and that explained her feelings
for him. Now, she doesn't have anything to "blame"-she
likes Spike because she likes him (even if it is only "sometimes!")
Anyway--Buffy is going to have to develop a new moral code--or
at least make her existing one more clear. Vampires/demons are
not always bad. Not having a soul doesn't make you evil (nor does
having a soul make you good--Warren for example).
I think the "growing pains" she feels is re-evaluating
her moral system. Hey, growing up sucks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Domestic Violence/calling into question
my whole life -- yez, 13:44:55 02/06/02 Wed
OK, so now this season's explorations of human "badness"
(and lack of nonhuman big badness) is suddenly standing out in
sharp relief against Spike's nonbadness for me, and I'm wondering
if this is one of the big themes.
Another thing that struck me in viewing "Beauty and the Beast"
was Gile's line about how, in his experience, there are two types
of monsters. The ones who want to be redeemed and the ones who
are devoid of humanity. The line was delivered in reference to
Angel, but after Spike, it seems that Gile's was wrong, if this
was truly that character's opinion and not the opinion of the
show's creator/writers. If it is how TPTB see things, it'll be
interesting to see how closely they stick to it.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> vampires and evil -- Dochawk, 15:00:14 02/06/02
Wed
Where are you getting the idea that Spike isn't evil? As he has
said himself, he is a monster. Love and passion don't make you
nice or good. He is evil to his core. Has he done some worthwhile
things during his association with the SG. Absolutely. Does he
still have the internal pull of evil, absolutely, (In bargaining,
he lusts to join the rampaging Hellions, he would gladly bite
the woman in a later episode). He has never done a nonselfish
thing in his life as a vampire. The helping the SG fight before
the resurrection responds to Spike's blood lust, he can't attack
humans anymore, so he needs to attack demons. As far as I can
see, the only "good" thing that Spike has done is his
relationship with Dawn and I believe that serves his lust as well.
He has been manipulative and dishonest with Buffy in their relationship
from the start. As far back as the episode where Buffy wants to
find out how he killed the slayers he is telling her that slayers
have a death wish, that her power comes at least partly from darkness
(btw, I always thought that in that episode Spike was clearly
overemphasizing the slayer's dark side, you certainly didn't see
one in his fight with the Chinese slayer and I'm not sure you
did in Nicki either). He has been using the "I came back
wrong" to manipulate Buffy and her feelings. The scene at
the Bronze was the culmination of that. I still feel that Spike's
ultimate goal is to vamp Buffy.
When I used to counsel college students about relationships, one
of the most important things we told them is that an individual
is responsible for their feelings, not their partners. As long
as you are honest, both in commission and ommision, your partner
was responsible for how they feel. I don't think Buffy has "used"
Spike at all, at least in terms of using his feelings or misleading
him. She has always told him what she thinks of him and how she
feels about him.
And finally about the "abused boyfriend" concept. This
is not a human she is in a relationship with, this is a vampire.
Love/Lust for a vampire is always rooted in violence. The most
intimate act a vampire engages in, siring another vampire, is
the result of a murder and mixing of blood. Spike clearly encourages
the violence. This is an S & M relationship at its core and Spike
obtains sexual gratification from his pummelling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Abuse -- LeeAnn, 15:11:51 02/06/02
Wed
"Spike clearly encourages the violence. This is an S & M
relationship at its core and Spike obtains sexual gratification
from his pummelling."
Sounds like "She made he do it. She made me hit her. She
likes it." Think a judge would buy that? Buffy enjoyed beating
him. Despite him loving her and trying to save her. This "Spike
is pure evil" is a dog that won't hunt. Even if any of that,
all of that were true, it still would not justify Buffy.
I'm disgusted with our girl today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Abuse -- anom, 23:23:50 02/06/02
Wed
"Buffy enjoyed beating him."
Huh????? I saw nothing resembling enjoyment in her expression
when she beat him. She was upset, torn between feeling she had
to turn herself in & not wanting to (& maybe wanting to on another
level), and finally, disgusted with herself but projecting it
onto him. I don't think Buffy enjoyed anything in that episode
after the sex & "maybe" conversation w/Spike in his
crypt & then seeing Tara again at Doublemeat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Are we inherently good or evil? -- Grace,
15:46:19 02/06/02 Wed
Are we inherently good or evil?
I am not the first to ask this question (variations of it have
even been seen on the postings for the last few days: "How
would you act if you could get away with anything?" etc.
and other similar threads; ).
I guess I don't think Spike is PURE evil. This may be his natural
tendency but he has the capacity for good too.
You comment on how all of Spike's "good" acts have been
self-serving in some sense or another--isn't that true for a lot
of human behavior? I learn not to steal because my mom gets mad
at me if I do, then my friends get mad at me, then as I get older--the
police. Is my CHOICE not to steal motivated by GOOD or by the
desire to not get in trouble?
I admit that with time a behavior can become a habit and therefore
appear innate--but don't all of our choices to be "good"
originate from a self-serving desire? (i.e., to feel good (by
helping others), to be loved (by loving) etc.)
We have free will to be that which we want (one of the reasons
I love Milton's Paradise Lost so much). If we have the free will
to be good or bad--then it must follow that both of these characteristics
exist inside of us from the start.
I think the same is true for vampires/demons on this show because
we have seen lots of demons acting "good." For these
reasons, I disagree that Spike is PURE evil. He may choose the
path of evil--but the other patch is open to him as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Are we inherently good or evil?
-- Rufus, 18:45:01 02/06/02 Wed
If Spike were pure evil he would never have gotten so close to
the SG. They may not always trust him but they kinda like him.
But one doesn't have to be pure evil to do lots of damage. People
we consider good can get involved in a relationship and become
abusive under certain circumstances. Right now Buffy is so confused
that she doesn't know what to do. Spike's creature of the night
schick is only making her doubt her place among the living the
typical human, but Spike isn't the only one that has made her
feel that way. Everytime she kills a demon, beats one to death,
her otherness shows. Her biggest problem right now is finding
a place in a world she feels disconnected from. The only one that
can cure that situation is her. Spike isn't holding her back as
much as she is hiding from the real world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Are we inherently good or evil?
-- Darby, 10:18:54 02/07/02 Thu
I agree with you about our world, but it's pretty well established
that there are inherent tendencies - the "soul differences"
- between humans and demons in the Buffyverse. How those tendencies
play out varies, for sure, but it's just part of the "rules"
that humans are, at their heart, good, and demons are evil. Everything
relativistic flows from there.
Y'know, we've barely been given the skeletal structure for defining
the terms, though, except at their most extreme.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why Spike Can't Be redeemed -- Dochawk,
15:15:18 02/06/02 Wed
Since I have joined this board I have wanted to write a post on
this topic, but patients, dating and life seem to get in the way
of more important things.
I think ME is painting themselves in a corner for the very reason
you brought up. They have clearly created this unhealthy relationship
for Buffy (the kind that so many 20 year olds go through) through
which she is going to grow and continue on her hero's journey.
Where does that leave Spike? The worst solution and most damaging
would be to redeem Spike. To make him human or at least remove
the evil from him(short of Willow cursing him with a soul, there
does seem to be a pretty good supply of Orbs of Thessela around,
but been there done that) would imply that vampires can be redeemed.
I agree that destroys the slayer's purpose and clearly makes her
a murderer. The show would have to make her "Buffy the Vampire
Redeemer" because killing vampires would eliminate their
opportunity at redemption (and who knows what that newly arisen
vampire is). And making him human would be even worse, he'd lose
his vampire fighting abilities and turn him into a poetry spewing
version of Xander.
A second choice would be to kill him and resurrect him (could
he be the big scooby death we keep hearing rumored?). But, been
there, done that again.
Spike clearly remains part of the Scooby story, even after Buffy
leaves him behind, I am going to be fascinated at how ME solves
this dilemna.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why Spike Can't Be redeemed -- DEN,
17:32:23 02/06/02 Wed
The notion of vampire redemption, and of Buffy as vampire redeemer,
has been raised previously on this board. I agree that the concept
is untenable without violating the show's essential integrity.
Something might be made of it in another series, with vampires
drawn from the Anne Rice model of "lonely ones."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why Spike Can't Be redeemed -- Dariel,
19:50:33 02/06/02 Wed
The worst solution and most damaging would be to redeem Spike.
To make him human or at least remove the evil from him(short of
Willow cursing him with a soul, there does seem to be a pretty
good supply of Orbs of Thessela around, but been there done that)
would imply that vampires can be redeemed. I agree that destroys
the slayer's purpose and clearly makes her a murderer.
I disagree. Spike's situation, chipped and living among humans,
is unique among vampires. ME could make the case that the chip
has shorted out the demon or some such, allowing Spike to change.
This would not violate canon, and wouldn't mean that all vampires
are redeemable. (Can't really expect to catch em all, chip em,
and keep them as pets, can we?)
Or, as is more likely, ME could have something up their sleeve
that none of us would think of.
It always amazes me when someone says "Spike is evil and
cannot be redeemed." This is a TV show that trys to take
its audience in certain directions, show us some truths. We don't
know whether Spike can be redeemed because ME hasn't told us yet.
They're giving lots of mixed signals at the moment. Whichever
way they go, if they can make it real, that's all that matters.
All I ask is that, if Spike goes bad again, they stake him quick.
Don't really want a rerun of Angelus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why Spike Can't Be redeemed -- Rufus,
21:30:06 02/06/02 Wed
The worst solution and most damaging would be to redeem Spike.
To make him human or at least remove the evil from him(short of
Willow cursing him with a soul, there does seem to be a pretty
good supply of Orbs of Thessela around, but been there done that)
would imply that vampires can be redeemed. I agree that destroys
the slayer's purpose and clearly makes her a murderer.
I have to strongly disagree with you. It sounds like redemption
is a no no because it would raise uncomfortable questions that
are difficult to answer. Hey, I think that no matter who or what
Buffy is killing she should always question what she is doing.
It is too easy to label a species of demon or human/demon hybrid
evil, so it can be an unrestrained open season in killing them.
It also cheapens what Buffy does because it disregards what she
does as nothing. The impact of protecting the world yet becoming
more isolated from it is common with all slayers, and it's not
because of the demons they kill but a society that can't accept
the existence of Demons and Slayers period.
Redeeming Spike wouldn't make Buffy a murderer any more than a
cop on the job or a soldier that has to kill in self defence is
a murderer. Buffy kills or defeats the demon that is a threat
and does no more. She patrols, selecting out the threat and leaving
alone those that pose no threat.
I find it more disturbing when a demon that is clearly not evil
is killed accidentally is considered no big deal, but a human
is. When you consider how metaphorical the show is you have to
wonder what the demon is a metaphor for. In some cases it's "free
kill".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> don't know if that was a real spoiler,
in any case please be careful! -- yuri, 00:12:23 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Speculation isn't a spoiler....
-- Rufus, 01:39:52 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> more speculation.... -- JBone,
16:53:37 02/07/02 Thu
I think that it is somewhat obvious where ME is taking the Spike
character. At some point, Spike's chip will be permanently disabled,
removed, or whatever, and he will actually have to make a choice
about killing humans again. What will Spike do once the leash
is off? Will he continue on the growth journey that the chip has
forced him on? Or will he fall back to the all too easy for a
vampire lifestyle of feeding?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spike doesn't need to be "redeemed"
-- yez, 13:50:17 02/07/02 Thu
Dochawk wrote: "... I think ME is painting themselves in
a corner... The worst solution and most damaging would be to redeem
Spike. To make him human or at least remove the evil from him...
A second choice would be to kill him and resurrect him (could
he be the big scooby death we keep hearing rumored?). But, been
there, done that again...."
I started watching BtVS from the 5th season. And my intial impression
was, "Wow, Buffy et al are real jerks. Why do they treat
Spike that way when he's helping them? I'm supposed to like these
people?" But people would say, "No, no, no. Vampires
are eeeeee-vil. Period. Oh, except for Angel. Well, except for
when Angel's *not* not evil. Spike's only behaving because he
has a chip in his head and he wants Buffy to like him, but he's
still pure eeeee-vil."
IMHO, what makes Spike unique is that he's a vampire who's been
forced to stop looking at humans as food. He's been forced get
to know them, and he even likes some of them.
All that chip does is prevent him from directly hurting humans,
as far as we know, right? If he was eeeee-vil, why wouldn't we
still see him masterminding plots to torment people? Subcontracting
the human murder to other demons or vampires so that he could
feed off them (as Dru did for him at The Bronze)? Tracking down
and murdering the people who put the chip in his head?
I mean, there are plenty of evil things one could do without directly
contacting human flesh. He could get a gun, for crying out loud.
But he doesn't. And this is where people usually say, "But
that's only because he knows it would displease Buffy. He's acting
selfishly." But since when is being nice to someone you like
a bad thing? Or trying to change for the person you love? I mean,
it might be doomed to failure, but I think the intentions are
good.
I found "Tabula Rasa" fascinating because, theoretically,
we saw the individuals acting in a way that was true to something
within themselves, not something they'd learned. Willow was attracted
to women, Buffy slayed, Dawn whined, etc. But Spike did not try
to eat someone or torture them. He assumed he shared common bonds
with the people he was around -- not just the amnesia, but the
humanity. And when he discovered he was a vampire, he theorized
he must be a noble vampire, working for good.
Now, either the writers had a major lapse there and completely
forgot everything they'd been writing about for 5.5 seasons, or
they failed to put two and two together -- or they deliberately
broke with the assumed convention.
I don't think the choices are limited to redemption of him in
the sense of restoring his soul, making him human, etc. Remember,
never before in the history of the Buffyverse (as far as we know)
has a vampire undergone conditioning to "help" him break
his habit and coincidentally been thrown together by circumstance
to work with and get to know a group of humans -- and had that
group of humans generally not try to kill him.
Spike presents an unusual situation, and not one that's applicable
to the vampire population as a whole. Unlike Angel, Spike's "goodness"
(or "not so badness" as the case may be) is a choice.
His eeeee-vilness isn't being supressed by a human soul which
bonds him to humans. He's behaving for the same reasons most humans
behave -- he wants to be part of other human lives, he wants to
please others, he doesn't want to be punished for acting wrongly,
etc. If his chip malfunctions, the only thing that will be different
is that he CAN hurt humans again -- not necessarily that he will.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I had that "cold bitch" reaction too, and I'm
struggling with it. Don't know if I want to feel that. -- yuri,
00:14:25 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buffy as "cold bitch" -- celticross, 04:42:34
02/07/02 Thu
I've had that reaction to Buffy too, and not just this season
(wanted to jump through the screen to smack her during "Sanctuary"
on AtS). I suppose that's one of the wonders of this show; that
Buffy can be the most unlikable, infuriating character on the
show, and I still can't help but watch, still can't help but root
for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a not-analysis of Dead Things (*Spoilers*), just thoughts really
-- manwitch, 09:53:31 02/06/02 Wed
I have no analysis for this episode. Not yet. Its too soon for
that. Whenever I see one of these I just kinda get quiet and meditate
on it. Beautiful, poignant, disturbing images that touch me in
a way that seems to defy the linear and literal meanings of the
plot. So I had thoughts with no conclusions, which I share for
anyone that's interested.
I found myself thinking about the comparison/contrast they are
deliberately holding up before our eyes of "date rape"
vs. "I don't want to take responsibility for what I desire."
I found the moment when Trina utters the word "rape"
to be extraodinarily powerful. Even though we know they are morons,
I, as a member of the audience had allowed myself to be sucked
in to the idea that they are just child-like goofs. And suddenly
with that word, with that scene, comes the realization of exactly
how not goofy it is. Even though I knew, I was almost as stunned
as Jonathon to be confronted with the reality of what they are
and what they are doing. They said that's what they were going
to do all along, and it seemed funny. Why the surprise?
And I found myself thinking, when this season is said and done,
these could be the most horrific Big Bads Buffy has ever faced.
In that "Who's the Baddest Big Bad?" thread, several
posters said that The Mayor was especially chilling because he
was human. And that's exactly why these morons could end up the
most despicable of all Buffy's villains. They're human, they know
better. There is nothing more horrible than a selfish, thoughtless,
inhuman human.
And I thought, Dawn is soooooo 15. I do feel for her though. Talk
about wondering why you exist or if anyone cares that you do.
And of course, my heart breaks for Buffy. Her self-loathing is
incomprehensible to me because I adore her, and yet it is so familiar
in its way, the precipice on which she stands. She wants moral
absolutes so desperately, but they are no longer there. She wants
good and bad to be identities, not opinions. She doesn't want
to believe that morality can have bad consequences or that immorality
can have good consequences.
And I just love Tara. Tara is also the name of a Buddhist divinity
that is the personification of a tear of divine compassion from
one of the great bodhisattvas, who knowing nirvana return anyways
to participate willingly in the sufferings of the world of forms.
Tara presents the illusions and forms of our world in all their
suffering, but she also disperses them and reveals the radiance
of life behind all of them, good or ill. I couldn't help thinking
of that as she said, "Its OK if you do, its OK if you don't."
No judgement. Just boundless compassion. And Buffy pleads with
the divinity, "Please don't forgive me." Boundless compassion
isn't just kind. It destroys everything. It shatters our moral
world, to have compassion for the unforgivable. We need to know
that someone deserves judgement.
And I was really impressed with the performances last night. The
quietude. The simplicity of the scenes between Buffy and Tara
at DmP, and between Buffy and Dawn at night, Willow and Tara outside
the Magic Box. The wealth of emotion in such simplicity.
Just some thoughts. I don't know how they really fit together
yet. This show is a beautiful and moving work of art. Meaning
will come later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: lovely thoughts! -- ponygirl, 10:23:56 02/06/02 Wed
That was great manwitch. I especially loved your thoughts on the
final Buffy and Tara scene (and finally the Buddhist tie-in to
Tara's name which has been bugging me for a while, though obviously
not enough to do some research). If Buffy finds forgiveness for
herself, can she offer it to Spike? And what does that mean for
her entire worldview, so based on the absolutes of good and evil?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: lovely thoughts and Tara -- DEN, 17:06:51 02/06/02
Wed
I have enjoyed Tara since she joined the show--but I'm a bit concerned
at the increasing tendency of the scripts to make her a kind of
Empathy Goddess nurturing Dawn, understanding Buffy, (eventually)
forgiving Willow, and just generally being One with the cosmos.
I prefer my Scoobies imperfect, thank you very much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: a not-analysis of Dead Things (*Spoilers*), just thoughts
really -- Scroll, 10:25:15 02/06/02 Wed
I completely agree with your take on last night's episode, especially
in regards that last scene between Buffy and Tara. While I love
each and every character on this show, Tara is my favourite. Just
as you said, she is compassion personified. She's not simply forgiving,
she is gracious to those in need of grace.
I really think they should get Amber Benson on as a regular. She's
a fantastic actor and a real asset to the storyline. So many times
in early Season 6, I see her as the next Giles and the next Joyce.
Willow may have the book-smarts to be a Watcher, but she has too
many of her own problems to really be that mentor Buffy needs.
And Tara with Dawn is like Spike with Dawn, very family-like,
with her "make sure you eat something green" and "funny
shapes or rounds?" I worship Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: a not-analysis of Dead Things (*Spoilers*), just
thoughts really -- Rattletrap, 06:40:50 02/08/02 Fri
I agree with you, Scroll. I'd love to see AB as a regular for
S7. The word that comes to my mind for Tara is grounded. She is
a very stable person with her feet planted on the ground who injects
some badly needed order into the chaotic instability that is the
Scooby Gang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Tara's name -- Vickie, 10:37:57 02/06/02 Wed
Loved your post.
I posted on Tara's name (back last summer, I think). But (as usual)
it wasn't interesting enough for the board.
Another cool thing about Tara's name is that the bodhisattva is
not only the embodiment of compassion, but is also a woman. The
incarnated Tara (in Tibetan Buddhism) was told that, if she studied
diligently and was constant in her devotions, she might eventually
earn reincarnation as a man and then achieve enlightenment.
Tara replied that she would never leave the circles of the world
until all beings could go with her into bliss, and that she would
achieve her enlightenment in the form of a woman.
Perfect actress they have portraying her, no?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tara's name -- Andy, 13:40:26 02/06/02 Wed
"I posted on Tara's name (back last summer, I think). But
(as usual) it wasn't interesting enough for the board."
I remember that. I thought it was very interesting :)
I'm happy to say that I like Tara again this season. Last year
I had lost interest in her and was even hoping they'd kill her
off but I'd hate for her to be killed or otherwise written out
now.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tara's name -- Rattletrap, 06:44:34 02/08/02
Fri
"Last year I had lost interest in her and was even hoping
they'd kill her off but I'd hate for her to be killed or otherwise
written out now."
Aaargh! Bite your tongue! Now you've just guaranteed that Joss
will kill her off--he's always one for denying us what we want
so he can give us what we need.
With that in mind, I'm founding the WE HATE TARA club, in hopes
of keeping her alive just a little bit longer. :-)
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tara's name -- manwitch, 11:28:42 02/07/02 Thu
I would be very interested if you felt like going into it again.
You clearly know more about it than I do.
I waver back and forth sometimes on how conscious I think the
selection of that character's name was, you know, were they aware
of the Tara deity. But just from what you say there about the
"form of a woman," well, I interpret that as saying
that enlightenment is not the product of a cultural institution.
It transcends cultural hierarchy and value. Which just seems to
be, yet again, too close a parallel to the themes of this show
for it to have been total coincidence. But maybe it was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Tara and the form of a woman -- Vickie, 14:11:13
02/07/02 Thu
Let me start by saying that I am by no means an expert in the
field of Tibetan Buddhism, or on Tara the bodhisattva.
What I meant by the "form of a woman" comment was that
the Buddhists in the region believed that only a man could achieve
enlightenment. A woman would have to earn reincarnation as a man
before she could be enlightened. Women were considered lesser
beings.
I agree that Tara's iconoclastic significance fits in well with
BtVS. I'd like to say I've seen Tara statues in the Magic Box,
but I've never actually been sure.
The other point was that Amber Benson, who's been criticized for
having a womanly form (instead of the fashionable over-slender
build most actresses cultivate) is the perfect one to portray
someone representing the diety Tara's virtues.
Tara is "ever ready" to respond to the pilgrim in need
of her compassion, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Tara and the form of a woman -- manwitch,
20:33:14 02/07/02 Thu
Nice. Forgive me for being obtuse. I just didn't see the extra
layer of meaning in the italics.
Did you see the post from I think it was Vampire Hunter above,
where he mentioned his dirty little thoughts upon seeing Buffy
with her head in Tara's lap in the final scene?
I don't really see it that way. But I do see Tara as a Mother
Goddess sometimes (which I'm sure the womanly form helps). And
the image, visually, struck me as a suggestion of Buffy's desire
to return to the womb, not just in terms of being a child who
is taken care of, but in terms of returning to the womb of the
Mother Goddes, who, somewhat analagous to the divinity Tara, brings
us into the world of forms and its misery. Returning to that womb
would be like a return to the earth, in which Buffy was interred,
and also a return to the place beyond forms and misery, where
Buffy was. It seemed a sort of multi-layered image of Buffy's
resistance to her current state, but it would only work as such
an image if the character that Buffy kneels before (in a pose
that was a mixture of prayer and the fetal position) was Tara.
Anyone else and its just one person crying in another's lap. But
with Tara the image seems to have so much more significance.
Just thought I'd run it by. Maybe I'm thinking too hard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Last moment of Dead Things -- Vickie,
09:31:00 02/08/02 Fri
I did see vhD's post, and could see the point. I didn't pick up
on it at the time. Mostly too caught up in the emotions. What
little part of my brain was reasoning was desperately going "where
have I seen this before?"
Someone already posted this. A scene between Buffy and Willow
in The Prom.
Wow! thanks for bringing up the "return to the womb, return
to the earth" image. You're right that Tara brings more significance
to that scene than any other on the show.
I've been thinking for a while about how the board population
accepts the idea that "dark" magic is necessarily evil.
The dark goddesses represent the earth, the womb, the start (and
end, in some ways) of things. They are the dark portion of the
Yin/Yang, both of which are necessary for the universe. Darkness
is not necessarily evil.
We deny our "dark" portions and create a shadow self
(if you buy into Jung). These are not necessarily "bad"
parts, just anything we deny. Someone who thinks they are klutsy
might put gracefulness into their shadow. The snag is, to truly
integrate and become whole, we have to accept the shadow side.
I keep hoping this is where the season is going. But I'm probably
just nuts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Lovely post! And more thoughts on unwanted forgiveness --
Dyna, 15:27:25 02/06/02 Wed
I know what you mean, manwitch; some episodes are just so penetrating
that I have to sit with them for a long while before I can collect
my thoughts. I went to bed last night thinking of Buffy's dream,
and I think I thought about it even as I was sleeping. That, the
scene with Buffy and Spike on opposite sides of the door, and
the scene with Tara and Buffy at the end were the most haunting
moments of the episode for me.
I'm fascinated by what you said about Tara:
"I couldn't help thinking of that as she said, "Its
OK if you do, its OK if you don't." No judgement. Just boundless
compassion. And Buffy pleads with the divinity, "Please don't
forgive me." Boundless compassion isn't just kind. It destroys
everything. It shatters our moral world, to have compassion for
the unforgivable. We need to know that someone deserves judgement."
Tara seems to me to be a kind of otherworldly figure, and "compassion"
is the perfect word for the quality she represents. I was really
struck by her at the moment in "The Body" when she looks
at Xander, cradling his injured hand, and says simply, "it
hurts." She feels the pain of others, receives it with calmness,
and offers comfort. As others on these boards have pointed out,
her turn as the voice of the spirit guide in "Restless"
seems to foreshadow her importance to the spiritual journey of
the other characters, especially Buffy, maybe also Spike and Dawn.
Your contribution on one of the meanings of her name is fascinating!
I like your reading of why Buffy would be so devastated by the
prospect of being forgiven. Not knowing what you do about Buddhism,
my own reading of Buffy's reaction was more visceral--I connected
it to the pain of being offered forgiveness by the wrong person,
and for the wrong crime. Buffy has confessed to Tara that she
"lets Spike do those things to me." She casts herself
as the victim with that phrase, yet it's been clear throughout
the episode and before that Buffy is the primary aggressor in
the relationship. In her dream she places Spike in the position
of her "victim"--handcuffed and looking away with his
eyes closed, symbolic of his trust in her--and she repays that
trust by staking him. We've just seen her beat him to a bloody
pulp, using him to dump out all her terror and self-loathing.
The real question that seems to be tormenting Buffy by the end
is not why she lets Spike do things to her, but why she does these
things to Spike. This she can't confess even to Tara. Small wonder
that the absolution she's offered feels unearned and unjustified!
Maybe the problem for Buffy in accepting any forgiveness in this
situation--either Tara's or Spike's, which he seems to offer her
implicitly, even after the beating in the alley--is that while
she feels strongly she's done wrong, the nature of her wrong is
still unclear to her. Is she wrong because she's "using"
Spike when she doesn't love him? Because she hurts him just because
she knows she can, and she doesn't care about the consequences?
Or is it the opposite--is the "wrong" that she really
has feelings for him--that she does these things to someone she
knows is deserving of better from her? I feel the question is
still open--Buffy left it open when she didn't answer Tara's first
question, "Do you love him?" Either scenario would be
enough for Buffy to feel she's done terrible wrong--torturing
and using Spike because she doesn't love him is wrong; doing those
things to someone she actually has feelings for is still wrong,
maybe more wrong. The exact nature of what she's doing is, IMO,
still not fully explained.
I'm so fascinated by this story, and this episode was so striking
and beautiful! After the awfulness of DP, I'm so relieved to have
something so thought-provoking to work through again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> have to object to one thing -- anom, 22:40:16 02/06/02
Wed
"Buffy has confessed to Tara that she "lets Spike do
those things to me." She casts herself as the victim with
that phrase...."
Victims don't volunteer. Buffy has a choice & knows it; she "lets
Spike do those things," even goes to him for them. I don't
see her openly admitting this to Tara as making any claim to victim
status.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: have to object to one thing -- manwitch,
11:21:56 02/07/02 Thu
Well, perhaps "victim" has too many connotations, but
I think Dyna's point is accurate. Buffy isn't "letting"
spike do anything. She's seeking him out and hopping on board.
I think she wants to distance the Buffy that went to heaven (who
would never seek Spike out for such a thing) from responsibility
for what the Buffy that was expelled from heaven is doing. So
she's acting like, at some level, its not her agency. She's acting
like she's passive ("let him do"--she allows passively
and Spike "does" with agency), when in fact she is fully
and actively immersed in this.
I feel that Buffy is looking for some external justification for
why she deserved to be expelled from Heaven. I know her friends
brought her back, but she feels she was expelled. ("So that's
my refrain. I live in hell cuz I've been expelled from Heaven").
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great post -- shul, 18:59:09 02/06/02 Wed
I would write a post too, but im still asorbing it all in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things -- vampire hunter
D, 14:50:25 02/06/02 Wed
Ok, here are a few things I came up with while watching the show:
1) What the hell is wrong with Warren. Didn't he learn that having
a girl who is totally subserviant and mindless is boring. That
wa why he left the sexbot wasn't it. And the reason he liked Katrina
better was because she was not like that. He is a real moron.
2) How did buffy and Spike end up under a rug? How many people
end up under rugs during sex (sheets, yes. Rug, no). And what
did Spike handcuff Buffy to? (and how many of you girls would
let SPike tie you up?)
3) Was Spike coming into Buffy's room that night part of the Dream?
4) When Buffy's face winded up in Tara's lap, did anyone else's
mind go to a really dirty place? If it had been any girl but Tara,
I know I wouldn't have thought that, but with Tara being who she
is........
5) Was Buffy crying because she is startiung to realize that she
does love SPike (and not liking it) or because she was using Spike
(and knows that that is wrong)?
Ok, so that was mostly questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things --
Dichotomy, 15:39:10 02/06/02 Wed
Here are the answers as I see them:
1) Warren is E-VIL! He's more evil than the other two. And he's
all about shortcuts to reach his goals. He wants Katrina back,
but instead of proving himself worthy or just taking no for an
answer, he uses the quick and easy method.
2) Well, I'm sure some of us have ended up in some pretty weird
post-coital locations. I'm, uh, not saying I have. And in the
dream it seems everyone who is cuffed simply has one hand cuffed
to the other, so maybe that's the way it was.
3) I thought it was part of the dream, but I could be wrong.
4) No, not me. Tara is such a nurturer, I don't think I would
have had those thoughts even if she had the same personality,
but was male. Naughty, naughty vampire hunter!
5) My impression is that she feels she's bad for using Spike,
but she also makes reference to hurting the ones you love, so
I'm not sure. I'm leaning toward user guilt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things
-- Maddy, 00:43:20 02/07/02 Thu
5. I think that B begging Tara not to forgive her implies that
if she (Tara) does, that will make it ok (Buffy's behavior). "Don't
forgive me." = I am (should be) wrong = What I'm doing isn't
ok. If she is forgiven for her "bad" behavior then that
threatens her black/white world and throws her whole life into
upheaval. She is guilty and ashamed, and wants to wallow in it,
but if she is forgiven she has to deal with it. IMHO Buffy's "morality"
is the canon of the show: demons bad/humans good. And if this
is threatened, her life is a mess, and Board Posters get upset.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things --
leslie, 16:01:33 02/06/02 Wed
"2) How did buffy and Spike end up under a rug? How many
people end up under rugs during sex (sheets, yes. Rug, no)."
You know, I wondered that too. Especially since most of Buffy's
clothing appeared to be under there, too. Trap door from a lower
level of the crypt? Ours is not to reason why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things --
GreatRewards, 16:19:36 02/06/02 Wed
1. I'd call it a storyline continuity error.
2. Maybe the maid came in and swept all the "dirt" under
there.
3. My vote: dream.
4. Guilty.
5. Buffy was crying because, until Tara's revelation that she's
(more or less ) normal, she could justify her relationship with
Spike as a byproduct of her unnatural return. With that excuse
eliminated, she's forced to confront the possibility that she
may actually have feelings for Spike, even though it goes against
everything she thought she believed in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things
-- DEN, 16:33:27 02/06/02 Wed
Being "under the rug" is a METAPHOR!!!! ME wanted to
make sure, just in case anyone missed that nuance in the story
line!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Question -- pagangodess, 19:21:57 02/06/02 Wed
Not getting the metaphor. Help me! Please!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Rufus, 19:28:00 02/06/02
Wed
When you don't like something it is "swept under the carpet
or rug"...what you can't see can't hurt you. With Buffy,
her sex life with Spike is something she would prefer to keep
under the rug with no one knowing about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Rufus. I'm getting it now
(NT) -- pagangodess, 19:34:19 02/06/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things --
celticross, 17:23:53 02/06/02 Wed
1) Not only is he a moron, he's the worst type of moron...the
evil genius kind.
2) Ummm....because it was the only way the writers could have
Buffy and Spike all cute and post-coital without having them in
bed? Plus the whole metaphor thing....
3) I think it was part of the dream, which is really too bad,
because that was actually the closest they've come to "making
love" so far in this weird thing of theirs. Interesting that
this should occur in *Buffy's* dream....
4) That thought never occured to me watching the episode, but
it always will anytime I watch it again. Thanks, vhD! :-p
5) I think she was crying because a) she realized she's been using
and has nothing to blame for it but herself, and b) that means
she's actually *attracted to him*.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things
-- Rufus, 19:37:05 02/06/02 Wed
5) I think she was crying because a) she realized she's been using
and has nothing to blame for it but herself, and b) that means
she's actually *attracted to him*.
Buffy has a strong need to do things that are right, not things
she has labeled wrong. She remembers what it was like to be used
so she does feel strongly about "using" someone for
sex, now it looks like she has done just that. It's wrong, but
she can't stop. Add in the fact that she actually does care about
Spike in a way she isn't sure about. Spike is everything she should
hate...she is supposed to kill vampires, not having public sex
with them. The words going through her mind must be "bad"
"wrong"...but she still thinks about the "evil
bloodsucking fiend".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things --
Cydney, 06:25:56 02/07/02 Thu
3. I wished it wasn't part of the dream - because I agree it was
a more loving scene - but her clothes were different when she
woke up - so I assume we are supposed to believe it is part of
the dream.
5.Buffy wanted to find out she came back wrong...it would have
been her excuse/rationale for why she allows Spike in her life.
Then Tara tells her there's nothing wrong - and Buffy can't face
that what has been going on is really the real her. She still,
in her goody-two-shoes way, believes that she shouldn't/can't
care about Spike. And is VERY afraid of what her friends will
think.
But, the objectivity of Tara: It's OK if you love him. He's done
a lot of good and he loves you.
Buffy also doesn't want to believe she is using Spike - that would
also make her a bad person (in her mind).
But I think she does care for Spike. And only resists because
she thinks there must be something wrong with her if she does.The
real problem under it all - she doesn't trust herself to trust
Spike. She, at times, had the same problem with Angel and with
Riley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My own thoughts/comments/questions on Dead things --
grifter, 14:14:00 02/07/02 Thu
1. I guess he was so bitter over her leaving him that it didn´t
even occure to him that she´d be just like the ´bot.
Sometimes people repeat mistakes. I do it every time I have a
quarrel with my mother. Always know how to push her buttons, and
she knows mine, it´s stupid, but we´re still doing
it. Call it human.
2. Hmm, I guess this has been answered more eloquently then I
could anyway already...
3. I think it was part of the dream, yes. Poor Buffy, can´t
even escape the guy in her dreams now!
4. No. Although it has before in similar scenes, to my shame.
It´s so pathetic! It´s such a stupid macho-sexist-cliche
that all lesbians are getting it on all the time.
5. Beats me. Have to wait for more clever people to explain it
to me. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike and Buffy more healthy than we realize...Unconditional Love
-- Joie (d V), 21:52:56 02/06/02 Wed
There have been a lot of compelling points made about the Spike
and Buffy thing. The more I think about it though, the more I
realize that what is going on between the two may be even deeper
and actually more healthy than it appears. Spike in a way is showing
Buffy a true love that when it is realized could be a salvation
to her...bringing her heart/mind/spirit out of death. Putting
all of the disfunction and perversities aside, what the Dead Things
episode really shows is that no matter what Buffy does to Spike(pummeling
his face) he will continue to love her (he can't stop) and be
there for her in her darkest hour. Spike is telling her that she
(her being) is inherently of such value that she will be loved...and
no matter how evil or destructive or malicious she gets, there
is nothing she can do to defile this worth and make him stop loving
her. In short, he is giving her his love even though she doesn't
deserve it after all that she has done to him. Isn't this basically
unconditional love? Isn't that what we all want? Can you imagine
what this can mean to her when she truly understands? When she
realizes all of this, she can forgive herself because he (and
Tara) have forgiven her...then she can realize that this love
is a great gift (she didn't earn it) and as a result, she will
be truly alive again and reborn inside. This may perhaps give
her a new appreciation for life and a hope in the future.
Just some thoughts! What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy more healthy than we realize...Unconditional
Love -- Caroline, 07:25:13 02/07/02 Thu
I think that you have a point here. I've read of lot of other
people talking about this relationship as being unhealthy because
its physically abusive blah blah blah. But what we are dealing
with here is myth and metaphor, and two beings who are mythically
strong, so I don't think that the domestic violence angle is really
relevant. What is important about myth is the human impulses the
behaviour represents (as least IMHO).
Spike is giving her unconditional love but she can't accept it
because she views parts of herself as evil and therefore unworthy
(and Spike by projection). And the fact that he is still there
for her and hasn't turned her does say something positive about
him. Perhaps the scenario may turn out as you say, with Buffy
realizing what a great gift this love is.
But I think that he will have to be willing to step back (and
soon) to let her come to this realization on her own. You don't
feel the sort of grand passion and compulsion that Buffy and Spike
feel based on no feelings at all but Spike won't get her to realize
this by obsessively returning to her. They're going to need some
time apart because she obviously can't figure out what a good
thing she has, and maybe she can do so in his absence. She may
integrate the aspects of herself that she is currently projecting
onto Spike, and he may be the instrument that she uses for this
purpose but the resulting maturity and self-knowledge must open
up the possiblity of choice for her - and right now she's behaving
with compulsion. As for Spike, not only has he fallen for her,
he has shown that he has already made the decision to love her
as well - his choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy more healthy than we realize...Unconditional
Love -- purplegrrl, 14:31:42 02/07/02 Thu
***I've read of lot of other people talking about this relationship
as being unhealthy because its physically abusive ... But what
we are dealing with here is myth and metaphor***
I agree. (I have a friend who says that Buffy shouldn't be hitting
Spike because he's so cute!) What appears to be abuse heaped on
Spike by Buffy is really Buffy's inability to come to terms with
what she has gone through and what she is going through (namely
her "relationship" with Spike). In season 3 Buffy herself
admitted that killing things is comfort food for Slayers.
I'll admit that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the intensity of
the abuse that Buffy visits on Spike. But it does contrast nicely
with the passion she exhibits during their lovemaking. Buffy doesn't
want to like Spike in the same way she liked Angel and Riley,
but she is beginning to like romping in the hay with him -- witness
their post-coital tete-a-tete in "Dead Things."
And although Spike is unwilling to be Buffy's "Nancy-boy"
(Angel) or knight in shining armor (Riley), perhaps he needs to
not say every thought that passes through his mind (ala Cordelia).
He might have to endure fewer beatings -- even though I *know*
he enjoys them on some twisted level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love that ever fixed mark *Spoilers* -- fresne, 17:43:54
02/07/02 Thu
Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds.
That's been going through my head for the last few weeks. It seems
to imply that the only true love is love which never changes.
However, people change. The way we love changes. Did Buffy love
Angel. Did Angel love Buffy. It certainly seemed and seems so.
It's just that things change.
That and something my housemate said last night as we discussed
Smallvillle. That Lex's dark side is a parallel to Clark's identity
as Superman. They are the classic Romantic Other. The light and
dark of it. Both ultimate identities don't exist yet, and yet
the seeds, the elements, all it takes to be that other person
is just waiting to come into the light. And that if being Superman
is merely a subset of Clark, so to is evilLex, but a small subset
of being Lex.
As being the Slayer is but a small subset of being Buffy. Of course
she's at a different stage. She's been The Slayer for going on
six years now. Not knowing where her power comes from. Not entirely
comfortable with what it means to be different and yet when she
doesn't think about it, enjoying the pleasure of being the Slayer.
That's where the Faith lesson went wrong I think. There are so
many if onlys to that relationship. Buffy and Faith, each other's
dark mirror. The other which we long to become and yet fear losing
ourselves and being what we despise.
Then again Buffy has a long history of problematic love relationships.
For fun lets list them, although by this point its hardly necessary.
1)Dad - left when Buffy became the Slayer.
2) Boyfriend in the movie - dumped her when she became odd
3) Angel - went evil, came back, angsted, dumped her just before
the prom and made graduation so much more fun. Cause you know,
this relationship is a feakshow.
4) Ford - 1st crush shows up and sells her out to the forces of
darkness, which in this case is/are Spike.
5) Scott - felt that she just had too many problems.
6) Faith - Was her/could have been her, tried to kill her, she
tried to kill
7) Parker - dumped her after sleeping with her.
8) Riley - Jo normal went weird after dating her and hung out
with vamp hookers.
9) Giles - left after he found out she was in heaven (somewhere
in her head - expelled from heaven)
Over and over, Buffy gets the message that she's not worthy, wrong,
weird, not right. No wonder she seems so eager to change herself
for love. Getting dumped boils down to what did I do wrong (the
whole Parker episodes) Why wasn't I a good enough girlfriend (IWMtLY).
No wonder she splits herself in two. As Owen puts in NKaBotFD,
you seem like two different girls. A statement that she accepts
and embraces. Asks Riley if he wouldn't rather she were just Buffy
and not the Slayer (OoMM, RM). Wishes for a normal girl relationship
with her creature of the night boyfriend Angel. The fear that
her father really did leave because she is the Slayer (Nightmares).
And yet the show is not Buffy vs. the Slayer. It is Buffy the
Vampire Slayer. There is no two girls, there is only one girl,
who is the Slayer, who is Buffy.
And then I come to Spike. In a world according to the Mayer, any
relationship between them can have no possible future. And we
gnaw at it. Is Spike redeemable? Is Spike evil? Their relationship
would be alright if he...showed remorse, had a soul, was human,
etc. Which all boils down to Spike would be worthy of love if
he met certain conditions. It's only okay to love certain kind
of people. Its only okay to love good people. Love is earned.
Love is about worthiness.
However, and here's the personal philosophical rub, love isn't
earned. (the see how he loves her, she should love him philosophy)
You don't just love people who deserve love (look at all the good
things he's done. She should love him). Love, like forgiveness,
just is. As Tara says, its okay if Buffy loves Spike and it's
okay if she doesn't.
Now, I want to qualify here that I'm not equating love with letting
people walk all over you or mistreat you or whatever. I merely
speak of the emotion itself. As Spike has said, he's tried not
to love Buffy, he just can't help it. There it is.
Buffy tells Spike over and over that he is not capable of love
(heck we have the exact same conversations here). He is a fiend.
Evil. Dead.
Like Buffy fears and desires to be. Has always feared. Again,
one of her fears in Nightmares was becoming a vampire. It's part
of the poignancy of her plea to not "forgive me." What
a relief it would be to finally and forever fail at being perfect.
It would be an end to the little failures.
I wonder if it isn't like Spike's speculation about the Slayer's
death wish. A perfection death wish. If Buffy has always feared
her dark side, denied it, I wonder if some element of the sex
scene at the Bronze isn't Spike once again reading Buffy correctly.
In some ways, I think that she does want to finally become the
evil creature, her power rooted in darkness, violence always her
first solution, no future, dead inside, so she can freaking get
it over with.
Because whether or not Buffy has betrayed her friends, Giles,
Dawn or Willow or Spike's love, trust, whatever, I think that
she believes that she has failed.
Consider her dream. Buffy and Spike are in bed, and he says that
it (the murder? their relationship?) will be their secret. And
then he is handcuffed. She is in a position of power over him.
Flashes of fighting. Flashes between scenes. Then Spike is Katrina,
also handcuffed. Then Buffy is lifting the stake to kill Spike,
who is looking away from her (sleeping on the rug. Trusting her.)
However, the blow that falls kills Katrina, whose eyes film over
in death. In Buffy's dream imagery at least, there is a clear
correlation between Spike and Katrina. Buffy's love/like/lust/whatever
for Spike caused this girl's death. Didn't she thank an unspecified
deity for the distraction.
So, she gets up to turn herself in. Talks to Dawn, who sees Buffy's
choice as another betrayal. Once again Buffy has failed Dawn.
After all as an earlier poster (who I'm quite sure I agree with.),
Buffy is neglecting Dawn by not spending all of her free time
with Dawn. She steals time with Spike, which is a wrong relationship.
Course, I wonder how many of the moments are stolen moments on
breaks between double shifts to earn enough money to pay bills
or when she should be slaying or in the middle of the night when
Dawn would be asleep anyway, but whatever.
The look on Buffy's face when she had some free time, was there,
and Dawn didn't want to be with her. Would rather go hang out
with a real mother. Another failure. Just a little more guilt.
Then that very disturbing scene in the alley. With Buffy like
Faith beating her other, although in this case the other doesn't
resist. Wants her guilt. She tells Spike that he doesn't understand
why she feels so bad, and like always, his response is to ask
her to explain it to him. To talk it out. He gives her a convenient
demon shaped thing to beat up, when the entire time the language
that she uses to describe Spike, remind me nothing so much as
how Buffy has described herself this season. Consider that like
in the dream, Buffy is sitting on top of Spike. Except this time
it isn't sex. It isn't even a pseudo-sexual staking. She's just
beating him up. Again the look on her face as she realizes what
she's done.
I wonder, if given her past romantic history, part of her denial
of Spike's ability to love, isn't tied in with seeing herself
as capable or incapable, a failure, in love. After all, even heaven,
where she felt loved, expelled her. Do we always hurt the ones
we love? I think that Buffy, who is full of love, fears that like
Warren, she is doomed to do so.
We return again to that final scene, where for the first time,
she doesn't deny the statement when Tara says that Spike loves
her. The scene where she doesn't want Tara, Spike, whomever to
forgive her for what she's done. Where she wants to be wrong,
absolved as unworthy.
I'm inclined to say that part of Buffy's growing up must be that
she has to accept that Spike loves her and that that love isn't
an earned thing.
And here I get into my frustration with the English language,
where someone is bound to misunderstand me when I say this. (I
want more words for love. Agape. Psyche. Eros. Phileo. I understand
that Sanskrit has ninety-six words for love; ancient Persian has
eighty. Personally, I feel gypped.)
In the 96 words for different kinds of love way, Buffy needs to
understand that she does loves Spike (don't know the kind), or
she wouldn't talk to him, trust him, connect with him, identify
him as the other that she fears to become. Because if Spike can
be loved, all unworthy, then maybe Buffy will give herself a break
and see herself as worthy of love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Love, that ever fixed mark.. -- Dyna, 18:54:26
02/07/02 Thu
"Buffy's love/like/lust/whatever for Spike caused this girl's
death. Didn't she thank an unspecified deity for the distraction."
How interesting! I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes
great sense. I was very struck by the way that Buffy's dream connects
Spike and the girl, her "victim." She sees herself in
a position of power over Spike, him showing trust for her (the
bound hands, eyes closed, looking away, maybe sleeping) and she
sees her own betrayal of that trust. I couldn't stop thinking
about her dream and the sense of overwhelming guilt it carried--not
just guilt about the girl, but also for the way she treats Spike.
She knows he loves and trusts her; she feels herself responding
with anger and cruelty. It's very consistent with the idea that
Buffy feels unworthy of love, and therefore anyone "wrong"
enough to love her must be equally unworthy.
"In the 96 words for different kinds of love way, Buffy needs
to understand that she does loves Spike (don't know the kind),
or she wouldn't talk to him, trust him, connect with him, identify
him as the other that she fears to become. Because if Spike can
be loved, all unworthy, then maybe Buffy will give herself a break
and see herself as worthy of love."
Oh! So true! And so in keeping with the message of the spirit
guide to Buffy last season, when she goes because she fears she's
losing her ability to love. I'm just going to quote it here, because
it seems so significant at the moment:
****
BUFFY
I... um... Okay. I have a question. This Slayer thing. What about...love?
Not just boyfriend love-
PRIMITIVE
You think you're losing your ability to love.
BUFFY
I didn't say that.
(beat)
Yes.
PRIMITIVE
You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your humanity.
BUFFY
Does it?
PRIMITIVE
You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter
than the fire, blinding. That's why you pull away
from it.
BUFFY
I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?
PRIMITIVE
Only if you reject it. Love is pain
and the Slayer forges strength from pain.
BUFFY
Yes.
Buffy nods...
PRIMITIVE
Love. Give. Forgive. Risk the pain.
It is your nature. Love will bring
you to your gift.
Buffy stops nodding. She just reached her tolerance for cryptic.
BUFFY
My what?
Cut to the Buffy Bot climbing out of the underground cavern.
BUFFYBOT: Spike?
****
I love the way that the scenes are cut, so that Buffy's question
seems to be answered by the BuffyBot. Love will lead her to her
gift, and her gift is--Spike? Maybe. Maybe it's something she'll
learn through Spike, about love, about forgiveness--"not
just boyfriend love." Something like the lesson you describe,
fresne--that love isn't about being worthy, it just is. Maybe
love, like forgiveness, is something we give not because someone
deserves it, but because someone needs it--and we, in the fullest
expression of our humanity, need to give it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> KABOOM! My head just exploded. -- Traveler,
23:32:53 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "Treat every man according to his deserts...
-- manwitch, 05:04:06 02/08/02 Fri
...and who should 'scape whipping?"
I agree. Love, and punishment for that matter, aren't given to
people because they deserve it. They are given as a reflection
of the giver.
I remember the scene with William and Cecily. He didn't demand
that his love be requited. It seemed like what he was going to
say was that all he asked was that his love be acknowledged. Spike's
hell is, and was even when he was human, that he is a romantic,
so full of love, and no one will accept it, believe it or appreciate
it. (The Judge noticed it though). But the truth is, William wasn't
"beneath" Cecily. William's love reflected on William,
not Cecily. Her contempt reflected on her, not William.
Its an act of grace to acknowledge love, even if it isn't requited.
I think fresne is right there, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ditto -- Anne, 05:14:45 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Love, that ever fixed mark.. -- fresne,
10:37:31 02/08/02 Fri
"Maybe love, like forgiveness, is something we give not because
someone deserves it, but because someone needs it--and we, in
the fullest expression of our humanity, need to give it."
(First, of all beautifully said. And now we return to our regularly
scheduled programming. )
This concept was something that Giles told Buffy in IoHEFY, but
she wasn't ready to hear it yet. And interestingly enough, yet
another case of Buffy being unable to forgive herself for what
was ultimately an expression of love.
As Cordelia said, "Over identify much."
I want a bit more of the end of WSwB, with Buffy's friends accepting
and forgiving her Joan Collin's tude and a little less the beginning
of S3, particularly the Scoobies and Joyce's continued repetition
that Buffy made some really bad choices and now she has to live
with them.
Well, except again for Giles, who accepts Buffy's return and makes
some tea. Perhaps, the similarity to Tara's response is that they
both have been though imperfect behavior. Giles in his youth.
Tara when her mother died. Knowing that they live in glass houses,
they cast no stones.
Although, with Tara and Willow, forgiveness doesn't mean a return
to the former kind of love. A return to innocence, which is what
Willow seems to desire. As circumstances occur, love changes.
Can Tara ever again offer Willow that complete and utter trust,
like the fawn in Bargaining? Need that necessarily prevent love?
Perhaps just a different word for the love that is now.
And for another past episode resonance, I just watched Graduation
again on FX. I had forgotten that Buffy handcuffs herself to Faith
during their fight. And as I think about it, the fight wasn't
about Angel. He was just the desirous object of their homosocial
triangle. Really, it was all about Buffy and Faith. After all,
if Buffy really wanted Faith's blood, trank gun (loaded to Oz
werewolf speed), meet Slayer.
Faith's language when they begin, "Give us a kiss."
The fight, the action of which was echoed in Wrecked. The juxtaposition
of light and dark. The knife.
Why does Buffy stab Faith with the knife given Faith by the Mayor?
Is it a symbol of betrayal. Does it represent all that she resents
in Faith. From a logical point of view, it makes no sense. Blood
loss being an issue if you need Faith's blood to cure Angel.
But if it's not about Angel, then its wonderfully more complex.
Closer than a lover. The enemy, who is the other half of yourself.
Buffy hates Faith. Buffy becomes Faith. It's too bad that Buffy
doesn't retain that moment coming out of the coma where she kisses
Faith's forehead, seems to forgive her. Moves on in the assuredness
that always marks the final moments of the season finale when
all becomes clear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Fawn=Tara. Great image!! Great post. --
Sophist, 13:09:36 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> awesome post !!! -- Stranger, 18:57:34 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> fresne, what a great post! -- Marie, 08:10:16 02/08/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last scene of DT (spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 22:39:10 02/06/02
Wed
Several have mentioned that they found the last scene upsetting
to the extreme. I agree - it's heart-rending, but it nagged at
my mind that something was familiar. Not as blatantly familiar
as Faith's rant while beating Buffy in TYG2 (I think it was),
but still... and there we go, FX played it this evening in re-runs:
Prom. At one point, Buffy is confiding in Willow that Angel has
decided to leave Sunnydale. When Buffy begins to cry as her heart
breaks, she slowly leans over til she's crying in Willow's lap.
The last shot is of Willow stroking Buffy's hair and looking upset
at not being able to do anything to relieve her best friend's
pain.
Odd, that this time around, for the first time, it wasn't Willow
offering compassion/comfort, but Tara. That says a lot (to me,
at least) of the exact status of Buffy and Willow's friendship
right now - at the same time it also underscores, yet again, Tara's
role as the compassionate, albeit neutral, figure in the Scooby
dynamics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The last scene of DT (spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:03:31
02/07/02 Thu
Another example of the near 'flashbacks' everyone has been seeing
in the episode. Some of them are surely intentional. The problem
with actively looking for all of them is that it could be endless
(and perhaps ultimately pointless). It would be interesting to
hear someone speculate on why this particular ep. has so many.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I just came up with another one -- CW, 07:36:13 02/07/02
Thu
Buffy's dreams about Angel seemed to revolve around blissful almost
platonic love, marriage, and someone else killing Angel; and they
were usually played out in bright sunlight. Buffy's dream about
Spike is about nasty (at least in her mind) sex, and she herself
killing him; and it's entirely in the dark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Actually, not nasty (spoilers) -- Anne,
07:58:42 02/07/02 Thu
Actually, I think one of the most striking things about the dream
was that the sex at the beginning (shot with the blue filter)
was not nasty; on the contrary, it's the one scene of tender (but
passionate) sex that we've seen between them. (Unless you count
his dream in "Out of My Mind" -- and isn't it interesting
that that was his dream). It doesn't get nasty until she gets
on top -- and isn't that interesting too. A number of other posters
have noted the difference in the quality of this sex and the real
-life sex we've seen so far, so I know I'm not the only one who
had this reaction. If Psyche ever gets something up on it we might
be able to check out whether that impression was deliberately
generated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The last scene of DT (spoilers) -- Smash, 08:47:37
02/07/02 Thu
Tuesday night, Dyna and I were on the phone picking apart the
episode and she said something that rang true and fits in with
your comments, Cactus Watcher. Dyna commented that with this one
episode, our characters have gone somewhere new. They've crossed
a threshold that they can't recross.
It feels like DT was re-opening old issues (thus the many flashbacky
feelings) to examine them again. Only this time, the gang is significantly
more mature and juggling all the other adult things in life. The
first three seasons dealt with lots of real issues, but when you're
16 or 17, you can define how you feel about those issues in terms
that are much more black-and-white. Sexuality, promiscuity, good
versus evil, slayer versus killer, avoidance, abandonment (literal
and emotional), the ever-nagging soul issue, and even Jonathon's
"I wish I had one of these in high school" feelings.
(Even one of our bad guys is revisiting his past to define his
present!)
I'm not saying anything original when I speculate that Buffy was
begging Tara not to forgive her for a lot more than just having
hot, wild, crypt sex with Spike. Remember in Inca Mummy Girl when
Buffy realized that she used violence to deal with "everything"?
Buffy has also unleashed Angelus, who proceeded to torment her
friends for months. She's run away, she's not been a "good
mother" to her sister, she killed herself, she was unable
to cope in a manner acceptable to Giles, and in this episode she
realizes that she gets off on lying to her friends. Pile on to
that guilt of one other issue: Buffy used to be fairly hasty in
the judgement and indignation department. Whoopsie.
The fact that so many people keep commenting on Tara's neutrality
seems important to me. Adolecents tend to pick sides to define
ourselves. As young adults, we begin to redefine ourselves. Buffy
needs to find a middle ground for these definitions to begin her
re-evaluation process.
I think Buffy's economic status--one of the major ways Americans
define ourselves--has been mirroring the emotional struggle we
saw clearly in DT. Buffy's economic status is at risk, similarly
are her clear-cut views on definitive issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks to both you and Dyna! -- CW, 16:17:47
02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Spike crimminally insane? -- Charlemagne20, 23:47:57 02/06/02
Wed
Not by human standards. As a demon he is a being who has been
infected with a Vampire Demon (Which in Pylia we see is sort of
the equivalent of a Cheetah or Tiger) in a human form and programmed
with a need to drink blood and a biological advantage to getting
it from humans (looking like and being able to act like one)
I'm referring to the Master and in general-Demon religion society
that Spike apparently is at least nominally a part of if not a
real practioner of. Sort of like the Master and the Annoited Ones
are Catholic Priests of the Demon Religion while Spike is a lasped
Catholic and Dru a avid layperson. Angelus by Demon standards
is a righteous member of the congregation even if it's just because
it's who he is and the Aryan Nation of the Demons is the Scourge...psychotic
even by their standards but devoted to their over goal.
What I'm saying is that is it possible that Spike's condition
is cake and eat it too? We've been looking at Spike and asking
whether or not he's a good human being without a soul and whether
that's possible when we should be really asking ourselves whether
Spike is a Demon who has a serious mental illness by their standards
due to trauma and abuse.
I'm not intending to rile Spike shippers out there because this
is NOT a bad thing by human standards. The culture Spike grew
up in seems to just be an extreme and stable version of all the
excesses of Stalin, Hitler, the Aztecs, and the Crusaders rolled
into one underneath the First and the general idea that the world
(Earth) is a very nice place while hell is a very loathesome one
and demons should take it back.
In a very real sense Spike is the White Man in "Dances with
Wolves" who in the heart of Demonic Manifest Destiny (My
guess is the average citazen of Hell doesn't care about the "New
World") has ended up adopting the inferior/weak/substandard
Culture and turning against his own people.
By cultural conditions he's abandoned everything that the Demon
world has taught him to love and embraced the human lifestyle
(just like the Buddhist demon in Angel) which is contrary to everything
that Demons have been taught to hold sacred. However on a fundemental
level this isn't nearly so clear and cut and dry as everyone might
believe
* Spike is murdering demons out of the sense of power it gives
him
* Dawn is protected along with other humans
* He loves the Slayer
Spike isn't just in it for Buffy because he stayed with the Scoobies
and Dawn well beyond it-he's a traitor to Demons and there's no
going back given the fact he's killed so many of them. He's taken
their natural drives to destroy and maim which are socially acceptable
among demons and turned them on his own people.
His devotion to Buffy, his love of human things (Manchester United),
His torture at the hands of the Chip, his abandonment by Drucilla,
and the sense of comraderie among what is in the Demon equivalent
a group of marauding brigands in the Scoobies have warped Spike
into something unrecognizable to Demon mindsets.
In effect he's ironically the polar opposite/mirror of Warren.
He's a Demon who feels bad about doing good things but accepts
it for the sense of power and community that it brings him despite
it all.
It makes me feel a whole lot better about Spike's role reversal
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> So Spike is criminally good? -- Traveler, 00:52:41 02/07/02
Thu
"It makes me feel a whole lot better about Spike's role reversal."
Whatever helps you sleep at night, man. ^.^
Love alone would be an adequate explanation for me, incurable
romantic that I am.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is Spike crimminally insane?--Yes. QED -- Shabidoo,
05:51:14 02/07/02 Thu
I would be loathe to ignore the words of Tara, a character painted
almost exclusively (i.e. excluding "Family") in angelic
terms in the Buffyverse:
"No you see, it can't end like that 'cause all of Quasimodo's
actions were selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no
understanding of right, everything he did, he did out of love
for a woman who'd never be able to love him back. Also, you can
tell it's not gonna have a happy ending when the main guy's all
bumpy."
Let's see which are characteristic of Spike:
Item: Selfishly motivated?
Check!
Item: No moral compass?
Check!
Item: No understanding of right?
Check!
Item: Motivated by being in love with a woman who'd never be able
to love him back?
Check!
Item: All Bumpy?
Check!
There will be no happy ending. Q.E.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Tara also said "It's OK if you love him. He does
love you and he's done a lot of good things." -- bookworm,
07:19:38 02/07/02 Thu
Spike isn't Quasimodo anymore, if he ever was. That quote is from
"Crush," correct? That was before "Intervention,"
when Spike endured torture from Glory rather than reveal that
Dawn was the key. It was before Buffy's death, when he accepted
that Buffy would never love him and still stayed around for four
months to watch over her baby sister and to help her friends fight
off evil. I don't think it's true that he has no moral compass
or no sense of right. It's not a human morality, but he certainly
makes choices based on what he thinks is correct. Spike's morality
is of a very personal nature. If it hurts Buffy, it's bad; if
it hurts Dawn, it's bad; if Willow is crying on the ground, he
can't let her stay there; if the Slayer has killed someone by
accident, the obvious thing to do is hide the body and let her
beat him to a pulp to get the aggression out. He was right, you
know, that it would be foolish to throw away her life on a whim.
How many other people would be hurt because Buffy chose to wallow
in her desire for punishment? There are worse reasons for doing
things than love and adoration. There are worse reasons to change
than for love. Impersonal do-gooding is cold and has a type of
selfishness about it, because it so often ignores the loved ones
you know at a personal level. Spike's morality is very much of
the one-on-one, up close and personal variety, which is pretty
good for a vampire. Besides, Spike's transformation may have started
because of love for Buffy, but I think it's going to continue
past their breakup.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's hard to avoid seeing spoiler-ish stuff
if you post it as your subject. -- GreatRewards, 14:12:25 02/07/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Tara also said "It's OK..." --
Malandanza, 17:11:41 02/08/02 Fri
"It was before Buffy's death, when he accepted that Buffy
would never love him and still stayed around for four months to
watch over her baby sister and to help her friends fight off evil."
Personally, I think Tara was lying -- she doesn't believe it's
OK, she just didn't want to add to Buffy's problems with the reaction
she in Intervention (that wild sex with Spike was not merely a
typical reaction to the trauma of her mother's death, but was
"nuts").
But for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right -- after
four months of helping take care of Dawn and fight evil, Tara's
opinion of Spike radically reversed itself (after all, she doesn't
remember Spike from his pre-chip days). Tara only knows half the
story -- no one but Buffy and Spike have been witnesses to the
abuse (physical and emotional) that the two have inflicted upon
each other. I doubt that she'd have said that it's okay to love
Spike if she had been a witness to the balcony scene or any of
the pre-sex quarrels. The Scoobies were walking on eggshells around
Buffy, trying to help her adjust while Spike was driving home
the point that she'd been brought back wrong, that she was worthless
and he was the best she'd ever be able to do. Spike was a much
better friend to Buffy while she was dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Tara also said "It's OK..."
-- bookworm, 21:15:44 02/08/02 Fri
I don't think Tara was lying, primarily because Tara has been
consistently written as Buffy's spiritual guide and a truth teller
-- she's the first one to say, "You don't know what you are,
what you will become" in "Restless." In "Dead
Things," she's offering an echo of what the First Slayer
told Buffy. She's telling Buffy to trust herself, to be open,
to accept death and love and life. Whatever it is Buffy FEELS
-- not necessarily whatever she DOES -- is all right. Tara knows
the Spike that exists now; she's seen how he loves Dawn and how
he helped them in the summer. She's probably heard stories about
the old Spike, but maybe that isn't relevant. If anyone would
accept Spike's plea: "A man can change," it would be
Tara. She's telling Buffy that if she loves Spike, that's OK;
if she doesn't, that's OK. Granted, Tara might have been shocked
and disgusted if she'd seen Buffy pummeling Spike's face or the
two of them demolishing a house in "Wrecked." But, on
the other hand, she's not a vampire or a vampire slayer. What
would be abusive for a human couple isn't necessarily abuse or
domestic violence for them. It's fun, it's cathartic, it's ugly
but real. I don't agree that Spike has been a bad friend since
Buffy returned. Buffy has been suicidal, has been emotionally
numb, has been choking on her own rage. Spike offered himself
up as an outlet, a punching bag, a type of catharsis. They both
have an instinct for violence that isn't pretty, but it's real
and a part of their sexuality. He didn't do much during the balcony
scene but tell the truth. Part of her does belong to the darkness
and if she doesn't integrate her dark and her light sides, she's
not going to survive. Spike's been the only one with the physical
and emotional bravery to take her on. Like Tara, he's a truth
teller. Neither Tara or Spike has ever lied to Buffy or let her
lie to herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Look who his sire is. With Drusilla as lover/mother/sister,
what else could he be? -- bookworm, 07:05:40 02/07/02 Thu
I don't think Spike has ever been a normal vampire. Either genetically
(the demon Drusilla who sired him was insane and created a demon
inside him that was weak) or from his bringing up, Spike became
atypical. He's got more human in him than the garden variety vampire.
People can say "evil demon" until the end of the world
and you won't convince me that William the Bloody Bad Poet isn't
just as present in that body as the demon Spike. It also looks
to me like he's always been a moth attracted to the flame. Other
vamps avoid the Slayer; Spike keeps getting drawn back to her.
By vampire standards, there is something very wrong with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Look who his sire is. With Drusilla as lover/mother/sister,
what else could he be? -- Rendyl, 13:22:17 02/07/02 Thu
"By vampire standards, there is something very wrong with
Spike."
Exactly. We (myself included) tend to get caught up in the whole
redemption question or the shipper question and I think how this
has affected Spike sometimes gets lost in the hoopla. By the standards
of his community (vamps, demons, etc) he is ill. It can be as
simple as if he cannot be the big bad to humans he will be a bad
boy rebel to the demon world, or it could be that the chip has
damaged him in a fundamental way. What we all eagerly seek out
as indications of possible redemption may be nothing more than
signs of serous mental illness.
It also raises the question 'If I change everything I am for another
person then is there anything left of me?'.
We often discuss whether the relationship is good for Buffy, whether
it is okay for her to be with a 'monster' but the same applies
to Spike. Is loving Buffy good for him? What does it say about
him that he is drawn to Slayers? and what does it mean for him
that he seems to need to play the romantic knight (or anti-knight,
grin) in his relationships?
Ren -darn that sinister cold medicine-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is Spike COMMUNALLY insane? -- MrDave, 21:41:50 02/07/02
Thu
"He's a Demon who feels bad about doing good things..."
I'm going to make some assumptions here...forgive me. But
* Vampires are demons made from amixing demons and humans
* Vampires do not have a soul
* All Human have a soul (to start with)
* Humans who become vampires do not have a soul
* JW asserts that a sould is almost identical to a concience
* Therefore, Vampires have almost no concience
The statement that Spike "feels bad" about doing good
is the BEST argument I've heard for his changing his moral alignment.
The chip doesn't compel him to do good. He chose a path that would
allow him to indulge his need for violence. It is sort of a by-product
of that that it is societally useful.
This is EXACTLY the opposite of Jonathan. He chooses "evil"
becasue it enables him to indulge his desire to be (popular/powerful/rich)
it is merely consequence that people get hurt along the way. I
read a post above about the Evil Trio vs the Good Trio and the
idea that Jonathan might switch sides....well...Spike might too.
There is always balance on some level in the metaphor.
Just a stray thought at way too late at night
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex and the City -- Yellowork, 04:51:47 02/07/02 Thu
Is it me, or are references to Buffy cropping up in "Sex
and the City"? I know SMG guested on the show a couple of
years ago, but in the season showing in the UK at the moment,
Big has started dating a 'star' called 'Willow Summers,' thus
combining Willow and Buffy's monickers. More importantly, Miranda
(the redhead) seems to be picking up on some of the more obviously
Willow-esque speech patterns. This in turn is odd, as she is nowt
like Willow! There is hysterical praise for this show in GB at
pres; can't see why though. It is kind of reactionary: Sam is
the only decent character as she is older and more assured, and
the other characters 'relationships' are *so* banal - is there
nothing in the world besides sex and shopping. It is also the
most sexless work of art since the Nazis. (Though I gather our
censors have been letting more sexual content of the kind the
show flaunts through the net for years, so perhaps it is innovative
in its own context). The involvement of Darren Starr does nothing
to help matters to my mind. And it's reading of female archetypes
is hilarious; blaaaaaaahnde, brunette, redhead and curly. Please!
SJP has done much better work and *this* makes her a star? It's
the hard-knock life! Getting back to Buffy, S&tC demonstrates
how nice frocks and specious witticisms do not a good show make;
it is amazing how much more fun the relationships are on Buffy;
the supernatural crap helps to involve the viewer in what otherwise
becomes grating and self-obsessed. And the 'status quo' can change!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sex and the City -- Shabidoo, 05:19:37 02/07/02 Thu
>>Please! SJP has done much better work and *this* makes
>>her a star?
Witness L.A. Story. "Willow Summers?" Are you serious?
Good God, that's obvious! I'm of the camp that Sex and the City
occasionally achieves greatness but not nearly as often as Buffy.
Thanks for the tip regarding influences. From now on, I'll look
at Sex and the City through a different filter. Anyway, if it's
referencing Buffy, it can't be all fluff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Message, BTW (NT) -- Shabidoo, 05:22:14 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffyspeak -- Darby, 07:19:58 02/07/02 Thu
First off, I like S&tC and it's one of my wife's favorite shows.
It's an "issue" show, and although the issues are maybe
a bit less universal than BtVS, it can be fun to watch them addressed.
AND it shows relationships largely unexplored on other shows.
We have a lot of writers on the board. Who among us isn't crazy
jealous of Joss' ability to not only turn a phrase but to make
it sound natural, like it was picked up by listening? And who
hasn't "borrowed" a turn-of-phrase here, where you expect
others to get the reference but it's just doggone fun? I use it
out in the world as kind of an "in" joke, to see who
will pick up the reference.
There's LOTS of evidence out there that other TV writers watch
and appreciate Buffy and, probably without realizing it (my wife
got a seminar announcement with a verb made noun with "-age"
and she didn't see the connection right away), start to incorporate
speech patterns into their own shows (and who knows how much works
in as "improvisation" by the actors). Start looking
and it's everywhere - Sex and the City, Gilmore Girls (big time!),
almost all of the shows with "quippage." It become a
fun game to catch the phrasing as it goes by. It requires a bit
of watching, though - I live off my VCR, and we're lucky if we
get close to catching up during the rerun season, so it is possible
to watch TV and have a life.
Another strength of Buffyspeak is the tendency of characters to
not be able to think of something to say - I don't know that I've
ever seen it used the way it's used on the show. The idea that,
as a writer, you don't always have to come up with the perfect
quip is A) easier on the writers, B) natural and, when handled
properly (remember when Buffy clocked Giles and told Jenny to
"come up with something"?), becomes funny by itself.
So go, watch, take notes!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sex and the City -- grifter, 10:27:51 02/07/02 Thu
I never "got" that show either, the first few episodes
were kinda fun, but from there on it was just same old, same old.
Why it gets the publicity it gets I do not know, probably because
people like to say the word "sex" nowadays and think
that´s enough to make a show funny...
I don´t mind people "stealing" Buffyspeech, they
will never achieve ME´s level of dialogue anyway...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of Time this season (spoilers--plenty o') -- Shabidoo,
05:00:11 02/07/02 Thu
So far this season the Troika have literally manipulated time
thrice (twice in Life Serial and again in Dead Things). In the
context of the other epidsodes, this seems to be yet another symbol
for their immaturity. They feel that they needn't be time's slave
along with the rest of us slobs. Rather they have used their "mastery"
of time to their own advantage, namely, as a weapon to confuse
the Slayer.
Meataphorically, they believe they have mastered time through
the "wormhole" of crime. There's no need to earn money
slowly; they can just rob a bank. There's no need for Warren to
give his ex time to forgive him; he can just make her his sex
slave. Of course, as "rank amateurs," the Troika's best
laid plans will, certainly, backfire hideously on them revealing
that their mastery is only illusory (not to mention, lame).
The other storylines also emphasize the necessity of accepting
time's ravages. Buffy's suicidal deal with Sweet in OMWF shows
her own reluctance to continue to endure pain, and endurance is
all about coping with and thus acknowledging the power of time.
Spike explicitly croons that "The pain that you feel only
can heal by living."* Spike, who has proved above all things
steadfast in his pursuit of Buffy, understands from his many years
that time brings both suffering and healing.
In Dead Things, Buffy is bravely enduring her lot in life and
seems aware that time is her real nemesis. When Tara arrives at
DMP, Buffy quips that "Time has no meaning here," by
which she refers, obviously, to the dreaded monotony of service
with a smile. Simultaneously, she maybe trying to convince herself
of the insignificance (get it? significance=meaning) of her time
at DMP. I've tried that same line of thought as an operator while
saying "What city, please?" one thousand times a day,
literally. It doesn't work. No matter what you do, if you put
enough time into it, it will change you. DMP cannot fail to change
Buffy.
In Smashed and Wrecked, Willow too is unwilling to muddle through
the messiness of time. These episodes reflect her sentiment in
Something Blue, when Willow wanted to be able to just say "Poof"
and get rid of her Oz induced pain. The difference in Smashed
is that Willow finally has the power to distract herself enough
to forget about her own sad situation. When she is no longer able
to avoid pain on her own power, she turns to Rack to achieve the
same goal. She, effectively, wants to fast forward to the point
in her life where she will feel grief for Tara less acutely. We
find that her methods are less than satisfying, when she has come
down and is crying in the shower.
In Dead Things, Willow quantifies for Tara the amount of time
she has braved sans magic. 32 days. We find out from her conversation
with Buffy at the Bronze that the 32 days have been "really
hard days." Willow clearly expected a greater reward for
her endurance than Tara merely expressing gladness at her improvement.
Willow's look of disappointment is unmistakable. I suspect what
she wanted an affirmation of Tara's love instead. Her disappointment
may not bode well for the future of (pardon the pun) her straight
and narrow.
Time promises to play a prominent role for Xander in episode 16
where it is spoiled he will confront a faux future Xander. But,
I can't analyze what I haven't seen.
*Here, Spike advocates living for Buffy "so that one of us
is living." He needs her to live as if that is something
that sustains his attraction to her. Yet, in other episodes he
advocates her taking the path of the undead, belonging only to
the shadows. Is that Spike's definition of "living?"
or is his evil nature simply bound to destroy any good which attracts
him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> FUTURE SPOILER ABOVE. Thanks. I hadn't thought about this
before. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:13:15 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting points! -- Sophist, 08:27:09 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why This Year's Big Bad is Entirely Different (spoilers) -- B,
07:34:48 02/07/02 Thu
I think that to the extent there will be a Big Bad this year,
we now know that it's the Nerd Trio. Dead Things revealed that
they really are a frightening and dangerous force.
I wondered after last season what could possibly top fighting
a god. Now I know what it is -- fighting a human. For the first
time I can think of, the Big Bad is someone Buffy can't just kill
in order to defeat. Instead, the Scoobies may actually have to
work within the justice system in order to defeat the Nerd Trio.
Now Buffy knows who murdered Katrina, but how does she prove that?
She's not going to retaliate with a life for a life, so what does
she do to prevent them, permanently, from hurting others?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nope -- Cactus Watcher, 07:54:55 02/07/02 Thu
Can't agree. I think we've been hornswoggled. ME has been telling
everyone the main theme of this year is growing up. I think it's
a theme, but certainly not the main one. The real main theme is
DARKNESS WITHIN. There is more than a little darkness in most
of the characters this year. How one deals with one's personal
darkness is the real difference between the Scoobies and the nerds.
The nerds are definitely the big enemy, but almost everyone is
the BIG BAD.
Willow's fans shouldn't be so sorry she's getting serious troubles
piled on her. They should be happy she's an integral part of the
main plot line, unlike Xander who so far is on the just-standin'-there-team.
And even he was guilty of summoning Sweet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nope -- Anne, 08:14:10 02/07/02 Thu
First of all, great point that almost everyone is the BIG BAD
this season. Second, I'm a big Willow fan, and I am quite glad
she's having problems this year. I may be in a minority here,
but I would love to see her appropriate her own power, and I don't
see that happening unless she grinds through this issue of basing
her sense of personal power on her magic. Yeah, the insecure little-girl
routine was great for the first four and a half seasons or so
and was a grand mechanism to grind great comic lines through,
but I've always loved those few moments, both (on the dark side)
as Vamp Willow and (on the light side) as Willow-taking-charge-when-no-one-else-will
when she's come across as a strong, self-confident woman. There's
work to be done before she gets there, though, and I think she's
doing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Nope -- Tillow, 08:49:19 02/07/02 Thu
The growing up theme and 'facing inner darkness/demons' theme
aren't mutually exclusive. Growing up is about loss of innocence
and what you do when your worldview is shattered.
In Welcome to the Hellmouth we saw three different views. We saw
Buffy retreat. "This is not my destiny, I want to be a normal
girl." We saw Xander make up his mind and stick to it ever
since. He drew the line between good and evil. 'Vampires are bad.'
And we saw Willow put her thinking cap on.
The whole series has been about reacting and evolving to this
loss of innocence regarding the world around you. But now it's
about the characters themselves. They have to deal with the loss
of their own innocence. When they can face that and overcome their
own darkness in their own personal ways, they will have successfully
have passed over through to adulthood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Why Xander's Standing There (NO spoilers, none, zero,
zilch) -- Amber, 18:50:41 02/07/02 Thu
>Willow's fans shouldn't be so sorry she's getting serious
>troubles piled on her. They should be happy she's an >integral
part of the main plot line, unlike Xander who so >far is on
the just-standin'-there-team.
Xander may be just standing there, but he's standing there for
a reason. Xander, who is our most normal character (normal in
terms of lacking magic powers and superhero strength) is "growing
up". He's the only Scooby to have his own place, a successful
full-time job and he's heading down the path to marriage, something
that many 20-30 year olds consider a normal part of growing up.
Plus he's doing all this while still aiding in the fight against
evil!
Compared to Willow and Buffy, Xander's problems have been minimal
this year. Just typical wedding jitters. He remains the heart
of the group, as he has been since "Primevil" He offers
support to the others any time they need it, and shows them that
it is possible to survive "growing up".
Also I've noticed that a number of times, when stuff about the
evil trio comes up Xander can identify with it. Their pictures
of the "vulcan chick from Enterprise" comes to mind.
Xander makes a good parallel for those three because he's also
got stereotypical nerd interests (We've seen him read comic books
in the Magic Shop, he has a set of Babylon 5 collector plates,
etc).
Take away the friendship of Buffy and Willow, and take away girlfriend/fiancee
Anya, and that evil trio would be a quartet, because Xander would
be on their side.
Xander's not just standing around, he's there so that we can see
just how messed up everyone else is :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Clarification -- B, 09:59:23 02/07/02 Thu
I think the emphasis was placed on the aspect of my post which
I didn't intend. I didn't mean to start a debate as to the theme
of the entire season or who or what the "Big Bad" is
-- sorry if it sounded that way.
I guess my real question is: how does Buffy defeat someone, a
human, (or humans, the three of them) without carrying out the
death penalty herself, in a world where the police are incompetent
and there is apparently no justice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Clarification -- Anne, 10:44:30 02/07/02 Thu
Actually, I did get your point and thought it was excellent --
not that I have an answer for the question, but it will be interesting
to see how they work it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Clarification -- Tillow, 10:46:42 02/07/02 Thu
I think it's back to 'her love being brighter than the fire.'
Forget defeating with violence or vengeance (big theme-Season
2 Jenny's death). It's about redemption. Where she failed to reach
Faith and Angel later was successful was saving helping Faith
redeem her soul. I'm guessing that's where they go with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Clarification -- B, 11:17:15 02/07/02 Thu
Hmmm, that's really interesting. I wonder if Warren can really
be redeemed. And even if he is, and sees the error of his ways
-- should he pay for his prior misdeeds?
and if he should . . . should Spike? Or does he have an excuse
b/c he was deprived of having a soul???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Clarification -- DEN, 20:14:46 02/07/02
Thu
Good point. The troika are "real world" killers. Theirs
was a "real world" crime--look at the way posters reacted
to it. Spike's killings are part of the mythic/metaphorical "Jossverse."
And he DOESN'T have a soul, so it's like putting a wolf or a tiger
on trial.
The Spike problem is like the one we're having with the prisoners
from Afghanistan. They just don't FIT into the conventional systems.
Neither does he.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: defeating the trio -- skeeve, 08:02:11 02/08/02
Fri
Buffy doesn't necessarily have to do it by herself. Tara can help:
put a truth spell on them and send them into a police station.
Warren is the only one likely to be convicted for the murder itself.
Unless demonstrated, the cerebral dampener is unlikely to be taken
seriously, so the attempted rape and the murder are all on Warren.
There is no kidnapping conviction at all. The others are good
for after the fact stuff.
That said, the trio probably doesn't need defeating. It's about
to self-destruct. Warren is the only one who actually approves
of murder. The other two are unlikely to go along with any more
of his plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Aha! -- Marie, 08:47:45 02/08/02 Fri
Buffy doesn't necessarily have to do it by herself. Tara can help:
put a truth spell on them and send them into a police station.
This sentence made a thought which had been floating in a misty
sort of way around my brain for quite a while suddenly coalesce.
Is this why, do you think, ME have been so strong with the "Magic
as Addiction" metaphor? Because, surely, if everything could
be defeated by magic, the use of, Buffy would have no necessary
place in the Buffyverse. Ergo, the overuse of magic spells just
has to be shown as bad.
This is sort of like the old argument "Why don't the vamps
just shoot the Slayer?", I know, but I was just thinking
that, if ME goes the way of enabling Willow to use magic in a
controlled fashion (i.e., that they write the character as coming
to understand that it is not her use of magic that is wrong, but
her abuse of it), she (and Tara?) could control the vamps and
the demons with little danger to human life, and Buffy could then
go on and live a 'normal' life with her sister. And, of course,
if they don't go this way, because of keeping Buffy in the show(!),
how could they justify giving Willow back the use of any or all
of her powers?
Thoughts?
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Aha! -- Scroll, 09:58:22 02/08/02
Fri
I apologise in advance; this post is mostly rambling...
Why don't witches or groups like the Watchers Council simply use
magick to control or destroy demons? Perhaps the answer lies in
the Initiative. Instead of magick, they used technology to capture
and kill demons, render them harmless, and basically make the
world a safer place. But the Initiative (esp. Maggie Walsh) subverted
their power for Good by doing torturous experiments and making
scary demoids bent on destroying all life. Maggie thought she
could toy with life, creating and destroying as she saw fit. I
think this was the danger Willow faced: she had so much power
and toyed with it like a kid with an ACME lab kit, blowing stuff
up and having fun.
The Buffyverse makes a big deal about power and responsibility
(shades of Spider Man!) It takes a very special person to wield
the kind of power Buffy and Willow have and not go the path of
Faith.
Maybe the reason why magick can't solve all demon problems is
the answer to Marie's statement, "This is sort of like the
old argument 'Why don't the vamps just shoot the Slayer?'"
No matter how many shades of grey Joss introduces, the Buffyverse
is largely black and white. The Slayer and the demons are a balancing
act, and like Forrest says in Doomed, the Slayer's like a boogey-man
to the demons. Without her putting the fear of Good into them,
they may become like the three vamps in Who Are You? who took
over the church. They weren't scared of God anymore, and without
that fear, they could accomplish so much more. What could demons
accomplish if they had no fear? The demon gang in Bargaining weren't
that scared of Willow and Tara, despite them being witches. It
wasn't that the girls had no power, just that they weren't that
mystical legend called the Slayer the demons had been taught to
fear all their lives.
So maybe vamps don't shoot the Slayer (except Darla, may she rest
in peace) because, evil as they are, they respect the balance
of good and evil that must be played out. There's no real victory
over good if all it takes is a shotgun. For a vamp, the victory
is facing that fear of the Slayer and overcoming it.
Sorry if none of this makes sense or if it doesn't really answer
the question of Tara using a truth spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why This Year's Big Bad is Entirely Different (spoilers)
-- SugarTherapy, 17:44:49 02/08/02 Fri
"I wondered after last season what could possibly top fighting
a god. Now I know what it is -- fighting a human. For the first
time I can think of, the Big Bad is someone Buffy can't just kill
in order to defeat. Instead, the Scoobies may actually have to
work within the justice system in order to defeat the Nerd Trio.
Now Buffy knows who murdered Katrina, but how does she prove that?
She's not going to retaliate with a life for a life, so what does
she do to prevent them, permanently, from hurting others?"
I don't think it will be Buffy who disposes of them. If they die,
I'm thinking it will be Spike. I know he has the chip and all,
but I dunno... Big evil is often referred to as "inhuman".
At what point do you lose your humanity? If the trio gets to that
point, will Spike be able to kill them? Just a thought.... that
is sounding dumber by the second...
Sugar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why This Year's Big Bad is Entirely Different
(spoilers) -- Dariel, 21:57:55 02/08/02 Fri
I don't think it will be Buffy who disposes of them. If they die,
I'm thinking it will be Spike. I know he has the chip and all,
but I dunno... Big evil is often referred to as "inhuman".
At what point do you lose your humanity? If the trio gets to that
point, will Spike be able to kill them? Just a thought.... that
is sounding dumber by the second...
Not dumb, really. A related possibily is that Warren will mess
with Spike's chip. Which could backfire, leaving Spike free (and
happy) to take him out. Just speculation, but I have to think
something will come of Warren's knowledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why This Year's Big Bad is Entirely Different
(spoilers) -- Anne, 04:53:49 02/09/02 Sat
Yeah, I've had the same feeling about Spike's chip ever since
Warren said "I'd like to know . . ." in Smashed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trio of Good/The Trio of Evil &Tara's purpose (spoilers
ahoy) -- darrenK, 09:02:02 02/07/02 Thu
Most of this is speculation and interpretation, but there are
some spoilers ahead....
The real purpose of the nerd trio is to present a contrast with
the Scooby Gang.
Both groups are full of imperfections causing them to do things
that are morally ambiguous, sometimes even morally repugnant.
The difference is that the Scooby Gang is spending this season
struggling to control these imperfections. Meanwhile at Nerd HQ,
the Trio is celebrating, even attempting to exaggerate, their
imperfections.
The Evil Nerd trio is led by Warren, who, as someone else pointed
out is a sociopath; he has no scruples, no morals and no regrets.
He is rapidly becoming the paragon of evil that leads the others
into further evil. Both Andrew and Jonathan have still have traces
of good, but they succumb to Warren's influence.
The Evil Nerd Trio is all male.
Meanwhile in Scoobyland, a trio has also formed, so subtly that
I almost missed it, but it's been in the set-up stage for quite
a while.
The Scooby Trio is Willow and Buffy and it's led by Tara.
Over the course of this season, it's Tara that provides the example
of good mothering for Dawn, it's Tara that can control her need
to use magic, it's Tara who Buffy looks to for forgiveness.
As Warren is a sociopath, a paragon of nihilism, so is Tara all-compassionate,
a paragon of righteous action and feeling.
Just as Andrew and Jonathan struggle with the good in their nature,
so do Willow and Buffy struggle with the evil in theirs. Neither
Warren nor Tara have to struggle, they are what they are naturally.
The Scooby Trio is, of course, all female.
This opens up answers for two other rather persistant questions:
Why did Tara narrate Restless?
Buffy has always been the Scooby leader. Tara has spent her entire
tenure on Buffy relegated to a side role, almost a non-role sometimes
she barely seemed to be there. But this season she is pivotal,
the question of what Buffy is has become critical. Buffy has surrendered
leadership to Tara (why would she ask Tara not to forgive her
in Dead Things?) And we now know that Tara is Buffy's guide. Tara
has now told her "what [she] is," now we have to see
what is "to come."
Why is it that Tara is rumored to be this year's Scooby Death.
It made no sense, even last week. Why kill or try to kill Tara?
But now it makes perfect sense. She's the anti-Warren, or Warren
is the anti-Tara. We have to assume that as some point, her leadership
will either become more pronounced and she might die in battle
or her role as the paragon of what the Scoobies should be will
necessitate her martydom, making her the unattainable paragon
of Scooby goodness. Forever.
Now, some of you reading this are asking where the others fit
into this? They don't. This isn't their plotline. Xander and Anya's
wedding and wedding planning has taken them out of the mix.
Dawn and Spike are Buffy's lodestones. Buffy must learn to mother
Dawn, like Tara does and, maybe, she must learn to love Spike.
After all, Tara has said that loving Spike is OK.
It should be mentioned that Spike's own dual nature is reflected
in the struggles between the opposing Trio's.
I'd also like to note for those who have read Wanda's recent spoilers
that if Jonathan switches sides, he might by the "Fourth
one" in the trio of good. Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Curious, dK...do you feel the show's sense of urgency has
returned with "Dead Things"?... -- Rob, 09:36:53 02/07/02
Thu
Because I feel this episode really tied the season together, and
added some of the urgency for the plot arc that you felt was missing
this year...
Did your opinion of the season (or at least the course it's taking
now) change at all after "Dead Things"?
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I summed up my thoughts about the ep in my DT post
farther down on the page, if you wanna read it. -- Rob, 10:13:17
02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yup -- darrenK, 15:29:36 02/07/02 Thu
In Dead Things, the writers upped the ante on their grand Season
Six theme--"Oh Grow Up"--and clarified the role the
now-truly Evil trio plays in this.
By having the Evil trio cross that line, they suddenly become
both more interesting and more menacing.
And by seeing the formation of a Good/Female Scooby Trio to oppose
the Evil/Male Nerd Trio, I now see the way the Trio storyline
echoes the Spike/Buffy storyline and the way it forms a rather
grand and impressive pattern.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I agree 100%! :o) -- Rob, 19:43:47 02/07/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trust me?" "Never!" A weird analogy, with
minor spoilers. -- Darby, 10:03:10 02/07/02 Thu
I was going to put "Spike as Child Molester" in the
subject line, but it seemed too inflammatory.
However, that's the point. Adults who sexually abuse children
are sick (that's my premise going in, whether you totally agree
or not), and it's a sickness that doesn't seem to be easily cured.
We could certainly get into the same sort of "evil"
and "natural tendencies" discussions that go on here
every day.
If we had a "chip" that could give a convicted molester
pain whenever they tried to molest a child, there would certainly
be civil liberty questions but many people would see it as a good
thing.
Take the chip away - would you trust your child to the custody
of such a person?
I don't think that there was a contradiction in Dead Things over
Buffy's trust of Spike - I think that she absolutely does trust
him, chip or no, around her, maybe even around Dawn and a select
few others. But, like a similarly leashed child molester, how
could she, or we, ever trust Spike to control his nature without
the aid of the chip?
It's like the proverb with the scorpion (and what was the other
animal?) asking to be carried across the river - after convincing
the carrier that it would be safe from the scorpion, the scorpion
stung its benefactor halfway across. And to the question "Why?
Now we'll both die!" it responded, "I couldn't help
it, it's my nature."
And don't get me started on the "Once burnt, twice shy"
aspect that should be part of Buffy...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "Trust me?" "Never!" A weird analogy,
with minor spoilers. -- neaux, 10:26:46 02/07/02 Thu
Hmm... the idea of Child Molester is rather extreme?
I know Spike is old but.. c'mon..
I do get your point.. but after watching DT I was getting the
whole "Wife Beater" vibe.. in spikes relationship to
buffy... or buffy's relationship to spike. Its an abusive relationship
for both.
but never has Spike (that I recall) had a vicious nature against
Dawn.. I've always seen him as protector of Dawn.. no matter how
Buffy treated Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Choice and compulsion -- Caroline, 10:35:23 02/07/02 Thu
I would argue that part of adolesence is acting upon one's compulsions
- influenced by desires, greed, hormones. That is part of what
the troika represents this season. However, part of being adult
and growing up is moving beyond this stage and making choices
that may go against one's initial, instinctive desires. In relation
to Spike, I agree that only when he is de-chipped will we know
whether he reverts to his instinctual behaviour or whether the
scruples he has learnt while chipped will move him further along
the path to good. (Notice I don't say redeemed, just getting closer).
As for Buffy - she is currently acting under a compulsion in terms
of her attraction to Spike and she will continue to feel it until
she acknowledges the parts of herself that she has projected onto
him and deals with them. When that happens, the compulsion will
end and then she will have a choice as to whether she can have
a relationship with Spike or not.
And maybe TPTB at ME want us to start thinking not about redemption
per se, perhaps they want us to see Spike as a morally ambiguous
figure, rather like most of the rest of us. After all, if the
theme of this season is grow up, the possibility of some kind
of transformation has to be possible, because that's what growing
up is.
It's also worth noting Giles' comment in season 3 about 2 types
of demons - completely evil and those who wish to be redeemed.
It is also telling that right after this season Joss created Angel,
with a whole bunch of good demons. I'm not saying that Spike will
get there (who knows what ME and Joss will pull on us) but there
certainly is the possibility - that's what 'Randy's' reaction
in Tabula Rasa is about - he forgets he's a vampire, forgets he's
chipped and his immediate reaction upon finding out about his
demon status is realizing that he has no desire to bite and that
he is 'noble'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "Trust me?" "Never!" a question,
with spoilers -- Anne, 10:56:25 02/07/02 Thu
Taking off in a slightly different direction with regard to this
same line: don't you think the most troubling thing about this
line is the fact that, though Spike asks it of Buffy, most of
what goes on throughout the rest of the show seems to have more
to do with Buffy betraying Spike? It is her betrayal both of Spike
and (supposedly) of Katrina that is depicted in the dream images,
her betrayal that is portrayed in her brutal beating of him, and
her betrayal that is what she is tortured by in her breakdown
at the end.
Frankly, I'm not sure what to conclude from this -- but I think
there's something important in the fact that he asks the question,
she says no, and then everything else is a reversal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> no betrayal -- Robert, 12:15:25 02/07/02 Thu
"... don't you think the most troubling thing about this
line is the fact that, though Spike asks it of Buffy, most of
what goes on throughout the rest of the show seems to have more
to do with Buffy betraying Spike?"
Buffy has not here, nor in the past, betrayed Spike.
She has not led him astry. Rather, he has spent the last year
attempting to lead Buffy in a direction she doesn't want to go.
She has not delivered Spike into the arms on an enemy through
treachery or otherwise.
Buffy has not failed or deserted Spike. When Glory was torturing
Spike, Buffy rescued him. She talked up a line about bringing
him to a dusty end, but never did. She even thanked him with a
kiss.
Finally, Buffy never violated a confidence with Spike, because
none ever existed between them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redemption -- Sophist, 10:59:11 02/07/02 Thu
There has been a great deal of discussion about this topic, almost
all of it related to Spike. Let me raise it in a different context:
Does Anya need to be redeemed (suffer, atone, whatever) for her
years as a vengeance demon? Can she be? How is her situation different
from/similar to Spike's?
Thoughts anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption -- manwitch, 11:38:15 02/07/02 Thu
This has spoilers only if you think that someone's unjustified
musings about the future have any merit.
I think no. Anya doesn't need to be redeemed. My own personal
justification for this would be that Anyanka was not personally
evil. She served vengeance. But it was value neutral. She was
an instrument of the rage of others. I know there's lots of holes
to be punched in that argument. But anyway...
I think Anya's journey is to transition to humanity. And the fullness
of humanity will probably need to be two-fold: mortality of the
body and immortality of the spirit. I would expect Anya or someone
she loves very much to die. Because life is loss. But I would
also expect that Anya will reproduce.
The show, both shows in fact, have been interesting about putting
the "buffy" role (Buffy in Buffy, and Cordelia in Angel)
in the role of mother without requiring the woman to be a vehicle
of reproduction. I don't think Anya can escape it. She needs to
go through the whole ordeal.
As for Spike, I don't know that he needs to be redeemed. He just
wants Buffy to acknowledge his feelings for her. To recognize
that he can love her. Perhaps that's a form of redemption. But
I don't think it has anything to do with atoning for his evil
past.
Just my opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Can Anya transition to humanity? -- Sophist, 14:16:35
02/07/02 Thu
One of the persistent features of the debate about Spike is whether
he is making or even can make the transition from vampire (evil
undead bloodsucker) to something better. People (not me) frequently
say that he can't because he shows no remorse and hasn't been
punished for his past crimes. If Anya is to make the transition,
shouldn't this standard apply to her? And how about other parts
of redemption such as good deeds; do hers compare favorably or
not with Spike's?
You suggest that Anyanka was not personally evil, merely the instrument
of others. I don't quite get that. She had the role of a hitman.
It doesn't lessen her guilt to say that someone else ordered the
hit and she was just doin' her job. Besides, the evidence from
Doppelgangland is that she enjoyed her job and badly wanted it
back. That doesn't fit very well with a claimed lack of personal
responsibility.
Your comments about Anya and loss/life are very perceptive. I
like that they relate directly to the scene with her and Xander
"smooshing" and the possibility of creating life. And
here I thought that marrying Xander was part of her atonement,
her very own life sentence. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Can Anya transition to humanity? -- manwitch,
14:52:03 02/07/02 Thu
She can transition to humanity through death. Or through suffering
the loss of someone she loves, like say, Xander. Or through procreation.
I know that she liked her job. You are right. I wouldn't want
to put up a big defense of my suggestion that she was not personally
evil. I meant more that she was not partisan in the right/wrong
justifications of the relationships that ultimately resulted in
her being invoked by an "injured" party. Sort of "a-moral"
instead of "im-moral" if you see the admittedly lame
distinction I am offering. She was not the instigator of pain
and suffering, she just whipped it into a great big celebration.
But at any rate, I do think that what she has in common with Spike
is a lack of concern over the doings of her past. I think they
are both perfectly worthy of redemption, but I don't think they
need to be redeemed. I don't think they require it of themselves
or even think about it. They are comfortable with who they were
and they seem comfortable with who they are. If other people feel
judgemental about it, well, that concerns other people, not Spike
or Anya. (Although I think it would bug Anya).
Spike has always been something better than a vampire. I don't
see why he should show remorse for anything he did. Its interesting
that his one visible regret was his failure to protect Dawn. That's
maybe the only thing he feels he needs to atone for. But killing
people? Give him a break. He's a vampire. He's supposed to be
evil. What he isn't supposed to be is good and wonderful and loving
and trustworthy. So it seems to me that his good is just undervalued.
He's doing it through will power. No pesky soul. (And I will repeat
again, the chip is not the reason spike is good, loving and trustworthy.
We have had ample demonstration of that.) Spike's care for Dawn
and Buffy DWARFS Angels, because Angel is incapable of it unless
he's got his li'l soul.
In my world view its a huge and significant distinction that is
greater than Spike's responsibility for his crimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Good points. I generally agree -- Sophist,
19:23:19 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not even... -- MayaPapaya9, 15:39:49 02/07/02 Thu
Saying that Anya's work was a "job" and therefore doesnt
count as something she needs to atone for isn't something I agree
with. What about Wolfram & Hart? Lilah and all those people are
working, at their "jobs", but aren't we all in agreement
that if they ever wanted to switch sides, they'd have some serious
atoning to do? The fact is, Anya hurt/maimed/tortured/killed many
people, and the Scoobies are conveniently glazing over this fact,
yet they still hate Spike for the same reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not even... -- beekeepr, 21:37:01 02/07/02
Thu
an extreme example, but "just doing my job" very popular
response at Nuremburg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption -- ponygirl, 12:00:57 02/07/02 Thu
Oooh good question! Anya's past has always been played for laughs
(except obviously in the Wish); she'll make reference to some
punishment she'd inflicted, Xander changes the subject, the others
ignore. She has never expressed any sort of regret for her past
actions, to the contrary she takes a great deal of pride in her
work. Anya is far too pragmatic to consider remorse - she was
a demon, she did her job, and now that she is human she chooses
to help Xander, and consequently the world that she has come to
enjoy. It's a kind of Spike-lite.
One could argue that Anyanka was fulfilling a function, she never
acted except when called by others. This mitigates some of her
responsibility, but vengenance by its nature is usually out of
porportion to the crime. It destroys any possibility of forgiveness
or redemption for either the victim or the aggressor.
Last year I would have thought that the big challenge for Anya
would be what she would do if given the chance to get her powers
back. But she seems to have accepted her life as a human- she's
in contact with her demon pals but doesn't seem to want her old
life back. With this year and all of its themes the real question
may be if Anya can learn to give up vengenance. If Xander betrays
her (speculative not spoilery) can Anya forgive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Redemption -- Kev, 12:41:26 02/07/02 Thu
With apologies to Dennis Miller...
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but it fascinates me how
we give a pass to some characters when it comes to redemption.
But, when it comes to Spike, some of you will never consider him
redeemed, no matter what he does, or doesn't do. Seems a bit closed
minded, which is out of character for the quality discussions
you can find on this board.
Xander, for example, caused the death of at least two people by
summoning Sweet. And, just because we only saw, or heard about
a few victims doesn't mean there weren't more. A few folks have
mentioned this, but it generally gets swept under the rug.
Anya is only human because Giles broke her charm. She didn't aspire
to be human. And, if you listen to her dialogue right after the
change, she really seems to have little love for the human race.
She used Willow to try and get the charm back, too. Yes, her character
has grown quite a bit. But, isn't some of that due to the support
of Xander and the others? I love her, and I hope the wedding goes
off without a hitch. But, we don't hold her responsible for much,
if any, of her past.
Angel goes bad in Becoming, and becomes a killer again. He brutally
murders Jenny, among others, but by the end of the same season,
he's one of the gang again. He even has that descent into darkness
last season. But, that's fine. He's Angel, so we forgive him.
This list could go on and on. But, let's turn to Spike. He's helped
to save the world at least twice. He's fought along side the Scoobs,
and has saved their lives multiple times. He almost got beaten
to death by Glory to save Dawn. Even after Buffy is dead, he joins
with the Scoobs and fights the good fight all summer. Just last
week, he lets Buffy beat him bloody in an effort to save her from
turning herself in to the police. Any time Buffy asks for help,
he gives it. Last week when Buffy summoned the Scoobs, they either
didn't show, or showed up late. This list could also go on and
on. Are his motives completely pure? Probably not. But whose are?
Everyone has an agenda. But, when Spike has an agenda it's horrible.
For some of you, I doubt Spike could ever redeem himself, no matter
how hard he might try. We see the same small mindedness among
the Scoobs. They constantly berate him, and keep him out of the
loop. Without his help over the summer, the Scoobs could have
been hurt or killed fighting the good fight. Buffy, of course,
is the worst example of this. She constantly repays his kindness
with beatings, both physical and verbal.
If Spike ultimately turns back to evil, it could be because no
one on the show, and for that matter many of you here on the boards,
would give him any credit for the good he does. And if that does
happen, all the folks who wouldn't give the guy an even break
will have to share in the responsibility of that.
Willow is getting some support in her struggle, and that support
is increasing the chance she'll be successful. If the gang treated
Will, like they treat Spike, she'd likely have gone evil by now.
Would it be soooo horrible to give Spike the benefit of the doubt
from time to time?
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Redemption -- Scroll, 13:11:18 02/07/02 Thu
I think one big aspect of redemption is the *desire* for that
redemption. No one ever talks about Anya being redeemed mainly
because she herself doesn't feel the need for it. Xander, in summoning
Sweet, inadvertently caused the death of innocent people, but
we never see whether he feels guilty for these deaths. We know
for a fact that Spike doesn't feel guilty. Contrast this with
Angel and Faith, who know they've done evil and *want* to change.
Like Giles says, some monsters can change and, more importantly,
want to change. Buffy, as soon as she thinks she's killed Katrina,
feels guilt. She takes personal responsibility for an innocent's
death. Before we can even say Spike can be redeemed or not, we
have to accept the fact that Joss writes Spike as someone who
doesn't care one way or another if he is "saved"...
Unlike Angel, who most definitely cares.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Redemption and responsibility (Spoilers for
Dead Things here and above) -- Dichotomy, 13:39:57 02/07/02 Thu
Okay, instead of starting a new thread, I'll start from here:
I understand what you're saying about redemption and the desire
for it. And that does cause me to give Spike's redemption some
more thought.
But that also got me thinking about Buffy and responsibility again.
Scroll, you said: "Buffy, as soon as she thinks she's killed
Katrina, feels guilt. She takes personal responsibility for an
innocent's death."
But I find it interesting that her feelings of guilt and responsibility
are confined to certain situations. As Kev pointed out, the way
Buffy (and to a lesser extend the rest of the Scoobies) treat
Spike may ultimately lead him back to evil, and she (and they)
must have some degree of awareness of this. Now while I realize
that Spike is ultimately responsible for his own actions, Buffy
has not seemed to feel guilt for how she has treated Spike, nor
responsibility for how her treatment of him may affect him (and
perhaps a number of potential innocent victims) in the future.
That is, maybe, until the final scene in DT. I hope this is the
start of her taking more responsibility for her actions. And maybe
by doing that, she will start to redeem herself in her own eyes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What you said! -- Dichotomy, 13:16:52 02/07/02 Thu
I agree with you Kev! Whenever I try to make the same point about
everyone else's misdeeds vs. Spike's it often comes down to "But
Spike doesn't have a soul," which I still don't get. Why
is that important?
You also said "If Spike ultimately turns back to evil, it
could be because no one on the show, and for that matter many
of you here on the boards, would give him any credit for the good
he does. And if that does happen, all the folks who wouldn't give
the guy an even break will have to share in the responsibility
of that."
That was one of the points I tried to make a month or two ago
about Buffy needing to take responsibility for her actions. In
fact, I think I'll start a thread about that again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What you said! -- JBone, 20:26:44 02/07/02
Thu
If Spike ultimately turns back to evil, it could be because no
one on the show, and for that matter many of you here on the boards,
would give him any credit for the good he does. And if that does
happen, all the folks who wouldn't give the guy an even break
will have to share in the responsibility of that.
This is hilarious. I actually laughed out loud. I think the only
time I ever heard of Joss publicly conceding to changing or adding
a scene due to fan reaction was back in Innocence, S2. Apparently,
the read off of fans back then was that people weren't taking
to Oz, so he wrote in a little scene between Willow and Oz where
Oz refuses to kiss Willow just because she wants to get back at
Xander. Which is nothing compared to the major character arch
swing that you are alluding to.
As far as taking responsibility for a character going evil, well,
color me omnipotent. As much as I love the show, I'm not going
to lose sleep over a peroxidian, undead American (I know, British)
going back to his true nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What you said! -- Kev, 20:44:53 02/07/02
Thu
The respectful exchange of ideas here is always a pleasure to
experience. Glad I could brighten your day with a good laugh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Redemption -- Wynn, 20:14:16 02/07/02 Thu
I agree with all of your points. Spike's actions seem to be judged
and evaluated more than other characters like Xander, Willow,
Anya, etc. Another example about Xander causing (or helping to
cause) the death of a person is in Becoming Pt 2. Willow tells
him to tell Buffy that she is going to try to resoul Angel. He
doesn't. Why he doesn't is up for debate. In my opinion it was
partly selfish. He didn't like Angel; he was jealous (or had been
jealous) of Angel's relationship with Biffy. Probably he didn't
tell because it was a form of justice for him. Angelus killed
Jenny and tortured Giles and tormented the SG; in Xander's mind
he deserved to die. So he didn't tell Buffy about the resouling.
If he had, maybe Angel could have been saved.
Yet this, for lack of a better term, indiscretion, along with
many others done by the other characters, was looked over.
That's just my opinion though.
PS- I have to say that I love this board. All of the posts and
threads are intelligent and articulate, and they help me develop
my own understanding of BtVS, especially of the metaphors used
on the show. Returning to lurking now :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> She was just following orders... -- Darby, 13:19:22 02/07/02
Thu
...the odd thing is that, although this is never accepted as a
good excuse when war crimes are involved, it does work with Anya,
at least for me.
Kev, I think that the main reason for singling out Spike (I'm
gonna ignore Xander - the Sweet thing was an aberrant writers'
trick, which is why I think they ignore it) is that all of the
other characters are spiritually distinct from the entity that
committed the crimes - Angel and Anya were possessed, in somewhat
different ways, by demons who brought about motivational changes
in the hosts. When the demons left, we can cut the hosts a break
on their culpability. It may not be right, we can certainly debate
it, but it's a fact of life in the Buffyverse. In a world not
ruled by legalities, the right and wrong of characters comes from
their motivations and intentions as judged by the other characters.
Spike is being controlled by a technological "demon"
that changes his actions. How much have the host's actual motivations
been changed by the chip? This is very consistent - when Angelus
becomes Angel, when Anyanka becomes Anya, we accept them as the
human-souled characters they become; when Spike loses the chip,
everyone in the Scoobies expects him to revert to the demon-souled
character that they know him to be. Out here, some of us see him
as redeemed, some not, and some are withholding judgment until
the chip is gone. I guess that means that, plotwise, the chip
has to come out or a huge dramatic issue gets passed by.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: She was just following orders... -- Sophist, 14:01:22
02/07/02 Thu
Very good points. But...
I wonder how "possessed" Anya really was. She seemed
to have taken on the role of vengeance demon voluntarily, and
when she lost her power went quite out of her way to try to get
it back. Even now there are hints that she longs for the good
ol' days. In this respect, she is very different from Angel --
when he had his soul, he NEVER wanted to go back. I'm not at all
sure we can use the Angel/Angelus distinction (with which I completely
agree, BTW) to absolve Anya.
If you look at it this way, Anya is very similar to Spike. He
has lost his power to harm just like she lost hers, one by gaining
a device, one by losing one (maintains the balance of the Buffy
verse!). Doesn't your point about waiting to see what happens
if the chip is removed apply equally to Anya; shouldn't we judge
her only by how she would behave if given her amulet back (or
given the opportunity to have it back)? I suspect we may see both
of these (speculation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> true enough, but... -- Kev, 14:15:10 02/07/02 Thu
Thanks for triggering something else I've had trouble understanding.
Spike's chip, as I understand it, only makes it impossible for
him to harm a human. But, it wasn't the chip that made him almost
die to protect Dawn's secret. It wasn't the chip that made him
fight along the Scoobs all summer. And so on. When Spike does
something good, that's Spike. We could argue about the motivation
forever. But, let's give the guy a little credit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spike's chip -- Dochawk, 15:59:07 02/07/02 Thu
I disagree with you here. It is absolutely because of his chip
that Spike fights alongside the Scoobies. Spike has a lust for
violence. he can't attack humans, so demons are his next best
victims. He isn't wholy demon and he isn't wholly human so he
can't really exist in either society. Only the SG allow him any
real interaction at all. I think Spike do-gooders keep forgetting
that at his core, Spike is a vampire (which on this show has been
defined as evil)
Hi behavior with Glory vis-a-vis Dawn is the only behavior I haven't
been able to reconcile. We know that he enjoys getting beaten
up. We know that unlike Giles, when he is tortured, the torture
isn't going to kill him and he will recover. But that isn't enough
to "justify" his remaining true to Dawn (nor do I think
its his lust for Buffy either).
I would like to know from the pro-Spike crowd (certainly a majority
of this board) is what evidence do you have that a de-chipped
Spike is any different than any vampire we have known? I think
the way he manipulates Buffy already is close to evil, but I can
understand the arguements of a chipped Spike working towards doing
good for its own sake. A dechipping, allowing Spike to remain
good means a radical shift in the Buffyverse canon. Since ME probably
doesn't want to go there and Spike needs to be around once the
inevitable breakup happens I am expecting a writer's artifice.
Luckily this is something ME knows how to do really well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ok, but what about Anya? -- Sophist, 19:29:48
02/07/02 Thu
Does the same reasoning apply to her? Why or why not? Read yez's
post below and mine above before you respond, but I'm very interested
in your take -- I posed this question precisely because I think
it's a challenge for those who are anti-Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike and Anya parallels -- yez, 14:37:59 02/07/02 Thu
Kev wrote: "... If Spike ultimately turns back to evil, it
could be because no one on the show... would give him any credit
for the good he does...."
Exactly. And not just not giving him any credit, but just generally
not providing any sort of community for him. The exceptions to
that would be Dawn and Joyce. Buffy's "companionship"
is complicated.
Spike and Anya's situations are very similar. Both enjoyed the
things they did that were part of their nature/job. Both were
stripped of their abilities to do those things. Neither seem to
have any remorse or regret for what they did; as someone else
noted, Anya initially chose "evil" willingly after her
charm was destroyed, and had no qualms about any humans getting
killed in her efforts to retrieve it. Both remain the same "people"
they were before they were stripped of power, as opposed to Angel.
Right now, both choose to "play by the rules" more or
less.
The big difference between them is that Anya has been accepted
into the group, she's been given community and support -- and
that's certainly facilitated her transformation. She reaps the
benefits of playing by the rules and gets that reinforcement.
In contract, Spike continually gets kicked in the head, very often
literally, by the gang. And yet he still chooses to help the gang
*in spite* of how they treat him. (Which is probably the best
evidence for him being a sick bastard.)
Redemption is a funny thing, and I think it needs to be qualified.
If you're talking about some kind of divine redemption, how are
we to judge that? If you're talking about redemption in the sense
of atoning for acts against "victims," only the victim's
can offer forgiveness. I think it's apparent that she's redeemed
herself to the Scoobies, at any rate.
I guess that's why it seems so unfair that they don't give Spike
the same consideration. On the other hand, Angel has certainly
given them reason to be leary of the consistency of vampire behavior,
chip or no chip. And they've all pretty much experienced Spike's
darker side firsthand. Yet, they obviously have confidence in
Spike, otherwise, they'd never entrust Dawn to him (both before
and after Buffy died).
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What is redemption? -- Sophist, 19:39:42 02/07/02
Thu
I think you've hit the key point here. Clearly Spike and Anya
both did evil deeds in the past. Anya's were arguably worse; Spike
killed for food but she tortured and killed for revenge.
Many posters believe that some evildoers remain evil no matter
what good deeds they do, and can never be accepted by the SG.
The parallel I drew to Anya is a challenge to them to justify
this. Redemption is a process, not an event.
Many other posters believe that someone who does evil must be
redeemed before the SG can accept them. This begs the question
you raise: What if accepting them contributes to good conduct
in the future? Anya is getting reinforcement for her good behavior,
Spike gets precious little.
It also begs the question of what constitutes redemption. My personal
answer is that it requires both the doing of good deeds and the
not doing of bad ones. That's the point where you (we) have to
give the person a chance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is redemption? -- Darby, 20:36:47 02/07/02
Thu
If redemption means "to balance the scales" for evil
that one has done, I'm not sure that any of the characters with
nasties in their past have done that.
I'm approaching the concept as "being largely forgiven and
trusted by the Good Guys." And, unlike redemption, it isn't
entirely something that can be earned, it has to be given as well.
Anya has been granted it because, somewhat against her nature
(even as a human), she has transformed into a contributing member
of the group because she seems to want to help (it really doesn't
seem to be a manipulation of Xander, beyond wanting to belong
to the group); the Scoobs have accepted her odd presence as sincere.
Spike, with similar integration, has muddier motives and has had
more of a direct prior impact on the group with his evil (remember,
Anya was only involved with Vamp Willow as far as the group's
experience, and then it was accidental - all of Anya's known transgressions
have been distant, almost quaint), which is going to be harder
to forget, let alone forgive. From a purely ethical standpoint,
viewed from our distance, are the two equally culpable? Sure seems
so. From the inside-the-box vantage point, though, they're hardly
comparable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is redemption? -- JBone, 21:07:06 02/07/02
Thu
Clearly Spike and Anya both did evil deeds in the past. Anya's
were arguably worse; Spike killed for food but she tortured and
killed for revenge.
The are some fundamental differences between Anya and Spike, but
first of all, Spike didn't kill just for food. He reveled in it,
and worked to be better at it. He fully embraced the killing of
the humans.
Secondly, Anya is now human, and she has fully embraced the human
culture, lifestyle, and practices. She has completely modified
her behavior to fit in, to whatever level of success. Spike has
spurned them at almost every turn. He seems to fear becoming human.
Finally, Anya doesn't bear the scrutiny of being involved with
the much beloved title character. This is just a matter of being
in the spotlight, and not regulated to the background. This is
probably the least fair, but the most significant. If the show
was called "Xander, the Slayer's Friend", I'm positive
that there would be a lot more debate over Anya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Is Anya human? -- Sophist, 08:36:26 02/08/02
Fri
We're never actually told that she is. In Doppelgangland she tells
D'Hofryn that she's trapped in the body of a teenage girl (going
from memory here). I think it's more accurate to say that she's
learning how to be human. That's why Xander corrects her, why
Willow gives her a hard time, and why her scene in The Body is
so powerful. Isn't that what Spike is potentially going through
now?
You are right about Spike enjoying the kill. I'm not sure that
makes him worse than Anyanka, though. If nothing else, he had
120 years, she had 1120.
Spike has been the focus of debate because of his relationship
with Buffy. Fair enough. But part of the challenge of the show
is to see how we can apply ethical standards consistently. That
is why I find the Anya issue so interesting. If nothing else,
we can approach it with less emotion than some people have invested
in Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is redemption? -- MrDave, 21:23:46
02/07/02 Thu
Clearly Spike and Anya both did evil deeds in the past. Anya's
were arguably worse; Spike killed for food but she tortured and
killed for revenge
I am not saying that Anyanka as vengence Demon wreaked havok.
In fact she has probably killed more people in her 1000+ years
than Spike has. But there ARE differences.
Vengence is a perverted justice. And rarely without irony. Any
weilded the power of "The Wish". She never initiated
the evil, only interpreted the request. If her interpretation
was literal (and knowing our Anya, I guarantee it was) then "seven
times seven" the blame goes to the wish-ER. Anyanka is like
the gun James made appear in OHEFY. It isn't evil or good, but
those swept up in the drama killed several people. James' murder
and suicide were consequences of the drama, not the purpose of
them. Ask Kant...you can't be blamed for the consequences only
the intent.
Second item...I see Anya as more like Willow than Spike. Anya
went through the rough spots...denial...turning back (and like
someone else mentiond...I see her re-visiting her powers again)
and all of that. She misses her POWER. It was a rush, and she
loved it. She has adapted, and she has a few issues as a result
of it, but she is a "recovering dark power".
Spike is like the cigarettes he smokes. He quits. He goes back.
He tells himself thats the last one...but at times he dreams about
how good it would feel. But as a smoker who quit then went back...its
twice as hard to quit the second time. If he's smart, he will
remain quit on the "blood sucking demon" thing and play
it straight. He can reminice about how good it was, but once you
go back, its very hard to quit again.
Who are we (as a society) harder on? The Smoker? or the reformed
hard-core addict?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> If Anyanka had been an inanimate object
-- Sophist, 08:27:29 02/08/02 Fri
then I'd agree with your Kantian distinction (up to a point; I
don't buy this completely, but the differences aren't relevant
here). But Anyanka was a conscious being and therefore a moral
actor. I don't think Kant would let a Mafia hitman off that easily,
yet that seems to have been her role.
I like your analogy to Willow. Have to think about that. Anya
may have to face the return of her power before we can evaluate
this.
I agree that Anyanka probably did more harm than Spike. Anya has
done less evil than chipped Spike (though his has been mostly
petty), but she also has done less good. Which do we value more?
Smoker or recovering addict?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is redemption? -- yez, 13:48:04 02/08/02
Fri
I'm not sure whether Anya and Willow have similar power issues.
I think we all can agree that Anya seems to have loved her job,
but why isn't clear, IMHO.
Unlike Willow, Anya seems to have no esteem issues. So I don't
think power was/is a drug to her. Instead, as somone noted somewhere
in this discussion, Anya seems to really like having a job to
do and doing it well. But her ethics are screwy -- it doesn't
seem to matter to her what job she's doing. In her former life,
she loved being a great vengeance demon. In this life, she loves
being a cog in the money machine, part of the capitalist system,
and money is a tangible reward or else proof of performance.
As far as why she helps the gang, IMHO, it's purely because of
her feelings for Xander. She really doesn't seem to have genuine
(or even nongenuine) affection for the rest of the gang. She wants
Xander to be not dead, so she contributes to that effort.
Mr. Dave wrote: "Spike is like the cigarettes he smokes.
... If he's smart, he will remain quit on the "blood sucking
demon" thing and play it straight. ... Who are we (as a society)
harder on? The Smoker? or the reformed hard-core addict?"
Well, Spike still is and always will be a blood-sucking demon.
What matters (if he wishes to stay in the SG's "good"
graces) is that he doesn't kill humans to get his blood (do he
and Angel still drink donated human blood?) or otherwise harm
humans.
Also, technically, recovering smokers *are* recovering "hard-core
addicts." Tobacco is considered to be as addictive as heroin,
I believe, and it takes a greater economic toll on our country
through the health problems it causes. I may be being too literal
here...
As I understand redemption, it only comes into play if there's
a choice. If it's true that a vampire's *very nature* is to suck
the blood out out of whatever it can catch, then I would argue
that a vampire cannot be held accountable for sucking the blood
out of whatever it can catch. And if he can't be held accountable,
then redemption isn't an option.
If this is the case, then the metaphor of homosexuality comes
to mind for me -- asking Spike to change is like asking a homosexual
to reject homosexuality, then punishing him/her for failure or
backsliding, etc.
This is all very complicated and rests on fundamental facts that
aren't really set in stone... AND, it all depends on what kind
of redemption you're talking about, as discussed earlier.
When it comes to human forgiveness, which is part of some kinds
of redemption, it's often very irrational. Generally, we're more
likely to forgive those who we *want* to forgive, such as the
people we care about, and less likely to forgive those we don't
because it's just easier to hold that grudge. And that might be
the simplest explanation for the difference in how the Scoobies
treat Anya and Spike.
If you're talking about some kind of cosmic scoring system for
good and evil, then you can't call the game unless you know all
the rules, and the fact of the matter is we don't. Is every human
life worth every other human life? Are human lives worth more
than the lives of other creatures? If so, how much more? How is
crime defined? How much value are different crimes given? Does
a creature who is "naturally" destructive get more points
for trying to be good than a creature who isn't as destructive?
Etc. It could go on and on.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Giles Place -- neaux, 12:18:48 02/07/02 Thu
The absence of Giles... and how the roles have adjusted.
I would say each character (for the most part) has had to step
up, once Giles left.
Spike has taken on the role of Sparrer.
Tara has taken on the role of reason.
Xander has taken on Giles' "the Square" . Comic relief
too. Marriage puts Xander in an adult category.. along with Anya.
Anya has taken over the Magic Shoppe.
Willow has become the sole "Brain" which she originally
shared with Giles.
Buffy has taken over Giles' monetary worth as well by getting
a job.
Dawn has taken the role of object of responsibility. Giles used
to be the one who reminded Buffy what her role was.. to be the
slayer. Dawn is the physical reminder of Buffy's new role of Parent.
What does this mean?? Maybe That they all are growing up.. which
falls into this year's theme.
But do these things really replace Giles? I guess that's up to
the viewer to decide.. I personally wish Giles was back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ....I miss Giles too. : ( -- Rochefort, 17:52:28 02/07/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me, too, *sigh*, but looking forward to "Ripper"...
-- Marie, 08:54:57 02/08/02 Fri
...if it ever gets made - hear it's been delayed yet again due
to Joss' other commitments (grrr!).
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I heard something different about Ripper --
Vickie, 09:35:22 02/08/02 Fri
I read an interview (somewhere....processsing...) where Joss said
that he was working Firefly in advance of Ripper, because he has
to keep the Fox network happy--they have some kind of right to
give permission, or maybe they are collaborating on the British
show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Taking Giles Place -- JM, 09:06:14 02/08/02 Fri
See, neux! I'm responding. Mentioning Giles in my sight is like
leaving cheese for a rat. I just hadn't stopped in because I thought
this was a Tara thread. I like her fine but this board can be
a little slow for my computer and I've been trolling for AtS threads.
Along with everyone is ultimately expendible, is no one is ultimately
replacable. Though the other characters have stepped up to fulfill
necessary roles of course they never can be him. And right now
his abscence in Buffy's life is very telling. In some ways he's
been proven right because since he's left she been much less apathetic,
but she's still in a very bad place, making decisions she might
not have if she had his advice.
One of the very impressive parts of their relationship was how
often Giles seemed to be able to intuit what Buffy was feeling.
Of course he wasn't able to every time, but often on the big things.
And considering her tendency to shut out people when she is in
major pain, this was an important skill to have in playing the
role of Buffy's adviser.
I also think that Giles was often Buffy's moral compass. She very
rarely argued with him when he pronounced some good, or bad, or
necessary. I can't imagine that this season could have gone this
way if Giles were still in Sunnydale. I can't imagine Buffy getting
in so dark a relationship if she were afraid of Giles finding
out somehow.
Now the one person who can intuit her unspoken emotions and play
that role of guide/counselor is someone who possesses no moral
compass at all. Spike may have love and honor and occassionally
wisdom, but he doesn't have a conscience. He can't feel the difference
between right and wrong even if he knows it intellectually. I
think his playing this role is very strongly underlined in the
scene in the Bronze. The staging and shots are very, very similar
to Welcome to the Hellmouth where she goes up to the balcony to
confront Giles. In both shots her counsel is standing behind her
looking over her shoulder trying to force her to look down on
the crowd below. The difference between the men, their actions,
and Buffy's circumstances in the two scenes are stark.
All right, out of new thoughts, or really conclusions. So I'll
just wrap up with I love Giles, I miss him, I hope he visits.
I understand Giles' decision, I think he might have been right,
but there's the possibility that he might have been horribly wrong.
And I wonder whether Buffy will ever entirely forgive him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Taking Giles Place -- neaux, 09:39:59 02/08/02
Fri
*sheds a tear.
Very well put.
Anyone else notice his voice has been the introduction to the
show the last couple of episodes..
He's gotta come back for the wedding? right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Taking Giles Place (slightly spoilery for
Doublemeat) -- John Burwood, 12:58:40 02/08/02 Fri
Of course there is one possible candidate to replace Giles in
his role of uptight Englishman with a dark past.
All it needs is for Spike to p*** off the new vengeance-demon-around-town
(& I have faith in Spike, there is no-one he could not p*** off
if he felt like it), & she could turn him back into the thing
he most despises - namely William the Poet.
Actually there would be another possible dimension to that. Would
the B/S Shippers on this board love or loathe a B/WtP ship?
The cheekbones would still be there. Only the demon would be missing.
Or maybe I've been away from this board so long I've lost the
cadence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Taking Giles Place (slightly spoilery
for Doublemeat) -- Dochawk, 16:29:44 02/08/02 Fri
that's a fascinating idea. especially since we know that the actress
who is playing Halfrek, also played Cecily. In her mind that would
be as bad as just giving him a soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions about Dead Things and next week's trailer -- Dichotomy,
13:48:40 02/07/02 Thu
Just a couple of tiny nitpicking questions:
1. Wasn't Katrina dead long enough that forensics would have determined
her time of death to be way before Buffy had contact with her?
Seems like the CSI folks would've figured that out with or without
her being thrown in the river.
2. Who the heck was the guy in the red shirt at Buffy's party
in the preview?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spoilers above! -- Dichotomy, 13:50:12 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions about Dead Things and next week's trailer
-- B, 14:21:57 02/07/02 Thu
1.) If she confessed, they probably wouldn't even have done those
kinds of tests -- they would have considered it open and shut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions about Dead Things and next week's trailer
-- Darby, 14:47:32 02/07/02 Thu
Taking the body out of the river might have made determining a
time-of-death difficult, but the point was that Buffy didn't know
- it never got to the point where she was part of the investigation
anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The answer to question 2 is a Spoiler -- Wisewoman, 15:22:04
02/07/02 Thu
So you can find it at the Spoiler Trollop Board, or at Tensai's
site or e-mail me and I'll send you the answer.
If you were just curious and don't really want to be spoiled,
just let it go ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions about Dead Things and next week's trailer
-- Deeva, 15:51:49 02/07/02 Thu
You're kidding, right? If Sunnydale had any CSI worth anything
they would know that the hundreds of people dying from neck wounds,
partially eaten and what not were not just gangsters on PCP or
wild animals. As someone mentioned a while ago, it's a town big
on the denial.
And the guy in the teaser for next week is a spoiler. It's Buffy's
b-day and it's a party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions about next week's trailer -- MrDave, 21:01:56
02/07/02 Thu
A man in a red shirt in the town with the highest mortality rate
in California? Hm...if I had to guess...I'd say he was a Star
Trek Security Guard waiting to be killed!
Just being a wiseass!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sunnydale forensics and the timing of Dead Things -- Vickie,
09:48:50 02/08/02 Fri
Well, Warren's skin is under Katrina's fingernails. I think we're
in agreement that the SDPD wouldn't necessarily find it. But we've
seen Willow examining a corpse before (can't remember the ep,
when Agel came back). Now that the Scoobs know about the problem,
we can hope they'll sneak into the morgue as in the old days.
And, Dichotomy, you were correct the other evening in the chat
room (I was dead wrong) about the timing. I rewatched the ep,
realized I had missed a morning (well, it did go by quickly).
I don't know enough forensics to know if you can immediately tell
24 hours (roughly) since death. I'm sure you can with tests, if
they are done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> About Warren's skin under Katrina's fingernails...
-- Rob, 11:48:00 02/08/02 Fri
...It is possible that that could have washed off in the river,
or that Warren could have cleaned it out from under her fingernails
before planting the body.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Could have washed away in the river -- Vickie,
11:57:05 02/08/02 Fri
I suppose some evidence could have washed away in the river. But
1) the body wasn't in the river very long, 2) itseems that it
is hard to completely eliminate such evidence, even when you are
trying.
I will never believe that Warren was so together that they scrubbed
the body. I was having enough trouble imagining who had dressed
her in her own things again.
Oh, apropos of the "her--it" speech from Jonathan. I
was thinking echos of The Body. There's no "her" present,
just an "it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: About Warren's skin under Katrina's fingernails...
-- Lilac, 11:59:15 02/08/02 Fri
A number of forensic questions came to mind during the episode
-- and I didn't even catch the huge chunks of Warren skin that
would have been under the dead girl' nails. The first thing I
did think of was that a crush mark from a blunt instrument, the
bottle, should be a red flag to the police. A suicide might jump
into the river, but would be unlikely to bash herself on the head
before doing so, and rolling down a hill wouldn't leave that type
of mark. Secondly, since she was long dead when she hit the water,
there would be no water in her lungs -- did the police assume
she killed herself with a blow to the head and then threw herself
in the river? The last thing, and the one that bothered me the
most, is that shouldn't Big Bad Spike, swimming through death
as he was for more than a century, be able to immediately tell
the difference between someone who had died that moment and a
body that had been waiting for some time for the set up of an
alibi? Even if we assume that the alibi set up and the death came
close enough together so that rigor hadn't set in, one would think
that an experienced vampire would pick up on the differences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Now you're giving me the creeps -- Vickie,
13:41:22 02/08/02 Fri
Lilac said: "shouldn't Big Bad Spike, swimming through death
as he was for more than a century, be able to immediately tell
the difference between someone who had died that moment and a
body that had been waiting for some time for the set up of an
alibi?"
Shiver! Of course Spike had to know that Katrina had been dead
about (almost?) 24 hours. He picked up her body, it wouldn't even
have been warm!
So why didn't he tell Buffy that she hadn't killed her.
I hate this line of thought. I like Spike, but I can't excuse
him. I keep remembering his line (from before he knew, but still)
"It will be our little secret."
If we had been wondering whether he was trying to pull Buffy away
from her friends and isolate her in the shadows, what must we
think now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now you're giving me the creeps
-- JM, 14:47:01 02/08/02 Fri
Well that was only a line from her dream.
You could explain it away with magic or magic science. Actually
now I think of it, the only thing that Warren contributed to the
frame job was surveillance. And since most of their deeds have
used all three of their skills, maybe his contribution was magic
lint. That way Katrina's body would have been maybe half-an-hour
from death and the rest of the world could have progressed hours
along. Spike probably wouldn't have been able to make that fine
a distinction, especially if he walked Buffy home and then went
back for the body.
Actually makes me think that the elaborate frame-up wasn't just
an attack on Buffy, but also a way the deepen Jonathan and Andrew's
complicity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now you're giving me the creeps
-- Lilac, 17:18:21 02/08/02 Fri
Actually, I did not interpret it as Spike knowing that the girl
had been dead longer than they thought and not telling Buffy.
I think either it was the writer ignoring the realities of what
happens when something is dead, or perhaps, to be nicer to the
writer, Spike assumed anything odd he noticed had to do with the
temporal anomolies they had both noticed during the fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> DeKnight's comment on Katrina's
body -- Tanker, 07:11:21 02/09/02 Sat
Steven DeKnight said on the Bronzebeta board that they thought
of adding a scene where we see the Trio preparing Katrina's body
so it's not cold (whether through magic or weird science he didn't
say), but they decided it would slow the action down too much.
They did think of it.
In this post, I caught myself writing "the body." I
edited it to include Katrina's name. Kind of gave me a chill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Glad that's cleared
up...Love when potential plot holes get filled in! -- Rob, 15:31:11
02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sunnydale needs Gus Grissom... -- WW,
22:29:00 02/08/02 Fri
...from CSI. He could tell the local police where the ink was
manufactured that was used for the lettering on the label on the
bottle of wine that Warren bashed Katrina with, so the rest of
this stuff would be child's play...time for a major crossover
ep, methinks.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Jordan from Crossing Jordan would
also do nicely -- CW, 08:34:10 02/09/02 Sat
She'd clear Buffy in a heartbeat. Plus, she's so anti-social that
she wouldn't make friends with the Scoobies and inadvertantly
be the hero of the crossover. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: About Warren's skin under Katrina's
fingernails... -- Darby, 08:39:38 02/10/02 Sun
It isn't unusual for a bridge suicide to hit a solid object either
on the way down or in water too shallow to absorb the impact before
the bottom collides with the body. In either case, there would
be no water in the lungs (and if no one disputed the suicide call,
that probably would never be checked).
This is Sunnydale - even if they at some point had any kind of
competent forensics, the personnel wouldn't last long as their
work would get up and bite them. And in the broader sense, the
whole police force has to be inept, or there would be no show.
No one ever tracked Buffy down for the multiple counts of assaulting
a police officer she must be wanted for (and in such a small town,
investigators would know who this petite blond was immediately),
which tend to be taken very seriously in a real precinct.
Also, mentioned in a post in another thread above, apparently
there was a scripted attempt (that didn't make it to film) to
show the body being prepared to cover up the Nerds' of Doom involvement,
and Warren is nothing if not a details person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, how about this question? -- Calluna, 17:02:07 02/08/02
Fri
How come Spike didn't know that Katrina had been dead awhile?
It must've taken at the very least a half hour (probably more
like an hour or two) for the trio to summon the time-bending demons
and set up the...well, set-up of Buffy. Shouldn't Spike, being
involved rather closely with dead bodies, have been able to tell
Katrina's body was "old" not fresh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nuts, I forgot. Spoilers for DT in the above -- Calluna,
17:04:28 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I don't think so -- Vickie, 20:15:06 02/08/02 Fri
This is what I thought at first. But Dichotomy pointed out that
it is actually the next night. There's a morning, with Xander
and Willow going to the Magic Box and Tara coming out.
So yes, Spike should have been able to tell. Unless (as someone
else whose name I have lost pointed out to me), he assumed it
was part of the time going all David Lynch thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of Things and Ties -- Stranger, 15:36:03 02/07/02 Thu
Dead Things... without feelings, without souls...
Right.
What a tricking title since what is said in this episode is that
neither Buffy, neither Katrina, neither Spike are simple "Dead
Things", but people.
I liked how Katrina spoke to the Trio before she was killed, how
she smashed their little bubble of fantasmatic reality. The Trio
treated Katrina as a thing, before and after death. The moment
when Jonnathan begins saying "she" before using "it"
is very telling.
What about Buffy and Spike, lots of things there.
At last, Buffy realised how she's been using Spike was abusing.
The picture that we've been seeing like a leitmotiv in this episode,
echoing both the themes of rape and guilt, was the handcuff.
For Spike, they were representing trust, giving in from Buffy's
part, like a crumb for their relationship. And for Buffy, when
she thinks about it in the Bronze that's what she thinks about,
sort of, how she's depended, hooked at what he makes her feel,
unable to control herself.
After Katrina's murder, the handcuff taked another tonality.
In her dream, it's Spike that Buffy sees tied up, in the same
place that Katrina, Spike who's the victim. That picture announce
the realisation that Buffy makes in the alley when she beats him,
and then when she talks with Tara. She's using him.
When you watch this scene, you thinks about Who Are You, when
Faith was beating her own body, calling herself name and we see
the degree of self-hatred she had.
It was clear that most of what Buffy said to Spike was about herself.
Was it already the same when she called Spike 'an evil, disgusting
thing" in Smashed ?
When Buffy repeats "we always hurt the one that we love",
she identifies herself with Warren (much like she did in I Only
Got Eyes For You), the way he trated Katrina with the way she
treated Spike. Offcourse the compareason is more than abusive,
while Spike let her use him, Katrina was to be raped.
And Spike manipulates Buffy also. In the scene of the Bronze,
I had a hard time believing he meant that. His words were what
Buffy was thinking, but Spike loves Buffy because of her light
as mush as because of her darkness. It was like he believed what
she said about him (you're an evil, disgusting thing), believed
that was why she loved him and throw it back to her.
Of ties so, when Buffy says that Spike is the only one that makes
her feel something, it reminds me of Fool For Love and all this
speech about ties to the world. Is Spike and his handcuff are
enough to tie her to the world, to life, now ?
Because there is something abusing in this relationship, I love
Spike and Buffy together, but since the beginning something feels
wrong and this episode showed exactly why.
The way Spike let Buffy beat him, the way he didn't think to even
blame her for that, was wrong. And the way Buffy let him says
those words at the Bronze, and thinks them more than him, is wrong.
Can you have a healthy relationship (as the writers says) without
self-respect ? Don't think so.
PS: I hope what I write isn't too stupid for this board, because
I begin to feel bad how noone answer most of my posts, I enjoy
very much readind the marvellous and intricate thinking here,
and I'd like to be part of it, instead of just lurking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> the art of starting a thread -- Grace, 16:04:11 02/07/02
Thu
How to start a thread:
1. be inaccurate about a fact (all the smart asses jump on that
one);
2. spell a word wrong (my favorite in the last few weeks was "oximoron"
(someone always responds);
3. be a smart ass;
4. talk in absolutes ("Spike is Bad" or "Willow
is a drug addict")(this really gets the "reasoned"
folks on this page upset);
5. pick a theme and address it (this is a real one :-));
6. get here first--then people have to respond to you because
you've already written what they were thinking! (real one too!)
7. catchy subject lines;
8. ONLY talk about Buffy and Angel (people here don't like Off
Topic at all!)(please ignore the fact that this posting is off
topic too!); and
9. Stick around. I look for familiar names and read them first
because I am interested to hear what they have to say this week.
I assume others do the same. You WILL get responses!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the art of starting a thread -- Frenchy Stranger,
17:46:44 02/07/02 Thu
Thank you for the encouragement, Grace. I'm here since two monthes
or so, and I though I hadn't be that bad about #5, #6 and #8 but
there's so many good things over there it's hard to be as good
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I do all those things. How come noone responds to
me? -- vampire hunter D, 18:16:55 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So many posts, so little time.... -- pagangodess,
18:41:38 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> hey, that #1 suggestion is definitely incorrect!!
......... ;-) :-) ;-) -- Smart Ass, Jr., 20:12:15 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You misspelled "obnoxious." Glad to
help! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 20:27:18 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spike is Evil, I tells you! EVIL! So evil that he's
good! *g* -- Deeva, 00:02:20 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the art of starting a thread -- neaux, 05:19:43
02/08/02 Fri
*points to his own thread on Giles...
only one person responded... :( I guess I should have included
Buffy or Spike in the title??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Go look now -- Vickie, 09:36:51 02/08/02 Fri
Sometimes you have to wait a while.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Waiting leads to archivization without
conversation. -- the seer, 13:51:07 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the art of starting a thread -- Malandanza, 08:58:26
02/09/02 Sat
"5. pick a theme and address it (this is a real one :-));
6. get here first--then people have to respond to you because
you've already written what they were thinking! (real one too!)
7. catchy subject lines;
9. Stick around. I look for familiar names and read them first
because I am interested to hear what they have to say this week.
I assume others do the same. You WILL get responses!"
These suggestions are good advice -- especially #7 and #9 (I look
for interesting subject lines, then look through remarks of some
of the regulars -- if their comments look interesting, I read
the posts that preceded it).
As for #5 and #6, I'd say exercise caution. The more new posts
we have, the more quickly the posts get archived. I've looked
at a promising topic before work, intending to reply when I get
home (after I've thought about it) only to find the topic relegated
to the archives. You're more likely to get a response if you respond
to a thread in someone else's subject rather than starting a new
thread on, essentially, the same subject. Also, keep in mind topic
drift -- often interesting exchanges develop further down a thread
that may be identical to what you want to say (although the subject
line may be misleading). Posting first has its problems as well
-- you might actually be posting simoultaneously with several
other "first posters," resulting in multiple topics
addressing the same issue. In general, it's better to wait a bit,
think things out, then add your comments to an existing thread.
Esoteric topics may also fail to get a response, simply because
no one else has anything to contribute to the subject.
Finally, I'd add that no response doesn't mean that you're an
idiot. (And, actually, idiots tend to get a disproportional amount
of responses -- just look at past flame wars :) I remember a time
(and OnM can back me up on this) when Ryuei was a regular poster
and his contributions generally meant the death of a strand --
not because no one wanted to reply, but because his comments were
so complete and well-reasoned that there was simply nothing to
add (that happens to vhD, too :).
Plus, the chat room has, I think, reduced somewhat the volume
of posting -- people can work out their pet theories with others
and then post a single time instead of resolving their doubts
on the message board with a series of back-and-forth points and
counterpoints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Off topic -- Cactus Watcher, 16:42:43 02/07/02 Thu
Did I see you post once that you live in France? Do you see Buffy
in French or in English?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Both, why ? -- Stranger, 16:53:36 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Both, why ? -- CW, 16:59:52 02/07/02 Thu
I wondered how good the translation is in French. Our French Canadians
say what they get is not good at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It's not. Blessed be Transcripts. And
Morpheus. -- Stranger, 17:04:12 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> More tips on posting ;o) -- CW,
17:24:55 02/07/02 Thu
Your English is OK, but not exactly perfect. When we see a post
with strange English, we sometimes wonder if the poster is a small
child or someone drunk. So let people know you are French when
you post. Some of us have short memories, so do it fairly often.
People will give you a better chance. We are truly happy to have
you with us, and we do want to hear what you have to say!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Lol, thanks for the tip --
Frenchy Stranger, 17:41:51 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bienvenue! -- WW, 19:12:26
02/07/02 Thu
And that's the extent of my Grade 12 French, but you truly are
welcome...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And we all know you
should never, never, never post while drunk! -- Marie-who-never-will-again-she-promises..,
03:02:50 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ok, so some can't
post & drink, but when Marie does, she's just soooo much fun!
;-) -- The Second Evil, 10:43:19 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And heck,
it was her birthday! ;-) -- CW, 14:55:57 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> More tips on posting, Part
2: National holiday avoidance -- VampRiley, 11:00:03 02/10/02
Sun
In late November, I wrote up a post on socialization and a vamp's
humanity. Originally, it was intended to be just an e-mail to
Masq about the question of Spike's apparent humanity. The thing
ended being like seven pages or something. And then I figured,
What the hell. I'd post it to the message board. But like an idiot,
I posted it at the beginning of Thankgiving. I ended up getting
responses from like three people, a total of maybe five or six
replys.
So, National holidays are to be avoided. Or at the very least
used with much caution. There's that whole limitation of time
thing many have that can be a pain sometimes.
Your village idiot,
VR
;-P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRAMING BUFFY: List the Top 5 "Coolist" Series . . .
(and how to fix them) -- postmodernman, 17:35:45 02/07/02 Thu
(in no particular order )
1. BtVS
HOW TO FIX:
* Get rid of Dawn. (Actress is great. Character is stupid. Blob
of energy yada yada yada)
* Replace Xander with his (real-life) cooler twin brother
* Replace SMG with Katie Holmes (who was offered the role first
and turned it down.)
* So many ideas, so little time. [smile] Hire me as new God-like
exec-producer
2. Smallville
HOW TO FIX:
* Get rid of Lana Lang. (Replace with La Femme Nikita )
* Get rid of whole Kent family (especially Clark)
* Get the hell out of Smallville.
* New Title: "Lex in the City"
3. Roswell
HOW TO FIX:
* Replace the dreary theme song (with "I Want You To Want
Me")
* Replace everything else. Start from scratch.
* Nice concept, though.
4. Dawson's Creek
HOW TO FIX:
* Get rid of Dawson, Jen, and Jack.
* Move series to Paris.
* New Title: "Saint Jo"
5. Trading Spaces (ringer)
HOW TO FIX
* No change.
* Perfect for teenage girls, gay guys, and "girly men"
of all ages.
* (Inflicting style on people with no taste. "It just doesn't
get any better than that. "[g])
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Lol, especially to Lex. Here's mine. -- Rochefort, 18:38:18
02/07/02 Thu
BUFFY the Vampire Slayer
1. Get rid of Marti Noxon and have Joss be directly, hands on,
in charge.
2. Bring Jenny Calender back. Or Jenny's twin who does not speak
English and sits in a tent in the Sunnydale forest giving fortunes
in gibberish. Bring Giles back too. Have him live in the tent
looking sort of like he did when he crawled out of the pit of
she-vampires on Dracula.
3. A new really interesting character. Played by Bjork.
4. Have Faith die and Niles from Frasier be called as the next
Slayer. Have him do jump-kicks and everything.
4.5 Kill off Angel during sweeps week. Right on the set while
he's drinking coffee.
5. Turn Riley into a demon. The kind that Giles turned into. Big
and pink. He could go "Buffy, I need to feel needed."
and it would sound like "Garkarakabo-goggleshee." When
ever the scoobies go anywhere in a car he runs after them on the
road like that big hairy monster on the Muppets.
7. Make Spike wear outfits like that red tuxedo or Xander's shorts
with sweat stained t-shirts ALL THE TIME. Feed him till he gets
fat and has chubby little cheeks. Have Marti Noxon tell the press
that Spike is the "long haul" guy.
8. Wasn't there a door-mouse in Buffy? Cats are an ever increasing
demographic. Turn Amy back into a rat. And many other characters
into rats too. Let pink-demon-Riley and gibberish Jenny be the
only ones that understand the rats. The rats have very important
information about the "First" and all sorts of things
but neither the fans nor anyone else ever hears it. The rats scurry
around frantically... But no one knows why.
9. Marketing tie ins. Have Ben and Jerry's come out with new ice
cream flavors called Pink-demon Riley and Gibberish Jenny.
FRASIER
1. Have Niles be called to be the next Vampire Slayer. Have him
do jump-kicks and stuff.
2. Have him stake everyone on Ally McBeal except Richard and John.
Have the two of them team up on him and have a really long fight
in one room that lasts for an entire season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Replace SMG with Katie Holmes?!? Teenyboppers have
no place on "Buffy." -- Rob, 19:33:23 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Now that SMG's an ol' married lady . . . maternity
leave can't be far behind. [g] (NT) -- pmm, 20:13:05 02/07/02
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Niles as the new Slayer--LOL! -- Dariel, 21:28:04
02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ROFLMAO!!!! -- GreatRewards, 08:51:42 02/08/02 Fri
Gibberish Jenny! LOL!
Pink-Demon-Riley! LOL!
All I can say is: "Garkarakabo-goggleshee."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: FRAMING BUFFY: (Okay, You hooked me) -- MrDave, 20:56:49
02/07/02 Thu
1. ) Btvs:
* Start an all Buffy network. Buffy the Slayer TV (aka BSTV).
Only show Buffy, and shows she might appear on (Angel for Instance).
Once a month during sweeps they reshow the original movie.
* Kill Faith and call a new slayer (I like the idea of Katie)
But Faith replacement is not a pre-teenager, but some mid-20 something
who has been waiting to be called. Imagine the change of life
having to drop everything to be the slayer might add to the show!
* Babies...lots of babies. Buffy, Willow, and Anya all pregnant
at the same time. Buffy the Babysitter!
4. ) Enterprise:
* Have a time warp leap the crew forward so they can run head-to
head with the next three generations of show (TOS, NG, V) and
see how they can prove they had more grit than all of 'em in the
good old days.
* Move to another night besides Wednesdays some some us can watch
the show not-on-tape.
* Crash the ship and get a real spacecraft like the old Conny
class, rather than the industrial design of the current one.
4. ) The Sopranos
* Kill Sonny.
* Kill Tony
* Kill Chris
* Kill ___________ (well you get the idea)
* Keep the psychiatrist ;)
6. ) Six Feet Under
* One Word: Vampires
* JM Guest appearances
* DB Guest Stars
* Hey don't I *know* this show already?
5. ) Stargate: SG1
* Alternate Timelines (Wait, they did that)
* Alternate Dimension...Uh, Did that
* Time Loops...Done
* Invasion...nope
* Sexual tension...been there, done that
*
* Only one thing left...Cancellation!
8. ) Smallville
* Bring in some other characters from the 'Superboy' comics...Lori
Lemaris comes to mind.
* Spin off Lex into his own series...nobody can suspend beleif
to beleive that Lex wouldn't catch of for more than the first
season.
* Get off the "villain of the week" mentality. Give
me some more seasonal arc...comon fols, didn't Joss show you the
way yet?
* 'Superboy' The Musical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> BSTV - LOL. We already have entirely too much BS on
TV! -- CW, 04:21:54 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from a newbie: So, are there rules for posting an essay?
-- Carol B., 19:59:07 02/07/02 Thu
I have an essay I'm working on about the dual parallels between
Warren & Katrina and Spike & Buffy (as well as a few other character
things) in Dead Things that I was writing for a Buffy e-mail discussion
group I'm in, and I immediately also thought of this board as
a place to post it and get interesting feedback.
So, just a question: is there anything I need to do before I post
it (it's going to be kind of long, so I know from the FAQ that
I'm probably going to have to break it up), or do I just go ahead
and post away?
Thanks. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No rules... -- Rob, 20:01:58 02/07/02 Thu
Breaking it up is really only to make it easier to read, also.
If you didn't want to, that would be fine. I myself have posted
stuff that was equivalent to 8 or 9 typed pages. So go ahead!
We'd love to read it! :o)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh, yeah, there's rules. Yeah, yeah, lotsa rules. -- The
Second Evil, 20:07:58 02/07/02 Thu
Fer starters, ya gotta make at least three references to at least
one of the evils. And, uh, ya gotta mention at least five or six
times how you worship the ground I, uh, Masq, that is, walks on.
And of course ya gotta also include remarks of gratitude in your
footnotes to all the little people who helped you get to where
you are, but that's not necessary as long as you include remarks
thanking all the big people for not stepping on you or sumpthin.
Big folks, of course, being us evils 'n troll slayers 'n whatnot.
*cough*
Just kidding. What what you want, since it sounds quite intelligent
& thought-provoking, and that'll keep us evils, non-evils, troll
slayers, and Rufuses happy. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LOL! And thanks . . . -- Carol B., 21:10:44 02/07/02
Thu
I hope to have the essay finished by Saturday, (real life keeps
getting in the way :-P), so I should post it then. Thank you both
for the help!
(And I will be thanking the big people who were kind enough not
to smush me . . . or something. :-)
Carol B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> bwahahahaha.... anytime! ;-) -- The Second Evil,
21:20:33 02/07/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, yeah, there's rules. Yeah, yeah, lotsa rules.
-- Rufus, 00:10:38 02/08/02 Fri
Don't be listening to the Second evil unless it pertains to me
in a good way........and about refering....do as you please there
but remember for Rufus it's all about the chocolate..hint...:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> submit your copy via email along with a wire transfer
of $1000 to Liq and ye essay shall be posted -- CertainlyNotLiq,
00:41:56 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Jeeze, I only requested chocolate....what are
I thinking?:):):):):) -- Rufus, 01:59:02 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Rufe... learn from the Master .... er...
or is that Mistress? -- Liq, 13:05:46 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Three Rules -- The First Evil, 09:17:26 02/08/02 Fri
(1) Freedom of speech
(2) Acceptance of the fact that people might disagree with you
and have above mentioned freedom of speech to give you their reasons.
(3) Have fun!!
Masquerade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel X's post - Spoilers S6 past and future episodes -- Ishkabibble,
21:27:41 02/07/02 Thu
I've been haunted all day about Angel X's post as relayed by Rufus
on the Spoiler Board. Angel X states that in a future episode
we will learn an interesting-thing-about-Buffy that in-the-long-run-has-something-to-do-Spike
and that Buffy-is-forced-to-make-an-unfortunate-decision (paraphrasing).
Speculation: While Buffy was dead for 4 months, Faith was the
Slayer, but an inactive one due to being in prison. And, Slayers
are born, not created, right? So why would Buffy, who was resurrected
not reborn, have come back as a Slayer? Faith was still alive,
ergo, no need for another Slayer to be born. If Buffy retained
all of her other learned skills, such as walking, reading, talking,
etc., she should also have retained her Slayer skills which were
learned and practiced rather than having been given to her as
an inherent part of being the Slayer. The fact that Buffy still
exhibits the strength of a Slayer causes me pause and I can't
quite figure out how that might be explained. But, here is my
point...the ramifications if Buffy came back as human without
being the Slayer: It helps explain why she still doesn't feel
like herself, since she doesn't yet realize she isn't the authentic
Slayer anymore. It might allow her to be more attracted to Spike
if she is just-a-human, rather than a Slayer. Once she becomes
aware of her non-Slayer status, she would have to decide whether
or not to continue playing that role to save the world, since
Faith can't do that from inside prison. That decision would be
very unfortunate and ironic, since she always just wanted to be
a normal girl. Spike would be more necessary than ever to Buffy
in order to watch her human back. He is smart enough to realize
that a sexual relationship would interfer with his protecting
her, so would have to forgo the romantic relationship in order
to focus on keeping her alive. So, it could answer the interesting-thing-about-Buffy
that would have something-to-do-with-Spike and would cause her
to-make-an-unfortunate-decision. And, assuming that she does continue
to act as the Slayer, the show would still be Buffy the Vampire
Slayer (since she is fulfilling the role, albeit without being
the official slayer). Maybe I'm stretching things here, but it
has always bugged me why a second Slayer (Buffy) would have been
permitted by TPB to emerge (when she was resurrected) since Faith
was still alive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel X's post - Spoilers S6 past and future episodes
-- MrDave, 22:17:52 02/07/02 Thu
Slayers are born, not created, right? So why would Buffy, who
was resurrected not reborn, have come back as a Slayer?
Slayers are "chosen". Big difference. There is some
indication that there are ways to identify a potential Slayer
prior to her being "chosen" Because death (the first
one, not subsequent ones) is the only way to trigger the choosing
of another slayer, then one must assume that you take the powers
of the Slayer to the grave with you.
Buffy has the distinction of having been ressecitated (sp?) and
being resurrected. Neither time was her power diminished. In fact,
if anything, it was strengthened. Being chosen is a transformative
event. Something that alters your basic nature (much like being
resurrected, I have to assume) and can't be eliminated (only dampened...as
in her Trial).
[Being human] helps explain why she still doesn't feel like herself,
since she doesn't yet realize she isn't the authentic Slayer anymore.
It might allow her to be more attracted to Spike if she is just-a-human,
rather than a Slayer
It has been years since Buffy was the "authentic" Slayer.
Since she died at the hands of the Master. She is well aware that
her next death will not summon a new Slayer just as her last one
didn't either.
Her human-ness has nothing to do with her attraction to Spike...that
is driven by her other-ness. Her human-ness is what makes her
so guilt-ridden over it.
...It has always bugged me why a second Slayer (Buffy) would have
been permitted by TPB to emerge
Aside from the fact the the PTB has no place in the BtVS show
(thats an AtS thing...and a WHOLE 'nother argument)..why not?
The Slayer Cycle is very well described by Buffy as "Slayer
called... blah, blah... great protector... blah, blah... scary
battles... blah, blah... oops! She's dead."
Where is the Divine in that?** God/The Divine/PTB is responsible
for setting this in motion...not monitoring it. That job is left
to the Watchers.
As recent episodes have suggestes in AtS, the Powers don't really
do much in the way of meddling. They "allowed" it because
it happened. It's a whole free-will thing.
All in all, the part that really bugs me, is that for 4 months
there was No Active Slayer. With Faith in Jail, and Buffy becoming
compost. Who was out saving the world? The Scoobies. If Buffy
had not "broken the Slayer Mould" and brought them in.
Trained them. Prepared them. Then there would have only been "The
Watchers Council of Britain". Wow. That scares me more than
the idea of two Slayers.
It gets better. The WC has pretty much demonstrated that the Slayer
is a tool to them. Even with the Divine selection process, it
is unlikely that the next Slayer has been identified. Three called
in 2 years is a lot. I don't know how much redundancy there is
in the system, but the next Slayer could well be only 10 - 12
years old. Killing Faith might really upset the apple cart. So
she sits in jail by the grace of The Scoobies, A Ressurected Slayer,
and an unprepared Council. She has truely been graced by the divine.
Otherwise whe would be a big target for a WC eager to get a more
"controllable" slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Okay, I KNOW I just wrote an extended discussion about that
very thing just a few days ago, but I didn't want to go too egghead.
Its late and I'm getting foggy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel X's post - Spoilers S6 past and future episodes
-- TomSr, 22:59:46 02/07/02 Thu
"All in all, the part that really bugs me, is that for 4
months there was No Active Slayer. With Faith in Jail, and Buffy
becoming compost. Who was out saving the world? The Scoobies.
If Buffy had not "broken the Slayer Mould" and brought
them in. Trained them. Prepared them. Then there would have only
been "The Watchers Council of Britain". "
------------------------
Well you forget about Angel, but what do you mean saving the world?
The slayer is needed for the world ending threats but I'm not
so sure about the everyday dealing with vampires and demons. I
think thats where people like Gunn come in, I have always wish
to see what happens when there isn't a slayer. Considering Buffy
never leaves Sunnydale that leaves the rest of the world to fend
off the smaller stuff, people like Gunn who take up the fight
on their own fascinate me, they have nothing to gain, no heroic
journeys to complete, but do what they do out of sense of making
things right, of course justice comes into it as well, but whatever
gets the job done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel X's post - Spoilers S6 past and future episodes
-- Deeva, 23:51:25 02/07/02 Thu
3 slayers called in 2 years is a lot but I think that in the many
years before there may have been many more called in that same
time period. Each Slayer has their own level of capability and
adaptiveness, some more than others. Since it is generally acknowledged
that Slayers have short life spans, some even making it to and
past 18 as the Cruciamentun indicates, it leads me to believe
that the average age is about 15. Given factors such as the time
period and society's opinion of what girls should be, it must
have been hard to function as a Slayer when all that really was
expected of girls for many, many years was to get married and
have children. I wouldn't know how well trained and focused a
Slayer could be if you were being taught some opposite and conflicting
things. To have such strength but yet to have no voice. Fight
demon evil but not human evil.
Kendra is one of the examples where her parents knew of her calling
and gave her over to her Watcher for training. She seemed to indicate
that she was very young when it happened. Apparently her culture
recognized Slayers and understood their role on this Earth. She
has been trained to be a Slayer for nearly all her life and look
how long she lasted.
I don't believe that if Faith were to die that the next Slayer
would be about 12, more like 16 or 17. I think that there are
many more chosen ones out there than we really can know. It's
a system that has been in place for thousands of years. It seems
different from what TPTB are. Less mindless and somewhat more
willful, though I can't quite explain why I think that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel X's post - Spoilers S6 past and future
episodes -- ET, 00:33:16 02/08/02 Fri
I don't know how relevant it is to the tv show, but in the book
Spike and Dru Pretty Maids All in a Row the WC does have a rudimentary,
magical way to spot some, not all, potential slayers. Then they
send a Watcher and train them in case they are called. Some of
the girls were as young as 11 and Kendra was 7 when she was spotted
as a potential slayer. The book mentions that it doesn't always
work and a surprise slayer always throws a wrench in the system,
evident by Buffy being a surprise call and not following the rules.
A good question is was Faith a surprise like Buffy or known like
Kendra?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike foreshadowing (spoilers Dead Things) -- agent156, 22:18:20
02/07/02 Thu
Could ME be foreshadowing Spike turning evil again?
Spike takes Faith's side of the conversation about the dead body
and also disposes of the body only to have it found just like
Faith did. When these events happened before it was the beginning
of Faith's turn to the evil side. Since Spike is now playing her
role, could it be he will go down that same path?
Perhaps these events (combined with Buffy finding out she didn't
come back wrong) will lead Buffy to end things with Spike once
and for all. If anything could get him started on the road back
to evil, it would be Buffy leaving him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike foreshadowing (spoilers Dead Things) -- Darby,
07:32:55 02/08/02 Fri
You could be right, but my take on the scene was that it was:
First, a way to isolate Buffy from Spike's protestations - she
had already decided with Faith against that rationale. I think
it was also supposed to crystallize Buffy's (over)reaction to
Spike - the beating she gave him. His repeating Faith's words
(which he had never heard) would reinforce her desire to see him
as a bad thing.
Second, it forced the issue - Buffy has worried about her capacity
to follow Faith's path (it's also part of the Spike-resistance
thing), so hearing that argument would actually send her into
the police station. As I've mentioned before, it seemed a cheap
writers' trick to play it out that way - it robbed the feeling
of truly making a choice for me.
But it certainly could be foreshadowing - I would hope that they'd
be more subtle about that, though...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I doubt it- Spike is in many ways the UPN version
of Angel -- Charlemagne20, 10:49:44 02/08/02 Fri
He's basically become the eye-candy for the ladies even as we
have the very larger section of the Scooby's female contingent
and furthermore adds the Macho-Male element/hero aspect to xander's
more goofiness aspect that was lost when Liam of Galway left....and
further excabrated when Giles and his Ripper moments dissapeared.
Hence since Spike is seriously mentally ill by demon standards
and hanging around with humans there's no real chance he can "go
back" to evil given the psychopathic (by demon standards)
actions he's done nor does he I suspect have any desire to now
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike foreshadowing (spoilers Dead Things) -- Caroline,
12:53:24 02/08/02 Fri
"Perhaps these events (combined with Buffy finding out she
didn't come back wrong) will lead Buffy to end things with Spike
once and for all. If anything could get him started on the road
back to evil, it would be Buffy leaving him."
Spike returning to evil would depend on why Spike is doing good
now - for Buffy's sake or his own?
And comparing Spike to Faith just makes you realize that, like
Faith, he is not a one-dimensional character. Faith was intially
a friend, then betrayed Buffy by trying to kill Angel and then
helped Buffy to defeat the mayor at the end of season 3 (remember
when they were both in the hospital and had that scene in Faith's
apartment?). And then when Faith did return and swith bodies with
Buffy she underwent a lot of mental anguish - remember when she
was in Buffy's body and was beating up her own body?
I would also hope that the writers would be way more subtle about
the foreshadowing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike foreshadowing (spoilers Dead Things) -- Chris,
13:58:24 02/08/02 Fri
Regarding your Spike turning evil again question, see Steve DeKnight's
posting on the Beta Bronze site on 2/7: http://www.bronzebeta.com/Archive/BronzeArchive1013116303.htm
This is one of his responses: "Spike's a very complicated
man. And a big part of him is still evil. Evil, I tells ya! Evil!"
A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- Darby, 07:53:17 02/08/02
Fri
Premise - another Buffy movie, set in high school, to be cast
from current Hollywood types but not the current cast.
Here's my tentative line-up, cobbled together in a few minutes:
Buffy - Julia Stiles
Giles - John Cleese
Willow - Lauren Ambrose (Six Feet Under)
Cordelia - Jessica Biel (or maybe Jennifer Love Hewitt)
Angel - Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love)
Tara - Drew Barrymore (nahhh...)
Spike - Guy Pearce
Oz - Help!
Play the game, scribble some names! It's weird to imagine other
people in these parts (and thanks to whoever mentioned Katie Holmes
as Buffy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- Wynn, 08:54:48
02/08/02 Fri
Here's my choices:
Angel- Josh Hartnett
Buffy- Maybe Reese Witherspoon or Kirsten Dunst
Cordelia- Selma Blair
Giles- Maybe Kevin Spacey or Kelsey Grammer
Oz- Tough one... I can't think of anyone besides Seth Green
Spike- Guy Pearce; Maybe Hayden Christensen (the new Darth Vader)
or Ryan Phillippe
Tara- Erika Christensen (Traffic)or Kate Hudson
Willow- Lauren Ambrose or Laura Prepon (That 70's Show)
Xander- Topher Grace (That 70's Show)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- neaux, 09:23:04
02/08/02 Fri
multicultural edition to blow away the All white cast:
Xander- Deon Richmond (Bud from Cosby Show)
Buffy- Zhang Ziyi
Giles- Christien Anholt (Nigel from Relic Hunter)
Willow- Natasha Lyonne
Cordelia- Tatyana Ali (Fresh Prince of Bel air/The Brothers)
Angel- Josh Harnett
Tara- Clea Durvall (also cameo on BTVS, The Faculty)
Spike- Marshal Mathers (eminem.. yeah he can act)
Oz- Devon Sawa (Final Destination)
Anya- Gabrielle Union (just because its GABRIELLE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- Deeva, 09:47:09
02/08/02 Fri
Not really a diverse bunch, except for Keiko and Kristin but not
bad for a few minutes of thinking. And it looks like I have a
love affair with the WB doesn't it?
Buffy - Kristin Kreuk (Lana Lang on Smallville)
Giles - John Glover (was recently Lex Luthor's dad on Smallville)
Willow- Sarah Jane Potts (abused girlfriend on Felicity)
Cordelia - Melissa Joan Hart or Tangi Miller
Angel - Scott Speedman (Felicity)
Tara - Keiko Agena (Gilmore Girls)
Spike -Brad Pitt (He has the crazy Welsh accent, the swagger and
just plain manic thing down)
Oz - Keanu Reeves or Andrew Keegan (it's the laconic thing)
Xander-Chris Klein (he can be pretty funny)
Anya- Amanda Foreman (Felicity)
Wesley- Michael Weatherly (Dark Angel)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- matching mole,
09:58:46 02/08/02 Fri
As I started thinking about this I realized that, for me, a lot
of BtVS's greatest virtues are encapsulated in genres prevalent
in the golden age of Hollywood (1930s-40s): screwball comedies,
'classic' horror films, and early film noir. So casting with a
time machine I propose the following. Note that in casting them
I am using their 1930s (or 40s for the more junior actors) roles
as guidelines rather than later roles (which were often very different).
Buffy - Katharine Hepburn
Willow - Myrna Loy
Cordelia - Carole Lombard or Bette Davis (or Lauren Bacall for
the newer Cordy)
Xander - half of Jimmy Stewart fused with Groucho Marx
Oz - the other half of Jimmy Stewart fused with Harpo Marx
Tara - Ingrid Bergman
Anya - Mae West (have to go back even further in time to get her
to be remotely the right age) or Carole Lombard if not playing
Cordelia
Faith - Bette Davis or Barbara Stanwyck
Spike - Cary Grant
Giles - Boris Karloff (not in monster makeup) or if an American
was acceptalbe Humphrey Bogart (could do the dark past bit really
well).
Angel - Tyrone Power or some other leading man type for the BtVS
era Angel, Fred McMurray for the newer Angel.
Dawn - ?? Judy Garland?
Villains
The Master - Bela Lugosi
Drusilla - Merle Oberon
The Mayor - Orson Welles or Sydney Greenstreet
Glory - Jean Harlow or Marlene Dietrich
Glory's minions - Peter Lorre cloned a bunch of times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> **The one above is really good -- darrenK, 10:51:30
02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Praise only encourages me -- matching mole,
12:06:14 02/08/02 Fri
to expand to AtS
Cordelia and Angel covered in previous post
Darla - Jean Harlow (means Marlene Dietrich is Glory)
Wesley - Leslie Howard or Colin Clive (Dr. Frankenstein)
Gunn - ??? African-American actors restricted to minor roles in
Hollywoods movies of the day. Probably many good examples in period
films made for black audiences but I'm not familiar with them.
If you ignore race (and even the most general physical resemblance)
I think that Jimmy Cagney might be good.
Fred - I just know that there was a southern actress with a penchant
for screwball comedy but I don't know who that would have been.
Holtz - Charles Laughton
Lilah - Margaret Hamilton
Lorne - Should really be an actor from musicals but I'm pretty
unfamiliar with the genre and the more famous figures all seem
too straight arrow (Bing Crosby?). Nonmusical options would include
someone debonair like William Powell or perhaps a continental
type like Charles Boyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! Love your choice for Lilah! Perfect!
-- Rob, 12:25:46 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Actually -- matching mole, 12:50:56
02/08/02 Fri
that was a mistake but apparently a serendipitous (spelling?)
one. As well as the 'Wizard of Oz' I was thinking of the 1947
Bogart/Bacall picture 'Dark Passage' which features a nasty manipulative
character which I thought was played by Margaret Hamilton. I just
checked and it was Agnes Moorehead. I had my witches confused!
I think that either could have played Lilah well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK...I hate to do this but
I have to...You couldn't tell which witch was which!!! Bwwaahhahaa!
-- Rob, 20:23:24 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> don't know if she was southern, but...
-- anom, 12:53:38 02/08/02 Fri
"Fred - I just know that there was a southern actress with
a penchant for screwball comedy but I don't know who that would
have been."
How about ZaSu Pitts? Something just seems right to me about that
one. Maybe it's the big eyes.
Of course, I have no idea if Amy Acker is really southern either,
any more than James Marsters is British....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Accents -- matching mole (yet again!),
13:42:42 02/08/02 Fri
I'm not familiar with ZaSu Pitts but I'll take your word for her.
Amy Acker is from Dallas (I don't know why I know that, I just
do). Her accent is quite mild compared to my inlaws (my wife had
completely eliminated her Texan twang long before I met her).
Your point is interesting in that attitudes towards accents in
films and TV shows seem to have changed over the years. Cary Grant
appears to have never attempted to eliminate his accent completely,
even when playing Americans. Recently I saw a Hitchcock film (forget
the title) in which Ingrid Berman played an Irish aristocrat and
made no effort to disguise her Swedish accent. Nowadays actors
seem to hide their nationalities all the time (the most extreme
examples of this I've noticed are Lucy Lawless and Mel Gibson
continuing to affect American accents even when playing themselves
on The Simpsons). Has voice coaching just gotten better over the
years or has Meryl Streep made accents fashionable?
I'd be interested to know what British viewers thought of the
accuracy of the British accents used by American actors on BtVS
and AtS. When viewing British TV programs the American accents
vary quite a bit in realism and again that appears to be correlated
with age. I remember Dr. Who episodes from the 70s with American
characters whose accents were very obviously affected. A decade
later a British actress on the same show could have convinced
completely that she was American until she said 'shan't' (a word
that almost no American would ever use).
Well enough of this. I don't want to have to say that I spent
my entire afternoon casting BtVS with classic Hollywood actors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bing too straight and narrow? For Lorne,
try Danny Kaye ;o) -- WW, 13:14:07 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Brilliant! - Seems so obvious now
-- matching mole, 13:20:29 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> 1940's lounge lizard singer?
Hey, Lorne has to be Frank Sintara. -- Cactus Watcher, 14:35:35
02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I might vote for Danny
Kaye for Merle, though -- CW, 15:07:54 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Gunn and Host, hmmm... -- fresne, 14:05:23
02/08/02 Fri
Gunn
A young Bill "Bojangles" Robinson. But only if he taps
his way up all of the stair cases.
Host
How about Maurice Chevalier. Then he could oggle and vibe everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Lorne... -- GreatRewards, 16:30:15 02/08/02
Fri
... Danny Kaye.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> GreatMinds and GreatRewards obviously
think alike ;o) -- WW, 18:28:47 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- Rochefort, 10:34:24
02/08/02 Fri
The late night t.v. and cute brunette cast...
Buffy -- Bill Murray in drag.
Willow -- Liv Tyler
Xander -- Space Ghost
The Master -- Norm McDonald
Giles -- Jack Black
Spike -- Eddie Izzard
Tara -- Juliet Binoche
Anya -- Bjork
Angel -- Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy's)
Riley -- Paul Rubens (return from original cast)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- Sebastian, 10:45:07
02/08/02 Fri
So am picking actors from across generations...here goes nuttin'.....
Buffy: I agree with the post above and go w/Kirsten Dunst.
Giles: Michael Keaton
Xander: Ben Stiller
Willow: Molly Ringwald
Dawn: Anna Paquin
Tara: Kate Winslet
Anya: Christina Ricci
Cordelia: Naomi Campbell
Oz: Ethan Hawke
Angel: Joaquin Phoneix
Riley: Vin Diesel
Spike: Ewan McGregor
Joyce: Susan Sarandon
The Master: John Malkovich
Darla: Uma Thurman
Drucilla: Rose McGowan
The Mayor: Billy Bob Thornton
Faith: I can't see anyone BUT Eliza Dushku playing Faith.
Mr. Trick: Chris Rock
Adam: Henry Rollins
Ben/Glory: Ed Harris/Glenn Close
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- Brian, 11:00:25
02/08/02 Fri
OZ - the current Wolverine, Hugh Jackman - it seems a lock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- MrDave, 16:16:57
02/08/02 Fri
Faith: I can't see anyone BUT Eliza Dushku playing Faith.
How about Bridget Fonda or Mira Sorvino?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> a young Diana Rigg? -- Vickie, 20:12:34 02/08/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> rigg...interesting...but i was thinking jennifer
jason leigh -- anom, 14:04:20 02/10/02 Sun
...not sure why she occurred to me, but she can do almost anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A too-much-time-on-our-hands Poll -- darrenK, 10:48:10
02/08/02 Fri
I don't like other actors.
This is too painful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree, dK...Just the idea of other actors playing
"Buffy" characters gives me belly-rumblin's! -- Rob,
10:49:49 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Casting calls -- ponygirl, 11:06:19 02/08/02 Fri
I agree it is impossible for me to imagine other actors playing
Buffy characters. However I was watching My Best Friend's Wedding
last weekend - a movie that I adore despite my usual dislike of
all things Julia Roberts - and I found myself picturing a slightly
older SMG playing the Julia role. Made it easier to get through
Julia's scenes.
Anyone else have any casting ideas for Buffy actors? I heard that
Nicholas Cage was going to play John Constantine of the Hellblazer
comic books and keep wishing they'd get JM to play the part. A
blond British badass with a trench coat and a nicotine addiction,
he'd be great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Casting calls -- Andy, 12:23:05 02/09/02
Sat
Marsters would be far better than Cage, but I think Tony Head
as Constantine would be better still :)
I'm not good at thinking up specific parts for the cast but for
general direction...
I think SMG should stay away from action roles (she's too petite
for any non-superhero part anyway) and should look in the future
to parts that allow her to play more emotionally edgy parts. Her
most successful big screen part so far has been in Cruel Intentions
and she should look for roles that springboard off of that. No
cutesy romantic comedy crap like Simply Irresistible (although
I agree she could have been cool in My Best Friend's Wedding).
Alysson Hannigan reminds me a lot of those character actresses
that used to lighten up movies that had women like Bettie Davis
and Barbara Stanwyck in them. Parts like that could be cool for
her (as Willow is already). Not necessarily playing *Willow* but
characters that fill a similar niche in the story.
Nicholas Brendon I'm stuck on. I think the big role he was born
for was Spider-Man and that obviously fell through (I think Tobie
Maguire's talented but still not quite ideal for Spidey). I think
he could probably do well playing fun character parts in "B"
movies. That probably sounds depressing but team him up with Bruce
Campbell in something and it could be fun :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Casting calls -- Sophist, 17:20:08 02/09/02
Sat
Ok, here goes:
SMG -- Clarice Starling, Silence of the Lambs
ASH -- Steed, The Avengers
NB -- Michael Stivic, All in the Family
JM -- Sid Vicious, Sid & Nancy (duh!)
AB -- Mary Poppins
EC -- Dunno. Maybe the Bacall role in To Have and Have Not
AH -- Sophie, Sophie's Choice
Now it's driving me crazy that I can't think of the character
name for Bacall. HELP!
I had the hardest time with AH even though I think she's the best
actor of a very good bunch. She alternates well with sweetness,
comedy and drama. Not many film roles call for that. I settled
on the drama, but I'm not sure that's right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> bacall's role -- anom, 14:13:41 02/10/02
Sun
"Now it's driving me crazy that I can't think of the character
name for Bacall. HELP!"
Maybe that's because Bogie called her "Slim" for most
of the movie. I don't remember the character's real name either.
Great movie, though. With some great songs--it made me a Hoagy
Carmichael fan!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And she calls him "Steve"
even tho that's not his name. Thanks. -- Sophist, 15:33:51 02/10/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: " To Have and Have
Not" is the movie -- Brian, 03:03:40 02/11/02 Mon
Lauren Becall played Marie Browning
Humphrey Bogart played Harry Morgan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly Love Songs Redux -- purplegrrl, 12:06:15 02/08/02 Fri
Possible philosophical value. Consider this from "You Are
An Obsession" by Animotion as a theme song for Spike:
"You are an obsession
You're my obsession
Who do you want me to be to make you sleep with me?"
:-)
Spike is willing to change tactics to suit the woman he is in
love/obsessed with. When Spike was with Drusilla he would bring
her rats with the morning paper, pretty dresses with pretty girls
in them, and build-your-own Earth-destroying demons. Drusilla
liked him evil and bad and obsessive. With Buffy, Spike must learn
to be less obsessive, less strutting rooster, less proud of his
neferious exploits. Buffy wants someone who will challenge her,
but not someone she believes is unrepentant about his past behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Silly Love Songs Redux -- Rob, 12:23:20 02/08/02 Fri
Not exactly a love song, but Garbage's "Sleep Together"
off of their "Version 2.0" album also fits the Buffy/Spike
relationship well:
"I got you crawling up a mountain
Hanging round my neck
I got you twisted round my finger
Crawling round my legs
The emptiness
The craziness
Satisfy this hungriness
Darling
How would it feel?
If we sleep together
Will you like me better?
If we come together
We'd go down forever...
If we sleep together
Will I like you better?
If we come together
Prove it now or never...
Make me a pretty person
Make me feel like I belong
Make me hard and make me happy
Make me beautiful
The emptiness
The craziness
Satisfy this hungriness
Darling
How would it feel ?
If we sleep together
Will you like me better?
If we come together
We'd go down forever...
If we sleep together
Will I like you better?
If we come together
Prove it now or never...
If we sleep together
Nothing satisfies me baby
If we sleep together
I'll wear something pretty baby
If we sleep together
Give me what I crave now baby
If we sleep together
Save the rest for later baby
If we sleep together
You will drive me crazy baby
If we sleep together
I save it all for you my baby
If we sleep together
If we sleep together..."
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Along the same lines (don't read if you're sqeamish
about raw sexual content)... -- Dichotomy, 13:04:38 02/08/02 Fri
I may have posted this a while ago, but I was just thinking the
other day how this song now more than ever describes the desire
and desperation evident in Spike's feelings for Buffy:
"Closer" by Nine Inch Nails
You let me violate you
You let me desecrate you
You let me penetrate you
You let me complicate you
Help me--I broke apart my insides
Help me--I've got no soul to sell
Help me--The only thing that works for me
Help me get away from myself
I want to f*** you like an animal
I want to feel you from the inside
I want to f*** you like an animal
My whole existence is flawed
You get me closer to god
You can have my isolation
You can have the hate that it brings
You can have my absence of faith
You can have my everything
Help me--tear down my reason
Help me--it's your sex I can smell
Help me--you make me perfect
Help me become somebody else
I want to f*** you like an animal
I want to feel you from the inside
Iwant to f*** you like an animal
My whole existence is flawed
You get me closer to god
Through every forest, above all the trees
Within my stomach, scraped off my knees
I drink the honey inside your hive
You are the reason I stay alive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Along the same lines (don't read if you're
sqeamish about raw sexual content)... -- Malandanza, 16:53:44
02/08/02 Fri
Here's something from the Sugarcubes (Bjork's old band, for those
of you born after the eighties :)
Leash called love
(Björk)
You love him
You want to make him happy
He loves you
He wants to humiliate you
He's a bastard!
You should leave him!
Paranoid manipulator,
To hell with him.
He's dragging you
Along..
On a leash called love.
He controls you.
You should do him in
Before he gets to you.
Watch out girl.
He's dragging you
Along..
On a leash called love.
(Einar)
You have torn me, Inside out.
Nothing but, a nervous wreck.
You have got me, on a leash,
You whip me with, a leash called love..
I've lost all sense of direction, you make me a victim
To your friends' nasty remarks, and I don't know how
I survive, I can no longer
Distinguish from, right or wrong,
Sane insane, whip me back,
Back and forth, paranoid.
Leash called love..
But I think we are now discussing a moot issue now that Buffy
has opened up to Tara. For Buffy, merely discussing a problem
she has been internalizing is a significant step towards recovery.
Consider that she now knows that she didn't "come back wrong"
so the next time Spike tries to play that card (tearing down her
sense of self) she ought to be able to see his machinations for
what they are. I think we've seen the end of the "Freak Show"
(although not an end to the repercussions -- a spurned Spike would
almost certainly follow in Angelus' footsteps and expose the "relationship"
to her friends).
And I think that Spike will be better off for having failed to
convert Buffy into a creature of darkness -- I doubt he'd like
the results. A Slayer without a conscience? Spike thinks candle
wax and handcuffs make for an exciting evening -- how do you think
he'd feel if Buffy decided to add crucifixes and holy water to
their foreplay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm sorry to butt in here ... -- not here,
18:44:26 02/08/02 Fri
but Candel wax and handcuffs can make for an exciting evening
for 'some' people. I have never used them, but just becuase it's
considered by 'some' as not 'normal' doesn't make it wrong or
weird. What is considered 'normal' for one may not be or another.
It's just different.
not here
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm sorry to butt in here ...
-- Malandanza, 08:02:10 02/09/02 Sat
Ah... another sermon explaining to me how ignorant and backwards
I am. By a first time poster. Who missed the point of my remarks
(that the Buffy/Spike freakshow is over), focused on a single
sentence (out of context, of course), then misquoted me.
Granted, you have the right to say whatever you wish (free speech),
but given a choice, I'd rather be castigated for things I've actually
said than for things you think I might have implied.
Me: Spike thinks candle wax and handcuffs make for an exciting
evening -- how do you think he'd feel if Buffy decided to add
crucifixes and holy water to their foreplay?
(Note that the word 'normal' doesn't appear at all -- neither
in this quote nor the body of my remarks).
not here: but Candel wax and handcuffs can make for an exciting
evening for 'some' people. I have never used them, but just becuase
it's considered by 'some' as not 'normal' doesn't make it wrong
or weird. What is considered 'normal' for one may not be or another.
It's just different.
The context of my remark was that Spike is fortunate that he has
failed to turn Buffy to the dark side. Candle wax and handcuffs
(which I was actually using metaphorically to mean S&M and B&D sex
-- or is that metonymy? -- but let's pretend everything is literal)
are fairly minor -- they can do no real harm to either Spike or
Buffy. Spike likes to play at being the big bad, flirting with
darkness, etc., but he's just not that good at it. If Buffy went
dark and decided to spice up their evenings with real pain, Holy
Water and Crucifixes could cause him lasting injury (which I doubt
he'd like).
I don't believe that there is anything judgmental in my original
post -- I made no comments on what sexual behavior is acceptable
and what is not. However, while I didn't use the word 'normal'
in describing the Buffy/Spike sexcapades, I don't think that degrading,
abusive sex is normal by any definition of the word with which
I am familiar:
Normal in the sociological sense -- I think it's clear that this
behavior, while not taboo, deviates substantially from the norm.
Psychological -- Do Buffy and Spike need counseling or are they
normal? This whole "you always hurt the one you love"
nonsense sounds like excuses offered by battered women on the
daytime talk shows to explain while they stay with their abusive
husbands/boyfriends. It's not healthy.
Moral -- common doesn't mean right. It is 'normal' for teenagers
to experiment with drugs and alcohol -- but they shouldn't. It's
abnormal for a person to go out of his way to help a complete
stranger in distress, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
But perhaps you mean normal in the Douglas Adams sense of the
word:
"Well," [Halfrunt the psychiatrist] said, "hello
my Captain of Vogons Prostetnic, and how are we feeling today?"
The Vogon Captain told him that in the last few hours he had wiped
out nearly half his crew in a disciplinary exercise.
Halfrunt's smile did not flicker for an instant.
"Well," he said, "I think this is perfectly normal
behavior for a Vogon, you know? The natural and healthy channeling
of the aggressive instincts into acts of senseless violence."
"That," rumbled the Vogon, "is what you always
say."
"Well again," said Halfrunt, "I think that this
is perfectly normal behavior for a psychiatrist. Good. We are
clearly both very well adjusted in our mental attitudes today."
But if this is (as it appears to be) how you are using the word
'normal,' I would say that I am from rural Arizona, so my remarks
are consistent with my upbringing. In other words, my views are
perfectly 'normal' and any criticisms you have because they are
'different' from your own shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity
on your part :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Please don't get discouraged
'not here' -- Anne, 05:58:24 02/10/02 Sun
I haven't been on this board very long either, but my impression
is that you will seldom call down this kind of fire on your own
head . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Silly Love Songs Redux -- Caroline, 12:58:08 02/08/02
Fri
Note sure that I agree - Buffy was unfazed by the whole "I
ate a decorator once" comment at the beginning of Dead Things.
He's said enough 'foot in mouth disease' things and she still
keeps going back. Ahh, the power of our unconscious minds!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Silly Love Songs Redux -- neaux, 13:27:38 02/08/02 Fri
actually to hear any Billy Idol song playing during a scene with
Spike would be amusing..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Silly Love Songs Redux -- Shaglio, 21:27:05 02/08/02
Fri
This one would fit better for Buffy, but I don't think it's a
love song unless you have a really warped concept of love. It's
from a band called Victor and the song is titled "Don't Care:"
Shut up and turn off the light
I'll take you deep right through the night
Just leave before you're in my sight
'Cause I don't need another fight
And I don't need your sympathy
You'll get no tender love from me
Kneel before me on your knee
Do it hard - make me free
Do it hard - make me free
Do it - make me free
Do it hard - make me free
Don't want you pity
Don't want your care
Don't care for giving
Don't care for fair
Don't want your kindness
Don't want your heart
Don't care for wanting
Don't care for smart
I'll come to you from behind
You know my touch will not be kind
You'll feel my loveless power bind
No feelings here that you can find
Between your legs I will lay
On your back you'd better stay
I'm gonna f*** you night and day
Do it hard - make me pay
Do it hard - make me pay
Do it hard - make me pay
Do it hard - make me pay
Do it hard
Don't want you pity
Don't want your care
Don't care for giving
Don't care for fair
Don't want your kindness
Don't want your heart
Don't care for wanting
Don't care for smart
I don't need your sympathy
You'll get no tender love from me
Just kneel before me on your knee
Do it hard - make me free
Do it hard - make me free
Do it hard - please make me free
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMERS'KITCHEN - DAY (scenes we desperately want to see) -- Gosh
Weedin, 13:00:41 02/08/02 Fri
TEASER
SUMMERS' KITCHEN - DAY
SPIKE smokes in through the BACKDOOR, throwing off his BLANKET
and sees . . .
SPIKE
Bloody hell!
ANGLE ON PADLOCKED REFRIGERATOR AND KITCHEN CABINETS
BACK TO SCENE
BUFFY enters on Spike's heels, purposivly carrying what looks
like an AUTO BATTERY CHARGER. It is. She sets it on the island
and plugs it in.
BUFFY
(calling)
Dawn!
SPIKE
As I was saying, bloody hell!
BUFFY
(harshly, as usual)
More silence, please.
DAWN enters half-scowling, half-about-to-cry (as usual).
Stops at the sight of "the new kitchen additions." Eyes
widen.
Hands make tight little balls from the stress of surprise.
Buffy pulls a stool over by the island. Motions.
BUFFY
(to Dawn)
Sit. Take off your shoes.
SPIKE
Bloody hell?
DAWN
(to Spike, sharply)
Shhh!
(firmly)
Dawn, sit.
Dawn hesitates, but then complies. Easing onto the stool she
slips off her SHOES.
Buffy kneels and begins taking off Dawn's SOCKS.
BUFFY
(with pathos)
Dawn, I love you.
(a breath)
But I have a sacred duty.
(a deeper breath)
I can't save the world like this.
Buffy gently takes one of Dawn's feet in her hands.
Like a mother, kisses the top of it.
BUFFY
(continuing)
I can't save the world . . . and buy you pizza.
Buffy clips a BATTERY CHARGER WIRE to Dawn's big toe.
DAWN
Buffy!?!?
SPIKE
Bloody hell?!?
Buffy clips a the charger to Dawn's other big toe.
BUFFY
It's energy Dawn. Trickle charge.
Pennies a day. Get used to it.
TITLE SEQUENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Gosh Bloody Hell Mr. Weedon, that was freaking brilliant!
-- Lurking!LA, 13:10:38 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You may approach and kiss the ring. [g] (i.e., thanks)
-- GW, 16:15:40 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Script Correction (BUFFY, not DAWN) -- Like , Duh. So I
mistyped it. BFD. -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 16:00:36 02/08/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [ . . . ] -- makes all the difference
-- The original apocryphist, 21:47:15 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ...BIG, BIG THANKS! much,
much better -- GW, 22:19:29 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> SUMMERS' KITCHEN - DAY (repost in BETTER FONT, and corrected)
-- Gosh Weedin, 22:33:38 02/08/02 Fri
NOTE: corrections in RED
TEASER
SUMMERS' KITCHEN - DAY
SPIKE smokes in through the BACKDOOR, throwing off his BLANKET
and sees . . .
SPIKE
Bloody hell!
ANGLE ON PADLOCKED REFRIGERATOR AND KITCHEN CABINETS
BACK TO SCENE
BUFFY enters on Spike's heels, purposively carrying what looks
like an AUTO BATTERY CHARGER. It is. She sets it on the island
and plugs it in.
BUFFY
(calling)
Dawn!
SPIKE
As I was saying, bloody hell!
BUFFY
(harshly, as usual)
More silence, please.
DAWN enters half-scowling, half-about-to-cry (as usual).
Stops at the sight of "the new kitchen additions." Eyes
widen.
Hands make tight little balls from the stress of surprise.
Buffy pulls a stool over by the island. Motions.
BUFFY
(to Dawn)
Sit. Take off your shoes.
SPIKE
Bloody hell?
BUFFY
(to Spike, sharply)
Shhh!
(firmly)
Dawn, sit.
Dawn hesitates, but then complies. Easing onto the stool she
slips off her SHOES.
Buffy kneels and begins taking off Dawn's SOCKS.
BUFFY
(with pathos)
Dawn, I love you.
(a breath)
But I have a sacred duty.
(a deeper breath)
I can't save the world like this.
Buffy gently takes one of Dawn's feet in her hands.
Like a mother, kisses the top of it.
BUFFY
(continuing)
I can't save the world . . . and buy you pizza.
Buffy clips a BATTERY CHARGER WIRE to Dawn's big toe.
DAWN
Buffy!?!?
SPIKE
Bloody hell?!?
Buffy clips a the charger to Dawn's other big toe.
BUFFY
It's energy, Dawn. Trickle charge.
Pennies a day. Get used to it.
TITLE SEQUENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Philosophical Density of Loving Simulated Humans
(Dawn & Voyager's holographic Doctor) -- Sockrates, 14:22:53 02/09/02
Sat
What is the moral status of a glowing blob of energy --
even when historically "substantiated" with illusory
memories and an illusory realistic surface?
Has this more to do with self-love (and at the level
of giving a blob a college education -- narcissism)
than lauditory "love" proper?
If the Doctor's program on Star Trek Voyager was
modified to render his appeareance as that of an
attractive 16 year old male, would it be morally
acceptible for him to date -- and one day marry --
Dawn? Assuming energy can reproduce asexually,
what would be the moral status of the offspring
of the union?
All of these questions, and thousands -- if not millions --
more, come from a profound desire to avoid mowing the lawn.
But such desires are never satisfied. . .
Later,
Sockrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Please encode philosophy as postmodern rhetorico-narritive,
i.e.,scenes. thanks. -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 14:35:22 02/09/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> What are you -- some kind of transgeneric
postmodern romantic? Go get coffee.. -- Sockrates, 15:00:42 02/09/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Well, Duh! (but to say "transgeneric"
and "p-r" is redundant). Cream and sugar? -- GW's Pathetic
Assistant, 16:23:12 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> (Redundant is a relative term.)
I take it black. Thanks. -- Sockrates, 01:01:04 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think you're forgetting Socrates sang & danced.
(Even ol' stick-in-mud Plato.) -- Aristippus, 11:15:11 02/10/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bloody hell, Nonsequitoritus! What's "song
& dance" got to do with it? -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 12:25:15
02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "The practice of philosophy
without musical accompaniment is damaging to the soul." --
Aristippus, 13:44:18 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> But you can't do a MUSICAL
on a message board. -- GWPA, 15:07:24 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tsk.Tsk. Lack of imagination.
Must be from Hollywood. -- Aristippus, 20:06:55 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Like "Alias,"
not worthy of comment. -- GWPA, 00:08:30 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, sweet
concensus. -- Aristippus, 11:08:21 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Applause. Good first step to handling "The Dawn
Problem." -- critical lass, 20:37:22 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks. (Musical rewrite in the works, but banjo
lessons are tedious.) -- GW, 23:52:50 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I wonder what percentage of BtVS watchers agree
there is a "Dawn Problem." -- Aristippus, 11:25:12 02/11/02
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> 42 -- Douglas Adams' Clone, 13:03:31 02/11/02
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Clever. (smirk) But is there any way to
get some stats on this? -- critical lass, 11:17:20 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Well (smirk) you could take a poll.
(unsmirk) -- GWPA, 17:31:49 02/12/02 Tue
Smirking both because he doesn't know how to take a poll here,
and that the entire effort would be meaningless in any case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "The Dawn Problem" SF vs. Fantasy
(and satisfaction vs. coherence) -- SciFi Guy, 13:19:35 02/11/02
Mon
Given two variables -- C (coherence) and S (satisfaction) --
a story may be characterized:
* +C +S (coherent and satisfying)
* +C -S (not coherent but satisfying)
* -C -S (not coherent and unsatisfying)
* -C +S (not coherent but satisfying)
IMHO I would characterize the Dawn arc as -C -S.
("Dawn" is neither logically coherent, nor satisfying).
BtVS is not Science Fiction (which is far less forgiving of
-C than Fantasy), but there should be no allowance for -S.
(I would also note that, with the Troika, BtVS is blending
in more science fiction into its generic conglomeration,
should therefore be more careful about -C)
Lots more to say, but out of time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The solution is simple - someone's inverted
you. ( Perversion is optional ) -- Clone Evil, 21:58:06 02/11/02
Mon
All Hail Marx/Lennon, Q.E.D.:
(-C-S) x (-1) = (+C+S)
Sorry, wrong universe, Buckaroo.
Try the 8th dimension.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> (Ignoring Evil) Dawn is a strange attractor
for an entropic spiral. -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 10:21:01 02/12/02
Tue
As I suspect tonight's episode will futher illustrate . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Is that "fancy talk" for
Fatal Story Design Error? -- critical lass, 11:10:30 02/12/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The problem with entropy is that
it always gets diverse. -- OnM, 16:30:27 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, thermodynamic vs. informational
entropy (etc. etc.) must be kept in mind. -- GWPA, 17:28:40 02/12/02
Tue
He said with pseudo-profundity -- cribbing secretly
from the Swiss molecular chemist Shu-Kun Lin . . .
. . . and hoping nobody noticed.
But B.S. in the service of TRUTH is "always" justified.
(And if there is one thing he knew was TRUE . . .
it was that Dawn is a strange attractor leading
to an entropic spiral . . . yielding the ultimate
collapse of the Buffyverse.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Awright, who are you guys? And why are you engaging in humorous
activities... -- Evil Clone, 21:48:08 02/10/02 Sun
... on a philosophy discussion board?
Philosophy is serious business you know!
Because...
( gestures at board )
... check it out!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I.Q. detector went off near here. False reading? (P.S.
Are you Dawn-related?) -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 23:41:50 02/10/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's about time someone else stood up for philosophical
seriousness -- Sockrates, 00:46:17 02/11/02 Mon
I agree completely with Evil Clone. I don't know what
this foolishness is, and what I don't know, I don't
like. So please cut it out.
Let us strive to remember that philosophy IS serious
(depending upon what your definition of what "is" is,
but assuming a normative rather than eccentric definition
we won't go wrong, I don't think).
Sockrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> IS not the question of self-sacrifice for an
illusion (e.g., Dawn) seriously philosophical? -- GWAP, 08:57:55
02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "Illusion" is in the eye/mind
of the beholder. -- Sockrates, 15:40:45 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And vice versa. -- Heisenberg's
Clone, 15:58:17 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Q for HC -- If you stand still,
do you know where you are? -- Evil Clone, 18:21:23 02/11/02 Mon
Further, if I know your velocity, is/does it really matter?
Just curious...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Like Buffy when crime-solving
-- only if you read the script (at 5 m.p.h. . . .). -- Heisenberg's
Clone, 19:12:09 02/11/02 Mon
. . . -- if you read it at a different speed, you'll
find your somewhere else . . . and someone else will
be guilty.
Good question.
HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> CORRECTION: RE:
Standing still -- HC, 19:21:22 02/11/02 Mon
Was nodding my head in time to music when reading your
question . . . Angular velocity realligned your question
to one I will answer a few weeks from now on a totally
different subject.
With zero velocity, your location (in the Buffyverse)
is always dead center of the Summers' Kitchen.
HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dolly S.
Heisenberg's Clone? -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 21:14:17 02/11/02
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So if the
Hellmouth is the down quark, the Summer's Kitchen is the up quark...
-- Evil Clone, who is charmingly strange, 21:49:13 02/11/02 Mon
...and Spike is the strange quark, who's the charmed quark?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A
successful exchange of a blue-antiyellow gluon! (amazed/happy
smile) -- HC, 22:25:13 02/11/02 Mon
There are so few who understand perversely applied chromodynamics.
I am delighted.
Re: Charmed quark
Mass requirements for c quark suggest it could be Clark Kent,
but network crossover constraints apply.
In any case, an excellent question I will ponder as I drift off
(and hopefully find a solution for in a lucid dream.)
HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> heisenberg button --
anom, 22:38:57 02/12/02 Tue
"I used to have a Heisenbergmobile, but every time I looked
at the speedometer I got lost"
It's a real button. I have a copy (surprised?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> As with BtVS, philosophy is a multi-genre'd thing
-- Aristippus, 11:15:35 02/11/02 Mon
Once upon a time Xander had "the funny syphilis."
Perhaps it could be said we are simply infecting
the board with "the funny philosophy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Is that related to The Philosophy of Fungus?
-- Evil Clone, 18:15:33 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yes. But only when you sing it in Chumash.
-- Aristippus, 20:15:30 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And multi-gendered. -- Darby, 14:01:53 02/12/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ...But apparently not here. -- Darby,
14:03:52 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Amen! (oops) Aperson! ;) -- critical
lass, 14:11:35 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Could it have any relation to the rhetoricity of Masquerading?
-- Lyotard in tights, 15:31:25 02/11/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> (gesturing at Internet) Don't YOU realize where you
are? -- multi-media/social-interaction theorist in black hat,
12:42:46 02/12/02 Tue
I remember wonderful on-line conversations . . . twenty years
ago!
I'm not seeing any evolution/enhancement. Technology improves,
but social interaction seems stuck.
ASIDE: Hence the collapse of Internet stock prices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Will there ever be any more scenes here (or just more guy-like
commentary)? -- critical lass, 11:14:29 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Waiting for tonight's episode to check Dawn-concept's
MWQ (Mock-Worthy Quotient). -- GW's Pathetic Assistant, 11:48:06
02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> (drums sharpened finger nails impatiently in
an L.A. rhythm) -- critical lass, 14:24:06 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "guy-like commentary" -- Oh goody, time
for a gender war. :) -- PW's Pathetic Assistant, 11:51:31 02/12/02
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> (smiles as she polishes her Buffy-sized knuckles)
-- critical lass, 14:17:52 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A moment of silence for a dead series. [POOF] -- GW's Emergency
Series Resurrection Team, 21:05:28 02/12/02 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OAFA/DOA CORONER'S REPORT -- Cause of death: Terminally
stupid writing -- Well duh, The Coroner, 00:24:21 02/13/02 Wed
PARTIAL STUPIDITY WOUNDS LIST
(1) Deadly demon loose, so Slayer chooses to:
(a) Keep everyone together so she can protect them.
OR
(b) Wander around upstairs (and even walk away
leaving Dawn alone upstairs.)
(2) Deadly demon loose, a "civilian" has been sliced
open
and may be bleeding to death, Xander has been injured.
Everyone . . .
(a) tells Willow to go ahead and try using her
powerful magic to see if she can get them out
of there and save all their lives.
OR
(b) does "the right thing" and wouldn't hear
of risking Willow "falling off the no-magic wagon."
(Far better that everyone die than that, heaven
forbid.)
(3) A deadly demon is loose, Buffy walks away leaving
Dawn alone (see #1), and the writer chooses to:
(a) Take advantage of the situation to erase
the most annoying * simulated * human character
before the series is destroyed.
OR
(b) Keep the incoherently written energy blob
(Dawn) in the series and alienate everyone with
subtle intelligence and taste who used to
delight in the show from episode 1, but now only
watch new episodes for their train-wreck quality.
(4) Although "Once More With Feeling" was a perfect
ending to the coda of Buffy's ressurection,
Joss Whedon:
(a) admits that the last few episodes have
been a joke, and that the joke is over.
OR
(b) keeps cranking out stupid episodes because
his staff needs money to buy all their kids good
college educations . . . and gosh, you know
an idea like "Buffy" doesn't come along very
often . . . and, well, we've got it down to
a, you know, nine-to-five routine.
etc etc etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> oooo harsh ... but yeah, cringe-worthy (and
lost its sense of humor) -- critical lass, 01:13:01 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> R.I.P. Dawn Summers / blob of energy / masquerading
as an irritant / ruined the Buffyverse / a lot -- critical lass,
01:34:22 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> TV GUIDE LISTING: Yet Another Very Special Episode of "Buffy"
-- Dawn's New Shoes -- allbuffynewswire.com, 10:52:54 02/13/02
Wed
Buffy: After the Troika release shoe-untying
nanobots on her feet, Dawn screams in frustration
until Buffy (full of self-loathing anyway) takes
her first steps into prostitution to get the money
to buy a new pair of penny loafers for her
imaginary sister. Dawn quits screaming, but
Buffy's post-trick blood test reveals ominous implications.
Willow wrestles with whether to once again save her
friend, or be a good girl and not do any more of
that nasty ol' magic. PARENTAL WARNING: No humor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ROTFL! But I think this topic is as exhausted as (well,
you know). -- critical lass, 13:22:51 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what part of "I love you" don't you understand?
(SPOILERs through "Dead Things", LONG) -- verdantheart,
14:03:52 02/08/02 Fri
I'm thinking it's the "I" (Spike) part. I apologize
in advance for restating many of the ideas expressed below, including
some of my own. I thank everyone for their generous and perceptive
insights. However, I've been haunted a bit by "Dead Things,"
which I found to have fascinating depth, so I can't resist posting
this.
"Dead Things" is indeed a haunted episode. Past events
reverberate through this episode. Posters have mentioned one thing
after another that makes sense in this way.
For example, Faith haunts "Dead Things." Buffy's belief
that she has accidentally killed an innocent woman should bring
Faith immediately to mind. Buffy may initially listen to Spike's
Faith-like rationalizations that the world is better with her
out and slaying, but she eventually comes to the conclusion that
she should be punished for her mistake. However, there is another
important parallel to be drawn: Faith's approach to sex was to
treat men as sex objects, to be used for self-gratification and
then tossed lightly aside (as she did with Xander). How is this
so different from how Buffy has treated Spike?
This theme of objectification is further underlined by the echoing
of "I Was Made To Love You," as Warren uses the troika's
cerebral dampener to control former love Katrina. The dampener
turns Katrina into a sort of love-slave zombie who caters to the
desires of Warren and his friends. Love-zombie Katrina is eerily
like Warren's love-bot; completely under Warren's control and
willing to do whatever Warren wants, but having no real identity.
Love-zombie Katrina, if anything, was even more thing-like than
love-bot April. The case of Katrina is oh, so much worse than
that of April in that they are forcing Katrina to behave in a
way she would not choose for herself, while April was simply constructed
to behave in a certain way.
Then we come to the scene in which Buffy repeats her mantra that
Spike is a "thing." He is evil, she says, he can't feel
anything real. How is her behavior an improvement on that of Faith
or Warren? She has not forced Spike to feel or behave in a certain
way, but she has allowed him to act on feelings that she knows
he has-she has taken advantage of him. And for what? So far, Buffy
has admitted only that she allows Spike to express his feelings
only for her own sexual gratification. Buffy's dream underlines
that she is treating Spike like a thing, a love-slave, as strong
parallels are drawn between Katrina and Spike. Buffy is shown
having sex with Spike. The handcuffs appear both on Katrina and
on Spike. Staked-by-Buffy Spike transforms into (apparently) killed-by-Buffy
Katrina, drawing the parallel between Warren, who accidentally
killed Katrina, and Buffy, who stakes Spike in her dream. (A bit
scathing, when you think about it.)
When Spike tells Buffy to "Lay it all on me," he decides
to drop his defenses and take whatever Buffy throws at him. This
is a literal demonstration of their emotional relationship. Spike
has opened himself up to tremendous emotional abuse. And, while
it hasn't been completely without protest ("Gone"),
he really hasn't fought back very hard. In the alley by the police
station, Spike literally opens himself up to whatever physical
abuse Buffy wants to give him, demonstrating how much she can
and does hurt him.
She tells him to stop loving her, but he can't help it, echoing
how many statements by Angel going back to the first seasons.
Parallels with Angel are not overt, but they are omnipresent (this
was brought out more overtly in "Tabula Rasa"). Both
Spike and Angel are vampires, with one difference: Angel has a
human soul, but Spike is all demon. Loving Spike has enormous
implications for Buffy. How can she be good if she loves an evil
vampire? I'm guessing there's an undercurrent here somewhere in
Buffy that says, "Stop trying to be Angel." She doesn't
want evil Spike, with all of the baggage of his prior actions,
to take Angel's place. She still wants Angel to be on a pedestal
that no one else can touch. It's prevented her from letting herself
love, give herself to someone new the way she gave herself to
Angel. And then there's the fear that if she should do such a
thing, she would put herself in line for the same kind of pain
that she went through over Angel. Loving yet another vampire underscores
both the parallels to Angel and the dangers of loving someone.
And the more deeply and obsessively she feels she might love this
someone new, the greater her resistance to loving would be because
the greater the pain that would result from it. Furthermore, if
Spike could change as a result of Buffy's love, why then couldn't
Angelus? If anything, Angelus was made more dangerous and evil
as a result of the influence of Buffy's love. Further, she would
have to ask herself if the same thing would happen with Spike
if his chip was disabled that happened to Angel when he lost his
soul.
Going back to the fight, Spike simply lets Buffy knock him down
and beat him to a pulp. She stops, a look of horror on her face.
Is it that she's hurting someone who is defenseless? Hurting someone
whose motive was to help her? A realization that she doesn't want
to hurt him? Or is it a comprehension that she is hurting someone
who is actually a someone, not a something (as she has been asserting)?
A realization that she is in the wrong? She goes to turn herself
in, more convinced than ever that she deserves to be punished
("Please don't forgive me").
It's been pointed out that Spike continues to restate his theory
that Buffy "came back wrong" and tries to separate her
from her friends. This theory is not merely a tool that Spike
uses to talk Buffy into doing certain things, but something he
really believes. Why else could he hit her without getting a migraine?
But more importantly, why else would Buffy give him the time of
day? Notice that Spike didn't really push things hard until he
realized he could hit her. Spike doesn't believe that he deserves
Buffy's love. But if Buffy were part demon, there really might
be hope that he could have a relationship with her. He honestly
sees no chance of that if Buffy were unchanged.
Buffy also believes her behavior (carrying on with an evil vampire,
letting him do "those things" to her) is explained by
Spike's theory that she "came back wrong." She has denied
the theory, but used it as a rationalization for her actions.
She asks later "Why do I let him do those things to me?"
Indeed, why? She doesn't have to do what he wants; she can easily
fend him off. Yet she apparently lets him enter her in a semi-public
area in the Bronze. She may say, weakly, "Don't," but
she does nothing to stop him. A lot has been made of Spike's motives
in doing this, but the reason that we're shown this is we are
to be given a concrete example of to exactly what "these
things" refers. Spike believes that Buffy came back wrong.
But more importantly, Buffy wants to believe that she came back
wrong because it serves as an excuse of sorts. If she's become
a sex pervert, if she feels alienated from her friends, if she
hasn't given appropriate attention to Dawn, well, it must be because
she came back wrong.... But Tara doesn't give Buffy this easy
way out. Tara confirms that Buffy is basically Buffy and any difference
between what she is now and what she was before is simply cosmetic.
Left with no convenient rationalization for her behavior, Buffy
breaks down (nicely played, BTW, and Amber was great, too).
Buffy's left with two possibilities. Either she loves Spike, an
evil vampire with no human soul, or she's simply using him for
her own sexual gratification. Tara reasons that either way it's
OK: If she loves Spike, well, he loves her too, and he's done
many good things; if she doesn't, well, Buffy's going through
a lot and it's understandable. But both choices appall Buffy:
Either she loves an evil, unclean vampire, or she is using someone
who loves her.
Interestingly Buffy begs Tara not to forgive her. Perhaps this
is because she knows that Spike, who is chiefly wronged, already
has. That he continues to forgive her treatment of him as he continues
to take it. Here we have an echo from "Intervention"
(interestingly, the episode in which the Buffy-bot is introduced):
"Love, give, forgive." "Forgive" can only
be about Spike, for whom else does Buffy need to forgive? She
had already forgiven Riley, and she forgave Ben, and this exhortation
really couldn't apply to Glory. The one person to forgive is Spike,
whom Buffy continually refuses to forgive. While Spike might tell
her, "you treated me like a man," Buffy still attempts
to deny his feelings, claiming that they don't exist or at least
aren't "real." As far as Buffy's concerned, Spike can't
change, regardless of what he might do or say or how he might
try. She and the Scoobies never seem to thank him for his help,
yet always expect him to be there when they need him. Is it OK
to mistreat someone just because he is evil? This question is
implied everytime Buffy or a Scoobie mistreats Spike when he is
there helping out. We expect Tara to forgive with ease, but isn't
it ironic that evil Spike forgives so naturally and effortlessly,
while embodiment of good Buffy has such a difficult time doing
so?
But back to the question of what Buffy's relationship with Spike
is, love or lust. I say again, I don't think she knows. But if
Buffy could forgive Spike and set the past aside, perhaps she
might find out whether what she feels for him is really love or
merely a compelling lust.
I hope that this was at least somewhat interesting and not simply
"oh, well, this is just a repeat of what I've already read."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A nice summation. Thanks for that. -- Aquitaine, 14:55:41
02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Exactly what part of "I love you" don't you
understand? (SPOILERs through "Dead Things", LONG) --
JM, 15:05:04 02/08/02 Fri
No, I don't think you are, some really cool ideas here.
I agree with you about who the Guide was referring to. Buffy does
indeed extend a measure of forgiveness to Spike when she impersonates
the bot. No real other reason for the gentle kiss. I also think
that is why the bruises they ultimately decided to give Spike
-- he was originally filmed much more bloodied -- so closely match
the ones he sustained at Glory's hands.
I'd noted that Buffy's behavior had regressed even before Spike's
had. Hers starts as early as Life Serial. After Intervention they
had essentially reached a truce. She shows him decency, he shows
restraint. Spike doesn't really revert until the encounter at
the beginning of Gone. So I am wondering in Buffy's behavior changed
when her feelings about Spike started becoming more complex. It's
hard to feel only tolerance toward your most important confidant.
Even if she can't ever love him, she does like him now, sometimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful!! (Aq!! there you are!) -- liq, 17:42:21 02/08/02
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love, give forgive.... -- Kerri, 18:25:23 02/08/02 Fri
The one person to forgive is Spike
I think that at this point Buffy has two people to forgive: Spike
and more importantly herself. Buffy is being incredibly hard on
herself, she doesn't think she is worthy of love of forgiveness.
Before Buffy can forgive Spike she needs to accept and forgive
herself. Of course these two things are linked, since to accept
herself Buffy must accept her darkness, which she sees in Spike.
Wonderful post!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Love, give forgive.... -- LeeAnn, 20:41:31 02/09/02
Sat
What has Buffy got to forgive Spike for? What has he done lately
but try to love and protect her and give her great sex which she
wanted. FORGIVE! If only I needed to forgive someone for those
things.
It's her that needs to beg for Spike's forgiveness, not the other
way around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Love, give forgive.... -- purplegrrl, 13:45:17
02/11/02 Mon
Well, Spike has tried to kill Buffy (as recently as season 5)
and most of her friends. He was willing to allow the Judge and
Akathla destroy the Earth dimension as we know it. And he has
used and manipulated the Scooby Gang for his own nefarious ends.
Not to mention being proud of all the killing and mayhem he caused
before he got the chip in his head. Spike's actions of late do
not necessarily make up for the 100+ years of evil he has done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Love, Give, Forgive -- Leaf, 18:26:01 02/08/02 Fri
Great summation
There would be only one thing that I have a different take on
is the Love, give , forgive, although I see the connection to
Spike, my thoughts on this that it was referring to the need to
forgive Willow and the others for her resurrection. "Love"
is she loved Dawn, "Give" she gave her life up for Dawn,
and now she has to "forgive" her friends from pulling
her out of 'heaven' and into 'hell'.
I'm not sure if she has done this already season six hasn't started
here yet so I might have missed her dealing with that issue
Just my humble musings ;-)
Leaf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Love, Give, Forgive -- Spike Lover, 17:49:01 02/10/02
Sun
I think what she needs to forgive Spike for is being what he is:
a vampire with a hundred year history of killing and mayhem without
remorse.
He can't really apologize for what he is. No more than she can
apologize for what she is: vampire slayer with a 4 year history
of killing vampires and demons, etc.
He accepts her for what she is and does. She has to forgive him
for 'eating the decorator' and killing the slayers, etc, if she
ever is going to be able to love him for who he is now.
Remember, when Angel came back suddenly from hell, and she was
hiding him, Giles was really mad at her for forgiving him for
torturing him.
Buffy has to accept and forgive Spike's past (clearly as Tara
has) and (just as Angel's group has accepted and forgiven Angel),
just as Cordy has accepted and forgiven Angel for knocking Darla
up and lying about it --so that when her friends come around and
raise hell about him, she can stand firm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent, excellent!! -- Deeva, 20:15:24 02/08/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Awesome post! -- Wynn, 22:51:56 02/08/02 Fri
You have eloquently stated exactly how I feel about Buffy and
Spike. When I watched Dead Things, I made the parallel between
Faith and Buffy in the alley scene between Buffy and Spike, but
not in the similarities between the two Slayers' use of men for
sexual gratification. Good point.
Concerning the Bronze scene, Spike's behavior didn't sit well
with me. It doesn't mesh with his behavior in the first half of
the season. In my opinion, he started reverting back to Big Bad
behavior after he discovered he could hit Buffy. He believed that
the only reason he could hit was that she came back wrong. That
she was less than human. In his mind, Buffy was a demon. Maybe
he thought that the only way (or the only way he knows how) to
relate to her now was to bring forth the Big Bad again. If he
believes (or wants to believe) that Buffy is a demon, he might
think that he needs to act like the demon he was to be with her.
I don't know; I can't formulate a way to say what I'm hypothesizing.
Hopefully it makes sense.
Once again, you wrote an excellent post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Awesome post! -- Doriander, 04:31:33 02/09/02
Sat
I don't know, I think Spike's behavior in the Bronze, his attempt
to isolate Buffy from her friends is consistent with his behavior
early in the season, if you recall "Flooded" and "Life
Serial." Well not behavior exactly, but his mindset. It's
even consistent with William, who saw himself and Cecily as separate
from the from the social set:
William: "They're vulgarians, they're not like you and I."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> less than human -- purplegrrl, 13:58:00 02/11/02 Mon
***In his mind, Buffy was a demon.***
I think this is the key to Spike being able to harm Buffy. He
knows that Buffy was brought back from the dead. In his experience,
only people who have been "influenced" by a demon (i.e.,
bitten by another vampire) are able to come back from the dead.
Therefore Spike believes Buffy is at worst a demon or at best
less than human.
This sort of leads to the conclusion that the chip works somehow
on what Spike *believes* to be true. When Spike hit Tara in "Family"
to prove she was human, he *believed* she was human. Although
Spike did not consciously think Buffy was less than human before
he realized he could harm her without the accompanying splitting
headache, he must have believed it on a subconscious level: Return
from the dead = demon (vampire, zombie, etc.). Therefore Spike's
chip did not react he hit Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Repeat shmepeat. That helped me sort out some of my own
feelings of being haunted... thanks. -- yuri, 12:45:28 02/09/02
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nicely Said. 3 points(more spoilerage) -- Simon A., 10:38:52
02/10/02 Sun
I just want to point out that there are two things that Buffy
doesn't like about her relationship with Spike. It's not just
that she loathes the the fact that she's having sex(she wouldn't
use the phrase "making love") with a soulless deamon.
She is also bothered by the "dirty", degrading, and
violent kind of sex that she seems to crave.("those things")
Personally, I like many am bothered by the theme "women want
violent sex." It is my hope that in this case they will show
this to be aberrant, slayer specific behavior. Perhaps it is the
nature of Slayers to have their sex-drive cross-wired into a propensity
for violence.
I thought that it was a step backward for Tara when she told Buffy
that it was okay to basicly use Spike's love for her to get the
sex that she desired. Tara finally got the courage to leave Willow
because Will was disregarding the effects of her actions on others,
and here she is, telling Buffy that it's okay. She may be reverting
to her pre-Willow too shy to say anything personna.
I would also point out that even the rest of the "legion
of dim" were bothered when thay realized that Warren was
objectifying a person that he knew and not a stranger. Despite
his protestations to Katrina, it was, for him all about revenge
on somebody who dumped him, not about trying to get her back.
He was, after all, going to give the rest of them a turn when
he was done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sex (Is that a catchy subject line or what :) ) --
Sophist, 12:36:57 02/10/02 Sun
I know the sex issue is a sensitive one for many. While I agree
that the show should not encourage viewers to believe that violent
sex is what people (not just women; Spike is involved here also)
want, I don't think that is the message. Almost every other sex
scene the show has ever had has been devoid of violence. The exceptions
-- X/F and O/V, or even W/K -- have had a clear disturbing impact.
At the same time, I'd hate for the show to get caught up in the
question of what kind of sex is "proper" or "normal".
IMHO, judgmentalism about other peoples' sex lives is far too
common in our society. I don't know where ME is taking B/S, but
I hope that the key issue is the emotions involved, not the acts
per se.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sex (Is that a catchy subject line or what
:) ) -- Simon A., 16:48:16 02/10/02 Sun
I probably came off sounding more judgemental than I ment to be.
I live in a a state that has, within the last 20 years, sent a
man to jail for consensual oral sex with a woman. Hey, as long
as everyone is a willing participant, and there are no kids, animals
or trips to the emergency room involved, it's nobody else's business
in my book. What should be legal, what should be shown at 8:00
on TV, and what should make you get your friends int counselling
are three different questions. If a friend of mine asked me why
they let their lover do "those things" to me, I like
to think that I'd try to get them some help, not just say that
it's okay. Buffy is obviously deeply conflicted about this, and
whether the answer is to make her feel better about it or get
her to stop is a complicated one. Notice however, that she is
bothered by the kind of sex that she wants, and who she wants
it with, not that she is using Spike to get it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Nicely Said. 3 points(more spoilerage) -- terrapin,
13:09:33 02/10/02 Sun
Really intersting points that you made. You know, I thought that
Tara did seem to act differntly towards Buffy. She did seem to
act the way she was when we were first introduced to her. She
was a little shy and kinda weird.
At the end of the episode when Buffy was breaking down in her
lap, I remebered the episode, "Intervention." When Xander
and Anya told Willow and Tara that Buffy was "boinking Spike,"
Tara responds to Willow's comment "What are you nuts, she's
crazy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Nicely Said. 3 points(more spoilerage) --
Simon A., 16:29:17 02/10/02 Sun
((At the end of the episode when Buffy was breaking down in her
lap, I remebered the episode, "Intervention." When Xander
and Anya told Willow and Tara that Buffy
was "boinking Spike," Tara responds to Willow's comment
"What are you nuts, she's crazy."))
I'd forgotten that.(good point!) I think that the fact that Tara
has grown and gained so much self confidence since going out with
Will would have made breaking up much harder. Most of that was
probably a result of getting away from her parents(as it is for
many), but Will also played a part in that. To some extant Tara
replaced Will as the "shy scooby" when one was required
for scriptwriting purposes, but she too seemed go grow out of
her crippling shyness. As somebody who thought that the Oz-Willow-Tara
triangle was one of the Saving graces of S4, I'm glad to see that
they haven't written her out of the series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Post! -- Isabel, 16:31:52 02/10/02 Sun
"Parallels with Angel are not overt, but they are omnipresent
... Both Spike and Angel are vampires, with one difference: Angel
has a human soul, but Spike is all demon. Loving Spike has enormous
implications for Buffy. How can she be good if she loves an evil
vampire? I'm guessing there's an undercurrent here somewhere in
Buffy that says, "Stop trying to be Angel." She doesn't
want evil Spike, with all of the baggage of his prior actions,
to take Angel's place. She still wants Angel to be on a pedestal
that no one else can touch. It's prevented her from letting herself
love, give herself to someone new the way she gave herself to
Angel. And then there's the fear that if she should do such a
thing, she would put herself in line for the same kind of pain
that she went through over Angel. Loving yet another vampire underscores
both the parallels to Angel and the dangers of loving someone.
And the more deeply and obsessively she feels she might love this
someone new, the greater her resistance to loving would be because
the greater the pain that would result from it. Furthermore, if
Spike could change as a result of Buffy's love, why then couldn't
Angelus?"
______
I particularly like your thoughts on Angel. I've thought for a
while that one of the reasons that Buffy can't/won't/(won't allow?)
herself to love Spike is that it will alter her perceptions of
her relationship with Angel. It would change Angel from being
her 'StarCrossed Romeo & Juliet-like True Love' into being 'that
guy she dated, ... you know, one of her type.'
It's not a new concept. Real life here-I have a married friend
who talks so wistfully about her "First Love" in the
sighing, toes-curling way, that I want to slap her. I know for
a fact that that "First Love" dumped her, pregnant,
for a prettier girl and never looked back. She will overlook the
bad so she can hang onto the illusion.
But I digress. "Why then couldn't Angelus?" It's something
that Buffy has to have thought of many times. I've heard it postulated
that Angelus still had love for Buffy and it disgusted him. But
he was touched by the Judge and determined pure of all human emotion,
so that's a theory that never floated for me.
Here's another disturbing thought. What if fate had been different
and, somehow, Angelus had been chipped instead of Spike? (Yeah,
I know, time lines...) Would he have 'loved' Buffy and helped
her kill demons, not people? Or would he have found ways to still
be as evilly sadistic as he was before?
Even scarier, if Angelus had helped her, Could Buffy have found
herself caring for the soulless version of her 'True Love' making
the Soul not part of the reason she loved him in the first place.
Those are thoughts that can keep a girl awake at night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Very Interesting -- Spike Lover, 18:01:59 02/10/02
Sun
I too think the ghost of Angel still haunts Buffy. And what did
they talk about when they met half way??
Has she accepted that Angel has moved way beyond her? She might
stop hanging on if she knew he had a child now and who the mother
had been and WHEN it was conceived. Does she know that Angel is
looking longingly at Cordy now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I don't know -- Isabel, 18:17:34 02/11/02 Mon
But I think it's best for Buffy (And Angel) to make their own
decisions about when and how they move on, without reference to
the other. If Buffy (or Angel) only move on if they hear that
the other has moved on, it's not really moving on. It's still
reacting to the other. Which makes whoever they move on to a rebound
person. Not healthy.
I figure the Fang Gang hasn't mentioned Connor to anyone in Sunnydale
because they don't want to call attention to him to another group
of people who may decide that they know how to 'use' him. And
they might expect a Buffy explosion. (Which is unfair, except
with regards to his curse, since Angel has had to accept that
Buffy has moved way beyond him. Sort of.)
I guess we'll never know what they talked about at that meeting.
Neither of them came home happy or suicidal so we can assume nothing
momentous happened. I wonder if Buffy told Angel she was in Heaven.
He was ticked when he got home, but that was probably due to Cordy
and Wes' two minute skit on his and Buffy's romance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Horror-if Angel is cancelled and
returns to BtVS -- LeeAnn, 19:15:27 02/11/02 Mon
If the show Angel is cancelled that would allow the character
Angel to return to BtVS. Talk about a shipper's war. A world of
EWWWW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The worst part would be -- Sophist,
21:19:59 02/11/02 Mon
the bad puns. "Don't give up the ship." *Slowly gains
control over self* Don't think of the evil puns. Don't think of
the evil puns....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I don't know -- vandalia, 23:42:53
02/11/02 Mon
I guess we'll never know what they talked about at that meeting.
Actually, there's talk about doing four comics this summer sometime
under the Dark Horse(?) label that will give four takes on how
the meeting actually went (a kind of non-answer answer), as well
as some comics on how the summer without Buffy went for the Scooby
Gang. At least some will be written by the actual writers for
the show. I think you can look at www.comicscontinuum.com for
more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This is the first time that I read it and it was great-
particularly the forgiveness part! -- Spike Lover, 17:37:50 02/10/02
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks for your warm reception to my post! (she curtsies)
-- verdantheart, 05:59:38 02/11/02 Mon
... and your perceptive comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad boys, emotional challenge, and unconditional love -- Anne,
14:52:43 02/08/02 Fri
The ideas in this post are in response to a reference in a post
I saw below (maybe by Fresne?) -- but I can't find it anymore,
so I'm posting up here.
The reference was to the Marti Noxon thesis that what the Spike/Buffy
relationship is all about is a depiction of a supposedly typical
growing-up phase of young women falling for "bad boys".
This is a thesis that has bothered me for a while, for a variety
of reasons*, but what suddenly leapt into my mind for the first
time reading it again was: whoa, wait a minute, being unconditionally,
tenderly and devotedly in love with someone is absolutely not
part of the job description of a "bad boy" -- at least
not as I understand it. My feeling is that bad boys are supposed
to be as inaccessible, dangerous and chancy emotionally as they
are in other ways: they have to be an emotional challenge. That's
one of several reasons this type of relationship is unhealthy.
The problem is that my understanding comes from relatively limited
sources. The first is, frankly, I fell for a couple of bad boys
myself (as a teenager, not in my twenties), and the emotional
challenge was, I believe, part of the syndrome for me. I also
have vague memories of having seen such relationships portrayed
in movies and books -- my only problem there is that I can't cite
a single one and therefore can't really use them either to support
or disprove my hypothesis.
So: anybody else here either have any personal experiences, observations
of friends and acquaintances, or literary examples that they can
give on the issue of whether the "Bad Boy" syndrome
typically involves the bad boy being hopelessly in love with you?
*including the one raised, if I'm remembering and understanding
correctly, by the poster below, who I think said something about
the thesis operating on a literalistic rather than mythic and
symbolic level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Bad boys, emotional challenge, and unconditional love
-- dochawk, 16:23:23 02/08/02 Fri
You said:
being unconditionally, tenderly and devotedly in love with someone
is absolutely not part of the job description of a "bad boy"
Maybe its because Spike is in no way unconditionally or tenderly
in love. He is manipulative (unconditional love means loving the
person you are with, not telling them how wrong they are, how
they don't belong with their friends) and in the end malicous
in his "love" (obsession)for Buffy. he fits the classic
bad boy stereotype. Even if there are many people on this board
who debate Spike's evilness, there is no question that at least
publicly the writers still consider him to be so (and JM does
as well).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Bad boys, emotional challenge, and unconditional
love -- Rufus, 01:58:06 02/09/02 Sat
Spike does play a good "bad boy" and I read the actor
was horrified to find out what William was about(a role too close
to home maybe), but Spike isn't just a bad boy. Spike is the creation
of a fellow who couldn't get a date if he tried, ignored by the
ladies because he was a wimp. When William became a vampire he
had real physical power and he changed his image to fit what he
desired in life, to be seen. Spike is the result of what many
men, sick of women passing nice guys over, think the solution
could be...of course that is be a bad boy. But what Spike once
was, William still determines many of his actions. So you have
a bad boy with a nice guy center that has been submerged in leather
and image. What Spike did with Buffy in the Bronze isn't just
what a bad boy would do but what many people would do to hang
onto someone they fear losing. As Spike has a somewhat dual nature,
I feel that his love can be dual in nature. First the bad boy
who is willing to manipulate to get the desired results, and the
person who once was who is capable of being beaten to death to
protect the one he loves. I don't see Spike as just one or the
other but a mix of good and bad boy. If he were just a bad boy
he wouldn't have wasted that much time on a woman when there are
so many women waiting i the wings.;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hold on! See my above post "Alley Beating"
-- Spike Lover, 17:19:25 02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Bad boys, emotional challenge, and unconditional love
-- fresne, 17:18:23 02/08/02 Fri
Apologies, but it's Friday afternoon and I don't want to start
another project, so feeling feckless...
My biggest problem with the whole Bad boy thing of the 20s is
it hopelessly simplistic and as I think Rendyl brought up down
the way, mine gott, we're posting a lot, this really is a worse
relationship for Spike than Buffy.
Boiling down to:
Person A: passionately in love, willing to do anything for their
lover, goes against long held principals and behavior to be with
their lover, turns against their own kind and way of life because
of lover (okay there are other reasons for this, but I'm inclined
to the Spike returned to SunnyD cause of Buffyluv theory), there
is a break up in long term stable relationship because of the
lover.
Person B: doesn't call, doesn't write, will only allow their lover
to hang around when convenient, not interested/puts down lover's
inner life, frequently stops by lover's place for sex, but is
never interested in talking about where the relationship is going,
in fact tells the lover the relationship is only about sex, uses
sex/love to convince lover to do things (get information, jail
breaks, etc.), doesn't like lover, frequently compares lover to
other better lovers, but you're here/convenient.
Of course the Buffy's behavior works equally for upper/middle
class princess messing around with the a boy from the wrong side
of the tracks.
Some bad boys, well:
The Fonz, nice guy, always formal with Mrs. C, but leather jacket,
gangs, fighting, strange magical abilities, lots of girl friends.
Bad Boy.
James Deanish - wild misunderstood boy that no woman with sense
would get involved with cause man does he have issues. Bad Boy.
Lord Byron - ah, yes, club footed poet who carved graffiti on
ancient monuments. Athletically wild to prove himself. Drank wine
out of a human skull. May have had a fling with his sister. Had
many a love affair, believer in free love, free drugs, and freedom.
Died in Greece fighting the Turks (okay, technically disease,
scans better as lover and a fighter.)
Lucifer, Paradise Lost - disobeys God, goes to hell, uses raffish
charm to get humans kicked out of paradise. Original bad boy.
Bad boy characteristics would seem to be:
· Sexualized and knows what do with it. Often surrounded
in literature by men who don't have the slightest idea. See Dracula.
See the Fonz.
· Passionate - and I mean that in a big ideas, grand exclamations
way. They see everything bigger and bolder. See Lestat, Vampire
Lestat, not Interview.
· Bored - Done it all, dissipated beyond belief. Bad men
kill for reasons. A bad boy is just sick with ennui. Ah, poor
Nevil. Wants. Takes. Has. Bored now. See Byron. See Errol Flynn.
In like Flynn.
· Poor Little Lost boy - Raffish, rakish. Will never grow
old. Will never grow up. Obviously vamps get auto bad boy/girl
credit. See Lost Boys.
· Emotionally unattainable - He's either messed up or really
not into the monogamy thing. See Romantic poets.
· Emotionally attainable and psychotic with it - oh yeah,
our girl has bagged this bad boy's heart and now he's leaving
her dead kittens and or killing himself. See song Leader of the
Pack.
· Emotionally attainable and reformable with it - He loves
her and reforms his rackish, raffish ways. Origin of the saying,
Reformed Rakes make the best husbands. See sexualized, ahem. See
90% of all romance novels. I'd blame the 12th century French troubadours,
but then I'd have to blame Dante. And he's a god, so moving along.
· Manipulative - uses sex or love to get lover to do something.
Mel Gibson in Mrs. Soffel. 007 in all movies and books.
· Stylish dresser - Dresses in cool counter culture clothes.
Defines fashion as opposed to a slave to it. Always looks good,
especially with bed hair. Wears leather, silk, satin. i.e. understand
the value/appeal of touchable clothes. See sexualized.
· Can't take him home to mother - I mean look at him. However,
quicky in the barn, well okay. See Cry Baby for a funny version
thereof.
· Violent - He's so passionate, so bored, so wild. He does
what he pleases and when. Grr. Argh. Sigh. See Lucifer, reign
in hell etc.
Is Spike a Bad Boy. Umm...he's a vampire, yes.
Do I obsessively watch the Breakfast Club and therefore wish to
see beyond the label of bad boy, jock, brain, princess, psycho,
yes. Oh, wait no. Yes on labels no The Breakfast Club, not that
it isn't an excellent movie, but my heart belongs to Ferris Beuller,
who may or may not be a bad boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Boy, are you on a roll! -- Vickie, 17:55:54 02/08/02
Fri
I laughed out loud. Dante is a god! Loved it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Beatrice ate Dante's heart - film at 11:00 (OT)
-- fresne, 18:47:00 02/08/02 Fri
"O imagination, which so steals us at times from outward
things that we pay no heed though a thousand trumpets sound about
us, who moves thee if the sense offer thee nothing?"
How not to worship at the altar of Sirens and lands of sighs?
And intriguing parallels between Persephone, Goddess of Spring,
and Medusa, Queen of Hell, when of course the two are one, merely
at different points in the journey. And really, parades of Popes
in hell... Come on. ;>
I do rather feel on a roll, or at least loquacious enough to have
something to say. Mmm, luxurious loquaciousness. Most of the time,
you people get there first and I'm left with the crumbs of "urm,
me too." Then again, that's what's so enjoyable about this
board. After all, I already know what I have to say.
Fresne - happily neither mad, bad, nor dangerous to know, although
I have nothing in common with his wife, the Princess of Parallelograms
either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ferris Beuller = Bad Boy? -- VampRiley, 18:47:22 02/09/02
Sat
Maybe. But given the list you have, I don't really see him as
belonging to any one specific category.
Passionate?
Yes.
Emotionally attainable?
Sure.
Psychotic and/or reformable with it?
Not sure.
Stylish Dresser?
Maybe. I'd have to see him with what he'd be wearing these days.
A little Poor Little Lost Boy mixed with Sexualized and knows
what do with it?
Absolutely.
I don't think he's part of Violent or Can't take him home to mother.
But I'm not sure about Manipulative.
And that leaves me with...nothing else.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Bad boys, emotional challenge, and unconditional love
-- Caroline, 09:54:28 02/09/02 Sat
I think Spike PROJECTS the bad boy thing - along the lines that
Rufus was discussing - but now he has an opportunity to explore
the William the poet side and he's doing it. And I agree, Anne,
that even as a vampire, Spike was love's bitch, not exactly fitting
the bad boy characterisation that fresne itemized so well. I find
Spike's journey so much more interesting than Angel's, the latter
being either completely good or completely bad. Just like VampWillow
said - Bored now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy Article on Dead Things -- neaux, 17:24:19 02/08/02 Fri
from Zap 2 it news..
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?23792
I dont know if this was posted yet.. but good reading!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy Article on Dead Things...article inside -- Rufus,
18:32:58 02/08/02 Fri
zap2it.com.
'Buffy' Relationship Tips Into Domestic Violence
Fri, Feb 8, 2002 05:35 PM PDT
by Kate O'Hare
LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - In "Dead Things," the Feb.
5 episode of UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the volatile
and tortured relationship between slayer Buffy (Sarah Michelle
Gellar) and vampire Spike (James Marsters) took some disturbing
turns, as the series once again pushed the envelope of sexual
content and violence.
In one scene, the two engaged in intercourse while on the catwalk
at the Bronze, Sunnydale's favorite night spot, while Buffy's
friends danced below, unaware. Then, near the end of the episode,
an argument over whether Buffy should turn herself in for a murder
she'd been tricked into thinking she committed turned brutally
violent. A frustrated Buffy vented her anger on the unresisting
Spike, punching him repeatedly until one eye was swollen shut
and his face was bloody.
"I don't think anything about that is OK," says executive
producer Marti Noxon. "I don't think that we were trying
to say that's OK. That's definitely not offered as a conflict-resolution
technique. It's part of the pathology of their relationship."
Whatever Noxon and series creator Joss Whedon intended when they
brought together Buffy and Spike -- who cannot hurt humans because
of a government-implanted microchip in his head (the exception
being Buffy, because of a minor metaphysical loophole explained
at the end of the episode) -- the best theme song for the relationship
would probably be "Sympathy for the Devil."
"We've been getting so much feedback from fans," says
Noxon. "They see Spike as a hero now. I've said to you and
other people that the relationship is basically something we thought
would reflect the kinds of relationships you choose when you're
choosing the wrong person."
"People have been very upset about that. They're like, 'He's
not the wrong person. He's all redeemed.' Part of what needs to
happen at this point is to show that redemption is possible for
Spike, but he's not redeemed now, and their relationship is really
based on things that are not healthy."
"It doesn't mean that things won't get better for them, but
what it's based on right now isn't healthy. It's not showing Buffy
in the greatest light, but our intention was to show that they
need to change what it's about, or it's never going to last."
Asked about showing Buffy -- who is supposed to be the hero of
the story, and a moral person -- inflicting pain out of anger
on someone who is not fighting back, Noxon says, "This will
probably inflame fans of a different opinion, but my only answer
to it is that this relationship isn't bringing out the best in
either of them. Maybe it's bringing out the better in him in some
ways, but it's not bringing out the best in her."
"This is bringing out a desperation in her, and she's going
to have to deal with that. Long-term, there are definitely repercussions
to what's happened."
The viewership for "Buffy" covers a wide age range,
from 'tweens to older adults, but Noxon emphasizes that the show
isn't targeted at very young viewers.
"I don't think kids should watch 'Buffy' alone," says
Noxon. "To me, the show is definitely aimed at older teens
and young adults. It doesn't mean that younger people can't watch
it and enjoy it a lot of the time, but I just think responsible
parents would make sure that they're watching it with them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy Article on Dead Things...article inside
-- Rufus, 19:29:53 02/08/02 Fri
"People have been very upset about that. They're like, 'He's
not the wrong person. He's all redeemed.' Part of what needs to
happen at this point is to show that redemption is possible for
Spike, but he's not redeemed now, and their relationship is really
based on things that are not healthy."
I have to 100% agree with what MN is saying. First, Spike is not
redeemed, he has a ways to go before I'd be convinced of it, plus
there is the everpresent chance that if the chip came out that
Spike could revert to what he has spent the most of his existance
being...evil. I do think redemption is possible for Spike, but
I don't see it as a done deal, I certainly don't see him as a
hero though he could evolve into an anti-hero type.
"It doesn't mean that things won't get better for them, but
what it's based on right now isn't healthy. It's not showing Buffy
in the greatest light, but our intention was to show that they
need to change what it's about, or it's never going to last."
I have never seen what is going on with Buffy and Spike as a girlfriend/boyfriend
relationship, how can it be when one party doesn't admit that
she is even there, and is hiding their sexual relationship from
all her friends and family. Even Spike wonders what this thing
they have is, it's certainly not healthy. As long as Buffy is
in denial, and Spike is manipulating her to get her to stay, they
will never have an honest loving relationship. Right now I see
a train wreck just waiting to happen.
my only answer to it is that this relationship isn't bringing
out the best in either of them. Maybe it's bringing out the better
in him in some ways, but it's not bringing out the best in her.
The Buffy we see now isn't a healthy Buffy, her fling with Spike
has brought out an abusive streak that she never knew was there
and at least it bothers her. Spike isn't blamless in this as he
is willing to take an abusive Buffy over no Buffy at all.
"I don't think kids should watch 'Buffy' alone," says
Noxon. "To me, the show is definitely aimed at older teens
and young adults. It doesn't mean that younger people can't watch
it and enjoy it a lot of the time, but I just think responsible
parents would make sure that they're watching it with them."
I also agree with MN on this. Buffy isn't a show that kids should
watch without someone there to discuss what healthy and unhealthy
behavior is. Season six is definately not for the little ones,
there is too much going on that would be at the least not for
little eyes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Redemption is a process, not an event. -- Sophist,
20:43:46 02/08/02 Fri
I'm not sure I get Marti here. If she's saying B/S can only work
after redemption, there is no such point in time. Spike is a recovering
evilholic. I'm curious to see what ME will portray here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption is a process, not an event.
-- Rufus, 21:05:56 02/08/02 Fri
I get where you are coming from, redemption is a process, though
I think that it could be said that in the act of sacrificing herself
for her child, Darla made it.
As for Spike, I think that they never expected to find him so
popular. The guy they write "serial killer in prison"
lines for has captured the imagination of a broad range of fans.
I can only think that MN is trying to say that Spike hasn't totally
proved himself yet and that may be yet to come, or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption is a process, not an event.
-- Anne, 05:32:42 02/09/02 Sat
I agree completely that redemption is a process, not an event.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are certain points or
events in a person's development that can enable them to have
relationships -- either in general or specifically -- that they
couldn't have before.
A couple of character developments that could conceivably happen
that might make it possible for Spike and Buffy to get back together
again in a healthier way:
First of all, Spike has to have a genuine confrontation with himself
in terms of his own identity as being good or evil -- sometimes
it seems to me that he's just about as confused about this as
the rest of us. To do this, not only does the chip have to be
deactivated, but he has to break up with Buffy in such a way that
the "he's only good for Buffy's sake" issue is tested.
If he then chooses evil on a permanent basis, well, that's that
(the 'evilholic' characterization is good, which means you have
to allow for slips). If he chooses good, he's really going to
have to rethink his identity in a profound way. Because that's
the point at which just like Buffy in "Dead Things",
he's going to have to realize that he isn't doing what he's doing
because there's "something wrong with him".
And that could lead us to point 2:
Spike probably has to find some place to stand where he can define
himself just in himself, not in terms of another person. That's
the only way to eliminate the neediness and dependency coming
from his corner of the relationship. And that, of course, would
require his digging back not only to the beginnings of his vampirehood,
but into his humanness.
(There's probably other things that would have to happen, but
those are two examples).
As for Buffy: well, she's obviously going to have to come up to
another solution for feeling dead other than wild sadistic sex.
And with her also there's a lot of other stuff that would have
to get cleaned up as well, much of which has been covered very
interestingly in recent posts -- I think a lot of (I think Age's?)
posts on oppositional thinking are relevant here.
Finally: for once I really like what Noxon is saying, because
instead of being a simplistic monolothic judgment ("really
he's evil") it allows for the moral complexity and ambiguity
of the situation. It also corresponds to the fact that Spike has
simply not been depicted as morally static: he's been moving generally
forward, though with occasional steps back along the way. It's
still open whether he'll make it or not -- but this is the first
time I've seen her admit that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Great points by Anne and Rufus.
Thanks -- Sophist, 08:55:44 02/09/02 Sat
I especially like Anne's parallel to Buffy: Spike has to understand
that he doesn't do things "just because there is something
wrong with him". Great way to phrase the responsibility for
moral action.
But can't we keep the wild sadistic sex? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Redemption is a process, not
an event. -- Caroline, 09:41:13 02/09/02 Sat
Wow, this is the first sensible interview I've read given by Marti!
Great points Rufus and Anne. Completely agree that they are not
in a healthy place, Buffy more so than Spike but that's because
she reaching down into her own shadow, her own depths and stop
being in denial about her dark side and Spike is giving her the
opportunity to do that. What a fabulous gift to be given by anyone
- it ties in with an earlier thread about unconditional love.
Buffy has a choice now - either integrate and accept the duality
of her nature (as all humans must) and become a whole person or
deny this essential part of herself and stay in the unhealthy
place. But kudos to Spike for being there for her - it's an invaluable
thing to be able to search around in one's shadow without judgement.
The reason that Spike is looking so good is that Buffy is providing
the opposite service for him - allowing him to explore his 'good'
side. I'd like to see how he the writers would play out Buffy
breaking up with him. But from this interview, it appears that
they have long-term plans for Spike - which is great because this
season of Buffy has really increased my interest, precisely because
the characters are becoming les black and white (I would like
to add that I've been an addict from day one!).
Thanks to Age and Rufus in a previous thread for their insights
in this process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Redemption derailed by
Buffy? -- Ishkabibble, 09:56:09 02/10/02 Sun
Quote from Marti:
"Long-term, there are definitely repercussions to what's
happened."
Do you supposed Buffy's vicious beating to Spike's face and head
could have dislodged the chip? Talk about long-term repercussions!
I wonder if Marti chose her words purposely. She didn't say consequences
or results or effects. She used "repercussions"...kind
of sounds like concussion...usually used in reference to one's
head. Coincidence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Redemption derailed
by Buffy? -- Caroline, 20:28:26 02/10/02 Sun
You may have a point there, I didn't consider that. I interpreted
MN's words more in terms of emotional repercussions rather than
technically affecting the chip. But I think the chip is a juicy
source for much more complications concerning both Buffy and Spike's
moral journey and would love to see it malfunction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy Article on Dead Things...article inside
-- fresne, 12:37:15 02/10/02 Sun
"Right now I see a train wreck just waiting to happen."
Ummm, yeah. It's one of those odd conundrums, that a Spike/Buffy
relationship could help them work through a lot of issues, but
they have to work through a lot of issues before they could be
involved.
Thus train meet giant gap in the track. Ooopps.
That has to be one of the most balanced interviews that I've seen
with MN, or ME in general on the subject.
Viva le complexite'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Alley Beating -- Spike Lover, 17:10:36
02/10/02 Sun
This article made me think about a few things also...
1) I am still maintaining that the entire ep was a comparing/foiling
of Warren and Spike, both who were quarreling w/ the women they
cared about. When a couple quarrels, there comes to a certain
point where you quit/surrender and let the other person win or
you do whatever is necessary to win. Spike essentially surrendered
and is suddenly the posterboy for abused boyfriends. Warren chose
to use (what we here in Texas call) 'whatever means necessary
to stop them'.
Now allow me to point out that if Spike had not been a gentleman
and surrendered to the lady, if he had really put some deadly
force behind it, then many viewers would have said, 'well, you
see, he is evil.' Since he did not take that step, the writer
of the magazine article assumes, 'He is in an abusive relationship.'
But he really isn't in an abusive relationship like a regular
human being would be in. He is NOT unable to defend himself, being
beaten to a pulp. He is a vampire; he is dating a vampire slayer.
These are violent creatures. Fighting comes naturally to them
and it is natural that quarreling would lead to physical quarreling,
like physical quarreling led to sex in Smashed.
I have to feel some vindication, because during the Christmas
hiatus, in some long posts I defended Spike against an accusation
that he was an abusive lover; and after some speculation, theorized
that Buffy was more likely to be the abusive one in the relationship.
2) For me the biggest question continues to be, IS BUFFY MATURE
ENOUGH TO BE SPIKE'S GIRL? I still maintain that he is the best
thing that has happened to her, and maybe that Marti N. person
is starting to see what the audience sees.
3) As far as the position that Buffy has put Spike in... I think
Spike does have issues he is going through himself. I think he
has to believe that Buffy is not her true self, and that she is
now part demon. I think that is why he keeps bringing it up. The
reason lies in last season in his speech when she is on the stairs
above him, (symbolic pedestal). "I know I am a demon and
you could never love me. But you treat me like a man."
In his heart, I fear that Spike feels that he is not worthy of
Buffy. He could never be worthy of her. She could never love him
as he is. He can change some things about himself, but he can
never not be a vampire. He can't change what he has done, (and
I am not certain he has a desire to.) But, it all may be confusing
to him to find that the woman who he believed unattainable somehow
is attainable. How can he rationalize it other than to say that
she is not what she was, but a demon now like him. She is a creature
of the night, like him , and she refuses to admit it. (This I
think is what the balcony scene at the Bronze was about.- By refusing
to acknowledge her relationship w/ Spike to her friends, Buff
has put Spike in competition with them. He is competing and telling
her that she does not belong with them or in their world. But
now that she is a demon, she belongs to the dark and the night
and with him.)
To some degree, you could say that if Buffy had allowed Spike
to cover up the dead body (and not go to the police), she would
have willingly joined his world- and turned her back on respectable
society. She would have made the same choice as Faith.
This tug of war reminds me of the old Dracula movies (or at least
Love at First Bite) where the vamp has bitten the girl twice,
and her human fiancee is begging her to stay with him while Dracula
is all the while calling her to come outside.
But anyway, I think when Buffy informs Spike that she is the same
as she ever was, it may cause a psychological crisis for him.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Alley Beating -- Spike Lover, 17:15:51
02/10/02 Sun
This article made me think about a few things also...
1) I am still maintaining that the entire ep was a comparing/foiling
of Warren and Spike, both who were quarreling w/ the women they
cared about. When a couple quarrels, there comes to a certain
point where you quit/surrender and let the other person win or
you do whatever is necessary to win. Spike essentially surrendered
and is suddenly the posterboy for abused boyfriends. Warren chose
to use (what we here in Texas call) 'whatever means necessary
to stop them'.
Now allow me to point out that if Spike had not been a gentleman
and surrendered to the lady, if he had really put some deadly
force behind it, then many viewers would have said, 'well, you
see, he is evil.' Since he did not take that step, the writer
of the magazine article assumes, 'He is in an abusive relationship.'
But he really isn't in an abusive relationship like a regular
human being would be in. He is NOT unable to defend himself, being
beaten to a pulp. He is a vampire; he is dating a vampire slayer.
These are violent creatures. Fighting comes naturally to them
and it is natural that quarreling would lead to physical quarreling,
like physical quarreling led to sex in Smashed.
I have to feel some vindication, because during the Christmas
hiatus, in some long posts I defended Spike against an accusation
that he was an abusive lover; and after some speculation, theorized
that Buffy was more likely to be the abusive one in the relationship.
2) For me the biggest question continues to be, IS BUFFY MATURE
ENOUGH TO BE SPIKE'S GIRL? I still maintain that he is the best
thing that has happened to her, and maybe that Marti N. person
is starting to see what the audience sees.
3) As far as the position that Buffy has put Spike in... I think
Spike does have issues he is going through himself. I think he
has to believe that Buffy is not her true self, and that she is
now part demon. I think that is why he keeps bringing it up. The
reason lies in last season in his speech when she is on the stairs
above him, (symbolic pedestal). "I know I am a demon and
you could never love me. But you treat me like a man."
In his heart, I fear that Spike feels that he is not worthy of
Buffy. He could never be worthy of her. She could never love him
as he is. He can change some things about himself, but he can
never not be a vampire. He can't change what he has done, (and
I am not certain he has a desire to.) But, it all may be confusing
to him to find that the woman who he believed unattainable somehow
is attainable. How can he rationalize it other than to say that
she is not what she was, but a demon now like him. She is a creature
of the night, like him , and she refuses to admit it. (This I
think is what the balcony scene at the Bronze was about.- By refusing
to acknowledge her relationship w/ Spike to her friends, Buff
has put Spike in competition with them. He is competing and telling
her that she does not belong with them or in their world. But
now that she is a demon, she belongs to the dark and the night
and with him.)
To some degree, you could say that if Buffy had allowed Spike
to cover up the dead body (and not go to the police), she would
have willingly joined his world- and turned her back on respectable
society. She would have made the same choice as Faith.
This tug of war reminds me of the old Dracula movies (or at least
Love at First Bite) where the vamp has bitten the girl twice,
and her human fiancee is begging her to stay with him while Dracula
is all the while calling her to come outside.
But anyway, I think when Buffy informs Spike that she is the same
as she ever was, it may cause a psychological crisis for him.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Alley Beating -- Caroline, 20:40:33
02/10/02 Sun
I agree that Warren is being used as a foil for Spike and that
looking at the Buffy-Spike relationship as a domestic violence
issue is the wrong perspective. And I also agree that Spike feels
unworthy of Buffy. Just as Spike is giving Buffy the space to
explore the darker bits of herself, Buffy is giving Spike to explore
the good parts of himself, the parts of William he suppressed
when he constructed his Spike persona. Sure they both in denial
right now - Buffy of her dark side, Spike of his good side, thus
his desire to convince her that she is 'wrong'.
He may feel that he's not good enough for her but if they can
work through their issues, the whole 'am I worthy' thing really
becomes meaningless. Love isn't earned, it's given. And one may
feel love, but one can also make the choice not to have the relationship
- that's definitely a possibility for Buffy down the road. I'm
fine with whatever happens as long as they don't water down the
complexity of the situation or the characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- Dochawk, 17:31:08
02/08/02 Fri
On Sunday, I am moderating a panel on Jewish Images on Television
(with a focus on current tv). I am in no way an expert on either
TV or Judaism, its a conference I have been very involved in.
Anyway, while trying to prepare questions in case there is no
audience participation I have been trying to think of regular
characters currently on television who are Jewish. particularly
young women. There aren't very many, but it doesn't help that
I only watch 4 tv shows. This is who we have so far:
Josh Lyman and Toby Ziegler , The West Wing
Grace Adler, Wil and Grace
and of course, Willow Rosenberg
There have to be more. Any other suggestions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- TomSr,
18:30:10 02/08/02 Fri
I just tried this but if you go to yahoo.com and type in "jews
tv characters" you will get many articles discussing this
very topic, including "hidden Jewish characters", interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More Jewish TV characters... -- Rob, 19:21:17 02/08/02
Fri
Monica and Ross Geller from "Friends" (as well as their
parents, of course)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More Jewish TV characters... -- Cactus Watcher,
21:22:03 02/08/02 Fri
It's not been stated on the show as plainly as with Ross and Monica
Gellar, but I believe Rachel Green on "Friends" is also
Jewish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- Darby,
19:49:22 02/08/02 Fri
Beyond those already mentioned...
the character Sean on Felicity.
Dharma's father Larry on Dharma & Greg.
Max Bickford and his family, including the daughter (and it's
been a point of discussion, but more for the young son)
Fyvush Finkle's character on Boston Public.
There have been peripheral characters on Once and Again. Lily's
father was Jewish, but she and her sister were not raised as Jews.
I think the psychiatrist is Jewish, but that may be projecting,
since Ed Zwick, who plays him, is Jewish and the producer and
writer and commonly explores Jewish themes.
Dan & Jeremy on Sports Night (recent if not current).
That's all we could think of. Maybe Joss' famous quote about Willow
means there are lots of closeted Jewish characters out there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television --
Hoping, 21:43:08 02/08/02 Fri
What's Joss' quote?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television
-- Darby, 22:48:14 02/08/02 Fri
I'm paraphrasing...
When Willow & Tara's relationship began to draw some ire, he said
that he saw the point, that Willow was following a lifestyle lived
by less than 10% of the population, so he had decided that, from
then on, she would no longer be Jewish.
It would have been more effective if you didn't have some idea
of the punchline coming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Zwick/Herskowitz and intermarriage -- Simon, 17:00:46
02/10/02 Sun
I would say that assimilation and intermarriage is a recurrent
them in all of the Z/H shows. In 30something there was a big debate
on how to celebrate Xmas/Hanakkah(sp?). In My So Called Life you
had Brian(Jew) interested in Angela(gentile), although neither
household was observent. In Relativty the central romance was
between a Jew and a Gentile. Finally, in Once and Again you have
as characters the Children and Grandchildren of a mixed marriage.
Certainly the only time that Grace seemed Jewish was when she
called high school tormenter "meshunegah"(sp?) and even
then she wasn't sure that she used the word right. It is almost
as if you have a (out of order) story arc: interest=>engagement=>intermarriage=>gentile
grandkids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- Rachel,
06:24:05 02/09/02 Sat
Jerry Seinfeld
Paul from The Wonder Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television --
Tanker, 06:42:39 02/09/02 Sat
Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5
The whole cast of Seinfeld were Jewish, weren't they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television --
Rattletrap, 13:57:02 02/10/02 Sun
I believe he wanted current TV, but if we're including off-the-air
shows we can't forget Joel Fleischman from Northern Exposure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- Rob,
08:59:16 02/09/02 Sat
This show isn't on the air anymore...
But Richard from "Caroline in the City" was Jewish.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- Lilac,
11:34:20 02/09/02 Sat
Tommy on Rugrats, but I believe half Jewish. The only children's
show I am aware of portraying Jewish characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes, they've had Channukah and Passover episodes.
-- Rob, 15:08:16 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Don't forget Krusty the Clown on The Simpsons -- JBone,
16:29:22 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> & his father...a rabbi yet! -- anom, 17:57:36
02/10/02 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> well, if ya wanna get into animation... -- anom, 19:16:14
02/10/02 Sun
...one of the kids on South Park (Kyle? I only get the most basic
of basic cable, so I don't see it much) is Jewish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Way OT, but ... Jewish Images on Television -- Simon
A., 17:10:21 02/10/02 Sun
Sean, and I believe Joel on Felicity. I'm noticing that most of
these posts are male, and I can't think of any current, female
characters on TV that are identifiably Jewish other than Willow.
Hmm...
There was a young woman who was a Jewish/Italian concentration
camp survivor on the show "Homefront" a few years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - February 8th 2002 -- OnM, 22:10:36
02/08/02 Fri
*******
"The movie has so much heart that the poor overworked organ
explodes in every scene." -- Elvis Mitchell, NEW YORK TIMES
"Disappointing because it could have been so much more."
-- Eric Harrison, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
"The real problem isn't overload but emptiness: The audience
stays stone-cold sober." -- David Edelstein, SLATE
"A gloriously excessive, lavishly decorated failure."
-- Philip Booth, ORLANDO WEEKLY
"An absurd waste. " -- Cornell & Petricelli, CINEMASENSE.COM
"Like being stuck inside a kaleidoscope for two hours while
a madman plays a calliope next to your ear." -- Bob Aulert,
CULTUREVULTURE.NET
"It's like watching a hyperactive kid on a sugar high; after
a while, you just want to send it to bed." -- Eleanor Ringel
Gillespie, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
"Textbook postmodernism at its worst, a relentless pastiche
of pop-cultural sounds and representations sutured into the service
of a cliché." -- José Arroyo, SIGHT AND SOUND
"Luhrmann dips his stale crusts of inspiration into every
kitsch pot he can find." -- David Elliott, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
""Moulin Rouge" is itself like a courtesan, a lavishly
oufitted, desirable beauty who excels at artifice." -- Laura
Clifford, REELING REVIEWS
"It teases the audience with glimpses of dazzling images
and snippets of familiar songs but never gives either a chance
to connect." -- Nell Minow, MOVIE MOM
"What pleasure Moulin Rouge produces must be weighed against
brain cells sacrificed to such experimentation." -- Terry
Lawson, DETROIT FREE PRESS
"Could have been edited by a crack-addicted ferret with ADD
who just downed a half-dozen Pixie Stix." -- Jon Popick,
PLANET SICK-BOY
"It's like being trapped with a major Attention Deficit Disorder
victim in control of the TV remote or car radio." -- David
Noh, FILM JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
"It's all frosting and no cake." -- Dave Kehr, CITYSEARCH
"A voracious vacuum cleaner of a movie -- hoovering up a
hundred years' worth of junk with the same monotonously unmodulated
hum." -- J. Hoberman, VILLAGE VOICE
"Most of the potential emotional impact is subverted by the
impossible and unstoppable flurry of images." -- Harvey S.
Karten, COMPUSERVE
"It leaves you feeling as worn-out as a grandmother at a
rave." -- Mary F. Pols, CONTRA COSTA TIMES
"In their determination to resuscitate the musical they've
managed only to bury it deeper." -- Jim Lane, SACRAMENTO
NEWS & REVIEW
"It feels like heresy to wince at [Luhrman's] movie's frequent
tumbles into pedestrian vulgarity." -- Maitland McDonagh,
TV GUIDE'S MOVIE GUIDE
"As impressive as [Luhrmann's] musical stagings are, he counters
every smart move with one that's disastrously bad." -- Jeff
Vice, DESERET NEWS, SALT LAKE CITY
"A passionate exploration of movie musical possibilities
that's also a desperate cry for Ritalin." -- Bob Strauss,
DAILY NEWS LOS ANGELES
"The net result of all this cinematic whirling, of the "wrong"
music and of the parodic plot, is that nothing at all in the film
moves us." -- Stanley Kauffmann, NEW REPUBLIC
"Feels as if a dump truck has buried moviegoers in confetti
and glitter for two hours." -- Mike Clark, USA TODAY
"Chokes on its own artifice." -- Jay Carr, BOSTON GLOBE
"Big, garish, loud and dumb as a box of Rockettes."
-- Frank Swietek, ONE GUY'S OPINION
"Fits in that category of bad movies with great visuals that
won't look so great on a nineteen inch screen." -- Chuck
Schwartz, CRANKY CRITIC(r)
"A vociferously overblown spectacle that unites a classical
musical form with Luhrmann's obsessive pop culture pilfering and
whirligig stylistic pastiche." -- Chuck Rudolph, MATINEE
MAGAZINE
"I left Moulin Rouge feeling something, all right: I felt
mauled." -- Peter Travers, ROLLING STONE
"Some may dig Luhrmann's deconstructionist, irreverent style,
but the movie is too gimmicky and pleased with its irreverence
to connect emotionally with audiences." -- Kirk Honeycutt,
HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
*******
Hummm.... lotta bad vibes happenin' here, looks to me. I prefer
these two:
"If you don't get it, you're too old. Dead, probably."
-- Christopher Null, FILMCRITIC.COM
"I'm with him."
-- OnM, ATPoBtVS
*******
OK, I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist. I was trying to come up
with a clever way to start this second 1st Anniversary Special
Classic Movie of the Week column (whew!), with a review of my
pick for favorite movie of 2001, and while scanning the list of
reviews for same over at rottentomatoes.com ( a site I highly
recommend to you, if you haven't glommed onto it already ), I
suddenly thought of listing all the negative comments I could
find. What can I say, except, ohhh, me so evilll!
So is that the problem, are all these folks just too old? Hey,
I'm no sprightly barnyard fowl myself, but I think that I'm pretty
hep for an old cat, and it certainly isn't going to be a big surprise
to anyone who reads my rambles here every week to figure that
this film had a pretty significant chance of getting 2001 fave
raves from yours truly, madly, deeply.
There were quite a number of both good and interesting films released
last year, and before I go even one sentence farther I wish to
point out that the post heading reads favorite movie of 2001,
not best movie. The reason for the distinction is twofold: One,
simple lack of time on my part keeps me from getting to go out
and see all of the films that I wanted to, as it does in most
years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that had I the chance,
I may have seen another film that I liked even better than Moulin
Rouge. Two, I really don't even care for this 'best of' idea all
that much. While it is somewhat natural for we humans to make
lists and organize and prioritize and sundry other -izes, when
it come to the evaluation of art, 'best' is relative and as the
negative reviews above plainly illustrate, often a matter of opinion.
It isn't hard to have several flicks all equally worthy, but so
different in nature as to make 'best' a ludicrous concept. A few
years ago, I strongly hoped that Toy Story would get the Oscar
for best film. It didn't, largely because it was an animated film,
which to many critics means that it isn't a 'real' film, even
if they happened to like it a great deal. Comedies and science-fiction
films and other genre films fall into the same category, and tend
to be equally slighted when it comes to recognition time. At most,
they garner a few awards for technical achievments, screenwriting,
maybe cinematography or editing. All well and good, but it's still
a cinematic ghetto, which is a shame.
Nor is it a matter of uncritically accepting something just because
it's new and different. Here in my hometown, unknown forces (probably
demon politicians of some sort or another) sought to embrace the
cult of 'newness' back in the late 50's and early 60's, the end
result being the complete and literal destruction of several entire
city blocks full of irreplaceable historic buildings, some dating
over two hundred years of age. Among the dispossessed and dissassembled
were three beautiful old movie theaters, all within the same block
of downtown just a short distance from the central square, theaters
that were where the movies and I first started our mutual entanglements.
The result of the 'improvement'? Two entire square city blocks
worth of parking lots and an ugly concrete monolithic monstrosity
that has taken over 30 years of ongoing modifications and rebuildings
to make into something reasonably attractive. Yes, it was true
that some of those old buildings, like overworked plot devices
and hackneyed writing, needed some updating, some fresh visions.
But throwing out the babe with the bulldozer wasn't the solution--
if something has essential substance and resonance, it needs a
re-invention, not a de-evolution.
Filmmakers may attempt work that sets out to chart new territory,
and likewise fall flat simply because their new ideas weren't
good new ideas. One of the films that came out this past year
that I otherwise generally liked tripped itself up in just this
manner, namely Steven Spielberg's take on Stanley Kubrick in A.I.
Instead of having the courage of Kubrick's convictions, Spielberg
opted to undermine the (intended) dark nature of the subject matter
with his E.T.-transmogrified upbeat ending. I was utterly transfixed
by how accurately this talented director managed to emulate Kubrick's
style, then-- pffftt!. Bad move, Steve. If you prefer to work
within a given stylistic format, then don't doubt yourself, go
with it. If you are going to copy/honor the products of another
creative mind, then do so, don't impose.
One thing for sure, Baz Luhrmann's style is very distinctly his
own, and it's rampant flamboyance is one modality that I personally
thought would never work more than once or twice. Yet, not only
has he made it do the totally-in-your-face, get-in-the-groove-or-hit-the-road-jack
number on the viewing audience in Strictly Ballroom and William
Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, his form has reached a stylistic
summit with the production of Moulin Rogue.
Now, I know that this is supposed to be my review of the film,
but as I have mentioned in the past, I sometimes run across a
comment by some other observer of the medium that is so dead-on
accurate in capturing the soul and spirit of the piece that I
must defer to them. Thus, I present the following apt analysis:
The film is constructed like the fevered snapshots created by
your imagination before an anticipated erotic encounter. It doesn't
depend on dialogue or situation but on the way you imagine a fantasy
object first from one angle and then another. Satine, the heroine,
is seen not so much in dramatic situations as in poses-- in postcards
for the yearning mind. The movie is about how we imagine its world.
............ Roger Ebert (Copyright (c) Chicago Sun-Times Inc.)
'Postcards for the yearning mind'? OK, this is why he gets the
Pulitzer, and I... most likely never will. (~sigh~) Back to humble
little me, now...
If you've already seen the film, you already know the basic elements
of the plot, but I'll sum things up briefly for those who still
haven't. The film takes place around the turn of the 19th/20th
Century in Paris. A young, aspiring writer, Christian (Ewan McGregor)
moves to the great city to seek his 'fortune' and/or destiny.
He happens to check into a run-down apartment one floor below
the dwelling place of Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo), the semi-famous
dwarf artist. Lautrec manages to quite literally crash through
the ceiling during a rehersal for a play, and he and his fellow
'Bohemians' strike up a friendship with Christian. They soon collectively
plan to write a grand theatrical production that they hope will
star the luminously beautiful and talented Satine (Nicole Kidman),
the headlining act of the nearby grand cabaret, the Moulin Rouge.
Upon his meeting her, Satine, not surprisingly, completely fascinates
and beguiles the young writer and soon love is in the air. All
is not electric lights and absinthe, however, for Satine has become
afflicted with tuberculosis, a fact which she shares with very
few others around her, and at least initially, Christian is not
one of those. (We in the audience find out very early on, so this
isn't really much of a spoiler).
The plan for the 'Spectacular Spectacular' does indeed get under
way, but the huge expense involved means that the Rouge's 'ringmaster',
a man named Zidler (Jim Broadbent), must obtain financing from
some outside, wealthy patron. Thus we are introduced to the Duke
of Worcester (Richard Roxburgh), who wants to pay for the show
only if he can have Satine's 'favors' as a part of the deal. From
here, the plot thickens, but only just slightly, and you will
probably foresee the eventual ending long before it actually appears.
No matter-- the plot is not the important thing in Moulin Rouge,
and so if you go expecting an intricate and involved one, you
are needlessly missing the point. The plot isn't why I, or most
fans of the flick, like it so very much.
So exactly why do I like Moulin Rouge so much? Strangely, if I
try to think of simple, rational, conventional reasons, I end
up grappling with mostly banal expressions of worthiness that
ultimately condense down to the four words 'because it's really
cool!'. If I am forced to distill everything down to the primal
essence, I would have to say that it's the same reason that I
like Buffy so much-- the creators of the work have taken a grossly
overworked, cliche-ridden genre and somehow miraculously breathed
new life into it, made it original, made it their own, made it
uncopyable. The visual aspect of the film is stunning from beginning
to end, but the visuals alone aren't what makes the film work,
it's that they frame a series of characters who immediately draw
us into their world and involve us emotionally in their lives.
To have actors who can achieve this degree of involvement under
a 'normal' stylistic backdrop would already be significant, to
do it in the midst of this whirling, flashing maelstrom of shadow,
light, music and movement is astounding.
Perhaps it's best just to let the filmmakers themselves express
it, as they do after one of the longest credit rolls in the history
of film, with the final flickering parting shot voicing the same
words the Bohemians use to talk about that which means more than
anything for the creatures of the underworld and overworld alike--
Truth, Beauty, Freedom and most of all - Love
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Moulin Rouge! is (d-uh!!) available on DVD, and in an ultra-deluxe
package with umpteen extra goodies as it damn well should be,
bless it's mind-blowingly excessive little heart. The film was
released in 2001 (as if you didn't know), and running time is
2 hours and 6 minutes (which maybe you didn't). The aspect ratio
is 2.35:1 and is preserved as such on the DVD release. Screenwriting
credits go to Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce.
Original music was created by Craig Armstrong, Marius De Vries,
Steve Hitchcock, Elton John, Kimberly 'Lil Kim' Jones, Fatboy
Slim, Diane Warren and some 'non-original' music was contributed
by David Bowie. The sound mix was supplied in stunning Dolby Digital
5.1 surround, and believe me, if you are lucky enough to own a
good home theater system, oh, my, my!
The cinematography was by Donald McAlpine with film editing (and
how!) by Jill Bilcock Production design was by Catherine Martin,
with art direction by Ann-Marie Beauchamp and set decoration by
Brigitte Broch. Costume Design was by Catherine Martin and Angus
Strathie.
Cast overview:
Nicole Kidman .... Satine Ewan McGregor .... Christian John Leguizamo
.... Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec Jim Broadbent .... Harold Zidler
Richard Roxburgh .... The Duke of Monroth Garry McDonald ....
The Doctor Jacek Koman .... The Unconscious Argentinean Matthew
Whittet .... Satie Kerry Walker .... Marie Caroline O'Connor ....
Nini Legs-In-The-Air Christine Anu .... Arabia Natalie Mendoza
.... China Doll Lara Mulcahy .... Môme Fromage David Wenham
.... Audrey Kylie Minogue .... The Green Fairy (a really short
bit, but sooo cool!!
*******
Miscellaneous and the (always splendiferous) Question of the Week:
This will be short'n'sweet this week, because frankly it's been
a long one for your humble movie man, and he needs his sleep,
yet another workin' day tomorrow.
Since there has been quite a lot of board activity conversant
thereupon the past half-fortnight's Buffy and Angel eppies, my
previous CMotW column was already stashed in the archives by like
Wednesday, I believe. If for any reason you missed it-- such as
being enraptured by a sudden, unexpected outburst of sanity--
then you also missed my generous invitation to write your very
own guest-host Classic Movie column, to be posted in this very
space and time during the weeks when BtVS goes on hiatus later
this spring. If you have ever entertained the urge to do the movie
critic/review thang, please either dig through the archives for
the dirty low-down, or if you are too lazy, just e-mail me for
a copy of 'Da Rules', which I assure you are very easy and hardly
even very rules-ish at all.
Bend my eye at: objectsinmirror@mindspring.com
Q(s)otW:
Which of the negative review blurbs that started out this week's
column did you think was the funniest or most bombastic? If you
could pick a flick that you emphatically didn't like, what kind
of pithy sentence could you come up with to sum it all up?
Post 'em if you got 'em, and see you next week.
Take care, ya'all.
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - February
8th 2002 -- Rufus, 23:52:40 02/08/02 Fri
"Like being stuck inside a kaleidoscope for two hours while
a madman plays a calliope next to your ear."
-- Bob Aulert, CULTUREVULTURE.NET
That review gave me the biggest chuckle because it strangely suits
the movie. I'm glad that I liked the movie that much more than
the ADD, mauled, deconstructed, paid for their opinions, sent
out to print. It wouldn't hit my favorite list but visually it
was beautiful. Says Rufus who is off to dip stale crusts into
some frosting to make up for her ambivalent feelings about the
film.;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - February 8th 2002 -- LadyStarlight,
06:23:37 02/09/02 Sat
This is one that's stuck in my head for a while now:
Well, maybe not that bad, but, lord, it wasn't good.
(the punch-line to a Bloom County strip wherein Opus is reviewing
movies. If popular opinion demands, I'll go dig out the rest of
his 'review'.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks for reviewing "Moulin Rouge"! As
ya know, it was my favorite movie of the year, too. :o) -- Rob,
08:55:00 02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> big laughs. that was fun. -- yuri, 13:24:10 02/09/02 Sat
#5:
"Feels as if a dump truck has buried moviegoers in confetti
and glitter for two hours."
-- Mike Clark, USA TODAY
#4:
"Like being stuck inside a kaleidoscope for two hours while
a madman plays a calliope next to your ear."
-- Bob Aulert, CULTUREVULTURE.NET
#3:
"Luhrmann dips his stale crusts of inspiration into every
kitsch pot he can find."
-- David Elliott, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
#2:
"Could have been edited by a crack-addicted ferret with ADD
who just downed a half-dozen Pixie Stix."
-- Jon Popick, PLANET SICK-BOY
#1:
"It leaves you feeling as worn-out as a grandmother at a
rave."
-- Mary F. Pols, CONTRA COSTA TIMES
... just cause I actually had the privilege of watching "Groove"
with my grandma at Thanksgiving last year (we have movie afternoon
after the meal) and the look on her face was priceless. (Says
the dutiful granddaughter. he he. Don't get me wrong, she's a
great woman, you just can't pretend something like that isn't
funny.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Bravo!! and God, who knew Ewan could sing! -- Liq, 15:43:57
02/09/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - February 8th 2002 -- neaux,
14:35:59 02/10/02 Sun
I just saw Collateral Damage with Arnold Swartzenwhoo.. yeah its
the worst movie I've seen in probably my entire life. Worse than
Soldier with Kurt Russel.
my one sentence hooha!!
"The most digitally Superimposed images of Arnold a movie
can allow!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current board
| More February 2002